The Highwire with Del Bigtree - EPISODE 364: JUSTICE FOR ALL?

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

Plaintiff in the Critically Important Murthy v. Missouri Censorship Case Speaks Out; Jefferey Jaxen Reports on America’s Workforce Under Attack, Pfizer’s Toxic Spill, and New Documents Expose a USAID Disinformation Directive; ICAN’s Lead Attorney Addresses Concerns Over The TikTok Ban Bill.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Have you noticed 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 any corporate sponsors telling me what I can investigate or what I can say. Instead, you are our sponsors. This is a production by our nonprofit, the Informed Consent Action Network. So if you want more investigations, if you want landmark legal wins, If you want hard-hitting news, if you want the truth, go to Icandecide.org and donate now. All right, everyone, we ready?

Yes. Action. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you are out there in the world. It's time for us all to get together and step out onto the high wire. Well, many of us stepped out into the high wire on this Monday in Washington, D.C. where maybe one of the most important cases in American history is being heard. It literally is dealing with our First Amendment right, that right to free speech. Do we have it? Do we not?

Does the government get to get involved and interfere with our ability to communicate information to each other? There was many great speakers about freedom, many that have been on this show that have discussed medical freedom and the coronavirus. and what happened during the pandemic. Should this case not settle the right way, then it says to the government, it's okay to push your narrative and threaten social media companies that allow people to speak out against you.

To me, that's the end of freedom as we know it. But you didn't see this live stream on CNN or MSNBC or even Fox. I'm not sure how much they care about free speech. But if you did and you do, then you would have watched this stream live on the high wire. And it looked a little bit like this. I'm here to bear witness to a turning point in our nation's history

could possibly be the unraveling of our American democracy. We've got the Supreme Court right behind us hearing one of the most important cases in the history of this nation. If we do not have a right to free speech, that we no longer have the right to freedom. This case is about the government impermissibly bullying and coercing social media to do what the government itself cannot do

to tamp down protected speech. And I don't think it's hyperbole to say that free speech, one of the cornerstones of our democracy hangs in the balance today. This is going to decide who we are as a country. Are we going to be a totalitarian state where the government gets a state,

where the government gets to tell us what to do, what to say, what to think, or are we going to have a free society like we've had before? The government made a massive network of organizations involving the FBI, the federal government, the president's office, CESA, to collude our social media networks, to censor and cancel speech that it didn't like. I pray that they will really go back and look at the record, And they will see that what this really was about was targeting speech by government actors that did not conform to government orthodox.

So we're here to try to get some redress to ask the court to intervene and tell the government, no, you cannot bully the social media platforms. You cannot coerce them. You cannot strongarm them or job on them to do your bidding. The people who want to control speech see them the technologies, whatever they are. radio, television. That's how information is distributed. With the invention of the internet, you understand what happened, right? It turned every single citizen potentially into an editor, into a content creator. Most of this country has no idea how much censorship is occurring.

We've been censored at the medical journals. We've been censored by taking down off of YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram. Shopify, PayPal, Vimeo, dropped us as clients. We couldn't even put out a press release anymore. The medical journals are captured, the main media are captured, so that the truth has been hidden

from Americans and the rest of the world. And this has allowed them to get away with committing what is one of the most severe atrocity. atrocities of a recent memorandum. They sent emails to social media companies saying to take down posts that stated that natural immunity is superior to that of vaccine induced immunity. They convinced over 5 billion people that natural immunity is not the right thing and you should take this shot.

These government doctors hijacked our exam rooms, hijacked your right to bodily autonomy and informed consent, and without a vote, declared themselves the experts. They were the science, and they were in charge. Many of us were censored, shut down for telling the truth, telling you that this looked like it's man-made from the lab. And what would have happened had we actually had that information on time?

What would have happened if every scientist that knew this was a lab leak said, we've got to get inside that laboratory immediately and find out what this is, what's going on. Instead of sending shells from eco health. You and I are united with people across this entire globe. Have you seen them protesting in the streets by the millions, whether it's Australia or Austria or the UK or Germany, they are marching in the streets because they understand what you and I understand. which is that freedom is everything. When we wake up to realize that there's no hero out there

other than the hero in here, in you, and that the force is within and that you are the one, when we wake up to that and realize that this is the hero's journey we're on, that maybe we'll have filled a deep gratitude. We must now correct our course. Now it's time for us to return to truth. And so in the preliminary injunction, the court's hiding with us and we expect them to side with us today and turn this American

Republic back to truth. This has to stop. You guys are being starved of information which is leading to immense suffering and death. Hopefully this case will prevail and that we will be allowed to speak the truth because it's the truth that will set us free. The truth will be there. The truth will be there. Well, it was an incredible day, very exciting. It's always amazing to stand in front of our Supreme Court, and especially on an issue as important as this. For those of you that haven't really been following this, this is originally the case of Missouri v. Biden.

It's now Murthy v. Missouri. And at the heart of this case, obviously, is the Biden administration threatening social media companies to take away their sort of protection right, that they're not responsible for the things said by people on their site. That's how social media works. If they were held responsible for everything that was said, then they couldn't have a social media site.

And that's what the government was basically threatening them. We're going to take away that provision, that protection. And now anyone can sue you for anything that's misstated. That would be a really terrible precedent. And that's a huge threat. I mean, really, it's blackmailing to get what they wanted. But let's be clear, the Supreme Court is not hearing that case. What they're deciding upon is the preliminary injunction that has taken place.

This is still a case that could, who knows, be years out. But what was decided by the lower court was we're going to put forward a preliminary injunction so that the government, the Biden administration right now or any whoever gets elected next, if this case is still sitting in court, that they cannot be abusing this. They cannot continue this reign of censorship until this case is heard. That injunction was held up by the appellate court that made some adjustments, refined it a little bit, but also said yes, the government should not be allowed to continue these practices until this trial has gone through.

And so the Supreme Court is simply ruling on this, should this injunction stand. They're not going to decide the full merits of the case, but let's be clear, When you're deciding on a preliminary injunction, really the idea has to be that the plaintiffs or the ones that brought the case have a good enough case that they could win. And therefore, if it's possible that they're going to prove that this was illegal, that illegal action shouldn't keep happening while we're waiting for the case. So that's at the heart of what is taking place here. I was not able to be inside of the Supreme Court. many of us were outside, but I am joined by Jill Hines, who was inside. Why was she inside the court?

Because she is one of the plaintiffs in the case. So Jill, thank you so much for joining us on the high wire today. Thanks for having me down. So this is a really, really important case, and I'd be, you know, lying if I didn't say, I'm a little jealous that you got to sit in and listen to maybe some of the most important discussions and, you know, and a hearing that may ever happen in our lifetime. And so just from your perspective, first just tell me how did you get to be a plaintiff in this case? Sure. Well, it started back in 2020 when the censorship became obvious. We had actually started our organization

Health Freedom, Louisiana, the summer before COVID hit. So we knew when all of this was going down, that it was not going to be pretty. And around April of 2020. Yeah. No, I talked about that in my speech. I'm not psychic. We knew how this was going to be played. We'd seen the writing on the wall.

Exactly. I joke that I'm not a profit, but we could see, in fact, what was coming down the pipeline. But we started another grassroots effort in April of 2020 called Reopen Louisiana, urging our fellow Louisianaans to open their business. We were voice for them on social media.

And it was a new social media outlet for us. So we were able to actually see how our analytics and our reach across the state grew. And it grew exponentially from April until about October. There you see. We were reaching between 1.3 and 1.4 million people from nothing, really, in April of 2020. Wow. So our voice and our advocacy. became very popular. And then, of course, we got hit with, and we had been getting hit with small

infractions along the way, but in October of 2020, we got slammed with a really hard Facebook infraction. And from that point on, our reach was just incredibly minimal. And of course, I did a lot of complaining about that on social media. And then in May of 2021, I was given the opportunity to testify in front of our legislature on behalf of a bill for free speech on social media. And I described our experience in my testimony before the legislature. And I'm not sure if that, you know, was kept at the back of the mind of our solicitor general Liz Murrell at the time. Our Attorney General Jeff Landry, who, of course, is now our governor in the state of Louisiana. But eventually they approached us and asked if we would write a declaration in support of a lawsuit that they were going to file against the Biden administration for their efforts to censor Americans online.

And we jumped at the opportunity. We had the screenshots that I just showed you right there. I was sending screenshots to my business partners saying, can you believe they hit us for this infraction? But take a look at our growth on social media. then, of course, the rapid decline. So we were a great, you know, example of censorship on social media. We drafted it out in our declaration. And after that, of course, the opportunity arose to sue as a plaintiff. And again, we're a great example of that. You know, we discussed mask, mandates, vaccines. We also, because of reopened Louisiana, discussed the elections. So we had experience

and every basic, every topic of censorship. So we were perfect plaintiffs for this lawsuit. Can I just ask you, I love, you are. You keep saying, you know, we were just sort of right place, right time. It was, you know, you were the right people. What's your background? Are you a lawyer, a doctor? Like, how did you get in the middle of all this?

No. No, I'm a state-at-home mom. I've been a state-at-home mom for almost 25 years now, homeschooled for almost 15 years. Of course, I've been in vaccine advocacy for several years. I started out on the board of the Georgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice when we lived in Georgia with our friend Sandy Marcus. Then we moved back to Louisiana, and I helped found and start Health Freedom, Louisiana,

with my co-directors, Ashley Houston and Fiorella Tripani, also at the time, stay-at-home moms. So no legal background necessarily, no medical background. just stay at home mom's passionate about vaccine choice. You know, I really love this story. I love that you're in the middle of it because it represents to me what makes America so great. That it's, you know, you don't have to be rich, you don't be a lawyer, you don't have to be a dot.

Like, you mean, you were just a citizen in this country doing what citizens should be allowed to do, which is to voice your opinion about what you're seeing, how it's going to affect your children, your family, businesses and now here you find yourself in you know in the Supreme Court in the middle of as I've said what may be a defining moment for America so you were in the courtroom tell me just a little bit of you know your sense of what took place in there what you know what was the energy you know just what you know what happened in there that we didn't see um it was a little tense

I guess that's the best way to describe it. It's an incredibly surreal experience, you know, going through security, giving up everything. We didn't have our phones or anything going inside, escorted every step of the way, basically, by the marshals or people, the security inside. And, of course, once it got started, my view was blocked because there's security in front of every section within the Supreme Court. Finally, I was able to see I was sitting directly in front of Justice Thomas. And I've jokingly said that Justice Thomas, of course he's my favorite of all the justices, but looking at him in action, I don't think he has a poker face.

My impression was that he was extremely frustrated with his fellow justices, especially the more liberal-leaning justices. At one point, he literally reclined his chair, and you've seen pictures of their chairs, they stick up above their heads. He literally reclined flat and just looked up at the ceiling. I think in frustration, that was my interpretation of it. But it was an interesting experience. They were all focused on the solicitor generals that were in front of them arguing. I was not happy with the direction that some of them took in their arguments implying that, you know, our speech, the speech that was censored was in some way insightful or in any way contradicted the First Amendment.

Our speech is protected. We literally voiced opinions on social media and it is protected speech. We never incited anyone to violence. We never, you know, portrayed children in inappropriate ways. So our speech was protected. And so for them to imply that, you know, what they were investigating was in some way contradictory for First Amendment protections is just ridiculous. Can I ask you a question? I'm going to assume that I know the answer, but I don't want to make an assumption. It seems to me, as I'm hearing this case being discussed, the one thing that's, you know, are the, you know, your attorneys representing the people, is it being brought up that

while this censorship was happening, the statements that were being censored have now proven to be actually scientifically accurate and the statements that, you know, the, reason it was being censored was that the government was actually the one misinforming. Is that point being made? The point has been made in previous hearings. I wish it had been hammered home a little bit more in this one. But yes, and Judge Doty, who actually originally issued the original preliminary injunction last July 4th, which I think is also incredibly intentional and purposeful to release that ruling on July 4th. He asked the government's attorneys during that May hearing back in 2023.

He said, if I said masks don't work is that protected speech. And incredibly, the government's attorney said possibly. And we were in shocked. He gave a series of examples. If I said the 2020 election was stolen, is that protected speech? And the government's attorney said possibly. He just went through a series of it. And he said, and they assumed they were implied that, you know, they were protecting us from Russian operatives.

And Judge Doty said, pretend you're talking about my clerk here from Bastrop, Louisiana. If he says, you know, the vaccines cause harm is that protected speech? And the government's attorney said possibly. And all of these things, of course, are issues that have been proven factual that the government initially implied were incorrect. So, yeah, the judge is very well. in tune to what the government has been doing. Do you feel it any way? This is my last really question for you.

Do you have a sense of how they're going to decide and know it's just an opinion and perspective or was it just really hard to tell the way that the conversation went on? Well, we do have standing. I think that was made very clear in the hearing in front of the justices. We have standing.

I was censored, still being censored. So we have standing. If they look at the briefs, then we have no problem. Judge Doty said, again, in his July 4th ruling, that the evidence is in our favor. We have a clear-cut case. So if the justices take the time to read the evidence, read the briefs in front of them, then we win. You know, I actually do have another question, because my understanding is in the middle of this case that Tony Fauci was actually brought in. and you were in the room.

What was the line of questioning for Tony Fauci, you know, when they were talking to him? Yeah, that was an incredibly, another incredibly surreal experience. I can't tell you how surreal this entire experience has been from beginning. And be clear, that didn't happen for the Supreme Court, right? This was, this is a different hearing. Right. Okay, yeah. Yeah, this was just in the line of depositions and evidence, finding evidence.

They deposed several government actors, one of them, of course, being Anthony Fauci and myself and one of the other plaintiffs, Jim Hoff, who's under separate counsel for me, but he and I were the only civilians, basically, in the room that day that decided to attend that deposition. Incredibly enlightening Tony Fauci, of course, that was the time that he said that he could not recall 174 times. Wow. And, of course, now he's writing a book, so he has required. called something. But that day he couldn't recall 174 questions that they asked him. But he did say

that, you know, the gold standard of science would be a randomized controlled study. And they asked for an example of that, you know, from February to March when he started recommending mask and he could not, he could not offer a study. Even though he had been asked, you know, what's the gold standard of testing. So our attorney that day, John Sauer, was incredibly accurate in honing in and pulling out inaccuracies in this man's statement. It was an interesting day. Wow, amazing. Well, look, I want to thank you for taking the time. First of all, and I want to thank you for your perseverance in fighting for your voice, speaking up for your voice, standing at capitals, going into hearings and stating your place. I mean, I've said it before. It's really, you know,

in the nearly 10 years now that I've been in this space, it's the warrior moms that I think we will have to thank for saving our country, for, you know, maintaining freedom. So many men have been asleep at the wheel. I mean, I'm generalizing, of course, but it really is, as I've travel this country. It's people just like you, and it's what makes this country great. So thank you for your dedication to our nation. Thank you for being such an incredible citizen and enlightening us on what took place on Monday. Thanks for your time. Thank you. It's my pleasure. All right, take care. I mean, it's just, it really is amazing. And as scary as these times are, this is it. Does our system still work? That's what we're all asking. But before

before we get too pessimistic or too down on this nation, you know, get involved. All of us need to be involved. We all should have been in Washington, D.C. We should all be going to these events that are shaping, you know, the future for our children as we know it. I've got a great show coming up

and one of those people that's been helping me do this work to shape the world so that my own kids, that I can be proud of what I've left them, that I haven't just destroyed, all that was possible for them. You know, a lot of what motivates me and the people that work here on the high wire is just our own children.

You know, we're here because we want to continue this legacy to continue this brilliant experiment of freedom, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, one of my partners in that is Aaron Siri. And he's going to join us later on in the show. To talk about this case, of course, the Murthy v. Missouri, but also some other cases that I'm really grappling with, the TikTok case.

You know, should we, you know, outlaw a social media platform that is taking our information and is controlled by China? Is that a slippery slope to up for free speech? We're going to get into the nitty gritty of that. I'm super fascinated by it. I think it's going to be a great conversation. But first, it's time for the Jackson Report. All right, Jeff. These are just such amazing, fascinating times.

I remember when we started the high wire, we were talking about issues that, you know, very few people were being vocal about. And now literally censorship around the conversation of vaccines, disease, you know, is in the Supreme Court. Like we're all the way there, right? It is now a mainstream conversation. Super, super interesting. I don't think any of us could ever have guessed it would have been supercharged and mainlined as hard and fast as it was. I mean, just the COVID response or the failed COVID response really did a lot for that. But as you said, you know, when it comes down to the final equation, it's been families and the

warrior moms and the parents of children that were harmed by the vaccines. They really have carried this so far. And, you know, thank you to all of those people. So let's jump into the news here. Last week, we were reporting on, you know, a lot of these farmers, you see farmer protests throughout the world at this point. And there's been really a negotiation that they weren't at the table for. And that is the farms are going to be gone and it's going to be replaced by what looks like fake meat and insect protein.

So along comes Tyson. Tyson foods, it's been a bad year for them. We reported last week that they partnered with Protex to expand into the insect ingredient industry. And then they started closing plants over this past year. Here's one of the headlines. Tyson is closing four plants as chicken sales slump. You go into that is actually six. total. One of the most recent one is this one in Iowa. Reuters is reporting at Tyson Foods to close Iowa pork plant with 1,200 workers, just devastating that town. But last week, as we're

reporting, a report segment came out from Bloomberg regarding Tyson, and it looked like this. It already employs about 42,000 immigrants and refugees, but it sees this part of the workforce as a particularly good one for immigrants. They like to stay. They've often come from very difficult situations and so the company is really investing in a lot of services for them whether it's English language classes certain child care services to try and convince them you know come stay you may make only $16.50 an hour to start but this is a good job so you're at a Tyson fair in New York City not so long ago where Tyson was basically making this pitch what did you observe when you went

there they went out they created a database for these new asylum seekers in New York City specifically they recorded all their documents And so Tyson reached out to them. They went through their database. They went through the list, said, you meet the work authorization criteria. You want to relocate. And we think also that you'll meet our physical.

So these people would come in. They'd learn a little bit about the company. And for the most part, Tyson had already gone through their various details of their application. And so many of them, 17 the day I was there, and then another 70, a couple weeks later, went off to Tennessee to go start their new jobs as Tyson production workers.

I'm going to let you explain this for me because I feel like I want to just start ranting and raving, but I want to make sure it'll get on the wrong side of the story. So what is going on here? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So that wasn't just a one-off job fair. This is a commitment that Tyson made under something called the Tent Partnership. The Tent Partnership is an organization, and you can actually see they have a page there for Tyson Foods.

And it says right on that page, commitment types, hiring and training mentorship. And you start to read into that. In 2020, Tyson Foods committed to hiring 2,500 refugees over three years in the United States. Tyson's Foods will provide its refugee employees with on-site classes through its Upward Academy and Upward Pathways Program, including professional skills training, English as a second language courses, citizenship and legal assistance, general education development certification, digital literacy classes, and financial literacy training. And it's not just Tyson. You go to this tent partnership. You go to the website. It's over 400 multinational corporations.

some of the biggest ones in the United States. You can see are scrolling through all of the organizations that have committed, have different levels, commitment types to hiring what they're saying are refugees. And so why is this such a big problem? Well, at the same time, you're seeing headlines in America. You're buried the lead here, Jeffrey. Well, at the same time, you're seeing headlines in America that look like this. This was on March 8th.

the U.S. unemployment rate rises to highest level in over two years. Another one from the Wall Street Journal. U.S. homeless count surges 12% to highest record level. And so there's no surprise that you started seeing this gigantic backlash here. This was a multimillion dollar fund manager ditches Tyson Foods saying meat giant sacking U.S. workers to hire 4,200 asylum seekers. And then another one here, Tyson Foods faces boycott after report claims company hires migrants. I mean, that's, I mean, look, not to jump on that. bandwagon, but how do you see this any other way? You know, and, and I want to go to my roots and say,

yes, we're a nation of immigrants, for sure. We want diversity, but when you're watching headlines, Tyson devastates a city by laying off 1,200 workers in a town of what, 5 or 6,000, but then days later goes and opens up a job fair for asylum seekers and refugees, and we're staring at a border that has 7,000, people pouring through it without being stopped. We have talked to Michael Yon and these encampments in Panama that we're apparently funding so that we can move these, you know, illegal migrants into our country faster. And then you see that list of multinational corporations lined up to employ these people, not the hardworking citizens of America that are struggling to, you know, afford housing or, you know, afford to eat.

And, you know, it seems to me that at the very least, what I would like to see is you're not allowed to fire anybody within the five years that you decide to use this refugee program. I mean, at least something like that, if we're going to do it at all. I mean, this is insane that we're now laying off hardworking Americans and hiring migrants. And now we have corporations lined up to do so. that is really, really troubling. And the training aspect of it, too, there's a lot of American workers that have been out of the workforce

and the tent partnership. And all these corporations are saying, we're going to give you digital literacy classes, financial literacy classes, legal assistance, language classes, professional skills training. I mean, just rolling out the red carpet to help get them on their feet when there's American workers that have fallen down and need help getting back on their feet. So it makes little sense. And you're driving. down. You're going to drive down the salaries of people that are legally here. All the people that legally made it here. Now they're competing with the cheapest labor in the world and this open flow. Hey, you don't like working. You don't like what we're paying you. There's a hundred other

refugees right behind you, buddy. I mean, this is, this is why I think you're seeing, I was really, you've been shocked to see how many, you know, Latin American, you know, people here are against the open border. These are, I mean, it's really interesting. you can see the nuance. Like, you know, so many of them are saying, look, I got here because I work hard, I did it right, and why am I going to compete with someone that is, you know, just lined up and has their hand out and willing to take anything. I mean, this is, to me, how you destroy a nation.

And this is the tip of a larger picture that's happening in America right now. So we're talking labor, we're talking farmland, and we're talking food production. All of these things are having some major issues with them if you really look at it. So the Department of Agriculture released basically a study looking at foreign holdings of U.S. agricultural land. And we go to a chart that was produced in here just to really put a point on it. And you can see here that blue line, the one that jumped the most, that is cropland. So cropland is, this is a trend in foreign holdings of agricultural land over basically the last 10 years.

And the rest of those, forests, pasture, non-agricultural land, I mean, somewhat steady. But now you're looking at since 2018, this jump in cropland being owned by foreign holdings. This is a gigantic issue. And we go to the companies as well. Everyone probably remembers Smithfield Foods. This is a major, the world's largest pork producer. Here's the headline here. China makes biggest U.S. play.

And you look in the article, China's largest meat processor struck a surprise $4.7 billion agreement to acquire Smithfield Foods Incorporated deal that would mark the biggest Chinese takeover of an American company that underscores the Asian nation's renewed determination to scoop up overseas assets. So hold on for a second. We were just told China is a national security threat working through TikTok, but taking ownership over the largest meat producer in the world on American soil, which also owns over 500 U.S. farms. No big deal. Help me understand the logic in that. I don't really understand it. And now to think that they can come in here line up, take our lane and then just start hiring, you know, migrants to work it, you know, a total

just devastation of the American dream. And also let's talk. We're going to go into a segment in a second, but let's talk environment as well. China has very different views of the environment than the U.S. does. So does this company respect the U.S. environmental laws, respect the environment and trying to protect it here? Because there's a Chinese health company. Who knows?

So now let's talk about actual farms, like small working farms in America here. The U.S. Department of Agriculture put out a report called the Census of Agriculture. They do this every five years. This report was just released. And this is the headline that was produced from that report. Over 140,000 farms lost in five years. So it says in this article reporting on this, between 2017 and 2022, the number of farms in the U.S. declined by 141,733 or 7 percent, according to the USDA's, 2020 census of agriculture released on February 13th. Acres operated by farm operations during the same time frame declined by 20.1 million or 2.2%,

a loss equivalent to an area about the size of Maine. Now in that report, it makes another shocking statement. It says that farms that are earning over a million dollars, so large, gigantic farms, those grew by 36%. But the small farms, those were almost about 10% that had dropped. So this is a- gigantic deal in American. You can see all of these moving parts coming together. They're not, it doesn't, it doesn't bode well for America, it appears. And, you know, on the back of that,

I'm just going to add this here because it really bears mentioning, you have all of these issues. And then you have this headline, how Bill Gates came to own America's heartland. Gates is one of the largest private owners of American farmland. He has about 260,000 acres in 18 states. And so you have Bill Gates, who's supporting insect protein, fake meat. obviously the race to net zero that's that's shutting down farms but yet here he is buying farmland in the United States it doesn't really make sense unless you look at it through a certain lens that we've reported on quite a bit in this show yeah yeah it's really and and is a part of that globalist system pushing immigration the george sorrows is i mean this whole thing is is something that we've

got to keep our eye on and remember and we've reported on so much it's just these types of decisions that have tractors blocking highways, you know, in Europe right now. You know, you're destroying our farms. You're destroying our ability to make food. But then you're supporting all of, you know, the immigration principles. We can't protect our border, but we can keep you from growing, you know, the food for the people. It's just such a weird. I mean, it really is.

It's hard to wrap your head around these decisions. And especially when you think these are like, you know, the America is the leader of the world. how would you as leaders decide, you know what, let's just farm out everything. Let's just bring in, let's just give everybody else our jobs. Let's just give everybody else our land. Right. Very interesting. We report, you know, we've reported quite a bit, speaking of the environment on Pfizer, let's say.

And Pfizer's products and their injectable products and a lot of the issues that there is valid scientific evidence showing harm from a lot of their products, especially their COVID-19 vaccine. So what about their environmental footprint? What about what they're doing to the environment? Well, a story just came out from Michigan, Kalamazoo, Michigan, just last week, which was very interesting. And here's the local reporting on this. Take a look.

Okay. Leaders in Kalamazoo were warning people to stay away from the Kalamazoo River after a chemical spill involving a substance known as methyline chloride. The city is currently running testing to determine the exact level of chemical that leaked into the water. The city of Kalamazoo estimates that up to, 1,057 gallons of methylene chloride spilled into the Kalamazoo River just a few days ago. The Kalamazoo Water Reclamation plant is permitted and designed to treat up to 291 gallons per day.

For reference, just to show you how big of a difference that is, here is 291 gallons inside of 157 gallons. Methylene chloride is an odorless, colorless liquid that is often used as a solvent in the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. Marcus Wasolevich, a toxicologist at the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, says high concentrations of methylene chloride can be harmful if people were to come in contact with it. It can be absorbed into the human body through three routes of exposure. It can be absorbed through the skin, it can be inhaled, and it can be absorbed into your digestive tract if you were to swallow it. According to Wasalewicz, methyl chloride is a very volatile chemical.

It gets into the air easily, making it easy to breathe in. And inhaling it in large quantities can leave the central nervous system conditions such as dizziness, nausea, angling and the fingers or toes. Low-level inhalation of methylene chloride can lead to a lack of attention or hard-to-do hand-eye-ordinated tasks. The city of Kalamazoo has released a no-contact advisory from the Patterson Street Bridge to the D Avenue Bridge. In a statement released in News Channel 3, Pfizer says no public health threat is imminent. I love how it's just like when we're reporting on the train crash in Ohio, like, oh, there's no public health threat. Don't worry, the government's been there. You're good to go.

I also, I mean, I don't know if I heard that news piece, right? But it sounds like we're fine with like, you know, over 200 gallons of this toxic chemical on the river per day. It's just it just really went overboard with the thousands. I mean, it just this is the world we live in. Like, okay, you know, just keep it down to 200 gallons a day of toxic chemicals in our facial. in our water and God forbid someone goes swimming in it or our dogs or that is getting into our well water systems. I mean, this is where I'm just really over it in the United States of America. And frankly, I get a little bit testy with people like, we shouldn't have any regulations.

Can you imagine what this world looks like when people like Pfizer have no regulations whatsoever? We're open for business and we're open to contaminate whoever we want whenever we want. And this speaks to a greater idea of, remember the classic environmentalism? This is what it was all about. Humanity's been off-ramped, especially over the last decade, onto a net zero push to try to keep, you know, temperatures from going up two degrees for some reason that science can't really put a finger on, but you've got to stop it someday. Let's be honest. Let's stop wasting our time with global warming right now. Can you keep the 200 gallons of toxic poison out of my lake and river right now?

That's all I'm world. Let's just do that. Let's start there. Forget about the ocean's going to be a foot deeper 50 years from now. I don't care about that. I want to go fishing today. Fix my river. Exactly. Exactly. So here's the headlines. You heard it in that piece right there. Pfizer assures. Anytime you see this, Pfizer assures. That's where you start your investigation. Pfizer assures no health risk after methylene chloride spill in Kalamazoo. Another one chemical spill possibly affected portion of Kalamazoo River. No contact order issued. And remember in that piece, it said about a thousand, 57 gallons. Seems like a lot. Well, I started researching this story and I came across the headline and I said, wait a minute, this is the same headline, but it was from 2019. Toxic chemicals enter Kalamazoo River from Pfizer wastewater. What? Okay, so let's go. I went into this article. I started reading it says, documents show Pfizer was unable to determine the amount of methylin chloride release or the exact location where it was discharged. Great. The city estimates 2,693 pounds of methylene chloride was released. It's like almost double what was released. just about last week. But here's the best part of this article.

2019. Pfizer spokesperson Sally Betty said the company completed corrective actions required by the city of Kalamazoo, including an explanation of actions taken to prevent further violations and additional monitoring. Betty said employees will be trained and protocols will revise to make sure this won't happen again. Well done, Betty. Nice work. Yeah. You made it a whole, you know, four years or whatever. They held it off through the pandemic. time. So we probably didn't have anybody to look at it, right? We're all messed up and, you know, stuck in our houses had no idea. They're just probably releasing tens of thousands of gallons while you're locked at home. Now's the time. So we start looking into Pfizer as a company

and what it's really been doing in the environment. And we see stuff like this, 2011, Pfizer, others to shell out six million for Superfund Kleeneck. That was in Puerto Rico. And then 2016, stat news fizer fined again for violating environmental law at porto rican plant serial offenders apparently but you know they're going to protect our air right it's not just just water and land that they're having some issues with but here 2008 is in connecticut biser to pay 975 000 for clean air violations and then finally this one uh this is actually the EPA's own website this is from 2013 case summary agreement reached for cleaning up the american cyanamid superfund site in New Jersey. It says the EPA entered into a legal agreement with Wyeth Holdings corporations.

People that have watched this show may know that. A subsidiary of Pfizer Corporation performed pre-construction design work, an initial step in the cleanup of the American cyanamide Superfund site in Bridgewater Township, New Jersey. It says for nearly 100 years prior owners used the location for manufacturing chemicals and disposed of chemical sludge and other wastes on the property, the soil, groundwater, and waste disposal areas called impoundments. We're contaminated with volatile organic compounds, VOCs, semi-VOCs, metals and other harmful chemicals. The groundwater underlying the site is highly contaminated with benzene. And this illustrates that pollution is actually part of their business.

It's not just an accident. This is actually something they budget in and they say, whoops, just show us the fine. We'll pay it. We've made record amounts of money. And so this is how we do business here in America and Puerto Rico, Jersey. Connecticut, wherever our plants are, this is what we're going to do. Right. And let's be clear, they don't budget in disposal. They don't budget in ways to handle it. What they budget in is the legal cost when you find out your dying of cancer, finally do an

investigation, and find out that this superfund site has been, you know, killing everybody for 100 miles. I mean, this is where I'm still an environmentalist, right? This is like what I try to make clear to this audience is I'm not into authoritarianism. I'm not into, you know, mysterious carbon credit scores decided by, you know, some group of people that want to control my every step in life, I believe that environmentalism really should be focused on the industries themselves, on these giant corporate behemoths that have no reason to protect us. They don't care about us. I personally, this is my personal feeling, believe that corporations have no heart, they have no soul, they don't naturally care about people. They care about one thing. They're

bottom line. And so when we say we want to roll back the regulations so we can go to business, what are you talking about? What we need to roll back is regulators that work for the corporations that are poisoning us, go out of their way to protect them, tell us when they show up to the site, oh, it's perfectly safe, business as usual, like they're doing right now in East Palestine, where people are getting sick to this day, but being told by the EPA, nothing to see here. that's what has to change. But we need regulatory agencies. We need these corporations to not just fund the lawsuits when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar,

but actually being forced to dispose of their waste properly so that nobody gets sick. That is a cost to you. And instead, you're making it a cost on us. We pay for it with our tax dollars through health care problems. We're the sickest nation in the world because we're being poor. poison from every single direction there is. Our pregnant women have over 260 toxic chemicals in their umbilical cord. That's what happens when you don't have regulatory agencies protected you.

So let me be clear. I'm not anti-government. I'm not anti-regulatory agencies. What I want is what the dream was, which is regulatory agencies that work for us. We, the people, protect us and make us the most. important priority, not the bottom line of Pfizer. Right. And Del, moving on to, we have Aaron Siri, lead counsel of the informed consent

action network coming up to really talk about the story of the week, which is governments trying to really gatekeep the online conversation, censor the online conversation and debate and discovery and information. And here at the highwire, we really leaned into that censorship, especially during the COVID response. And, you know, we, We took hits. We took hits. We had our YouTube and Facebook taken away, Instagram. You had PayPal shut down.

And basically Twitter was the only social media site that we still had. And we had to build our entire platform to stream the show from the website you're watching it from right now. And even on Twitter, you know, it appeared that we had been throttled quite a bit during COVID. But we are happy to announce that we have just hit 200,000 followers on our Twitter account. All right. Dust is settled. COVID is over. and we're looking forward to really supercharging ourselves on this platform and any other platform

that we are on, Rumble, other platforms as well. So this is the conversation now. As governments are moving Ireland, Scotland, Canada, they're all moving to gatekeep speech and to censor really the online platforms. And even it was reported France, they're trying to censor conversation and criticism about big pharma products. It's absolutely insane. we have a document that has come out from USAID and USAID is an agency for international development. They deal with America's foreign policy. They receive its funding from Congress, meaning the American people, us. And so we go to this headline here and this document really starts to outline things and put things in perspective. This is a report by the Foundation for Freedom. It says

USAID internal documents reveal government plot to promote censorship initiatives. And you can see the cover image of this actual document that was America First Legal has received this through FOIA requests. So we're going to jump right into this document. It's called a disinfo primer. This was released in February of 2021. This is when it was put out, you know, I'll say behind the scenes because it was for internal use only. But it was right, it was the first month that the Biden administration took office. They put out these censorship directives through USAID. And so it goes on to really just in plain language, talk about the issues. And listen to this. It says the nature of how people access information is changing along with the information technology boom and the decline of

traditional print media. Because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which in turn impacts USAID programming and funding choices. So right there, it says traditional information systems are failing. Goes further. It leads, it says it leads to a loss of information integrity. Online news platforms have, have disrupted the traditional media landscape. That's us, Del. Government officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore.

That should be celebrated. That should not be put out by a government agency as a warning sign. So let's go out. And so obviously, these are big issues for these stakeholders. And so they propose some solutions. And so one of the solutions is that they talk about cutting funding, but it says,

But it goes on to say this. To users, these spaces, now it's talking about the alternative media. These spaces enable them to collaborate and validate their own claims and interpretations of the world that differ from mainstream sources. With this, individuals contribute their own research to the larger discussion, collectively reviewing and validating each other to create a populous expertise that justifies shapes and supports their alternative beliefs. Well, in any normal world, crowdsourcing information is a good thing. But this inversion, reading that, again, they're painting this as a terrible, terrible thing. And so there's this guy Thomas Payne writing these letters that is giving a different perspective than the British government. And no longer is the British government in control of the narrative in the United States of America.

We must pass laws to make sure that this stop. That's exactly what we're talking about here, right? I mean, when we think about our founding fathers, they're passing letters to each other while their doors are being kicked in by British shoulders saying, I'm allowed to sleep here tonight. We own you. We control you. It was only through the dissemination of a different narrative

among the people that America exists today. Exactly. And so they present a lot of ideas on how to stop this. One of them is to cut people's funding. And this, you know, this has been known for a long time.

They pull ads, but they actually just laid out in there. They said, thus, cutting this financial support found in the ad tech spaces would obstruct disinformation actors from spreading messaging online efforts have been made to inform advertisers of their risks such as a threat to brand safety

by being placed next to objectable content through conducting research and assessments of online media content additionally with this data organizations hope to aim to redirect funding to higher quality news domains so basically mainstream media's the legacy media has lost losses viewers and its funding's going away we need to redirect funding to them take that funding away from those people that are actually reporting and give it back to us right then it talks about something called pre-bunking pre-bunking and this is like the information version of pre-crime it says as a measure to counter disinformation and make debunking more impactful donovan recommends pre-bunking which she defines as an offensive strategy that refers to anticipating what disinformation is likely to be repeated by

politicians so they're going after politicians pundits and provocateurs during key events and having already prepared a response based on past fact checks because we know fact checkers during COVID were so accurate. So it says pre-drunk, this is this is the cool part. Pre-bunking is drawn from inoculation theory, which seeks to explain how an attitude or belief can be protected against persuasion and people can build up an immunity to miss or disinformation. I have nothing to say about that. I mean, it speaks for itself. Yeah. Jinks. So, so at the end of this document, it has kind of a, just a catch-all image of everything they're talking about, just a one-stop shop. So if you want to put this up by the water cooler at your local government agency,

you can fight disinformation there. And you can see here some of the stuff that's highlighted, eliminate financial incentives, eliminate ad networks that talks about that. But to me, the most chilling statement in this document is this, agree policies on strategic silence. So they're talking, they're telling the media to not everyone, don't, talk about it. So when we, this is this is one of the things we've seen. Hey, Hey, Dale, why aren't people, why isn't the media talking about vaccine injury? Why isn't

this happening? Why aren't they talking about excess deaths? Right. Could it be strategic media silence? Could it be a, I mean, it's not a conspiracy of this is actually staying. This is what they're trying to do. And then of course, educate the public about the threat of information disorder, they say. And what might that look like? Well, perhaps it looks like this in this headline from NBC. Disinformation poses an unprecedented threat in 2024 and the U.S. is less ready than ever. So they're going to try to scare you because, you know, alternative media or whatever you want to call it is actually gaining ground and legacy media is not. So therefore, this is the most unprecedented threat we're ever going to face. But the bigger picture on this whole thing is

this came and was funded by USAID. And people may remember the name of that organization. because it had a little bit to do with the COVID situation. We just went through. Take a look at this. Ms. Powers. Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. That's not the question.

The question is, did you fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? Before my time, there was the Predict program with which you're familiar, which ended in China in 2019. This is a $200 million program, and the GAO has also identified. that some of these grants went directly to the Wuhan Institute of Irology, where there is a suspicion that the lab leak began, that began the pandemic. Has USAID awarded funds to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China? Not to my knowledge, but I'd have to get back. I think the answer is once again, yes. GAO has found that there have been sub-awards of NIH money as probably as well as USAID money that went to the academy of not just medical research,

military medical research in China. Now, part of the unknowns here is we can't get the records to look at this. So I've been asking for months and months for records. In September of last year, I wrote Ms. Powers, the USAID, a request asking for records from the PREDICT program. These are not classified. These are simply records of scientific research, and we want to read the grants to find out what they were doing and whether the research was dangerous or not.

The response I got from your agency was USAID will not be providing any documents at this time. They're just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposal. We're paying for it. They're asking for $745 million more in money and we get no response. Amazing. I just want to point out one of my favorite interviews this year was Rand Paul. If you didn't get a chance to see that just a couple of weeks ago, go check it out. And still in our store, you can go to our store and we are selling deception,

in the book about the lab leak and in his hearings with Tony Fauci. It's a fantastic book. We also have the Spanish language version now of I'm unvaccinated and it's okay. And then the indoctrinated brain, Dr. Michael Nell, super, super amazing. All that's available at our bookstore. So, you know, do yourself a favor and get deeper into these conferences. They're super just fascinating studies of something that is affecting our lives. and is going to go on to be, you know, affecting our lives in the days ahead and should be affecting how we decide to vote and what we're going to do about this, you know, assault on speech.

And as you're about, I'm sure, point out, USAID. So the very company that's invested in Wuhan is also investing in doing work to figure out ways how to censor those of us. they're going to point out what they're involved in. Yeah, exactly. And just to put it completely bluntly, this article does a really great job just to bring this to a close. Why did USAID fund the Wuhan lab? And you go into this article and it says this. Among the key revelations of this years-long investigation was the enormous sums of U.S. government funding spent on risky virus research around the world, but with a particular emphasis on China.

The vast majority of this money was funneled through the New York-based NGO called Equal Health Alliance, led by British zoologist Peter Dazek, and by far the largest portion of U.S. money channeled through EcoHealth, no less than $65 million, came from USAID. Not even the pandemic could put a stop to investment. As recently as 2021, well after EcoHealth Alliance, had been rebuked by the National Institutes of Health for improper practices regarding its funding of the Wuhan lab, USAID, gave EcoHealth Alliance a further 4.67 million. But then it goes and says this. This was merely the latest in a long series of funding rounds. Health received its first installment from USAID in 2009.

The money would come from a then-navel USAID program called PRED, we talked about in this show before, whose mission was to hunt out viruses that jump from animals to humans and could potentially cause a pandemic. So USAID appears to have been literally the wheelwork, which propelled that only DASIC's EcoHealth Alliance in virus hunting, but research at the Wuhan lab, and now they're known their role in directing the

censorship of online conversation. It's a one-stop shop, and they're funding all of it. Wow. It's really amazing, and it is the issue of our time. And I feel like in many ways we're looking at China and we're looking at Russian. Be careful of your enemies and let's get into Taiwan and, you know, all like focus on war around the world and other people's borders and other people's issues. Meanwhile, as we're looking out over the ocean behind us,

you know, prisons are being built and jails and cells being put up that surround our cities, surround our cars, surround our decision making, our tracking our phones, installing cameras everywhere we go, and behind it is organizations like this and our own government trying to get away with controlling our ability to communicate. So I'm glad you're here, Jeffrey. We are obviously going to, you know, take this to the very end. or lose, freedom is at stake, and you've done such an amazing job. And, you know, I really enjoyed my opportunity at the Supreme Court because I really rebuked the press. There's nothing I love more

than to stare, you know, be 15 feet away from, you know, 15 or 20 news cameras and call them out, say, what part of this did you get right? Like, I'm sure what your article is going to say, you know, the government's trying to be able to protect America and, you know, they won't talk about free speech. You can't because you're propagandist. You were involved in the biggest lies. ever told. All right, Jeffrey, great reporting. Amazing, as always. I look forward to seeing you next week. All right. Thank you. All right. Take care. Well, you know, look, if you want to have reporting that's not lying to you, that is not spinning every story so that you think you're really seeing the bad guy and what they see is the bad guy is you. Your ability to communicate,

your ability to have knowledge, your ability to find people that you agree with, God forbid, that see the world the way that you see it. And when you see USAID, look at what they're doing. They're moving the funds away from social media, trying to drag everybody back to mainstream media, even though we're trying to flee. Trying to obviously, you know, scare advertisers. Don't be a part of a channel that doesn't believe.

Well, did you see what they just said on the channel you're advertising on? Get back to NBC. Return to ABC. And meanwhile, you're paying your cable bill, which is continuing to fund all of these things saying it's okay to lie to me. It's okay to keep putting up that news that lied to me all the way through COVID. It had me locked in my house, wearing a mask that did nothing. And then social distancing myself, I mean, when you're in California, I don't see them in Texas,

but in California, the little, like, stickers outside of, they're still there. In fact, I think they should, like, go and make sure that they can never leave. We should have those stickers every six feet away, like in the cement, in gold. so we never forget how stupid we were, what we let them get away with. And why? Because most of us were turning on our television sets and being told,

this is what it takes to be a great American. Man, if you don't want to go through that again, we got some work to do. Trust me, they're getting all rigged up. There's a reason the Biden administration is going to try and win in the Supreme Court and make sure they're still allowed to censor us because they got plans to censor us

about. They got things to do they don't want us to talk about. And if you want to stop them, if you want to win, if you want to get in those courtrooms and get in these systems and continue to have this show be a beacon of truth that has probably the most successful track record when we go back and look at everything we said all along the way of any news agencies in the world. They pulled our funding a long time ago. They pulled our YouTube, our Facebook. They didn't know we had a secret weapon. You. You were the only thing that makes all this possible. There are no corporate sponsors here, like I say at the top of every show. But we have a lot of work to do. We are literally sitting here now going ee, meeny, miny moe on cases that are going to

decide the future of America and thus the world. If you want to end the eneemini Miny Mony Mo game and say, I think Aaron Sears is the best lawyer I've ever seen. He should probably take all those cases. Then you're going to have to get involved. You're going to have to make a difference right now. For all of you that have been donating, making this possible, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the rest of you. Those that are our friends, you're part of this network.

I love that you're sharing and you're talking to your friends. But take the next step today. Help us fund the legal work so that we can keep reporting our wins, so that we can keep reporting how we're opening up more and more freedom, how another state now has an exemption and way to get out of a vaccine program that's being forced on your children. We need you to do that. So today, for those of you that have been thinking about it for a long time, start with a dollar. I don't care. Go to the highwire.com. Hit that top button, donate to I can. Become a recurring donor because it helps us understand how we're going to play the E.D. Meenie-Miny Mo game. How many of these cases

are we going to get to? We're asking for $24. a month for 2024. If you can give more, awesome. If you can get 50 cents, do it. Be a part of change. Start being a part of what America represents. What we saw in Jill Heinz. You don't have to be a lawyer. You don't have to be a doctor. You have to be a concerned citizen that says, I'm actually going to get out and do something about it. It's all Jill did. And she's literally going to go down in history in the United States of America. Be a part of history. Donate to the informed consent Action Network. Appreciate all of you that make this possible. You're amazing and for all of you that are going to start donating today and those that you might just start next week. Thank you for

being here. All right, I want to get into some of the nitty gritty of these cases that are going to decide our future. Some of it involves our children who are hanging in the balance. You know, we've all got one now. We got the kid that's just sitting there like this all the time or it's the cell phone and you can't peel them away. You're like, what are they looking at? Well, It turns out they may be staring at something, a tool designed by China, to study their every move. And now the government of the United States of America wants to outlaw that. Bad idea? Good idea? It looks like this in the news. Breaking news on Capitol Hill. The House just voted on the future of TikTok in the U.S.

TikTok's future is hanging in the balance in America. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 7521. The bill needed two-thirds of the House to and it got that easily. The yeas are 352, the nays are 65. Democrats and Republicans passing a measure to ban the Chinese-owned app here in the U.S. unless TikTok is sold to an American company within six months. The legislation prompted by national security concerns,

including fears the Chinese government could access Americans' personal data and feed them content that would influence their views. Our intention is for TikTok to continue to operate, but not under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tick, tack, toe. A winner. A winner.

Republican Georgia Congressman Earl Buddy Carter, who was one of the bill's sponsors said in a statement, hostile foreign nations should not have control over any application that mines and stores American users' data. Its path in the Senate, it's unclear right now. Majority leader Chuck Schumer has not decided whether the bill will go to a vote. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee

released a statement praising the bill and calling for Senate action. President Biden has said that if it passes, he will sign it. I mean, at the heart of this way, look at today's show. It's okay for China to own all of our farmland. It'll be okay for them to just hire, you know, illegal migrants and fire American citizens. That's not a problem.

I think recently we've been talking about how it's their microchips, Chinese microchips, like all of our defense mechanisms and weapons, that's not a problem. But what is the problem is this social media platform they have? Now, I'm on the fence about it, but I haven't, you know, I'm not sure I fully understand this case. And for that reason, I've gone and called our own Aaron Syria and he joins me now. Aaron, this is one of those that really kind of bowls down the middle for me. I'm very conflicted about it, but part of that, I think, is based on my lack of knowledge of what this case actually is. So can you sort of lay out to me what is this legislation?

What would it do? What is it aimed at achieving? Hey, Del. So this bill, and that's all it is, it's just a bill that has passed the House. There's a version that passed the House. And right now it's in the Senate. And the Senate has its own version of the bill. So what the Senate will do and what that will end up looking like,

it's quite different, in my view, at this point in the Senate, than it is in the House. Okay. What that will end up looking like, we don't know yet. What the then amalgamated version that the House and the Senate agree upon, if they ever agree, looks like we don't know. And then, of course, the president will have a chance to sign it. He says he'll sign it, but he hasn't actually seen it. Nobody's seen what would actually end up in the president's test.

Well, my experience is it doesn't seem to matter to Joe Biden if he's seen it or not, if he says he's going to sign it. I think being able to write out his signature is a feat unto itself, and that's what he's focused on. So let's not wait for him to be the decider in chief. What is it we're discussing? So just talking about the House version, because that was passed by the House. So we do know what that says. Okay. When you look at that version, here is, in a nutshell,

what it does if that became the law of the land. It prohibits U.S. companies from distributing, maintaining, or updating any content that is distributed by what the bill calls a foreign adversary-controlled app. So it has to be an application, a website that is controlled by a foreign adversary. Now, is that one that does it determine, like,

100% control or is it just it's a majority owner? Is any of that a part of the conversation? There is a threshold and there's a number of criteria. So here they are. And before I lay them out for you, just to be clear, it only prohibits companies from engaging with those apps. It doesn't prohibit any individuals. It doesn't allow the AG to go after any individual in America who uses that app. So if you use TikTok after it was banned somehow, the government, couldn't come after you. It only come after the hosting providers and the companies that facilitated. So would it be like for instance like my iPhone will it go after iPhone or Samsung or those that use this have app stores where I can buy it where it has to be upgraded things like that.

That's what it's focused on. We're going after you for carrying this foreign. Okay, understood. All right. Yes. And it's and it levies a pretty significant monetary policy. So for TikTok it would be about $5,000 per users that are impacted, $500 per users for non-Tick-Tac entities, TikTok entities that are found to be considered foreign adversary controlled apps. Now, here are the criteria, though, for a company to fall into this category. Okay. Okay. And so they have to meet a number of criteria.

And I've seen different reporting about what those are. I can lay out for you what it actually, what it says is now bill. Great. One. It has to have at least a. million users per month and the and the app has to be able to allow users to create profiles to share content and then for others to view the content okay so you could see how that already would slice that would slice out a lot of different websites you know for

all everybody out there who's got a website sharing information that's less than a million users this could never apply to those companies if they have a website with millions of users, but the users themselves can't create profiles and share content and view content wouldn't apply to those companies. So it's got to first meet that threshold. If it meets that threshold, then the test then becomes is at least 20% of the company directly or indirectly controlled or owned by currently only one of four countries, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.

Okay. So that's it. It doesn't, the president can't, based on the current state of the law passed by Congress, say, well, I consider some other country to be foreign adversary and it owns 20%. No. The way the bill is currently written only those four countries. And it's got to be 20, direct or indirect. And after it meets that second threshold, there's still a third threshold.

Okay. And that is that the president still has to then find that it poses a third. threat to national security, other than TikTok, by the way, because that the bill makes that determination for the president effectively ready. But for any other website, other than TikTok, the president would have to find that it violates that somehow it's a threat to national security and it has to give public notice and a report to Congress that the website actually is a threat to national security. Even then, so let's say a company meets all those criteria.

The president goes up, yep, million users can do all these things. Yep, 20% at least controlled or owned by one of those four countries. And I find it's a threat to national security. Even then, the company is then given an opportunity, a period of time by which to divest that foreign improper ownership from one of those four countries. Or, meaning sell it, sell it over to an American company. Like divest, meaning like sell that over to a, a, a different company. different owner, like put the majority in, in a country not listed on this list, China, Iran, North Korea.

Right. Okay. So that it's, so let's say 30% is owned by China. Well, then they could get the threshold down to 19% and then that's it. Okay. So China, the Chinese would have to, would have to sell that, you know, a portion of their ownership to get below the 20% threshold. Right. And once they've done that, then.

then the law wouldn't apply as an example of a way to cure. So there's a cure period. There is also recourse in the following way. If the company disputes the finding, if they'd say, no, no, no, we don't have more than a million users. Or wait a second, we have a million more than million users, but you can't create profiles and share and create information or any of the other findings. Or no, no, it's not really directly or indirectly owned by any of these countries.

There is recourse to the federal courts. You can bring a claim and ask another branch of government, the judiciary, to decide whether or not, in fact, that company's in violation of statute. So, you know, I think it's a, I'll say this much. It is definitely far more limited than I've seen reported in some places in terms of based on the House version, again, the House version of this bill. it's more limited in terms of the companies it can apply to beyond TikTok. And beyond that, what those companies, which, you know, how broad and how much discretion the president has to declare a company to violate this law. It's, you know, it's limited, far more limited that I've seen.

And there is judicial recourse and there's ability to divest. That all said, I want to be clear that, you know, we've seen in the past where seeming, you know, the government starts out wanting to do good. Certain agencies are created with good intent. Right. Certain initiatives of the government are created with good intent. And even the initial iteration of those agencies and laws might even have the, have the, of the, support of a majority of Americans because you're like, yeah, that's a problem. We don't want the foreign adversaries controlling the content of what our, you know, our children in this country.

Exactly. I mean, look, that's where, yeah, that's where I'm at right now. It could be a slippery slope. Right. I mean, that's the point is I hate the idea that there's a generation of children that are playing with, you know, really a foreign adversary. I'm comfortable saying that. I don't think China has America's best interest in mind. And while they're playing with it, this thing is taking all of their data. It's studying everything they're doing on their phone, who their friends are, who they're talking to,

what they're talking about. This is a generation that is not gonna have any anonymity, at least not in China. China knows who they are, what they are, what drives them, what moves them. This is that, they're already not going to be free because of this app, like that freaks me out. And this is a very popular app.

The kids are all over. It's giving them. Then you see stories that the TikTok in China doesn't even allow for the type of interaction that it does in America, that it's even more addictive here. It's designed to be that way. All of those things are very, very alarming to me. But as you pointed out, and as I've learned working with you on the work that we're doing, you know, government is not a scalpel. It doesn't go in and do a nice little surgery, sell you up and move you on. It pulls out a chainsaw and starts, you know, cutting away, you know, vital organs while it's trying to get rid of the cancer. And so that's where this is, you know, it doesn't look that bad on its surface right now. And I'm running it through the filter, the high wire filter. You know, we're well over a million users every single month. We have a social media function in which people can, you know, sign up, have profiles, they're interacting as we speak. In fact, I wish I could see what our viewers are commenting right now. Do you want this bill? Do you think it's too slippery a slope? I mean, it's really a big

question. And I think the one thing that protects us right now is that we don't have China, Iran, or, you know, North Korea owning some part of this nonprofit. But, you know, do we have donors from China? Probably. Do we have donors from, you know, North Korea? I don't know. All have to check, you know, with our staff on that. But the problem is you and I both know that once a bill goes through as citizens we lose our attention on it. And then it starts getting thrown in some pork bill to just, oh, and while we're on this other bill about a bridge somewhere, we want to make a little adjustment really quickly in a, you know, in a decision today of voting with this many pages to just make a few little alterations to that TikTok bill.

We're going to add a bunch more countries. We're going to lower the amount of people. And frankly, if you're just taking donations from people in another country, and we were all asleep at the wheel. And next thing, we're getting a knock on our door. And the authoritarian government of the future of America is saying, oh, yeah, well, you're breaking the law. You're under arrest or, you know, you're going to, maybe you're not under arrest. You just owe $5,000, you know, for about 7 million people. And then we're in trouble, right?

Yes, I agree in both of those concerns, meaning you're showing the reason for the bill and the reason against the bill. And I agree with those. To put another gloss on it, in terms of the danger that is currently presented by TikTok or by any app that's controlled by a foreign adversary, as it were, think about it. there's an opportunity to influence the minds, thoughts, beliefs that millions of American children have. And they will carry those into adulthood. Carry those into, and those are the future leaders of this country and many other countries around the world. And, you know, some other countries have shown that they're very smart at playing the long game, as it were. And, you know, there is a long game here.

You know, imagine the American government had an opportunity to have a company that wrote the textbooks for, you know, that were used in schools as social studies in every school in China. I think the Chinese government might have an issue with that. In some ways, this is more, this is even more influential in that children will spend hours a day on their devices just scrolling from video to video. without any filter, without any standardization. You don't even really know what they're seeing. So, you know, I think, frankly, even worse, even more dangerous than having the information about the average American citizen. It is the ability to influence what they think, what they believe now and going to the future.

On the other hand, the question is, what's the solution for that? Is it a solution for that more heavy-handed government that comes in to basically to censor. That's what it's doing. It is mass censorship or or is it more speech? Traditionally the way the government should deal with these issues is they take the bully pulpit

and they get out of it. Let me jump in here, Aaron, because I think this is such a perfect segue into an issue we think we're right on. I mean, really what you just said is really actually it's terrifying. You're right. We all saw the interview with the KGB

agent that was done by Edward Griffin. I've discussed that in this show. Super fascinating. He's saying we're going to infiltrate your universities. We're going to take over, you know, your schools of thought. We're going to get you through your media. You won't see it coming. We're playing the long game. Communism will win. You just don't see it. Americans are too distracted. And what you're talking about is a fantastic tool for communism in the hand of every single child in America that is being, brainwashed while we're saying here honey I can't afford a babysitter today so just get on your TikTok and I'm going to go what could go wrong what could possibly go wrong I don't know the future of America but here's what's fascinating didn't even think about this segue wait till this moment

it's exactly the argument we heard was being made by some of these justices in the supreme court in the murthy versus Missouri case they're saying if our children are being told to jump out a window, you know, and by an app, are you saying the U.S. government can't step in and say, stop this immediately? Stop this as a social media company? Because that's what we're saying. Now the government is saying, we have an app in America that is being allowed to potentially manipulate the minds of our children. And as a government, we have no right to do something about that. I didn't even realize that there would be any part of this, you know, Biden case that I might agree with. But now I at least see some of that argument, see how they're making it.

So let's jump into that a little bit. Murphy versus Missouri. First of all, why is it Murphy versus Missouri when I've been calling it Missouri versus Biden up until this moment? What happened? Why is that the case? Well, that's because it was the Murphy, which is the Surgeon General of the United States, who was sued in the case. So he was the defendant below appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court SCOTUS. And so they, so in so he was the petitioner, right? He was the appellant. So he, it got inverted.

So it became Murphy versus. Since he's appealing, he's now bringing the case so it flip-lops the other way. I'm coming back at you. Just flip-flop the names. Interesting. Okay. I'm glad we got that square way. They love to make things confusing.

It's wonderful. Okay. So to my point, one of the judges, I believe, that made that argument about children jumping out of windows. Let's just take a look at this video that's getting a lot of attention from this case. Justice Jackson. So my biggest concern is that your view has the first amendment. hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would you have the government do?

I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me because I'm really I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source,

of those problems. All right, I'm going to let you jump on that. What do you think of those statements? That's a Supreme Court Justice now. Yeah. And with all due respect to Justice Jackson, the purpose of the First Amendment is to hamstring the government. Right, right.

That's why it's there. Yeah. That is the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the government's ability to infringe on certain domains of life in America. Paramount among those are those laid out in the First Amendment,

including the freedom of speech. The founders of this country hard-learned that the greatest threat is when you let government censorship. That to be sure, to be sure, letting people have free speech poses dangerous. It does, I'm sure. But the greater threat is letting the government censor speech.

That throughout the arc of history has always resulted, always resulted, and some of the worst travesties we have seen. It is when the government believes that it cannot persuade you with reason. It always resorts to bullying to censorship. That is the first step in any form of government. government that ends up harming the people. Listen, it has been the same retort throughout history of every government that we have to censor you. We have to limit you in order to protect you.

This is nothing new. And it was very, very sad to see, you know, this oral argument for me to watch and listen to this oral argument. Yeah. Where that historical context is just lost. And, you know, with all due respect to the attorney. generals of Missouri and Louisiana who should be commended for bringing this case. Absolutely. But I want, just remember this, in that courtroom was all government. The judges are part of

government. The U.S. Solicitor General is representing the federal government. And who's representing, quote unquote, the other side is the Solicitor General of Louisiana also a member of government, state government, none of less, but government. So it was all three. of those everybody in that courtroom arguing was government folks who you know to and look I don't the Solicitor General of Louisiana you know again I commend them for bringing this case but obviously you know his job in Louisiana is to defend the state of Louisiana including by the way when people bring claims against Louisiana for violating their speech under Louisiana probably of constitution so or so you know there was a particular you know and you could see

see the bias in that courtroom, I thought, in a stark degree. Where for just as one example, the judges were talking about more than one, how, well, they have to interact with the press sometime. They have to tell the press they're wrong sometimes without realizing how in the world is that comparable to the scenario before then. It's not. It's not comparable at all. The judges aren't calling up New York Times and saying, hey, New York Times.

and saying, hey, New York Times, we want you to not, we want you to censor some third party out there because we don't agree with their views. They're not doing that. They're saying, we think you got something wrong. They're not trying to put their hand on an entire policy area. They're not comparable. And it was, you know, you got to really see the conversation should have started and ended with. First Amendment says you can't censor.

speech and that there are other less restrictive ways to address the problems that the government saw with speech and it should have used those like get on TV and say we think that stuff's wrong but not censor and certainly not do it behind closed door private emails and meetings right i mean they they did that for they did it that way for a reason you know i think that and in you know as i listen to you and we think about it again, you know, right. So you look at TikTok, you look at this case. These are very, you know, important moments. And we do have to ask ourselves, what is the greater evil? Is the greater evil to lose the primary function that our founding fathers believed that existed in your speech? Without speech, it's the First Amendment. Without speech,

what freedom do you have? Without the ability to call out the government and say, you're lying or you're wrong or your science is wrong. And frankly, you know, when I asked Jill, who was inside the courtroom, did the, you know, did your attorneys, did the Louisiana representatives, did they make the argument that what we saw was the incorrect statement? You weren't stopping kids from jumping out of a window. the government was destroying kids' education, was lying to them about social distancing,

which had no basis in science, was making them wear masks, which Tony Fauci couldn't point to in the hearings, a single double-blind study that said they worked and forget about are they causing illness and making kids breathe their own CO2 and what's happening in their mental health? I mean, all of these things.

We were told the vaccine would stop transmission, and it didn't. So in the end, the very point is that if the government is in control of the narrative, what happens when it's wrong if citizens are not allowed to call them out? And that argument is apparently not even made in the Supreme Court. Would you have made that argument, Aaron? That's my question. Would we, would we, or is there a reason you just don't go, that's the third rail dell. You just don't understand what the environment inside the Supreme Court is. Oh, I mean, if I was getting to make the arguments there, you know, you know what I would argue because, as you know, we wrote an amicus brief in this case on behalf of ICANN, the Informant Action Network, in which we laid out, which I don't think you'll find out.

For people that don't know, let's get into that. What is an amicus brief for people that don't know what that is? So it's Latin for like friend of the court. And so, you know, in this, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will accept briefs from you know, non-parties that they believe might help them inform them in terms of how they make a decision in the case. So on behalf of the informed consent action network, we filed an amicus brief. So that's a legal brief.

I just saw it on the screen with the U.S. Supreme Court in which we supported the position taken by Missouri and Louisiana in the case, that in fact this was a violation of the First Amendment, what the federal government did vis-a-vis censoring people during the last number of years. So the arguments I would make are clearly laid out. And among those is indeed that the history of the First Amendment and how important it is, it really, you didn't hear any of that in the courtroom the other day. In fact, I didn't hear, I didn't hear even any ode to it whatsoever. And I think you just hit on an extremely important point, which is that if you let the government censor, if you let the government do what these judges keep saying, you know, a number of these judges were arguing,

well, you know, we have to almost protect the government from the First Amendment so that we can let the government save people, protect people. They've got it. They've got it exactly backwards. What that really does in this context is let the government be the arbiter of truth, which is one of the most destructive, destructive things that we can allow the government to do vis-à-vis our democracy, which is the government gets to bully. And let's just stop a bullying because that's enough because nobody can argue they isn't bully. And let's not forget that it's every, I mean, the way our system works is partisan. you could have a Republican or a Democrat leading. And so if the narrative, if the government has the correct narrative and the Supreme Court decides that they're the ones that know what's right, but that right at the moment is

in the hands of a Democrat. You know, in a couple of years it could be in the hands of an independent or a Republican. But that is, it's a bias. The government by nature has a bias. and if it gets to decide what truth is and what can be shared, it's absolutely the end of the system as we know. And frankly, could be the last time you have any separation between parties. And at the point at which the ruling party gets to decide all speech that is allowed,

especially in social media platforms, which is now the number one way we all communicate, then we just, the bubble has been sealed. It's over. You are now stuck in the thought bubble that your government's going to allow is has got you imprisoned it. And yeah. And the specifics of what were censored was not really discussed either. And when you look at that to your point, what were we talking about?

What were they censoring? They were censoring a scientific discussion effectively with people with varying degrees of knowledge about, you know, the quote unquote underlying science. with regards to the safety of the vaccine, the COVID vaccine, with regards to the safety of masks, about the efficacy of the mask, efficacy of the vaccine, these are not things that should ever be censored

by the government, certainly not coercion and bullying. The moment that this U.S. Supreme Court tells the government that their backroom, smoke-filled dealings with these social media companies happening behind closed doors, most of which we would have never have found, or known without discovery in that case is okay,

they will then use that bullying to then censor to get to what they think is whenever they think they're right. Because basically here, when you think about it, they believe they were going to save everybody by censoring this information. But that's what the government always believes. Is why I just said 10 minutes ago. They always think they've got to do this

or everyone dies. They can make an argument for anything that if you don't do this, a lot of people are going to die. But again, the greater harm is to let them censor. That example that was given of, you know, well, there's a TikTok video that has children jumping out of windows. Well, why don't you put out a parental advisory? How many parents, if they see that advisory and know about it, are not going to act? Why don't we trust the American population people to be adults? Amen. It's time to trust the American people again. I think about this all the time, and we've reflected on this, you and I when we've talked. You know, we act like our founding fathers somehow lived in a more intelligent time because they're

very eloquent, very poetic in the way they're right. Their cursive is impeccable, you know. But the truth is, is they were surrounded by probably the most uneducated population you can imagine. Many just farmers and people that got here were just trying to survive, didn't have time to go to school, we're working on the family farm. When you think of the debates they had should every one of them be allowed to vote? Should it only be the landowners, which ultimately would probably be the educated among us? And that debate was a close call, those votes that happened. But what they decided is freedom is the most important thing, that the rest of it falls apart, that nothing we are dreaming about will ever work if we only decide freedom for the few, or freedom

for the educated, or freedom for those that are in government, or the government is the one that has the freedom. That's what we ran from. That's what England. was practicing. What our government said, we're going to try an experiment. And frankly, we haven't killed ourselves yet. We're here right now. And we are being tasked, sure, the world is modernizing. Sure, it's getting to, you know, we're dealing with new issues here. But it's still the same. Do we trust the people, you know, or not? And if you don't trust the people, then you don't trust the vote, that you don't trust the system, and you don't trust freedom. What's at stake?

Government works for us, not the other way around. Nobody in that courtroom the other day, in my opinion, really brought that to the floor. That's unfortunate. And I don't think our founding fathers ever envision this. Because when you look at the First Amendment, it says Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't even talk about the executive. I don't think our founding fathers could ever even have imagined an administrative state as we have today in an executive branch that would act in the manner that it is doing. Aaron, thank you for all the incredible work you are doing for us.

You understand the Constitution, your ability to break this down for us is really valuable. These are some of the most important moments in the history of this nation. And as we attempt to be beacons of light and hope and liberty for the world to view, the world is watching. I hope we act appropriately. Thank you so much for breaking down for us today. Thank you, Del. All right, take care.

You know, freedom fighting in so many ways, I said it, it's, you know, it takes all kinds. It just takes, I mean, you know, when we think, look, in many of our founding fathers, I think when they're the 20s and 30s when they were writing these things, when they having these conversations, we, you know, we have a misperception of what makes someone talented or not or capable or not. The heart of this case is, you know, a mom that, you know, and amongst others that was censored and it's important. It's what makes this nation great.

And as I said before, it's warrior moms that has really, you know, made a difference especially in the work that I do around medical freedom. In this very specific space, I would say that the giants whose shoulders I stand upon, the giants whose work makes I can possible, the advances we've made, being able to roll back and bring back the religious exemption in Mississippi, those giants are the warrior mothers and we lost one of our more, you know, warrior moms this week. This was Sue Collins, a brilliant fighter. If you didn't know who she was, here's just a little bit about her. Look out at this audience. Remember what the police officers said here. In the 20 years that we

have been doing security here, we have never seen a crowd this big on any issue before. That means of All the other issues of the last 20 years have been voted on. Some, I'm sure, very contentious. No one has ever been this organized. So I just want to bring in one of the organizers that helped made this happen. Sue Collins is co-founder of New Jersey Coalition for Vaccine Choice. She joins me via Skype. Sue, first of all, congratulations.

I mean, it feels like we won the Super Bowl. I'm still recovering. I mean, my voice is shot, you know. I'm beat up. But the question would be, how did the leaders in New Jersey pull this off? It's been a long haul. I mean, we've been defending our religious exemption and our exemption rights for many, many years. I've been involved in this issue for 25 years now.

And we've really tried to step up our presence in Trenton and the last couple of years, realizing that that's where it happens and that's where it's happening. and our legislators, our legislators need the education, and they need to, you know, do what's right and stand with us. And so this was just the next step in all that and seeing how many people have gotten involved, how many different groups, all working together with a common message of taking back our health

and really truly making New Jersey on the forefront of what public health can be. And we've been at this for many, many years. And I think the key is the conversations, the individual relationships, building that trust, meeting people where they are, and having the honest and the difficult discussions and not being afraid to talk about this issue and making it public because it is an issue that affects everybody, whether you choose to vaccinate with everything or choose not to vaccinate at all. Being forced to do this is not the answer. More and more people are finding the truth. And once you have the truth, it can't be taken away. Well, Susan was just an amazing contributor to our movement.

I stood with her and we all were together at the Battle of Trenton, which, for those of you that saw that happen in real time, we were able to stop a bill that was going to take away the religious exemption in New Jersey. Remember, New Jersey is the heart of the pharmaceutical industry. It was an incredible day, an incredible time. We yelled and chanted all day into the night and finally brought home the victory there. And I would say that that was a turning point in this movement. It was the moment that the pharmaceutical industry realized that the people were here,

we meant business, especially those warrior moms, that made it possible. And from that moment, it's really been a march. We have been charging and breaking through barriers and tearing down walls and gates and rolling back legislation and passing laws, and then COVID hit, and look at how many people woke up in the middle of that. You know, I know I keep telling you all to, you know, try to make a difference.

And I guess today, reach down, man, woman, child, whoever you are, find that warrior mother inside of you, that, you know, cares about the future. You know, the big tree side of my family, the Native American side says, you know, live in this world as though you are, caring for the seven generations that are going to follow you. When we think about this moment, you know, and I want to say this right now because it's about

parents, are you having conversations right now with your children about what's happening at the Supreme Court? At every age, wherever they're at. Are you talking about freedom? Are you talking about what this country means to you? What it will mean if we lose the ability to converse with each other? Are you talking about TikTok? Ask them, how do they use it?

Do you think it's okay that all of your data is being stored by a foreign national company? Do you realize our government wants to take that away? This is how we get involved. Don't just let TikTok raise your children, please. And today, when you decide to donate to the informed consent action network, why do you sit your kid down with them and tell them what you're doing? Let me show you what we do in our family in this world. We donate.

We invest in those that are out. to protect us that are fighting for our freedom of speech. This is what we do. We vote with our dollars. Let me, you know, sit your son down, your daughter. This is how we do this. It's so important right now. That generation is going to inherit a lot of the issues. Our generation right now, we're being called a task. This is our moment. For this, we were literally born. The future of the world is being decided right now. The future of this nation is being decided right now. We just got checked. We just got locked down. I know we all want to move on, Dell, well enough, on the COVID thing. Yeah, okay, until it comes right around the corner and happens again.

Are you prepared? Did you learn your lesson? Do you know what being prepared means? How much does it matter to you? How much does it matter to your children? It's up to us. us. If freedom is going to last, we need to sing its praises. We need to talk about it with our friends, our families, our children. Take it on, make it important. Or we will regret what we're left with. Our silence is our end. Our voice is our First Amendment right. act accordingly. I'll see you next week on the highwire.