The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Episode 349: PLANET PANIC

Episode Date: December 9, 2023

Religious Exemptions Attacked By NY Times; Chinese White Lung Pneumonia Hits U.S.; Unexpected Twist In Unsanctioned Chinese Biolab In California; The Latest Talking Points from Climate Change ‘Experts’ Are Getting Ridiculous; Will ESG Be the Downfall of the Free Economy?Guests: Jefferey Jaxen, Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks, CFA, CAIABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Did you notice that this show doesn't have any commercials? I'm not selling you diapers or vitamins or smoothies or gasoline. That's because I don't want corporate sponsors telling us what to investigate and what to say. Instead, you're our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. If you want more investigations, more hard-hitting news. If you want the truth, go to Ican Decide.org and donate now. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.

Wherever you are out there in this world, it's time for us all to step out onto the high wire. Thank you so much for joining us. We're excited for all the brand new people out there that are hearing about this show and joining us today. This is going to be a news ride like you do not experience anywhere else. We actually made the news. How often does the news make the news? Well, we made the news this week. We made it to the New York Times.

This was the headline, Medical Freedom. activists take aim at new target childhood vaccine mandates. This is by Cheryl Gaze Stolberg. It was a great article. Went on to say Mississippi has long had high childhood immunization rates, but a federal judge has ordered the state to allow parents to opt out on religious grounds. Of course, it's about our legal win. I want to thank Cheryl for really, I think, being fair and balanced on this article. When you get calls like this, so often I'll do the interview. and it used to be years ago, when you see the change in this, it used to be, it was just like anti-vaccine, lunatic, all of this.

There's still the usual weighing in from, you know, Paul Offutt and the rest of them saying that everyone's going to die of diseases if we don't vaccinate. But I do think that this was a fair article. They gave my quotes, you know, they were clear about it. It was honest. It is what I said. So I think you should check out that article. We're going to be talking a little bit more about that coming up later in the show.

I have a great show coming up. We're going to get to a topic. We haven't focused a lot on, which is ESG, this whole push to have corporations deciding, you know, pushing to be environmental and socially conscious and governance and all of these things. Well, how is that really affecting the market? How is it affecting our lives? I've got in studio, Marlow Oaks, who is the Utah State Treasurer. He's really been outspoken on this issues and the pit bulls in danger to capitalism. and our way of life. I'm looking forward to that conversation. But first, it's time for the Jackson

Report. And whoa, I've got Jeffrey right here in studio. How you doing? To see you, Jeffrey. Good to see you too. Yeah, really great. So what's what we got going on? Well, we've been reporting from this desk for almost four years now on the COVID response and this mysterious respiratory illness coming out of China. And people think that's all over. But a lot of our viewers have alerted us. wanted to report on something that is coming out of China again, a mysterious respiratory illness. And if you haven't been looking at the news, it looks like this. Another illness outbreak in China is sparking fears of a new pandemic threat. Big concerns over another virus in China.

China is dealing with a surge in respiratory illness in children. At hospital emergency rooms, the sick children just keep coming, from toddlers to teens, mostly with respiratory infections, including pneumonia. Now, Chinese local media reported earlier that some hospitals in northern China are at capacity with young patients as clusters of what was originally reported as undiagnosed pneumonia have been on the rise since last month. The headlines here about a respiratory disease outbreak triggered alarm bells and prompted the World Health Organization to ask Chinese authorities for answers. Ohio is now the first state in the nation to report an outbreak of pediatric pneumonia cases. Doctors say the white lung syndrome is similar. to the respiratory illnesses already sweeping China and parts of Europe.

In Warren County, north of Cincinnati, health officials have declared an outbreak of pneumonia in children. They say 145 kids have been diagnosed with the respiratory infections since August. I'm sure we're going to hear about cases of kind of overcrowded pediatric emergency rooms around the country. The director of the CDC believes this mysterious illness is not new or novel, but rather related to existing pathogens like COVID, flu, RSV. Doctors say they're seeing a surge in a bacterium that can infect the lungs. Based on the information we have now, we believe there is no new or novel pathogen that these are related to existing pathogens.

When I watch that, what's going through my mind right now is I'm trying to remember if the news talked about like a respiratory illness in China back 15, 20 years ago. Was that news? I can't, I feel like we're so used to this pattern now that I don't really remember what was news, you know? It's almost like a societal trauma. Yeah. Comes to these medical anomalies that are just popping up and affecting people. And they just beat on it in white lung and I mean it just sounds so incredibly terrifying. Yeah, and you can understand why people would say, can you guys get to the bottom of this? Help us really sort this out because that looks pretty scary if you're watching that. So let's

dig into this a little bit. So let's go to Reuters and see what their reporting says, much like that interview, the clip we just saw. It says, what do we know about China's respiratory illness surgeon. It says health authorities have not detected any unusual or novel pathogens. The WHO later said, and doctors and public health researchers say there's no evidence for international alarm. Authorities in Taiwan, however, this week advised the elderly, very young, and those with poor immunity to avoid travel to China. So that's interesting. Now it goes on and say this. It talks about actual Chinese doctors. Doctors and China and experts abroad are not too worried about the situation in China, noting that many other countries say similar increases in respiratory

diseases are easing after, or happening after pandemic measures. And then they even quote the head of a pediatric department in Beijing. And she says, the cases that we are seeing is nothing unusual at the moment because it's still the same cough, colds, fever presentation. And the good thing about it, it is actually treatable. So this is something, we heard none of this during the early days of COVID. None of this. Not treatable.

We don't know what this is. And the symptoms are all over the board. Right. Now they're saying we do know what this is. It's interesting too, like when you see this, you know, Taiwan saying don't let the elderly travel. I mean, if you're weak, if you're elderly, if you're really frail, isn't that kind of just a statement that's always been, like it's cold and fluid season? Maybe just like, you know, stay, hang out, drink soup, have the family visit you. Now it's like this, it's used as like a shock and awe moment.

Like elderly being told to not travel right now. Well, yeah, people are coughing and sneezing. Right. all of the place, which sounds like some, at least there's some level of that reality inside of regulatory agency. Everybody chill out. It's cold and flu season. And what we're never seeing from this reporting now that you mention that is if you're going to travel, maybe take some vitamin D. That's supported by research. Maybe take some vitamin C. You're never going to hear any of that. Right. Well, one of the alarms is, so that started in China, the reporting we saw, but then it moved

over to Europe. So this is where people started to become alarm because there was, again, it was a very similar rollout as the COVID situation. So it says here, Here, child pneumonia cases emerge in Europe as China battles wave of respiratory illness. It says a rise in mycoplasma pneumonia, the bacteria that causes the infection has been reported in Ireland, France, Netherlands, in Denmark. Now, mycoplasma pneumonia, it's a bacterium, and it's a common cause of community transmission of this pneumonia. So it's nothing new whatsoever.

All right. So this is what seems to be the culprit. This is what everybody's reporting in this. Okay. Interesting. Then it moves over now to Ohio. So Ohio becomes the first kind of hotbed of these respiratory illnesses you're seeing in children. So we look back to the reporting here and it says, extremely high number of pneumonia cases

strike kids in Ohio County. And we go to the Warren County Health District that's right outside Cincinnati and they put out a press release. They said at this time we have 145 reported cases of pneumonia in children ages 3 to 14 years. There have been no reported deaths. While the number of cases is higher this year, the severe. is similar to previous years. Most cases recover at home and are treated with antibiotics. So there again, you're seeing this, it's not too crazy, but it's treatable.

Right. So let's look, we're hearing a lot of words here, mycoplasm pneumonia, we're hearing even white lung syndrome. So this article is going to talk about this here. It says, how to understand Ohio's white lung syndrome pneumonia outbreak and why it's not linked to China. So in here they talk to a gentleman named Clint Koenig, he's a family physician and medical director there in Warren County. He says we have no evidence whatsoever of any connection to any outbreak statewide or internationally. He also goes on to say we don't have any evidence to suggest there is anything but routine standard winter bugs causing pneumonia in higher

rates in kids. So you're hearing this word white lung syndrome. It's really, I've never heard that. What's as weird is they're saying there's no new pathogen. Well, why have I never heard the term white lung before? Yeah. And if people are searching this online, it's all over the headlines. About every headlines, it's almost like a fear tactic of white lung, white lung, what is this? Well, it's basically, it's not even a syndrome, it's just a phenomenon of a chest x-ray. So if you look at a normal chest x-ray, we have an image here on the left side, that's a normal chest x-ray, and when there's air in the lungs, it appears dark on the x-ray. Now on the right there, you have a bacterial pneumonia, and so when there's fluid in those air

sacks, that just shows up as white. That's just routine of how it shows. pneumonia or probably any issue that's sort of clogging up the lungs would cause white lung syndrome it's not specific to this but they're making it sound like it's specific it's the white lung syndrome's coming right right it's like no it's just any pneumonia and what it looks like on X-Rump this is where you see this is where I really feel like you see propaganda at play right pneumonia isn't a scary word we've all accepted it so let's call it something else like it's brand new and it's really just the description you see in a

check sector right and for the media they're getting click So that's good for them. And again, there's a lot of reasons for that. But in this context, this is a pneumonia we're talking about here. That's what it appears to be in the reporting. So let's now, we go into what the US response is. So some GOP senators are talking about a travel ban. So you had in Taiwan, they're suggesting that elderly people,

immune system compromised, people don't travel. But in the US, you're having this idea of a travel ban already starting. So this is the headline here. GOP senators urge Biden to restrict travel between US and China amid child pneumonia outbreak that has a lot of the US really receive much traction. So we're probably not going to see that happening. But that's, you know, the fervor, this really starts to roll fast. And that's why we wanted to really just do a deeper dive segment on this. But now let's talk more about the science on this. So what may be

happening, as we'd like to do here, just investigating a little more. And so attorneys representing ICANN also won a historic victory representing the plaintiff in a case trying to get documents from Pfizer and that that famous 75 year hold on the Pfizer data yes right and that was the public health medical professionals for transparency and one of the documents that they produced was this one right here and this was from Pfizer it was supposed to be confidential not anymore this was the cumulative analysis of post authorization adverse event reports received through February 2021 and so what this is is basically an internal document by Pfizer saying we're looking at every symptom every issue that people had after they received the shot.

We've cataloged that, and that's what we have to look out for now. So we scoured VERS, we scoured the yellow card system in the UK, and after people received our COVID shot, they came down with certain things. So these are possible issues that we're going to continue to monitor, this post-marketing. So in there, if you look into this document, it's a huge list of symptoms, obviously,

but you look in there and there's a whole list of pneumonia. So you have adenoviral pneumonia, you have influenza, and there's Michael Plasmal pneumonia. So that's in there and that's just kind of a data point we want to throw out there of I as there knows about this. And these are reports by people that said, look, within some timeline of the vaccine, I started having this issue. I got pneumonia. Is the vaccine causing it? They put it on a list. And we've talked about these lists, there's, you know, all of these different systems. Post-marketing surveillance, meaning after the vaccine has been through trials, it's not coming. This isn't permission. It isn't from the

trial as much as it's after it's being released. And now the information, you know, the information. that's coming in from people that are using it. Exactly, exactly. So that's just a little data point. But now let's talk about really the mechanism of what that, we've constantly uncovering what this vaccine may be doing to the body because it was an experimental technology. We're still in its infancy, even though three years later here.

So we have some studies, and this relates directly to pneumonia infection. So one of the studies we've talked about here many times is how the Pfizer vaccine in this study, it reprograms the NAA, immune system and the adaptive immune system. This is what research has found. This is the article right here. Before we get into it, let me get clear to people why we keep calling for, you know, long-term safety trials, right, and efficacy trials, which didn't happen with this vaccine. If we were sitting, you said, because you triggered it when you said, well, we're three years into this. Three years is about the time where if we had a proper trial going on, we would have really,

really tangible, usable data so that we wouldn't have this list of maybes. Like we have people out there that's saying, oh, this might have been caused by it, might have been caused. If we were in a proper trial, what meant we still had a placebo group that had only received the placebo up into this point, we could start looking at microplasma pneumonia and all these different things and saying, well, did that happen in the placebo group? How much was the differentiation between those that basically received nothing, received this placebo and those that got the drug or in this case the vaccine. We can't do that because as soon as

they gave an emergency use authorization, they went and vaccinated the entire placebo group erasing any ability to ever. And let me make this clear, ever make the statement that there's a causal relationship. We've been through this so many times. But for people that are brand new, you cannot say it causes this issue if you didn't run a trial that showed a group that didn't get it against those that did. And once it's been approved, now you've been. Now you're it ethically. You can't start a new trial and suddenly deny people access to a product that exists. So this is this game they're playing. And so now for the rest of human, you know, eternity, Pfizer and all these groups will say, well, we don't have a causal relationship.

Well, it's anecdotal. Oh, it's a correlation. But you can't get the causation because you erased the study in the only way you can get the causation on purpose, of course, because now they can never be nailed to the wall in this. But this is where we're at. Just want to make that clear. So three years in, our question now is, since we will never be able to prove for sure that it's causing this pneumonia or this issue, the question would be, if it is, how would it be doing that? Exactly. And so we have, and they'll say, well, we have VERS, but VERS is a passive system, so it really can't be trusted. So we have to dig into the scientific literature and maybe put some puzzle pieces together. So this one study here, how this Pfizer vaccine has been shown

to reprogram, that's the words they use. You can even see it in the title here, to reprogram both adaptive and innate immune responses. Which just sounds like, I mean, I'm sorry. Like, I'm just out on this now. That just sounds like such a bad idea. Let me just reprogram your innate immune system. Like, that's what it's designed to do. Just let us doctors totally mess with the natural system

in which your body works. But just putting that out. Yeah, it's a really significant study, and this is why we bring it up several times. And basically the shot changes the immune response. So when there's a challenge by a viral fungal or bacterial infection, the toleic receptor response was lower after than the people that had the COVID shot. So the tollic receptors are basically the radar system.

They're the first line defense. If a pneumonia or a bacteria viral pathogen gets in there, they're the system that raises that alarm. And so why is that a problem? You look into this study here, another quote from the study. It says surprisingly the production of the monocyte-derived cytokines. And the cytokines are kind of the second line. Those get in there and start really doing the work. They tended to be lower.

Well, so you're- It's basically like an air traffic controller and they go in and just unplug one of your radars. Right. And say, oh, everything is gonna be fine. The vaccine's doing exactly what it should do. Really? Because now we've got issues flying around

that can really cause danger and we have no way of tracking them. Yeah. The body is now not paying attention. Right, and so you have the tolic receptors down regulated in this study, you have the cytokines downregulated. Why is that a problem? Well, we find out, according to this next study, that the lungs, the breathing area in your body

has its own immune system. So that's a problem now. So now we get closer to pneumonia. TLR4 activation induces IL1 beta release, but it says there's an independent pathway in the lung. And it says basically contribution of IL1 to resistance of streptococcus pneumonia infection.

And that's what we're talking about here. So a final study shows that they took mice and they have IL1 beta and IL1 alpha negative. So they have mice that were modified not to have these IL1, interleukin responses. So they can't mount a response at all because they genetically modified them. And they found that when they put intranasally pneumonia into these mice, they found this. This is what they write. They displayed a significantly lower survival rates and higher nasal

pharyngeal and lung bacterial load. And they concluded that IL1 beta has a major role in resistance in primary pneumococcal infection. So you're lowering this IL1 beta, you're lowering these responses. Right. And this study is saying it has... I mean, for people that are hearing this for the first time, doing the opposite of what you're being told a vaccine is doing. You're being told I'm boosting my immune system. I'm making my immune system stronger when all of the science, especially around this COVID vaccine, is showing us doing the exact opposite.

It is putting your immune system to sleep. It's unplugging your radars and leaving you vulnerable. And now surely you're going to have higher infection rates across people that receive this, higher death rates. It goes without say. Right. So we go back to the whole, the story as a general. There's a lot of conflicting information here.

So one of the points is we're nailing this Pfizer vaccine, this MRNA technology, but the problem is China has not been giving an MRNA technology vaccine out. So we're seeing this start in China and assuming that is the virus that's jumping and going into Europe and the US, which there's not even consensus on that. So but they had SinoVAC. So SinoVAC is not an M RNA-based vaccine. So more a standard.

Yeah, standard technology of the past hundred years. But only in March of 2023, this is the New York Times headline, did China develop kind of an in-house, a home-grown MRI vaccine. China approves an MRNA COVID vaccine, it's first. But another thing happened in December of last year, China abandoned key parts of its zero COVID strategy after protests. I mean, that was a significant headline there

because a lot of protests in China don't really get governmental response. So the fact that they were able to change that through protests, but now you have this, the hardest lockdown country in the world going into really its first winter here. So this is a lot of people are saying, look, these people have not had this community-based immunity that they've been used to. They've been locked down, literally quarantined, camps into their homes. So this is one of the issues that they're saying this is kind of what is being pointed to, at least in China, without knowing all the information.

Well, I mean, you have to imagine if you lock a population down, if you keep someone living in a cell, which we've saw those incredible images of people, shouting from their, you know, apartments, I think it was in Shanghai and couldn't get out at all being locked down. But they're not coming in contact with each other, right? They're not kissing, they're not hugging. They're not, you know, grabbing their children. They're not, you know, sharing in all these pathogens that are a part of our life. I mean, you know, when I see people with masks, like, you do realize you're trying to avoid the way that we have lived on this planet. You are taking yourself out of this evolutionary journey that we're on with the bacteria and viruses on this

planet. You want to be evolving with them. And if this thing does anything at all, which luckily for them, it probably doesn't. But the idea of it should go against everything you want to do, which is you're taking yourself out of the evolution. At some point, everything is going to keep evolving. If you stay behind, when that finally gets you, your body may see this is a deadly experience. Instead of saying, that's a common cold for me, because I've been evolving along with everything that's around me. Yeah. And expanding this conversation out from just one pathogen to the bigger picture of of biolabs in general. I mean there's a it's almost consensus now. At least there's there's a somewhat of an agreement that this thing may have came from a Wuhan

bio lab purposeful not we don't know yet but it may have came from there. So in the US Equal Health Alliance has been one of the key we reported on them there's a lot of FOIA requests for the documents equal health alliance has been the key kind of agency or company middleman really between the government and delivering funds to what looks like illegal being done in labs around the world, including Wuhan. You can't do this here in America, but hand this company the money from your government agency, it will go pay off the people that are doing gain of function science.

And then act like, and tell you, we'll put Tony Pouchy in front of the television and say, we don't do gain of function. Right. And it's an access between NIH, Wuhan, and EcoHealth. So here we look and we see NGO, there's talking about Eco Health Alliance in this article, NGO with ties to Wuhan Lab received over 50, over $50 million from federal agencies since pandemic. GOP congressman says, and why is this an issue?

Well, we're still funding research by this, by EcoHealth. And one of the research proposals is in Colorado, and listen to this headline, $12 million taxpayer-funded NIH research facility in Colorado will import bats from Asia and infect them with deadly diseases. So this is a collaboration between the Colorado State University, NIH, and EcoHealth Alliance.

Now, this is just a proposal. There has been now funding for it in the tune of millions, as you hear, but they've moved out the completion date to 2025 at this point. So they're really looking to put one of these on American soil. And so we have the National Defense Authorization Act. Can anything stop this? Well, there's an amendment written into this, and this is re-upped every year. This is 2024 fiscal year, NDAA.

And you can see in here the amendment is this, prohibiting federal funding for who? EcoHealth Alliance. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be available for any purposes to EcoHealth Alliance. Any subsidiary of Equal Health Alliance, organization that is directly controlled by Eco Health Alliance, or any sub-grantee or subcontractor. So they're really trying to shut down all funding to this agency, which would be a big, big step. So if this thing gets through with that, now there's still an opportunity to pull this. We have tons of form of money all over, you know, in every politician's pocket in D.C. right now.

Right. And so the public obviously has been looking at the idea of labs, how safe are these labs. But we're looking at the big ones, the multimillion dollar labs, the Wuhan labs, this potential one in Colorado. But what if they're in our own backyards? What if they're in warehouses that we don't even know about? That's exactly what happened in California over this summer. And this investigation has been ongoing, and it spilled out into a committee hearing. This is Congressman Neil Dunn of Florida. And he was basically laying out the facts of this recently.

Take a listen. All right. The Select Committee recently published a bombshell bipartisan report. You're aware of it. You've said on the illegal bio lab that was discovered in Reedley, California. This warehouse was located in the center of a small town just across the street from an elementary school and a block down from the city hall. The clandest in their calling it a bio lab, it's more like a warehouse,

was a disaster waiting to happen. The CDC's response or rather the lack of response, clearly endangered millions of Americans. There were a couple of things that really stood out to me. The first is that the CDC's Select Agent Program completely failed to people of Ridley, California. The CDC literally refused. They did not respond when they were requested.

They responded months later, and only when Congressman Costa made that request to come to the town and assess the situation. The discovery, I remind you, was made by a housing code inspector who was tracing a gardener that went in a window. That's how this was found. It took a phone call from custody to get there finally. Once the CDC arrived months after the first request, the investigation he conducted was completely unprofessional and inadequate. And I say that as a professional in the field.

The CDC didn't test one vial, even the ones that were labeled to be. that were labeled tuberculosis, SARS-CoV-2, and Ebola. An entire refrigerator listed, labeled Ebola. That is a select federal agent, by the way, and HIV was there. This facility is completely unlicensed warehouse. No licensing whatsoever. Over 20 potential pathogens of 1,000 transgenic NICE, humanized. There were zero isolation facilities that would be necessary.

to either legally or safely handle these agents. And perhaps most egregious and simple-minded, the agency didn't even bother to translate the Chinese labels. There were some files that had only Chinese labels. Didn't even ask for a translation on this. Amazing. When local officials started to dispose of these materials, they asked CDC what to do with the Ebola.

Again, a federal select agent. And as CDC branch chief, I have these emails. I'd like to submit for the record. Without objection? Thank you. CDC branch chief belatedly responded saying, we don't see an urgent need to test these samples at the moment. Most of the material we identified was not considered a serious threat to public health.

HIV, SARS-CoV, hepatitis, malaria, and Ebola, not considered a serious threat to public health. You know, the conclusion made by the experts at CDC that a refrigerator labeled Ebola was unlikely to contain Ebola. And you look at the totality of this situation. It reads like a nightmare, a horror story. In what world is this okay? And, you know, I refer to my colleague, Gary Palmer's remarks on trust.

How do you expect the American people to take our public health institutions seriously when this is their reaction? to a very real situation. All right, so what's the deal here? I mean, that sounds horrifying. All right, so the overall deal is this is the CDC's first real test. Mandy Cohen comes in as director, takes the ball from Rochelle Walensky. I'm sure some were expecting her to make.

Big shoes to fill there. Big shoes to fill. Agency was at an all-time low in integrity and transparency. Messaging was a disaster. We can't really, I'm sure some people expected her maybe to take a harder stand on the safety or the myocarditis of the COVID vaccine, but kind of just took the ball from Linsky on that.

So this is the first major kind of test for the CDC. How are you gonna do under new leadership? So this report, this Biolab was found over the summer. So this was the original headline here. It says, investigation on Reedley Building uncovers bio and health hazards. That was in July of 2023. And you look in this article,

it says for Fresno County Department of Public Health Director David Lucini and Assistant Director Joe Prado, the amount of biological material and chemicals, over 800 found at the lab, was a first. And they quote them in here. They say, I've been with the department for 30 years and I don't recall a similar situation, Lachini said. Prado also echoed similar sentiments. He says, 26 years with the county of Fresno, and I have never come across this situation,

nor have I heard any of my counterparts deal with a situation like this, Prado said. But just about over a week later, you know, that headline hits. You have AP come in here. and Associated Press comes in here and tries to pour some water on this dumpster fire and they have this headline here, AP, an illicit Chinese own lab fueled conspiracy theories

but officials say it posed no danger. The hipod, like just this, I don't know, hypocrisy double standard by, you know, when has the AP, like they just, they probably got involved with white lung. I mean, they don't mind terrifying you when something that really does actually look terrifying

and shouldn't be there at all. I don't even care if it's, you know, testing shampoo samples on mice, you know, that are looking sick and dying there. But we're talking about, like, refrigerators with what appears to be blood samples and all sorts of, like, really terrifying things. And their first knee-jerk reactions to come and say, it's a conspiracy theory? Like, what's a conspiracy theory? This lab exists?

This is where you just, you have to realize right now in the United States of America, you don't have news. There is something else going on. They are not acting. naturally. Their natural instinct is to scare the crap out of you and sell more papers. When they're trying to shut a story down, that's where my red flags go through the roof. Absolutely. That's where you start investigating. And of course, in the article you look in there, it's an appeal to authority. They say the CDC, there's no sign. The lab was in legal possession

of materials, blah, blah, blah. But then you have this report that just came out that Congressman Neal Dunn was basically talking about this. This report was coordinated by the select committee and the Chinese Communist Party. We actually have an investigation committee looking into that. And before we even get into this report, first point was this, the location of this warehouse, it's in a sleepy town. And there's a map here we can actually look at. It's across the street from a residential neighborhood. It's next to a railway line. And it says here in the report, a short walk from the town's high school city hall and water supply. Wow. So, and this gets even crazier. So now let's go directly into this report. I'm going to read this. So a code inspector found

this. So it wasn't some massive surveillance system by the CDC. It wasn't some crack detective. It was a code enforcer that just walked by and went, hey, look at that hose. That's kind of bizarre. It shouldn't be coming out of that warehouse. There it is right there. So this is her, Officer Harper. We'll go into the report. She says, upon entering, Officer Harper found a vast warehouse filled with laboratory equipment, manufacturing devices, and would appear to be medical grade freezers. She observed several individuals who identified themselves as people who Republic of China, nationals wearing white lab coats, glasses, masks, and latex gloves working inside. As she stepped further into the warehouse, she noticed that some of the freezers

and containment units had glass doors. Inside, she saw thousands of vials of biological substances. Many were unlabeled. Others were labeled in a foreign language later identified as Mandarin. Others still were labeled in some kind of code. A few of the vials, however, had labels in English. Some of these labels listed substances that Officer Harper at the time did not recognize. She did, however, recognize the names listed on several labels such as HIV. Now, we just keep going to this report because this is crazy. Let me just go to this next. So it goes on to say, Officer Harper continue down the hallways. This is like a choose-your-own adventure. A hallways of freezers and laboratory equipment to find the source of the green garden hose. What she found was a makeshift

storage room emanating foul odor. Inside were approximately 1,000 laboratory mice in a crowded conditions. Officer Harper would later learn that these were transgenic mice, specifically genetically modified and bred to stimulate the human immune system for the purpose of laboratory experimentation. On future inspections, she also saw that the mice were unwell and abused with fraying hair, rashes, and distended bellies. Now, this is where the CDC gets in here. So it says in this report, based on their initial observation in March of 2023, local officials began to reach out to additional federal agencies for assistance. Local officials spent months repeatedly trying to obtain assistance from the CDC,

both directly and through the California Department of Public Health. According to local officials, the CDC refused to speak with them, and on a number of occasions, it was reported by local officials that the CDC hung up on them mid-conversation. Local officials were similarly unable to get any help from other federal agencies and that may have concurrent authority

to investigate and or remediate the biohazardous substances found at the Reedley Biolab. So this is where we're at right now. This story is crazy. I mean, this is really, First of all, I suppose if you've got some Karen living next door that's calling the CDC and ringing their phone off the hook, like you don't know what you're talking about. These calls are coming from the California Department of Health saying we really think we have an issue here. Like, will you cut it with the calling us?

Like, who do you think you are? Like, bam. Right. I mean, I just think about, like, you were testing our kindergartners to get into school, even when they didn't have the sniffles on a constant basis as there were some disease. carrying death trap, but you have literally a disease death trap and you won't go anywhere near it or even answer a phone call. It seems like this is exactly the point the agency was created for was something like this. I think it was called the Center for Disease Control, right?

Like we're going to control situations that revolve around things labeled like HIV, Ebola, you know, Tedes B. And so remember that the original AP article I just said, CDC said, you know, there's no legal materials in there. Well, the CDC did get involved eventually a couple months later at the request of a congressman. And this is the list that was created. This is from the report. Now, let's take a look at what they found. So let's see, potentially infectious bacterial agents present.

We have, well, there's mycoplasma pneumonia. There's in there. We have streptococcus, ecoli, chlamydia. And then let's look at the viral agents. We have a little dengue virus. We have HIV. SARS-CoV is in there. RSV, rebella, and then some malaria at the bottom, some potentially infectious parasites, malaria.

Now, this gets even crazier. So who the heck was running this lab? Well, the person, one of the people... We have some images, I think, of this lab, though, just for some people who have an idea. Can we just take a look at some of these photos? I mean, this is what they're finding, labeling, I guess, written in Mandarin, is what that is. And you can see in the middle picture there at the bottom, HIV 2.

You can see that labeled there. Right. Somewhat alarming. Yep. And those are the vials, the blood vials, the bodily... Can you imagine seeing this and then calling the CDC, they hang up on you? Like, I think you may want to take a look at this. No, we got no interest, none whatsoever.

Did some freezers there. Just to see here. Ciotic, total chaotic freezers. Look, where's this hose go? Oh, it goes into a room filled with this. Now, that's just, that's okay. That's just pouring into my yard next door and the medical waste. The school water system.

Right, that's the medical waste right there. And this is how we dispose of our waste. This is good. All right. Wow. So that's where you're looking at. So when you're, you're picturing this code enforcement agent going in there and going, whoa, what the heck is going on? So who's running this thing?

Well, this gets even better. The first time we heard of this gentleman running this was in 2016 in British Columbia. So this is the headline here, 2016 Vancouver Sun. Canadian businessman facing jail over fraud has appeal stayed following no-show. So a British Columbia court ordered somebody named Jesse Zhu, he had several other defendants to pay over $8 million of the U.S. company, yep, profiting from theft of valuable medical technology. So he jumped basically, it was a no-show at court.

The report says he fled the United States. changed his name, started this lab, and now he is caught. So here's the headline recently, Chinese National behind Reedley Lab indicted by federal grand jury. But let's... And here you go again. You have a CDC avoiding going to a building that has a guy that's on the land for having stole medical supplies and God knows what else up in Canada. And all of this, and then you see the photos there, this just defy, I mean, again, I'm just like, am I living in some of, you know, like a cartoon? What has happened? All right. Well, fortunately, Mandy Cohen did show up at the select committee. She was questioned and she did answer. So let's hear what she has to say. All right.

We were asked and invited by the leaders of that investigation, FBI, FDA, state and local officials. We did deploy. We did look at, we were there for a two and a half day investigation. And we did not see any evidence of select agents. Yes, they responded. But they did not respond when they were first requested. They responded months, months later. I mean, and we have that on, I mean, we had that examined by the FBI. It came to our committee and told us that. That's who we got that information from. If you have better information in the FBI, you need to let us know. I want to address what you were talking about related to Ebola. When we heard after the fact that someone said something was labeled Ebola,

we took 300 pictures. We did not see one. It was on the front of a refrigerator. We didn't see that. We asked folks to say, do you have a picture of that? Can we validate that for someone else? No one could validate that for us? So we just blow off the California Public Health Department and say, oh, we don't believe you.

You know, obviously my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. I have to tell you, though, in my professional career in biological warfare, I have never seen anything like this. By the way, in the worst concern I have, this may not be the only one. It's really amazing. Like her argument, if you think about it, as we waited, was it three months, is it, to finally go into this place? And when we went there, we didn't see any. I mean, it's sort of like what they did with the Wuhan lab. By the time you finally send a group, you send a group that's been funding the lab,

and you've given China all the time when the world telegraphed, we're coming. Just let you know, in 25 days we'll be there, in 14 days, don't forget, CDC is coming, and then we didn't really see anything anyone was talking about. We spent a blazing two and a half days there. Two and a half whole days. We took 300 pictures. I mean, that's what people do on their vacation. Like, this is a bio lab.

So let's switch now to the entire day. media. So that's kind of a theme through here is this media response and how media is framing situations. So COVID's over. It's been over. It's not a threat worldwide. People forgot about it. They want to forget about it. And so what is the media doing? What are they reporting on? Well, if people don't remember two years ago, Project Veritas in an undercover camera caught a CNN technical director at the news agency with footage that looked like this. Take a listen. I think there's just like a COVID fatigue. So like whenever a new story comes up, they're going to latch on to it.

They've already announced inner office that once the public will be open to it, we're going to start focusing mainly on climate climate like global warming. And like that's going to be our next like, I don't know, like, what's the word of looking for it. It's our, it's going to be our focus. Like, our focus was to get Trump out of office, right? Without it saying it, that's what it was, right? So our next thing is going to be for climate change awareness. What does that look like? I don't know. I'm not sure. I have a feeling it's just going to be, like, constantly showing videos of, like, decline and ice and weather warming up and like the effects is having an economy and it really doesn't even ahead of the network like just

who's that is that there Zucker yeah I imagine that he's got his counsel and they've all like discussed like where they think so that's like the next pandemic like story like that will yeah that will will be to death but that one's got longevity you know what I mean it's not like there's a definitive ending to the pandemic or, you know, like, it'll taper off to a point that it's, you know, not a problem anymore. Probably it's going to take the year, so they'll probably be able to move that for quite a bit, you know. But, okay. That's such a sad display for American journalism. And it's true, I've worked at CVS, and you can see, I find the emotions around these when you watch the people,

Like he's obviously, you know, on a date trying to impress somebody. And you realize in the middle of it, as cool as it may sound that he knows all this, he's also, I think, recognizing, boy, this is really sounding like I'm just a shill for some dark force that doesn't really actually report on the news. We just, you know, beat something to death, as he says. Yeah, yeah. And for the people out there saying the media is one big conspiracy, they decide what they're going to report on in this concerted effort. And people will be called conspiracy for this, but he's saying Zucker has a council, I'm sure.

He just goes to his counsel and gets his talking point. And here we go. We're going to feed it to death. So let's look at CNN reporting because you can actually see the handoff from COVID. This is an article here in 2020. Pope Francis, coronavirus pandemic could be nature's response to climate crisis. There you go. There's the ship.

And then, you know, as he says, what are we going to show? Scary stuff. Simulation shows what sea level rise would look like in our cities. So here we go again. Cities are going to be swamped. And then another one, how the climate. crisis fuels gender inequality. So again, you have to tie it in to everything that's popular. And so what we also have now is these kind of like self-proclaimed climate gurus coming out and

pontificating about what's going to happen and scaring people. One of them is Hillary Clinton. So take a look at what she had to say recently. Okay. We're seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate. and by far the biggest killer is extreme heat. I mean, even in Europe last summer, which has the ability to count and figure out what happened, they recorded 61,000 deaths because of the heat in Europe.

We don't have that kind of number yet from Africa, Asia, Latin America, but we know and estimate that we probably could measure about 500,000, about 500,000 deaths. And the majority of those are women and girls and particularly pregnant women. This whole thing, I mean, I just, it's getting so stupid. And I think it's, I hope it backfires. I hope that it starts triggering this hypnosis like people, by breaking people out of their hypnosis. Because think about it. What is she talking about that heat causes

death? I mean, we live on a planet with a sun. The sun has, you know, there's summer period. She talks about Africa. What's happening in Africa? I mean, it made me think the people in Africa, boy, this summer is a doozy, you know, compared to the last five. I mean, you live in a desert. It's hot, right? Or, you know, how many people were dying before you had air conditioning? Like the heat was here. It's been here. It's a part of what living on this planet. And meanwhile, you're probably having rolling blackouts because you don't have a coal-fired plant to fire up, you know, your air conditioning system. So what does that have to play in? But it just shows how absurd is We're talking about literally a few degrees difference, and now they want to claim a half a million deaths to scare everybody.

Right. And we have better things to do with our times and fact check Hillary Clinton, but we're going to take a second to do that. Okay. So she says, look, we're just starting to count this now, and it turns out, no you're not. This is a study right here. It's not a Forbes, so you know you have to dig too far. Okay. Excess heat can kill, but extreme cold still causes more fatalities. Remember she said heat causes way more fatalities. It says here, this was a study that looked at a decade of data. According to the 2020, 21 study published in the Lancet Planetary Health. Cold is far more deadly.

For every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold. So that's done. All right, so let's jump to you. I agree. And ice age would be a far more dangerous prospect. And I think about that. Like I've come from Colorado. You've been on top of a mountain and just you hear about people getting lost.

Like if I got lost out here right now and it's about five degrees, how long do I last? And then I'll be, you know, in a desert somewhere. Mahavi desert, middle of summer. My parents used to love to camp in Utah in August, not. or why. You're standing there and go, you know what? I can probably make it a few days here. Right.

Yeah. Forget about an ice age. How about coming into a winter like we're coming into here and with grids that may collapse or governments that say you can't heat your home above a certain amount of degrees? So this is what we're talking about. And this brings us to a next individual in this conversation, John Kerry. Now he was tapped by President Biden to kind of lead the U.S. climate conversation. So he flies around on his jets and he goes to these conferences.

And he talks about things like this. Now, this is John Kerry on coal. Take a listen. Okay. The dirtiest fuel in the world is coal. And we should stop killing ourselves using that coal. And that would do more to help health and change the flow of the carbon crisis. It would join us together on a similar path and be one of the most salutary things we could do.

There shouldn't be any more coal-fired power plants permitted anywhere in the world. That's how you can do something for health. And the reality is that we're not doing it. All right. So you hear him say they're linking it to health now. You're always going to have to link it to health. The WHO pandemic treaty has the one health approach where it started as pandemic response, but they looped in the climate.

They looped in all animals, all people. So this is all one conversation now. So when you're hearing this, you're going, wait a minute, health, we're talking about, that's what we're talking about. But the problem is coal is a cheap abundant heating source. It's a cheap, abundant way to power grids. I mean, we built the United States of America using coal as an energy source. And I can't help but look at these things.

Look, I've said it before. I want clean air. There's cleaner ways to do things. We should be moving there in a sensible way. But this idea of stopping it for the whole world is ridiculous. It looks to me like you just want to make sure India never has a thriving economy or has a thriving productions. China isn't listening to any of this. I'm sure you're about to talk about.

But I mean, it just looks to me, this is just, again, world dominance. Those of us that built infrastructure and, you know, can move over in some level to other sources of energy. A country that needs to build up, India, Africa, they're screwed if they can't. Right. And the problem here is the renewables aren't as reliable as we were sold. And they're also not online to the point where we can just shut down all these coal plants and be fine. And that's what the issue is here. In Texas, here's a headline here.

Texas utility rejects plea to restart coal plant ahead of winter. So the state grid operator here is pleading for this plant to restart, a decommissioned coal plant. So he said, look, the grid, there's another threat to the winter power crisis. We need this thing restarted. Same thing with the mid-Atlantic grid. Here's another headline. Grid operator sounds alarm as coal plant shutdown threatens power for millions. This is for 13 states in a district of a Columbia.

But now in China, again, this is really one of our biggest competitors in the international market. What are they doing? Are they doing that? No, here's at an NPR. NPR, China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries report finds. So let's just keep going with John Kerry here. So now, that's John Kerry on energy. Let's talk about John Kerry's look at food.

Take a listen. But with a growing population on the planet, we just crossed the threshold of 8 billion fellow citizens around the world. We just crossed that in this last year. But emissions from the food system alone are projected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century on the current course that we are today. Now, a two-degree future could result in an additional 600 million people not getting enough to eat. And you just can't continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed it. Doesn't work. I mean, this whole idea that food causes global warming, like the production of food is where this insanity is going.

And we've been talking about the attack on farms, farming, literally the heartland of America is now under attack by our government. It's really scary stuff. And then you cut to the moments we're all talking about population reductions. Well, you cut the food supply. It'll do that pretty quick. And, you know, in the context of what we just went through with COVID, those are reckless comments. because the lockdowns have starved millions of people that are living kind of paycheck to paycheck, if you will. And he's saying, we have to choose between feeding people and this 1.5 degrees. What are you talking about? Like, there's people that need food. And that kind of comment, clearly he's putting, so these are the predictions. He makes these type of predictions.

In 2009, he made a doozy that's really continuing to bite him. And we're going to play it here. This was on the polar ice. Take a listen. You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed. In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer. That exposes more ocean to sunlight. Ocean is dark. It consumes more of the heat from the sunlight, which then accelerates the rate of the melting and warming rather than the ice sheet and the snow that used to reflect it back up into the atmosphere. This is where, I mean, and I've said it before, grew up in Boulder, Colorado.

I still consider myself an environmentalist, although that name and that word doesn't mean what it used to. I want, you know, I want us to have clean air, food, all those things. But when someone I respect, and I did used to really follow John Kerry, when you look at this statement, the alarm is five years from now, we're going to have no North Pole. The ice sheets will be gone and be the first summer we've ever had that. That didn't happen. It didn't happen in 2014 when it was predicted. It didn't happen in 2020.

It hasn't happened now. I mean, this, and at what point do these people, they expect us to change our lives completely and keep pointing to the scientists and the specialists that know this stuff, but your scientists were so wrong. You've missed this by decades if it's ever going to happen at all. And why are we ever supposed to listen to this? why I'm in the vaccine space. Like when you start, say, wait a minute,

well, you just said doesn't add up. What they said about COVID didn't add up. This is like deadly virus. It ends up having a death rate of 0.3% at most. Yeah, and this is 2009 he's talking about this. And then he gets chosen, you know, this is a person that either is not listening to the right scientists or has terrible discernment

for information, but he was chosen to be the climate lead for the US. And so thankfully, he's been, there's been some pushback on this in committee hearing This is Congressman Thomas Massey had back and forth with him. We played this before, but we got to play it here too. They actually challenged him and see what happens. Was it a debate or not?

You make the choice. We now know that definitively at no point during the least the past 800,000 years, has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today. When I was in the South Pole, I wasn't on the South Pole, when I was in McBirdo, we couldn't get to the South Pole because of the weather, but I was given a vial of air which said on it cleanest air in the world, it was 401.6 parts per million. That is 50 parts per million already over what scientists say. The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that, it was greater than it is today.

And I'm going to submit for the record. Yeah, but there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have 7 billion people. So how to get to 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here? Because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on Earth which spewed up. Did geology stop when we got on the planet? Mr. Chairman, this is just not a serious conversation.

Your testimony is not serious. There's winning a debate and there is winning a debate and that one hurts. That one hurts because it is what I keep thinking about. CO2 is what makes plant life grow. You're saying that as, you know, there's more CO2, we're not going to be able to feed people. Isn't it going to get greener? I mean, when I picture the jungles and the dinosaurs and everything, the CO2 was much higher then. It looked like it looked like the Garden of Eden.

It was lush everywhere, no deserts. And so we don't want to return to that. And the greatest point ever, if mankind causes this, what was causing it then? And to like point to geology, what has changed? This Earth's been here for, you know, billions of years. suddenly this tiny, there's like, you know, hundreds of thousands, it's a blink of an eye. What stop?

Volcanoes haven't stopped, all of the things moving around. I mean, it just... It's almost like there's cyclical events that continue to happen on the planet. I mean, what's so disturbing is that I think this is going to have a backlash. It's having a backlash with me. It's making me have to push back against things that could make air cleaner for our children to breathe and water cleaner because you are so out over the tips of your skis. I can't be with you.

I can't be seen next to you. This is insane what you're saying. There's got to be other ways to discuss this. And just to put it on the table, really, I don't think, I've always said, I don't think global warming, that is a control, you know, it's an enslavement system. We should just be talking about, can we have cleaner air that we breathe right now? Just right now for our children. We know it causes asthma, things like that. And use, you know, free market forces.

I don't think the electric car is the answer. but if you want to drive an electric car, I think there's certain circumstances in which that makes sense. If you're a commuter, things like that, you have short distances to go. But it shouldn't be everybody has to get one. It's diverse like eating, right? Like, if you eat the same food all the time, you're going to be sick.

If you stick to one way of doing things, I just don't think it's your way through. Diversity, there's just no diversity allowed anymore. And if they're better products, they should be rising to the top, and people should choose them. And electric cars have not shown that yet, in my opinion, for my analysis.

I have a feeling I want to get into a deeper conversation. This is with our guests coming up. But Jeffrey, great reporting. It's great having you in studio. Thank you so much. All right. Well, you know, so much of the work that we do, you know, goes beyond just the show. It goes into legal.

And because of that, we announced to you just a few weeks ago that we've got some of our angels out there, our larger sponsors that said, we really want to help raise funds because we're looking closely at all the legal cases you've got going on. And we don't want you to come up short. So they've delivered some matching funds for this. I was talking about this over the last couple weeks. So why don't we take a look at where we're at? Now, one of the great things that happened last week is I was traveling around. I ran into one of these very special individuals that's helped us many times.

And she said to be Dell, I want to increase the matching fund. So this week we can announce to you that we're now have 1.1 million, gone up from a million to 1.1 million in matching funds. So we can match up to 1.1 million. as I reported last week, over the first really two weeks of this journey, we had raised $110,000. We reached out to you, and I hear, let's see where we're at. So it's going up, 200, 300, 400, 400, wow, look at this. We're all the way up to $583,000. We're literally halfway there with just a couple weeks more before the end of the year. I mean, I really want to

thank all of you that took this opportunity because that's double that money is what's. going to go in. And it's true. These legal cases, the work that we do, cost millions and millions of dollars. But right now, at the end of this year, this is how we prepare for next year's battles, how we're going to free the five, as we put it, and try to get medical freedom and religious freedom when it comes to vaccinations in all these states that have taken that away from people. And speaking about that, let's just look at that article I was talking about earlier in the show from the New York Times. This is a great article. Medical freedom activists take aim at new target childhood vaccine mandates. This is what the article went on to say about I can in our work. It

talks about me first. In 2016, Miss Perry met Del Bigtree, a former television producer who had partnered on a documentary with Andrew Wakefield, who, by the way, is going to be, I think our last show of this year is coming in studio. The British doctor behind the discredited theory that vaccines are linked to autism. Their film, Vax, took aim of the drug industry and was a hit with Ms. Perry's group. Mr. Bigtree later traveled to Mississippi to testify on behalf of legislation that the organization was supporting to expand vaccine exemptions. In an interview, Mr. Bigtree said the success of the film prompted him to found the informed consent action network, the group based in Texas and known by the acronym I Can, said its mission is to give people the authority

over your own health choices and those of your children. Can't imagine who doesn't want to read that. and to put an end to medical coercion. Sounds like a good idea to me. It funded the Mississippi lawsuit and tax filings show it spends millions of dollars on legal work. It finishes with Mr. Beatry hailed the suit as a landmark historic case. In the wake of its victory, his group trumpeted its support for similar legal challenges in other states. Now, for those of you that have been in this movement for some time, maybe even before I was here, when do you ever remember the New York Times talking about this movement that way. You didn't see as being labeled as anti-vax, which is like what they like to do. And I want to give credit to the journalists that put this

together. I said, would you stick to the facts and what we say, we call ourselves medical freedom group? I've never tried to eradicate vaccines from the planet. I believe in free choice. I believe you should be able to raise your children the way you see fit. But this work that we do, when you donate to us, not only we are allowed to, like, you know, that we win these lawsuits. When those lawsuits end up in newspapers, how many people did we just enroll in this idea of medical coercion? What's that? I don't want to be coerced into medicine. What are they talking about? And they start visiting our website. They start seeing all the shows and the science behind what we're doing. And here's the truth. The science is actually on our side. And that's why we're

winning. That's why we're going to keep pushing forward. But beyond just getting, you know, into the newspapers and winning these lawsuits, there's a real, you know, gain. There's a real journey here for people that have their lives change, especially in Mississippi, in this case. And so for this week's series, the impact, the I Can't Impact series, we went down to just ask someone, what did this do for you? Take a look at this. The fight for the religious exemption in Mississippi has been ongoing for many, many years. I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. as well as my own children that were born into the church. The fact that there are fetal cells in the vaccine

that is against my beliefs. Mississippi's religious exemption was revoked. And for the last 30, 40 years, many people have been trying to get the religious exemption reinstated because Mississippi was one of the only ones that did not have a religious exemption. A religious exemption allows you to make a choice of whether or not to vaccinate your children.

and you are able to still go to public schools. We're both born and raised in Mississippi, and we had to leave everything that we've ever known, move to a different state just for our kids to attend school. We sacrificed a lot. We missed so much. We missed Sunday afternoons. My parents used to drop by, friends dropped by with their kids after school,

and we just weren't able to do that anymore. We go to parks, we go to the library. They play sports. They play with the kids. We're doing church activities. Our entire family is embedded in the community, but to attend schools. They were not allowed in Mississippi because they did not offer the religious exemption. I have been a member of Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights for many years,

and ICANN contacted me and asked if I would like to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit for the fight for the religious exemption. I've been a follower of ICAN for many, many years. They are amazing. They've done so much work, and so when they told us that Aaron was going to be our attorney. I was so excited because I know all the work that he does and how amazing he is. I was in court.

We were granted the religious exemption after all of this time, thank goodness. A federal judge rules that Mississippi must join most other states in allowing religious exemptions from vaccination. The exemption comes after a federal court decision. It was an amazing feeling, big, huge sigh of relief. Ten years of fighting, we finally won.

because we knew that we were going to be able to move back home where we wanted to be. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for allowing my family to move back home where we wanted to be and where we belong. And for all of your hard work and dedication, we truly appreciate it. Thank you. I'll tell you that win really felt good. Mississippi was one of the first ones to ever lose their right to opt out of the vaccine program

all the way back in 1970. when we set out to do this work with the informed consent action network, Aaron, Siri, and I said, what would be those moments where we really knew we were making a difference? And we said, when we start pushing the laws back and get taking on an offensive position, that's really what Mississippi represents, and everyone that's been donating to us through the years

gets to pat themselves on the shoulder right now and look at what you've done. You have literally changed a policy in the state of Mississippi, and we're going to go through around the rest of the country. And by the way, this journey doesn't just end here. In the end, we want to get to the Supreme Court. There's a case out of 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Can you imagine there was a decision in 1905, long before cell phones, long before, you know,

any of the things we know to be true in our world today, they made a decision that affects our lives, what basically is the government gets to override your release. religious belief and inject you if it wants. In fact, in that case, it didn't even win that. It just made a priest, a minister that was trying to not get the smallpox vaccine. They charged him the, I believe, is a $5 fine Supreme Court. But that is what's used to take away your rights every day of your life when it comes to medical autonomy and health freedom. So we want to get to the Supreme Court with a case that we think will override that. This is a part of that journey. When you're funding us, you are funding freedom. And I want to point this out.

many of you that donate, you know, especially at the end of the year, you have end of the year giving, you're giving to things like, you know, saving the rhinoceros or maybe even children in Africa, which is a beautiful thing to do. But this is one of those donations that actually you're donating to yourself. You're donating to your own freedom, the right, you know, to have, you know, probably the greatest constitutional attorney of all times in courtrooms fighting for your freedom, fighting for your children, trying to make sure that they don't get forcibly injected with untested products like we just saw happen with COVID. So if you want to be a part of that,

we really need your help. And I want to say that, you know, it was an amazing week, getting all the way up to $580,000. That wasn't done because people were sending in $20,000. It was done because of those of you that were out there, just giving $5, just giving $10. Even a dollar makes a difference. And what it does beyond just, you know, funding the work that we do, it helps you feel what it feels like to be a part of change, of making a difference. And I think that energy, that energy that we bring when we commit to things, that is what is the game changer. That's what starts changing the minds of people around us. And the more of us that commit to the things we believe in, the more these New York Times reporters say, my audience is now listening

to people like Del Baton. They're talking about these things. They're giving a dollar or two dollars or $5 to these groups because they now believe in medical freedom. And if I call them a bunch of anti-vactors and make fun of them any longer, I'm going to lose readership. This is the effect that we're having. So please take this opportunity to double your money. Go to www.Icandecide.org slash match. We'd love to see this, you know, get finished up here in the next week or so.

We've just got a couple of things three weeks more. So once you go there, just we're still asking for $23 a month for $2023. but anything you can give, whether it's $1.50, it really makes a difference. Let's go into this new year committed 100% to the things that we actually care about and able to say that with confidence and not be like we're lying to our friends. I actually do invest in this. We appreciate all of those of you that have invested in us throughout these years. Just text match. This is the easy way to do it on yourself, fund to 72022. All right, I'm really actually very excited.

You know, Jeffrey's got me all pumped up over this whole environmental insanity and what's going on and the lies that are being told. And, you know, those are government agents talking about it. But now you have these giant corporate entities that, by the way, also seem to be controlling our government. So I don't know what's first the cart or the horse or however that goes. But this idea of ESG corporations that are being judged by how much they get involved in, the environmental, social, and governance systems, a business framework for considering environmental issues and social issues in the context of corporate governance.

I'll tell you, this is something that I'm very confused about, and I've got someone that is going to be very capable of answering some of my questions, I think is going to answer yours too. Take a look at this. It's good to have Marlowe Oaks with us, our state treasurer. The Utah State Treasurer, Marlowe Oaks. And joining me today is Marlowe Oaks, who is the state treasurer for the state treasurer for the state treasurer.

of Utah. I've never seen a state treasurer get a standing ovation before. Marlow Oaks knows more about the subject than anybody in the country. He's now the treasurer of the state of Utah. He's a long-time investment manager. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you on the impact of ESG on retirement security. Masquerading as a sophisticated, holistic, and enlightened way of creating shareholder value, ESG is a dangerous investment scheme. ESG has created an uncontrollable impulse to pressure corporations to solve complex global and societal issues. DSG sounds good, it sounds positive. You know, a lot of the language are things that all of us are concerned about,

but it's the way we go about it. These are subjective factors that are chosen, and there is subjectivity related to what makes the right answer, what allows you to get a higher score. And in order to drive this particular outcome, There has to be some collusion in the marketplace. Otherwise, you have free market capitalism. Of course.

Yes,G represents the greatest threat to our economic engine, which has produced more innovation, wealth, and opportunity than any other economic system in the history of the world. It's also undermining the constitutional form of this country. It's my honor and pleasure to be joined by the Utah State Treasurer Marlow Oaks now. Thank you for coming in. Thanks for inviting me. Absolutely. This is sort of like one of those things. Like I feel like I go around saying it, but I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Like you say ESG. It seems like a bad thing. What is it? I mean... Yeah, it's very confusing because on the surface it sounds great. It stands for environmental, social, and governance. And I really think of it as two different systems or two different parts. There's the part that people see. It's sort of the ratings of companies. And then there's the part that people don't see.

And that's the problem. Okay. So the first part is sort of this rating system that takes subjective criteria and really tries to objectify it. So you're going to see a score on a particular company. I think Bank of America, for example, is one that I look at often. And two different rating firms give it very different answers based on ESG criteria. But that's an important market function.

A market takes subjective criteria, and because there's so many different actors in the marketplace, they all have different weights and different ideas about the importance of those subjective criteria, right? That's how markets function. You take subjective criteria, and people have different ideas about the future importance of those, and that gets buying and selling of the same security in any given day.

That's how markets work. If ESG just stopped there, that would be not nearly, you know, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem as it is, but it doesn't stop there. It goes into engagement with companies. And what happens then is companies are then told how they have to operate and the kinds of policies that they have to have in place in order to get money. Who's the they that's enforcing this? Is this just? So if you think about, really this is globalism. being pushed and really I think of it as three legs of a stool so the

governments pushing globalism that's really where the UN and sustainable development goals come in those 17 sustainable development goals all of our governments come together sit in this room and as a giant well people yeah that basically the UN is saying we have to address climate change that's that is the number one issue that's really driving this whole engine okay right the E part the environment yeah if there were no climate crisis, ESG wouldn't exist. Okay.

And so the climate crisis is really what drives the train. And so that's what animates the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and governments are pushed to adopt those in their countries. On the corporate side, it's really World Economic Forum, the Dobblest crowd, right? And that's where ESG comes in. Okay. And then the third leg is individuals, getting individuals to buy in, and that's where religious organizations are being co-opted.

people listen to their religious leaders. Right. And so that's sort of the three legs of the stool that I view as is really driving globalism. But at the heart of it is climate change. Right. And the climate crisis in that era. And boy, when I think to myself as the piece we just did, all the energy we're putting the climate change and to think, what if we were wrong when that became the number

one focus of all humanity? And we were actually, it's like ants with self-importance, thinking somehow they're making me move around on the planet or something. Well, and James Madison, I think, said it really well. Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant. When you hear a crisis narrative, I want you to think tyrant. People should think tyranny. Because that is ultimately what is being pushed.

It really is an effort to take power and control and consider. consolidated. And our country was founded on this idea of decentralization. We did not want power consolidating to any one particular area. And the markets are some of our most pluralistic institutions. If you think about plurality meaning many different actors. Right, right? All the different companies and all the different investors and you and I with our own investment dollars. I was using it terms of diversity, like having diversity. There's tremendous diversity in the capital market. So it's very difficult to drive an agenda through the capital markets.

And yet we know ESG is driving an agenda. And this is really where the problem begins. Back in 2004, the UN said only if all actors come together to push ESG. It was first time ESG is in writing. Can we make significant improvements in this field? And so that's when you know that there's an agenda beyond. just investing money. The only reason that we invest money is to make money. That's why you invest. Now individuals may have reasons to you know want to improve society and that's

that's their choice. The problem is is that now because because there's an agenda here, you have to consolidate a lot of power and the way you do that is to target the financial sector in the economy because the financial sector is at the foundation of our free market system. And they determine who gets capital and what that cost of capital is. Okay, right? Yeah. So the banks, the investment managers, the asset owners. So the asset owners are really sort of at the top of the food chain.

That's the pension plans, the sovereign wealth funds around the world. Okay. 19 of the 20 largest institutional investors in the world are government-sponsored pension systems or sovereign wealth funds. Wow. And the majority of them have bought into ESG. Which means now they go into an investment manager, like a BlackRock, a Vanguard, State Street, whomever, and say, we want you to manage these assets using ESG.

And we don't mean just our assets. We mean all of the assets that you have under management. Wow. And so it's not like you and I are deciding that the money that we have invested is going to not be an ESG, these investment managers are getting pressure from the asset owners telling them that if they want to do business with them,

because that's how they make money, is to manage money, right? The largest asset owners are telling them they have to implement this in their business. So it's really corrupting the capital markets and to drive an agenda. So it's put like a globalist force upon these businesses that have to play ball.

And it seems to me, You know, I see everything in this lens because I'm really focused sort of in the medical space. And like, for instance, you know, Pfizer doesn't mind that they have to do double blind studies most of the time. It costs about $100 million. But it takes every competitor out of the way that could never afford to do that. No vitamin company can do $100 million study. None of the things that would compete. So in a way, they want it there because it gives them the power over the market that they're in.

Is that similar? I would think Amazon has no problem moving into a green energy space. Number one, sort of like taxes, they can hire an army of people to make everything look like they don't need to pay taxes. We're making an army of people look like we're a green energy company. Whereas your mom and pop shop or the real, the little bookstore on the corner, does not have the ability to play that game and just gets trouts because it just can't, where did those books come from, what were the shipping costs, how much fuel was used? And now they're buried and they're out of the market. No, that's exactly right.

And in fact, it plays out in the oil industry to a certain extent because the largest oil producers are able to sort of fend off the attacks on oil. It really harms, and I'm not saying they're not harmed and that they're not against it. But it really harms the smaller players because then they have all this regulation, all this demand for information, scope three emissions, scope one, scope two, scope, three emissions, all this information that the government is trying to, and investors are trying to push on companies. It really harms those smaller players. It has exactly the same dynamic. How does it affect the average consumer? I think that most of it just think, well, this is the

big players, you know, fighting with each other. I don't really care as long as the products are still available to me, whether they made them green or not. Does it affect the consumer? Oh, it has a very serious effect on consumers. The fact, In California, there's a group called the 200. It's made up of former legislators and cabinet officials and civil rights activists. They're suing the California Air Resource Board because of the climate policies that have been implemented

that are resulting in higher energy costs. It harms those who can least afford it the most. So those in the lowest socioeconomic stratosphere, they pay three. three times the amount of their income on energy as to, you know, the regular American. And so this really harms those who can least afford it. And it's just very sad. So it's really a misallocation of capital.

And what we've seen is that, you know, because this is a push with an agenda, the free markets are not easily going to correct this problem. So, you know, you might think, well, banks could, there could be banks that come in. and provide loans and that sort of thing. From 1991 to 2008, there were over 2,000 bank charters that were approved in the United States. After Dodd-Frank went into effect, so over 12 years ago, 13 years ago, 65.

That's it. That's it. On the institutional investor side, where there's a lot of capital that has been raised for oil and gas funds. So these are raised among the largest institutional investors, those pension plans, the sovereign wealth funds, right? There was about $50 billion raised in 2015

among institutional investors for North American oil and gas funds. In 2021, that was $3 billion. It went from $50 billion to $3 billion. The only way you get that is if there is an agenda that's being driven. And right now, one of the New York pension plans is being sued because they did not invest and have not invested in oil and gas.

which points to that statistic, that $3 billion, there have been pension plans that have actually bragged about not being invested in oil and gas. In fact, the UC Regent system is one of those. You know, they sent out a message to their participants last year saying, we no longer have oil and gas in our investment lineup, as if that was a good thing. Right. It's really amazing. And, you know, we're seeing some pushback in this. We're seeing the electric car industry is falling apart.

They're just not making the bottom lines hurting what you would think to some of these larger corporations, right? The Ford's, the GMs are struggling now saying we put, you know, we retooled, we built all these cars and the cost to the, I mean, I think part of it's consumer caught, they just don't want to pay this for a car, and people not quite psyched about this idea. And it really is where I'm sort of seeing things differently.

Like I said, I want clean air. Yeah. I want all these things. But when we force, you know, when the government forces and regulators force, or in this case, even the W.E.F. I mean, in a way, it's sort of like, you know, the idea of democracy is mob rule, right? Like, we're all going to turn you in. So your big brother, I always thought was like one individual watching you. It's actually everybody watching.

Yeah, yeah. Right? And so how do you move? And we're making really catastrophic choices that are going to hurt, even these big business. I mean, is there some of these large institutions that are sort of the banks saying we want out of this, or are they all game? Well, Jamie Diamond, I think it was last year before Congress. He said, you know, one of the Congress persons was asking about shutting off lending to coal and, you know, oil and whatnot. And he said that essentially he said that is the road to hell if we go down that road, right?

So I think there is some pushback. One of the things that I recognized early on when I started looking at ESG is that this was going to have to come from the states. The states had to push back because corporate America was under attack from these globalist forces and that if they stood up, they could be harm their business because there was so much momentum, right? There was only one narrative that was acceptable. You don't want to be the odd man out.

Exactly. And so it really had to come from the states. And so that was when I started pushing back on S&P Global and their credit indicators, ESG indicators on state, states. So Utah has the best credit in the world. We are very responsible when it comes to borrowing money. And we are rated AAA, which is the highest rating

of any credit rating agency. It's like having a perfect score, right, credit score. My staff has actually been told that if there was a quadruple rated state, it would be Utah. We really are highly regarded as a borrowing entity. But that may not matter if we have a separate ESG score because then investors can point to our ESG score and say, well, yeah, Utah has the best credit in the world, but look at their policy on X, Y, RZ. And you can drive politics that way. And so this is really, that's where I talk about being harming.

the constitutional form of government. You're doing an end around our constitutional institutions and trying to push politics through the capital markets, and it destroys both of them. You know, it seems to me, you know, and when you start seeing John Kerry talking about food contributing to global warming, right? And cows are contributing to global warming. I mean, cars is one thing, but, you know, now every animal on the planet, and it gets scary, right? Why should a food, supplier be compared to a skateboard manufacturer or like as you're saying we're taking the diversity we are dealing with a we're a totally different function in society our function is to feed people right and whatever i mean are you doing the math that whatever contribution we have to CO2 if that even

matters that there's a that that cost per person is valuable because we feed them versus what some other company or is it just sort of this blanket that's thrown over everybody and they're competing in spaces that you can't compete in and we're going to stop making food yeah i mean and this is one of the more fascinating parts of this if you think about the u.n. sustainable development goals goal number two is to end world hunger goal number 13 is climate change and what happens when they collide right yeah and we have a perfect example of sri lanka and the netherlands right Right. The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. This tiny little country, they're incredible farmers.

Yeah. And that country is trying to shut down 3,000 farms. And what is that going to do to global hunger, right? Right. This is the problem with centralized planning. Well, even if you think about that, if you're going to compare that country's ESG, you know, they're producing more food than this other country. Like, well, look, Spain is doing better than you. They're not making food for you.

I'm feeding you. Right. Doesn't that weigh into the country? this equation at all. Well, and to your point, they're only looking at one side of the equation saying, you know, we're all going to die from climate change. Well, it looks like we're all going to die from starvation so that we don't die from climate change. That's been my, you know, when I've, and I've said, you've heard me say on the show today, like, I still care about the environment. And I've looked at my thoughts on coal. You know, I was one of those, like,

I don't like coal exhaust. I don't like what it does to rivers. Can we clean that up? But what bothers me is when I see us saying, well, look, we're going to go to West Virginia and shut down all these coal plants. And this all started changing as I was visiting, started going to state caps in West Virginia, meeting the people and realizing, oh, we actually took all your industry away. Like, you have no industry. It's one of the most beautiful capitals you've ever seen, and they're starving in West Virginia because, you know, they're not getting able to do the work that built that state. And then I watch us starting to buy products and energy systems and things from China that is just they're ramping up the coal, you know, plant that we just took away. So we're not

actually doing anything for the environment. We're just destroying the lives of people in our own country and then, then, you know, buying that energy or that form of those solar panels from China that are using that energy. And so to me, you just, you're basically moving, you know, deck chairs around, but you're screwing our country. And you're, and for this concern when I hear about like the ocean for a long time. The ocean is going to be a foot deeper, which I just don't think is a very good sales opponent. I think unless you have a Miami high rise on the beach,

I'm not sure you care. But just this idea that in order to protect ourselves from the dangers ahead, we're literally going to kill you now. We're talking about we're all going to die with global warming, so we're just going to kill you now. We're going to take your jobs away, let you starve to death, have meth, you know, and all the issues that come into poverty and issues like that, ruining your cities and states,

all to preemptively deal with a theoretical problem. That's exactly right. No, that's exactly right. And if you, and this is where when you hear climate, the climate crisis, that it doesn't make sense, you know, some of the things that they seem to be fighting like nuclear power, right? And so you have to look a little bit deeper and say, what's the real agenda here? Yeah.

What do you think that is? Well, and so. Because I always, I always ask my guests that. who is the they? Yeah, yeah, no, exactly. So back in 2019, AOC's chief of staff said the Green New Deal wasn't originally about climate. It was about how do you change the economic system. In 2015, Cristiana Figueras, who was responsible for the Paris Climate Accord, she was the head of the IPCC at the UN, which is, you know, kind of the climate change body. Earlier that year, she said this is the first time in the history of the world that we have

tried to intentionally change the economic system that's been in place for the last 150 years. In 2018, the UN commissioned a study, and the headline is, we cannot address the climate crisis with capitalism or climate change. So it's like, okay, there it is, right? The focus is on economic freedom. And if we destroy our economic freedoms, we have no other freedoms. Right. And that's really the agenda that's going on here.

I mean, it does seem, and I've said it, what's scary about being America, which is supposed to be this beacon of light and hope for freedom and liberty and invention and ingenuity, we're just watching most of that getting shipped overseas. Our children being raised to hate advancement, you know, or things that we can do or great ideas. The idea that someone that is too successful we should take from them. Yeah. You know, and I like one of the images you had like the Coca-Cola company.

I mean, that, you know, we really are struggling. It's like communism, you know. It's something we talk about on this show, which is sort of give up your individual needs for the greater good. And now as a nation, it feels to me like these world forces, and this is what I've struggled with, because it seems like doesn't Bill Gates want to walk out into a world where everyone has got money and they're flush and they're buying cars, they're buying the products that you're selling, but it seems that your ideas are starving everybody out

to where you're just going to have squalor, sort of like you do in Seattle, Washington now. At what point does one of these financial oligarchs walk out and say, I have turned the world I have to walk through into a slum? Yeah, no, it is really troubling. And, you know, you think about just the food issue, I think, is such an interesting. You think food and power, if you want to cripple a society or control a society, you go after food and power.

Right. Right. And that seems to be the, that seems to be where this whole effort is pushing. One of the things that I'm very concerned about is these natural asset companies, and nobody really knows much of Yeah, what is they explain that? Yeah, because it's sort of in line with this push against agriculture, where we're trying to reduce emissions. Agriculture is responsible for about 25 to 35% of global emissions around the world.

And the large chunk of that is land use change, so taking forest land and converting it into a farm, for example. And then the agricultural component, you know, nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer. rice and cattle methane emissions. Yeah. Right? So that sector has been targeted, and they're trying to reduce by 85% land-based emissions in agriculture,

85% by 2050, which means we've got to cut red meat consumption by 50%. We have to electrify all farm machinery, there is an attempt right now to push. Which will bankrupt every farmer there is. Exactly. A giant monolithic companies. Exactly right.

You know, companies. And ESG is really the consolidation of power across lots of different sectors. Yeah. So, you know, just the investment business, a lot of money has consolidated into the passive managers. Why? Because it's cheap and better performance generally. And so a lot of retirement systems have put billions and billions of dollars in those kinds of strategies. Well, three managers really are sort of the kings of that space.

It's Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street, right? So they have tremendous power. What's interesting is they're passive investors, but active owners. So we have capital there that's consolidated. The banking industry is consolidated tremendously. So these, the banks have signed on to net zero climate pledges, which basically says we are going to push the net zero agenda through our business. Yeah. And stop lending to certain businesses that are cut down, you know, the lending that we do in certain business.

Agriculture is one of those. And so that's where this 85% reduction comes in. And the real results are really trying to push people from roast beef to roast crickets, right? Yeah. I mean, that's where we're starting to see it and the shutdown of farms. And so now the New York Stock Exchange went to the SEC at the end of September and said, we need you to approve a rule that will allow us to list companies whose purpose isn't to make money. It is to provide ecological services.

And so what does that mean? Well, essentially, this company that would be listed on the New York Stock Exchange would raise money from investors globally and would go out and buy interest in natural resources around this country. The state of Utah, 67% of our land is owned by the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management manages that land. And so this really is a tremendous,

threat to our rural communities. Because I was going to ask about that. Look, we all want open spaces and parks and things like that. Utah, which I've done tons of campus, grew up in Boulder, Colorado, probably spent more time over the summers in Utah, some of those beautiful natural parks there are in the world. Are we talking about moving out of letting the state of Utah, you know, control those parks and starting to allow private industry to come in and just buy up land spaces and lock them down? Yeah.

And you know, it still could be the federal government owning it, but what they would do is allow the management of those assets. And so this is where this rule comes in, where these natural asset companies would be allowed to basically manage the resource. And they're looking at quantifying ecological services. So essentially, what is the value of clean air? What is the value of clean water? What is the value of taking carbon, like photosynthesis, but also the absorption of carbon into soil? Yeah.

And selling those things that can be sold like carbon credits to companies. So if I'm a bank and I'm pushing for net zero, I may have an interest in buying interest in a natural asset company, particularly if it's a forest or something and you know it's taking carbon out of the out of the atmosphere creating oxygen there's some dollar value associated with that so i put it basically allows me to have carbon indulgences right right other parts of my business right right so again where the giant corporations can afford to do this yeah they live the life they want but they just buy up territories and land or things that can show some sort of environmental benefits

of it. It reminds me I was sitting with my wife in a hotel recently. We were on a trip and we were in the spa. I had no windows or anything. There was just video images of flowers and forests and things like that in an otherwise totally modern room. And I just thought with all this push, Bill Gates buying up land like you're saying, and I'm sure he's behind this trying to get some sort of credit from the government. Get me on the stock exchange so I can call it like a nonprofit experience while I continue to garner power and credits around. around the world, but Mike, what I was starting thinking about the future is, I think we may live in a time as they try to move us into 15-minute cities. They clearly don't want us moving around. They want to take plane travel out of the equation, all in this same space. I really see a future where those parks that I used to visit and that walk through the forest, like we don't want human beings, can't have contact with that. It's messing up the, you know, the fauna or whatever it is, but we're going to teach you to watch on your beautiful LCD screen, the forest that you're going to visit them by currency, the virtual reality.

It feels like that's like they're locking this stuff away from us. So where you think, oh, what's the wrong with, you know, having on the stock exchange like controlling large territories, well, it's taking it out of your hands maybe permanently forever. That's right. And yes, so if you think about the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976, basically was Congress delegating the authority

to manage these public lands for the benefit of society. And they operated under this mixed-use concept where you could have recreation, mineral extraction, you know, forest, harvesting, all these different activities that could happen on the land simultaneously, and they were managing that for the business. benefit of society.

The almonds really for society, right. Yeah. Now they have a proposed rule that is trying to create conservation leases which would essentially be elevated above mixed use and replace mixed use and those conservation leases could then be owned by a natural asset company and that natural asset company then has the management rights to that land and if conservation leases are the primary driver of what happens on that land goodbye to all the mixed use. And so you're talking about the destruction of agricultural production.

And they are talking about regenerative agriculture, but that doesn't really happen because you can't use traditional fertilizer on the land. You can't use machinery on the land, right? And so we're talking about like 1820s farming here, right? And Sri Lanka went through that when they outlawed traditional fertilizer, right? You had.

What about like social justice, I guess, it's attached to it? It's more like environmental justice. Environmental justice. Environmental justice. On natural asset companies. Okay. But the S part is really where we talk about social justice in ESG. How does that play in here?

So what's interesting is this S part is really based on definitions. Definitions really matter when you're talking about diversity, equity, and If you think of classical social justice, diversity, we think about diversity of thought, diversity of experience. Under critical social justice, we want just demographic diversity only. And in fact, we're looking for ideological purity. Inclusion, you know, we talk about an inclusive society. Yeah. And really inclusion is the the, the, the, the, the, that's the, the, that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, is. colorblind society, a meritocracy, right? And under critical social justice,

you're looking at really that purity of, you want to have only a certain person or ideology involved. And so you end up harming those who are not identified, right? It's really looking through the lens of oppressors and oppressed, and that critical social justice equity, you know, equal opportunity versus equal outcomes. And so people often don't understand how the terminology is being twisted

to drive an agenda. The governance part of ESG was really brought in to lend credibility to ESG because governance, traditional governance in the shareholder capitalist framework added value to investors. Things like board independence, and tying CEO pay to financial metrics. Under ESG governance, you're tying pay to ESG metrics

and looking for demographic quotas on boards. So like California passed a law 2021 and someone that said publicly traded companies in California have to include at least two women on the board. And the Los Angeles Court of Appeals struck that down as unconstitutional. We're turning so many of our laws, these civil rights laws on their head and basically saying, no, we are going to discriminate and try to favor certain groups at the expense of others. And it is really marks us.

So let me just play devil's advocate as we sort of, you know, close this up. It's super fascinating and you've looked at this for so long. But let's look at things like that, like the social side of this. One of the conversations is right now that the 1% I think own, you know, more than the other 60%, you know. And these ideas, this wage disparity, you know, and things like that. How do you fix these problems where, you know, the living wage, you can't buy a house now if you work, if you work, I mean, you can work a 40-hour week. There's people working two, three jobs, can't buy a house. Mechanic used to be able to buy a house,

used to be able to go on vacation, had a pension, had all these things. And we keep being told that the corporations just need more tax breaks and they need to, you know, and what we see is CEOs paying themselves more and more. They're buying private jets

flying all over, writing laws for the rest of us, but the living wage is disappearing. And so doesn't it make sense? You know, either you're going to have a, either going to have the government do it or you're going to have to instill, How about if as a corporation, you know, lessen that gap and we give you some credit for it? I mean, I can see some sense in that.

If we don't do that here, where do we have any effect on this? Yeah, and, you know, we talked initially about regulation and how that drives costs up, and it makes it difficult for competitors come in. Dodd-Frank's perfect example in the banking industry. It really, a lot of this starts with regulation that prevents competition from coming in and correcting these market problems. Right. And so this is one of the challenges that we have in any market is over-regulation that prevents

a market from operating. It's actually interesting, getting back to the natural asset companies, really one of the animating forces there is externalities. And they talk about how that is preventing the market from working because we're not properly valuing externalities. How much does dirty air costs? Right? Conversely, how much is clean air worth? Right. And so we're trying to now price externalities, things that you and I take for granted that we're going to have. Now, you know, there's a saying, what gets measured, gets managed. If we are managing clean air, what is it

worth you and I to have clean air? Are we suddenly going to have to pay for? clean air? Are we going to have to start paying for some of these things that you and I take advantage? Well, we are in our medical bills and things like that. Yes, that's true. I mean. No, that's true. And I have a sister-in-law that actually died from bad air, from California wildfires that were coming over to Utah. Wow. Yeah, I mean, so I get it. But the problem is, is that once we start valuing those kinds of things and put it in the hands of an elite group of the most wealthy investors, then they determine what you and I can use. You and I are net carbon emitters. Whenever we extract air,

4% of our breath is carbon, right? And so now what are we going to do to offset our carbon footprint to be net zero? Right. I mean, it's very dangerous to take this land and put it into the hands of those who are managing it, not for our benefit with multiple use,

but for one use. and that's to drive ecological services to somehow value some of a lot of these ecological things that happen, and then to drive outcomes based on that. What's your, you know, for our audience out there, what do you think is sort of the call to action? What do we do to rein back control of, you know, freedom and the ability to rise and to grow? I think most of my problem with most of this is just going to kill a small business. It's going to make it impossible. to ever bring a new thought or an idea to market

because you're just gonna have so many constraints. And I know that's why the big players aren't pushing back against this because they know they can afford it and we can't. Well, and I think really with the natural asset companies is gonna kill rural America. And rural America, we all depend on rural America. For food and for energy and for so many different resources.

This is a threat to America overall, all of our freedoms and things that we enjoy. So I think one thing that people can do is to contact their legislators in state. The governor also, the attorney general, and contact their congressional delegation. We have a very short window here. January 2nd is when the SEC is deciding whether they're going to allow natural asset companies to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. And so we have a very short window to act.

And so we need to have people in Congress push back. So they need to be aware. States need to be aware. And then also the SEC. People can reach out to the SEC, the different commissioners, let their voices be heard and say, no, we don't want this. This is a terrible idea. It's really the people that are closest to the land that are much better at managing the land than some bureaucrat or some global investor, right?

Or some of these massive pools of capital. We don't want that. that that will be the detriment of all of us all right well we're going to try and help with that one of the initiatives between i can and perk amy bond's perk we're putting this together to make it easy for you we've got two different ways to sign up and you can click on these by the way if you're watching on your phone obviously you can take a picture of the QR code that makes it easy but if you know if you get a screen grab of that then when it's in your photos you tap on that QR code i just learned this the other day and it'll take you here but basically we have a contact s cc to oppose ny scee

to SEC regarding natural asset companies. You can fill out that information. And then we have another one, contact the federal and state legislators to oppose NYSC proposed to SEC regarding natural asset companies. Again, these are things we've got to watch. They're wolves and sheep's clothing, I feel like. They sound like good idea for those of us that want a clean environment,

but look who's buying it up. Right? It's some of the biggest polluters, some of the biggest, you know, private jet fly you know, oligarchs in the world. It sort of reminds me with a friend of mine, I've had some very liberal friends, like, Communists just, communism just hasn't been given the right chance. I was like, oh no, Chuck Schumer is the right chance, like a government, totally corporate-controlled government. Let's hand them the tool of communism because then it's really going to get the queen's slate.

It's always been looking for. Yes, exactly. And we're looking at, right now, we are looking at the merger of corporate and state power. That's it. Which we're like in 1930s Europe, right? I mean, Mussolini said the merger of state and corporate powers is fascism or corporatism. I agree. And that's exactly what's going on. It's really just great to meet you, know that you're out there, so informative, very important.

These are really big issues and people just aren't paying enough attention to it. So I'm glad that you're out there spreading the word. Well, thank you for having me on. All right. Keep up the good work. Pleasure meeting. Thank you. All right, well, we've just got, my understanding is you can still order merchandise up until the 15th, and we think we can get it to you by Christmas.

So if you want to let other people know how you Highwire in the holidays, and, you know, Hanukkah works too. It doesn't matter, whatever your holiday experience is, we've got that going at our shops. Take a look at this. This holiday season elevate your gift-giving game with the Highwire's exclusive holiday collection. Introducing the ICANN's Talk to the Handglass Ornament, a sparkling addition to your tree that captures the spirit of ICANN. And don't miss the limited edition free in 23 ornament,

commemorating ICAN's monumental legal wins securing a religious exemption from vaccination in Mississippi for the first time in over 40 years, a piece of history to cherish. Or show the world you're proud to be a part of the High Wire family. Deck out your ride with one of our brand new High Wire license plate frames. Whether you're keeping your loved ones cozy and cool with our high wire blankets, beanie, hoodies, and more, wrap them in the warmth of the highwire spirit this holiday season. It's a brave, bold holiday season at the highwire.shop.

Really, this is such a great way to help out the work that we're doing here, in addition to making those matching funds, which I know you're all going to do over this holiday season. We've got some great merch out there, and I really want to celebrate this one, especially for those of you that have donated. This is the ornament commemorating the win in Mississippi. How about this talking piece to your grandchildren, you know, 20 years from now? And they're like, why is this ornament here every Christmas? This is going to be a story you're going to want to tell just one of the many great things that we have there.

You know, it's so easy to start thinking that everything's out of your control, that these things are just too big. The government's too big. The government takeover is too complete. But it's just, I really want you to reflect on the work that we've done here at the high water. When you see these articles like the New York Times that actually is giving credit to the work that we've done, they may say that they think that there's dangerous to it, but they're treating us like human beings now. They're starting to recognize, and I'll tell you in these conversations, they're much different.

Now that we're winning lawsuits against, you know, government agencies, they're paying attention. And we are actually seeing a move towards understanding and a move towards communication. And we have more and more doctors that are now starting to reach out to us and ask for our information, not including all of those incredible world-renowned scientists that have really changed their thinking around the vaccine programs, whether it's Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Geert Bandenbos, all these conversations that are happening here. One of the things I think that makes this experience for us so interesting is, you know, nobody really saw what was happening. I won't even say that that's why we started, but as it turns out, control of the world is going to come through the places that you thought

were good, like medicine and health. Who ever saw when Bill Gates was busted for, you know, running a monopoly with Microsoft and then decided to try and look like a good guy all of a sudden to start investing in nonprofits. Like, oh, wow, he's a philanthropist now. And now we see as he admits, you know, he's basically making more money building more power through his health commitments, his NGOs. And one of those, by the way, the WHO. Remember when Donald Trump pulled funding, American funding out of the WHO, that left in place the number one day. funder was Bill Gates, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates himself in the WHO. And you could sit there going, wow, was that altruistic? Or when you see COVID, when you see the

WHO treaty, are you seeing these people trying to take control of the world? All of this, no one saw coming. Health being used as a weapon. The environment being used as a weapon. You know, social acceptance, diversity being used as a weapon against us. Well, some of this maybe we brought upon ourselves, maybe we made some mistakes, but now we've got to get involved. It really is that moment where these conversations were happening are critical. If we don't understand a topic, we need to look into it. We need to make this a part of our daily lives because right now it may seem like a burden, it may seem like a pain in the butt to have to understand or read a label on a vaccine insert or on a food label or on something the SEC is doing.

I mean, what does that have to do with me? It may literally decide whether you can take a family vacation next year in C, Italy, or if you're only allowed to go to the park because that's within 15 minutes of where you live. These things are coming for us, but we can make a difference. I'm just telling you, now is that time. Now is where we need critical mass. Now is where we've got to celebrate our wins every time they happen because they're awesome, but not fall asleep at the wheel.

COVID is just one of the many attacks on our freedom that's in our rearview mirror uglier and more dramatic things are coming. We will win if we learn how powerful we are. We outnumber them, the people. And that means every brother and sister of every race and creed across this country. when we stand arm in arm in the things that actually affect our lives and keep diversity in the things that we do and celebrate how we're all different. And then we're bringing different things to this experience. When we fight for that, when we stand with that, we stand with the largest body of humanity there is.

And then we take back the power. That's what this is about. You have to be awake. We've got to do our homework. And I hope you find the high wire helping you. get some of that homework done. And we're going to do more of it next week. I'll see you there.