In this incredibly important, 4-minute video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticizes the Democratic Party elites for undermining the democratic process. He highlights the DNC’s plans to punish states where President Biden lost in 2020, which he believes could disenfranchise millions of voters. RFK Jr. expresses concerns over the DNC’s secretive strategies that could overshadow the popular vote. Reflecting on America’s democratic history, he urges citizens to sign this “Demand a Fair Vote” petition before the DNC’s pivotal vote on September 14th:

https://fairvote.kennedy24.com/

TRANSCRIPT (RFK Jr.)

In a real democracy, every citizen has the same prized possession: their vote. That vote gives you a say in whether you can earn a good living, whether your kids have access to decent schools, whether they’ll be sent to war, and whether they’ll get health care. When democracy crumbles, citizens become more like serfs. They labor under laws that are made by oligarchs and elites. They work two jobs for barely livable pay. They get taxed to fund Wall Street, wars, and bank bailouts. Your vote is your power, and right now the Democratic Party elites are trying to take it away from you.

At the order of President Biden, the DNC is punishing states where President Biden lost in 2020. He came in fourth, for example, in Iowa and finished last in New Hampshire. So, the DNC is trying to move those states out of their historic first slots and start instead with South Carolina, where President Biden finally won his first victory. What are you going to do about RFK Jr?

“I’m very, very proud of the president, and we’re going to get it done for him and Kamala Harris in this primary and again in the general election.” ~ DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison

Those changes violate state laws, so the legislatures can’t comply with the plan. But do you know who the real losers are? You are. You’re going to lose your right to vote in a free and fair election.

Based upon the DNC’s plan, if you live in the state of New Hampshire or Iowa, your vote just won’t count. And Georgia too, by the way. In that state, they want to kick anyone off the ballot if they campaign in New Hampshire. These crooked measures will disenfranchise millions of citizens. These people will be robbed of their votes just because the elites say so.

And it’s not only voters in a handful of states that the DNC is trying to silence; it’s every voter in every state. So how do they plan to do that?

Well, there’s another rule that the committee is drafting behind closed doors, and it’s similar to a trick that they used to kick Bernie Sanders out in 2016. They’re flooding the convention with party operatives with opaque names like PLEOs and automatic delegates whose job is to drown out the popular vote. Once the PLEOs and automatic delegates arrive at the Chicago convention next summer, the vote tallies all change, and the People’s Choice can be overturned in an instant. I could win two-thirds of the popular vote and still be denied the nomination.

That’s not democracy. That’s theater.

When I was growing up, this country was the democratic light of the world. We were the exemplar. We were the template for all the other nations on Earth. This is what democracy looked like. We did it better than anybody. Based on our example, dozens upon dozens of new democracies took root in every corner of the Earth. But when we deny citizens their right to vote, and when we rig the process in favor of insiders, then the flames of democracy flicker, and someday soon, it will go out.

The good news is that these rules don’t take effect until the DNC votes on them on September 14th. So let’s use our power while we still have it. It’s time to demand a fair primary process where every vote counts equally, and the candidate who gets the most votes wins the nomination. That’s the democracy we learned about at school. That’s the democracy that people around the world yearn for. That’s the democracy that we now have to fight to protect. Whomever you plan to vote for next year, now is the time to tell the DNC that you want democracy back in the Democratic Party. Add your name to the “Demand a Fair Vote” petition below:

https://fairvote.kennedy24.com/

Please use your voice while you still can.

I’m Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and I appreciate your help.

“How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’  That’s exactly where I went in all of this.” – Albert N. Stubblebine III

At the time of the interview, Albert N. Stubblebine III was a retired Major General in the United States Army. (Sadly, Albert passed away on February 6, 2017.) He was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984.  In this compelling interview, Stubblemine reveals the following information (what he calls “dots”) about the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001:

• Stubblebine initially believed the official story regarding 9/11.
• Then, he saw the hole in the Pentagon. He can prove that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. DOT.
• All of the sensors around the Pentagon were turned off except one. That one sensor captured an image of the object that hit the Pentagon.  It looked like a missile.  But, after he went public, the imagery was changed to look like a plane. DOT.
• The collapse of the twin towers was caused by controlled demolition – not the fuel from the airplane. DOT.
• Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted that building 7, which was not hit by a plane and had only a small fire, was intentionally “pulled” – which is word used for controlled demolition.  DOT.
• All of the air defense systems around Washington DC were turned off that day. DOT.
• Also on 9/11, there was an exercise designed to mimic an attack on the towers by airplanes.  DOT.
• When you connect the DOTs, the picture says that what we were told by the media was not the real story.
• Stubblebine, visibly upset, describes how he felt when he realized the truth about his government after having a strong belief in his country since early childhood: “My belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point.”

Below are some notes from the interview including a partial transcript. (Be sure to watch all the way to the end, where you can see the deep hurt on his face when he recalled the moment that he realized that his government, the government that he proudly served for over 30 years, was not what he thought was):

5:15 Stubblebine hears about the 9/11 attacks: “We’re at war.”

6:00 Stubblebine said there must have been intelligence information to know that an attack was coming and we didn’t see the signals.  Somebody missed it.

6:35 He initially believed that it was a terrorist attack done by other forces: “Not my government.”

7:45 Stubblebine then saw a photo of the Pentagon showing the hole in the Pentagon supposedly made by a Boeing 757.  “Something’s wrong. There is something wrong with this picture…”

8:30 “Well there was something wrong. And, so I analyzed it not just photographically, I did measurements… I checked the plane, the length of the nose, where the wings were… I took measurements of the Pentagon – the depth of the destruction in the Pentagon.”

9:05 “Conclusion: airplane did not make that hole.”

9:10” I went public at the time. I am the highest-ranking officer, I believe, that has ever gone public… The official story was not true.”

9:25 “I was very careful to not say what it was because I couldn’t prove it. I was careful to say that it was not the airplane that did that, because I can prove that it was not the airplane.”

9:45 “In the hole, however, was a turbine that looked like a turbine from the missile… I can’t prove that, I don’t know. But there was something there that did not look like the engine from an airplane, but did look like a turbine from a missile.”

10:10 “Later I saw another photograph taken by one of the sensors on the outside of the Pentagon. Now, all of the sensors had been turned off, which is kind of interesting – isn’t it? That day, why would all of the sensors around the Pentagon be turned off? That’s strange. I don’t care what the excuse is.  That’s strange. There happened to be one that apparently did not get turned off. And in that picture, coming in, flying into the Pentagon, you see this object, and it obviously hits the Pentagon.  When you look at it, it does NOT look like an airplane.  Sometime later, after I’d gone public, that imagery was changed. It got a new suit around it that now looked like an airplane. But, when you take the suit off, it looks more like a missile – not like an airplane.”

11:30 “Let me go back to the next very important piece of information.  The amount of energy to melt the girders – the steel in the tower – cannot be gotten to a melt point with the fuel that was in the airplane.  Not possible!  So, any melting did not occur as a result of the hit from the airplane.  Point. I call it dot. OK?  DOT.”

12:10 “When you look at the tower coming down, what you see at each floor is successive puffs of smoke: puff, puff, puff, puff… all the way down. Where are the puffs of smoke coming from? Well, they claim that they are from the collapsing floors… No. No. No. Those puffs of smoke are controlled demolitions. That’s exactly what they are because that’s exactly how they work. And so, the fact that the airplane hit, it did, it did not cause that collapse of the building.  The collapse of the building was caused by controlled demolition.”

13:05 “Fact: Building 7 – Silverberg, I believe is the name of the owner…” (his name is actually Larry Silverstein), “…was on a video and you could see Building 7.  And, there was a fire in Building 7, there’s no doubt about that. No airplane hit it.  I assume that the fire came from some debris, but I’m not even sure of that.  But, in the lower right-hand corner of the building was a fire – not a very big fire. It didn’t appear to be out of control. It certainly was in a small part of the building.  But, then he is heard on the video and he says Pull it.  Then, the building collapsed. What does pull it mean?  Let me tell you.  That’s the order for controlled demolition.  That is the phraseology that’s used for blowing up something.”

CLN Editorial note: Stubblebine got a little mixed up with his facts regarding the Silverstein video, which you can see here.  The video is a PBS interview with Silverstein that was shot sometime after 9/11.   The footage of Building 7 going down is historical footage, not live during the interview.  Nonetheless, Silverstein does say that he gave the order to “pull it.”

15:00 All of the air defense systems in that part of the country had been turned off that day.  All of the air defense systems had been turned off… Why would you turn off all of the air defense systems on that particular day unless you knew that something was going to happen? It’s a dot.  It’s information. But, it’s strange that everything got turned off that day.  DOT.”

15:50 There was an exercise that was designed for the air defense systems that was an attack on the towers by airplanes.  Isn’t that strange that we had an exercise that mimicked what really happened?  Strange that we had planned an exercise that was exactly what happened. And, at the same time, the air defense systems were turned off.  Don’t you find that strange? I find that really strange?  DOT.  Just a piece of information.

16:50 “But how does it correlate with everything else? So, you see the dots.  You have all of these dots. They’re just bits of information.  But, that’s exactly how the intelligence world works.  You get a bit of information here. A bit here, and a bit here. And, pretty soon you’ve got a picture. To me, what does the picture say?  The picture says that what we heard and were told in the newspapers, the media, was not the real story. There’s enough doubt in the official story where the story is absolutely not consistent with what happened. They paint a different picture than the one that was given to the media.”

17:45 “How easy is it for you to shift your belief system from ‘I totally believe in my government to ‘Oh My God! What’s going on?’  That’s exactly where I went in all of this. Because my belief system was so strong from age five when I could remember standing on a parade ground at attention with not anybody telling me to do that – at West Point. I did it because I wanted to do it – because I believed! And then going to the military academy and serving, defending…

18:30 The real story was, I have a question I guess. The real story to me is: who was the real enemy? Who participated in this? Who planned this attack? Why was it planned? Were the real terrorists the people in Arab clothing? Or, were the real people that planned this the people sitting in the authority in the White House?

Physical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony That A Missile Hit The Pentagon – NOT a Boeing 757

The following physical evidence and eyewitness testimony is presented in detail below, most of which is video footage:

1. Analysis of the physical damage to the Pentagon and lack of debris. You can’t fit a 125 foot wide Boeing 757 into a hole 16 feet wide.  The theory that the plane vaporized is idiotic.  And, what happened to the wings that allegedly sheared off?  DOT
2. The official story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour is absurd.  A Boeing 757 could not possibly perform that maneuver according to experts.   DOT
3. AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”   DOT
4. No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon.  The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would have been allowed to approach the Pentagon.   DOT
5. CNN reporter on the scene shortly after the impact saying that there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.   DOT
6. Aerial footage showing no debris (confirming the report by the CNN reporter), plus more analysis showing the size of a Boeing 757 compared to the size of the hole in the Pentagon.  Recall also that the initial hole was only 16 feet wide and the CNN reporter said that the Pentagon structure did not collapse until about 45 minutes after impact.   DOT
7. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission Member Timothy Roemer both saying that a MISSILE was used on the Pentagon.   DOT
8. Analysis of the Pentagon video footage of the alleged Boeing 757 (it certainly doesn’t look like a Boeing 757) hitting the Pentagon that concludes it was faked.   DOT
9. A leaked video showing a missile hitting the Pentagon.   DOT
10. Expert testimony that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicated that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”  DOT
11. Two witnesses who were at the Pentagon who said there was no debris or jet fuel, and another witness who “was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” DOT
12. KEY POINT. Many people reported seeing a low-flying plane heading towards the Pentagon.  Thanks to a series of videotaped interviews with multiple witnesses by the Citizens Investigation Team, we find out that: (a) a plane did approach the Pentagon, but it was smaller than a Boeing 757, and it approached from a different angle than reported by the 9/11 commission; (b) the plane did not actually hit the Pentagon, but instead flew past the Pentagon at under 200 feet – immediately after the missile hit; (c) the downed flag poles at the Pentagon were staged, which was admitted by the taxi driver whose taxi was supposedly hit by one of the falling poles. DOT

Connecting the dots, a very clear picture emerges: (a) American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) disappeared from radar and never re-appeared; (b) instead, a smaller military craft appeared on radar 36 minutes later that was capable of performing a difficult maneuver and could approach the Pentagon without being shot down; (c) a low-flying military craft approached the Pentagon but merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after the Pentagon was struck by a missile.

CNN Reporter: “There is NO Evidence of a Plane Having Crashed Anywhere Near the Pentagon”

Jamie Mcintyre, CNN’s senior Pentagon correspondent at the time, was at the Pentagon shortly after it was hit. Here’s what he reported:

“From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately, it wasn’t until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.”

More Visual Evidence (Including Aerial Footage) Indicating That No Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11

In the video below, pay close attention to the aerial footage that begins at the 4:25 mark and especially the closeup shot at 4:50.  Where is the plane debris?  The footage shows exactly what McIntyre described: there was no plane debris.

.

Leaked Footage of What Actually DID Hit the Pentagon

Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11

(“National Security Alert – 9/11 Pentagon Event” originally released on 15 Jun 2009)

Citizen Investigation Team offers this compilation of independently verifiable evidence exposing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a psychological black operation of deception. Consider this a non-violent call to action as everyone is encouraged to copy and distribute this conclusive evidence to media, political, and authority figures while first requesting, and then demanding a response. Inaction by authorities and media to this information amounts to a crime of obstruction of justice so it’s time they are held accountable. This is particularly the case as more innocents are slaughtered and additional billions of dollars are spent on a fraudulent “war on terror” perpetuated under any other name. Please visit CitizenInvestigationTeam.com for full resources and a step-by-step strategy as to how you can take action on this critical life or death information.

See ALL of the videos by the Citizen Investigation Team HERE.

Below are some of the key findings by the Citizen Investigation Team:

• We are shown images and animation of the path that the plane must have taken in order to knock over five light poles and damage the Pentagon in the manner that it did, which is the official story. The location of the downed light poles is important because it establishes the required location and trajectory of the plane down to the foot.
• Interviews with the first two witnesses (Edward Paik and Terry Morin), who were positioned on the south side of the Navy Annex (vantage point #1) as the plane flew over. Both Edward and Terry saw the plane fly directly over the Navy annex to the north of the “official” path.
• Of particular significance is the interview with Morin, an aviator and a program manager for SPARTA Inc at the Navy Annex. Initially, Morin was between the wings of the Navy annex, so he could only see the plane as it “flew over the top of me.” Morin than ran over to get a better view and watched the plane for 13-18 seconds. Morin, as an aviator, disputed the official report that the plane was flying 460 knots. Instead, Morin says that the plane was only flying at a speed of around 350 knots.
• Interviews with three witnesses who were at the CITGO gas station (vantage point #2) on 9/11 when a low-flying plane flew by.
• Robert Turcios, CITGO station employee, saw the plane on the north side of the station and initially thought the plane was going to crash onto the street between the station and the Pentagon, but saw the plane “lift and go up a little bit.” He did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
• In addition, Pentagon Police officers Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse each confirm that the low-flying plane flew by on the north side of the CITGO station.
• Morin and Lagasse independently draw a nearly identical, flight path lines showing an approach to the north of the CITGO station.
• Next, an interview with a witness who was located on the north side of the Navy Annex (vantage point # 3) on 9/11 is shown. William Middleton Sr., an Arlington Cemetery employee, said that he plane was coming straight down Southgate road on the north side of the Navy annex. Middleton also said that he could see the plane dropping in altitude and that it came so close to where he was standing that he could feel the heat from the plane. In addition, Middleton said that the plane was traveling at a “slow” rate of speed, corroborating what Terry Morin had said.
• After the interview with Middleton, interviews with Arlington Cemetery employees Darrell Stafford and Darius Prather, who was positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11 are shown. Both said that a plane was coming directly at them and that after barely clearing the Navy Annex building, the plane continued descending and at the same time was banking to the right. The banking of the plane to the right is irreconcilable with NTSB data, physical damage to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon security video.
• This video segment starts with an interview of another Arlington Cemetery employee, Donald Carter, who was also positioned at the Arlington Cemetery maintenance buildings (vantage point # 4) on 9/11. Carter’s testimony is similar to that of his co-workers, Stafford and Prather.
• Next, an interview with Sean Boger is shown. Boger, a heliport air traffic controller, was in the Pentagon heliport tower that is located directly in front of the Pentagon (vantage point # 5) on 9/11. Boger said: “I just happened to be looking out the window. And, as I was looking out the window, I could see a plane… The plane was coming directly at us… You know I fell to the ground and I covered my head.”
• Boger stated that he saw a plane come over the Navy Annex and bank right toward the Pentagon. Based on the amount of time he watched the plane after he first saw it, the plane was traveling significantly slower than 460 knots.
• From five vantage points, 13 eyewitnesses independently and unanimously confirm a north side approach. A drawing is shown depicting the paths drawn by the witnesses. The eyewitness testimony contradicts the official reports that are required to make the official story plausible.
• All of the eyewitnesses have worked in the area for many years and are therefore very familiar with the topology and landmarks. Since the release of their interviews in the public domain, all have been made aware of the implications yet stand by their stories as reported. None have claimed that their accounts have been misrepresented.
• Most of the witnesses could not see the alleged impact point due to the complex topography and landscape, and admit to running, dropping, or flinching for cover. This explains why they did not see the plane fly away and assumed that it had hit the Pentagon because of the explosion.
• The independent and unanimous placement of the plane on the north side and banking to the right amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did fly away without hitting the building because the damage to the Pentagon required a south side approach.
• Although the witnesses presented so far did not see the plane fly away, some did (and are documented in the next video segment).
• Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw the plane fly away immediately after the explosion. He was at the Pentagon south parking lot loading dock, only a few steps inside the building during the explosion. After hearing an explosion, he ran outside, looked up, and saw a plane flying around the south parking lot. Roosevelt describes seeing a commercial jet that was banking and flying away at less than 100 feet above the ground within 10 seconds after the explosion.
• Roosevelt could have only seen the same banking plane that all of the other witnesses reported seeing on the north side flight path.
• There is additional evidence that more people saw the plane continue past the Pentagon. Arlington National Cemetery employee Erik Dihle was officially recorded by the Center for Military History on December 13, 2001. Although he personally did not see the plane, he said the first thing that other people reported was that a bomb went off and that a jet flew by and kept on going:
• “A number of us were working building 123.  Right after the explosion… we got up and ran outside… Some people were yelling that a bomb had hit the Pentagon and a jet kept on going.”
• Multiple witnesses have testified to seeing a banking, low-flying plane approach the Pentagon from the north side of the former CITGO gas station. This means that the damaged light poles, of which one allegedly went through the windshield of a taxicab, had to have been staged. Although there are photos of a bent pole laying on the ground and a broken windshield, not a single photograph exists showing the 40-foot, 247-pound pole inside the cab.
• Taxi cab driver, Lloyde England, initially claimed that a silent stranger helped him remove the light pole from his car. A 247-pound light pole knocked over by a 90-ton Boeing 757 traveling 530 miles per hour certainly would have caused massive damage had it hit Lloyde’s taxi. However, the only visible damage to the taxi is the broken front windshield. Otherwise, the taxi was unscratched, which makes absolutely no sense.
• However, don’t forget that testimony from multiple witnesses has proven that none of the downed light poles could have been knocked over by the incoming plane. Therefore, the lack of damage to the taxi does make sense.
• After Lloyde was confronted with the information provided by the witnesses indicating a north side approach (and that therefore the downed light poles must have been staged), he had a very strange reaction. Lloyde then changed his story and refused to admit that his taxi was on the bridge next to the downed light pole, where it appears that photos of both Lloyde and the taxi were taken.
• Lloyde goes on to explain that history has nothing to do with the truth and that he was used by people who have money. He then essentially admits that the downed light pole was staged and pre-planned. But, he was cautious not to outright confess. He distanced himself from the planners while admitting that the staging was planned.

You Can’t Fit a Boeing 757 into Hole that is Only 16 Feet Wide

Watch this outstanding Italian documentary titled Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, which includes analysis by Stubblebine and addresses many of the serious problems with the official account of what happened at the Pentagon:

The discrepancies that are addressed in the above video include the following:

• There is no airplane debris visible anywhere in front of the Pentagon. Examples of what you would expect to see at a plane crash site are shown. Captain Russ Whittemberg, a pilot with over 30 years in military and civil aviation, said: “I have been at some accident investigation sites in the Air Force. And I have never come across any accident scene where there is no tell-tale evidence of the plane that crashed.”
• There is no evidence that either the airplane engines or the wings impacted the building. Instead, we are supposed to believe that the 38 meter (125 feet) wide Boeing 757 fit into a hole that is only 5 meters (16 feet) wide. We are supposed to believe that the wings folded up like those of a dragon fly and squeeze into the 5 meter wide hole.
• Major General Albert Stubblebine: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
• One theory is that the Boeing 757 was vaporized due to the speed and the force of the crash. The engines are made of a titanium steel alloy that would not vaporize unless they hit a temperature of 3,286 degrees Centigrade. That did not happen. Plus, the engines would have caused significant damage upon impact. Yet, there is no indication that the engines impacted the Pentagon.
• After a period of time, various photos of airplane debris began to appear in newspapers and on the web did not appear in any photos shown in the days following the event.
• The Pentagon had numerous cameras that had complete and separate recordings of the incident. The FBI was immediately on the scene and confiscated many video tapes from the Pentagon and nearby buildings. Yet only four videos were released after 2006 when FOIA requests compelled them to release them. Only two showed any useful information. But most experts believe the white image in the videos is too small to be a 757.
• The story of how the plane arrived at the Pentagon is absurd – by making a 270 degree turn at a speed of 800 kilometers per hour.

AA Flight 77 Was Lost From Radar For 36 Minutes, Then a Smaller Military Plane Appeared On Radar That Was NOT AA Flight 77

Please continue watching the next segment of the documentary Zero: An Investigation into 9/11:

• According to the official account, the Pentagon was struck by AA Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour. Hanjour was known as “a terrible pilot,”  who could not even fly a small airplane.
• An experienced pilot with thousands of hours would probably require 10-20 attempts to pull off the maneuver that was performed with the Boeing 757 on its way to the Pentagon. “You just can’t do that with one of those big airplanes.” –Robin Hordon, flight controller and flight instructor
• AA Flight 77 was lost from radar as early as 8:56 a.m. and then allegedly reappeared 36 minutes later at 9:32 am. According to Danielle O’Brien, an air traffic controller at Dulles International Airport, the plane that showed up on the radar was not Flight 77: “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that it was a military plane.”
• No unknown aircraft are allowed within 50 miles of the Pentagon.  The Pentagon has its own anti-aircraft missiles that should have fired to protect the building. Only a military aircraft with a special IFF transponder (identifying it as a friend) would be allowed to approach the Pentagon.
• The official report of the final half mile of Flight 77 before it allegedly hit the Pentagon is aerodynamically impossible. “I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN’T Do. It’s aerodynamically impossible.” – Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.
• The alleged hijackers had difficulty flying small aircraft, which means that there is a zero possibility that they could pull off an impossible maneuver on the first try.

Donald Rumsfeld said that a MISSILE was used to damage the Pentagon

If no plane hit the Pentagon, then what did? In an interview with Parade Magazine in October 2001 (of which a transcript was posted on the U.S. Department of Defense website, defense.gov), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked “How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?” Rumsfeld replied:

“There were lots of warnings… It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.” [1]

Note that Rumsfeld indicated that both a plane and a missile were used on the Pentagon, which matches up perfectly with the evidence presented in the video, Undeniable Proof a Plane did NOT Hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

Timothy Roemer, Former 9/11 Commission Member, said that the Pentagon was “pried open by a MISSILE”

In an interview in September 2006 with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, former 9/11 Commissioner member, Timothy Roemer, says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly corrects himself to line up with the official story.

O’Brien: “At any point during this day were you just, in a very base way, afraid?”

Roemer: “There was — there were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were — you were worried, especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night, seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, an airplane, thinking about the number of people that probably died on the plane and on the ground…”

Click on the link below to see the above exchange between O’Brien and Roemer:

Expert claims that a high radiation reading near Pentagon indicates that a “depleted uranium warhead may have been used”

The missile hypothesis is supported by physical evidence. Dr. Janette Sherman, a well-respected radiation expert, used a Geiger counter to measure radiation levels from about 12 miles downwind of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 9/11. Sherman reported that the Geiger counter reading was extremely high, 8-10 times greater than normal. [2]

Although Sherman’s findings are not conclusive, Dr. Leuren Moret, formerly a scientist at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory, stated:

“I’m not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used.” [3]

The missile theory was echoed by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a PhD educational physics and former top military expert:

“When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [4]

Pentagon Employee Witness Says There Was No Plane on 9-11-2001

April Gallop and her child survived the ‘impact’ at the Pentagon. She was a Pentagon employee who was inside the building sitting at a computer when the explosion occurred.  After escaping through a hole in the Pentagon wall she waited on the grass near the road before being taken to the Hospital. She did not see any plane debris or experience any jet fuel or any other evidence of a plane crash.

USAF Witness: There was “a strange lack of visible debris…moments after impact”

Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (retired) wrote that there was a lack of debris moments after impact. Kwiatkowski, who was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon on 9/11, was a contributor to a book titled 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, in which she wrote that there was “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw . . . no airplane metal or cargo debris.” [5]

Another Pentagon Witness: I was convinced it was a missile.

Lon Rains, who was an Editor for Space News at the time, happened to be driving his car near the Pentagon when it was hit by a missile on 9/11. In an article titled Eyewitness: The Pentagon, published on June 30, 2005, Rains wrote:

“That morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment. At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.” [6]

Conclusion: The Pentagon was hit by a MISSILE, not hit by a plane

The lack of any evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, eyewitness testimony of a banking, north side approach, eyewitnesses who saw a low-flying “jet” fly past the Pentagon that “kept on going,” plus Lloyde’s confession that the downed light pole was preplanned and staged all provide ample evidence proving that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, but instead a smaller “jet” merely flew past the Pentagon immediately after it was hit by a missile in order to appear as though a plane did the damage.

References

[1] Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, News Transcript, October 12, 2001
https://web.archive.org/web/20041118063828/https://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html

[2] Greg Szymanski, Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used; High-Ranking Army Officer Claims Missile Used at Pentagon, Not Commercial Airliner, August 18, 2004
https://web.archive.org/web/20060111183631/https://www.arcticbeacon.com/18-Aug-2005.html

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, USAF (ret), 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out, Edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 2006

[6] Lon Rains, Eyewitness: The Pentagon, Space News, June 30, 2005
https://web.archive.org/web/20060210130450/https://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html

Source: corbettreport

Everything you ever wanted to know about 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

Transcript:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover upfrom start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors.

It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7’s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFKand incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

Source: AE911Truth

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 PM, the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its footprint, falling more than 100 feet at the rate of gravity for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second destruction.

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are pleased to partner with the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in releasing the final report of a four-year computer modeling study of WTC 7’s collapse conducted by researchers in the university’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

We invite you to read the report and to watch Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation at the UAF campus, where he first announced his team’s findings:

Read more great articles at AE911.

Source: Kim Iversen

The key idea of the video by Kim Iversen is that Democrats demanded censorship of RFK Jr at a House hearing on censorship (see HERE), highlighting the issue of government censorship and the importance of the First Amendment for respectful debate and democracy. However, RFK Jr was allowed to deliver his eloquent opening statement, which is shown in its entirety near the beginning of this video, in which he called for comity, respect,  kindness, compassion, and empathy when debating policy.

Editor note: Why do you think the Democrats want to censor RFK Jr? Could it be that he has stated that he would stop US involvement in foreign wars (negatively impacting the profits of the Military Industrial Complex), plus he will crack down on the corruption in the pharmaceutical industrial complex (which will impact their bottom line as well). These are the two biggest contributors (lobbyists) who line the pockets of congressional members with cash in order to promote their products and safeguard their profits.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT

Kim Iversen:
Today, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was invited by Republicans to testify about censorship to the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which is the same subcommittee that Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger testified in front of. And it went about as you would expect. Democrats showcased just how pro-censorship they’ve become. Now, we’re going to play some of the clips for you so that you can see for yourself – starting off with RFK Jr’s opening statement.

But, literally, before he even began speaking, they tried to censor him. Democrats noticed that RFK Jr. was slated to give a 10-minute opening statement when most are only given five minutes, and they immediately objected to it. They said they didn’t want him talking for that long. Watch this:

Stacey Plaskett (Ranking Member for Dems):

“Excuse me, point of order. I know that witnesses usually have five minutes. I see 10 minutes on the board. Is it going to be 10 minutes?”

Jim Jordan (Republican Chairman):

“We’ll give him five minutes, but we’re pretty lax with this.”

Stacey Plaskett:

“We are? I’ve seen you gavel down on quite a number of witnesses.”

Jim Jordan:

“I’ve given senators and former Democrat members of Congress and all kinds…”

Stacey Plaskett:
“He’s neither, he’s neither.”

“Jim Jordan:
“I’m just saying in past history.”

Stacey Plaskett:
“OK. OK. Watch the time for all the witnesses.”

Jim Jordan:
“And if you want to cut him off and censor him some more, you’re welcome to do it.”

Stacey Plaskett:
“Oh, that’s not my job! That’s your job! Why don’t you threaten a witness so that they can not want to be a witness?”

Jim Jordan:
“Mr. Kennedy is recognized for his opening statement. We’ll give him five minutes more or less and then we’ll move to the next one. Mr. Kennedy, go right ahead.”

Robert F Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr):

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman…”

Stacey Plaskett Interrupts RFK Jr: 

“Mr. Chairman, maybe we could put five minutes on the clock. Not ten.”

Kim Iversen:
“I mean, honestly, they just did not want him to speak. So, they tried to censor him. Other people who were invited to this session included three invited by Republicans and one invited by Democrats.

“The other two invitees, besides RFK Jr., were Emma Joe Morris and John Sauer. Emma Joe Morris is a journalist who now works for Breitbart, but she was one of the main reporters covering the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post that was heavily censored as we saw.

“Also, John Sauer is a Special Assistant Attorney General at the Louisiana Justice Department. He’s involved in the Missouri vs. Biden lawsuit, which is making its way through the courts right now. It’s heading to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have ruled that the government did, in fact, infringe on the First Amendment rights of Americans by censoring them through social media.

“So, those are the other two who are testifying alongside Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is there to testify to the fact that he has been censored while campaigning for president.

“The Democrat, who is all the way over there – she’s wearing the gray suit on the screen and turquoise top, is Maya Wiley. She is the President and Chief Executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She at one point worked for the ACLU, but she is the pro-censorship person, basically, that Democrats have called her in – claiming that we need to censor people because they say dangerous things which lead to dangerous outcomes. So, censor, censor, censor.

“So, we’re going to play RFK Jr’s entire opening statement. I was hesitant to do this because it is 10 minutes long. Even though they tried to limit him to five minutes, saying, “Put five minutes on the clock, five minutes, five minutes,” he went for 10 minutes anyway. Luckily, no one interrupted him, but it is a very good and powerful 10 minutes.

So, we’re just going to play the whole thing. The whole thing is really riveting, so we’re going to go ahead and watch now.”

[00:03:35] RFK Jr’s Opening statement
https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=215

RFK Jr:
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to start… I want to put aside my written statement for a moment and address one of the points that was brought up. I think it’s an important point by the ranking member: that this body ought to be concerning itself with issues that impact directly impact the American people: the rising price of groceries, 76% over the past two years for basic foodstuff, the war in Ukraine, inflation issues, the border issues, many, many other issues that concern us all as a nation.

We can’t do that without the First Amendment, without debate. When I gave my speech, my announcement speech in Boston two months ago, YouTube — I talked about all those issues. I focused on groceries. I focused on the fact that working-class people can no longer afford to live in this country. I talked about inflation, all the issues that deeply concern you, and that you’ve devoted your career to alleviating those issues.

Five minutes into my speech, when I was talking about Paul Revere, YouTube de-platformed me. I didn’t talk about vaccines in that speech. I didn’t talk about anything that was a forbidden subject. I was just talking about my campaign and the conversation we ought to be having with each other as Americans, but I was shut down.

That is why the First Amendment is important. Debate, congenial, respectful debate is the fertilizer, it’s the water, it’s the sunlight for our democracy. We need to be talking to each other.

Now, this is a letter that many of you signed, many of my fellow Democrats. I’ve spent my life in this party. I’ve devoted my life to the values of this party. 102 people signed this. This itself is evidence of the problem that this hearing was convened to address. This is an attempt to censor a censorship hearing. The charges in this, and by the way, censorship is antithetical to our party.

It was appalling to my father, to my uncle, to FDR, to Harry Truman. Thomas Jefferson, as the chairman referred to. It is the basis for democracy. It sets us apart from all of the previous forms of government. We need to be able to talk.

And the First Amendment was not written for easy speech. It was written for the speech that nobody likes you for. And, I was censored, not just by the Democratic Administration, I was censored by the Trump Administration. I was the first person censored, as the chairman pointed out, by the Biden Administration two days after he came into office.

And, by the way, they had to invent a new term called ‘mal-information’ to censor people like me. There was no misinformation on my Instagram account; everything I put on that account was cited in sourced; peer-reviewed publications or government databases. Nobody has ever pointed to a single piece of misinformation that I published.

I was removed for something they called ‘malformation.’ Malinformation is information that is true but inconvenient to the government, that they don’t want people to hear. And that’s antithetical to the values of our country.

After I announced my presidency, it became more difficult for people to censor me outright. So now I’m subject to this new form of censorship, which is called targeted propaganda, where people apply pejoratives like anti-vax. I’ve never been anti-vaccine, but everybody in this room probably believes that I have been because that’s the prevailing narrative.

Anti-Semitism, racism – these are the most appalling, disgusting pejoratives, and they’re applied to me to silence me because people don’t want me to have that conversation about the war, about groceries, about inflation, about the war on the middle class in this country – that we need to be having.

And, by the way, I want to say this while I’m on the record and under oath:

In my entire life, I have never uttered a phrase that was either racist or anti-Semitic. I have spent my life, my professional career, fighting for Israel, for the protection of Israel. I have a better record on Israel than anybody in this chamber today. I’m the only person who has publicly objected to the two billion dollar payout that the Biden administration is now making to Iran, which is a genocidal program. I’m the only one who objected to that. I fought more ferociously for Israel than anybody.

I am being censored here through this target, through smears, through misinterpretations of what I’ve said, through lies, through association, which is a tactic that we all thought we had discredited and dispensed with after the Army-McCarthy hearings in the 1950s. But those same weapons are now being deployed against me to silence me. I know many of the people who wrote this letter. I don’t believe there’s a single person who signed this letter who believes I’m anti-Semitic. I do not believe that. There is no evidence of that.

I want to say something that I think is more important, and it goes directly to what you talked about ranking member, which is the need to address the toxic polarization that is destroying our country today. How do we deal with that? This kind of division is more dangerous for our country than at any time since the American Civil War. How do we deal with that? Every Democrat on this committee believes that we need to end this polarization.

Do you think you can do that by censoring people? I’m telling you, you cannot. That only aggravates and amplifies the problem. We need to start being kind to each other. We need to start being respectful to each other. We need to restore the comity to this chamber and to the rest of America, but it has to start here.

My Uncle Edward Kennedy has more legislation with his name on it than any senator in United States history. Why is that? Because he was able to reach across the aisle because he didn’t deal in insults, because he didn’t try to censor people. He brought home people who were antithetical to what he believed in. He came home almost every weekend with people like Orrin Hatch, to our house at the compound in Hyannis Port. At that time, Orrin Hatch to me was like Darth Vader because I was an environmentalist. And, I was saying, ‘Why is Teddy bringing this guy home?’ But he was effective because he understood that comity and respect and kindness and compassion and empathy for other people is the only way to restore function in this chamber.

But, more importantly, today we need to give an example in the leadership of our country, of being respectful to each other.

If you think I said something that was anti-semitic, then let’s talk about the details. I’m telling you that all of the things that I am being accused of right now by you and in this letter are distortions, they’re misrepresentations. I didn’t say those things. There are fragments that I said. But, I denounce anybody who uses the words that I have said to imply something that is negative about people who are Jewish. I never said those things.

I want to also point out, also, that the Chairman pointed to Dennis Kucinich, who is right behind me. There is no two people in the country who feel more differently about American politics than these two people. And yet they were friends. Dennis attended his children’s basketball games, attended his daughter’s wedding.

This is how we need to start treating each other in this country. We have to stop trying to destroy each other, to marginalize, to vilify, to gaslight each other. We have to find that place inside ourselves of light, of empathy, of compassion. And, above all, we need to elevate the Constitution of the United States, which was written for hard times. And, that has to be the premiere compass for all of our activities.

Thank you very much.

[00:13:32] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=812

Kim Iversen:

So that was a great opening statement. He was given that ten minutes, even though they tried to put the timer on him. And, of course, right after… so they tried to censor him before he gave his speech, and then they of course, they continued to try to censor him. Here is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. She is claiming that he is going to make defamatory and degrading comments, and so she wanted to move to an executive session, which is more private. And, then Massie moves to ignore her. He moves to ignore her idea to move to a more private, executive session. He wants to continue the hearing, which is called tabling, so watch this.

[00:14:08] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=848

Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to raise a point of order. Point of order pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2, which Mr. Kennedy is in violation of. I move that we move into an executive session because Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly made despicable anti-Semitic and anti-Asian comments, as recently as last week.

Rule 11, Clause 2, says: ‘Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness…’ and it goes on.

Mr. Kennedy, among many other things, has said: ‘I know a lot now about bioweapons. We’ve put out hundreds of millions of dollars into ethnically targeted microbes. The Chinese have done the same thing. In fact, COVID-19, there is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. The races that are most immune to COVID-19

Chairman Jordan:
Is the lady making a motion or a speech?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz:
I’ve made a motion to move into executive session because of Mr. Kennedy’s testimony.

Thomas Massie:
Mr. Chairman, I move to table motions.

Chairman Jordan:
Gentleman from Kentucky has moved to table.

Kim Iversen:
OK, so you have to watch the vote for yourself. They go back and forth about this executive session and tabling, so we’re going to skip ahead to the actual vote.

And so, the ‘yeses’ want to continue the hearing. This is their voting on Massie’s motion; he wants to table her motion. She wants to move to an executive, private session.

Thomas Massie requests to table that.

So, they now have to vote on whether or not they’re going to continue this session or move to an executive, into an executive hearing. So, the ‘yeses’ are for continuing, and the ‘no’s’, which are a bunch of Democrats, are for censoring RFK Jr. and moving to a more private hearing. Watch this:

[00:15:57] THE VOTE TO CENSOR
https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=957

[Roll call ends with 10 eyes to 8 no’s]

[17:38] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1058

Chairman Jordan:

The motion to table is agreed to. We will now move to our second witness.

[17:44] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1064

Kim Iversen:

OK, so again, the rule that they’re citing, that all those Democrats who said that they wanted to move to an executive session, the rule that they’re citing is that they believe that RFK Jr is going to make defamatory, derogatory, and degrading statements. So, they’re saying he’s going to say hate speech, and that is against the rules, and so we want to move to this executive private session.

Now, I wanna play this clip to you. They’re, they, they do move on with this hearing, and Stacy Plaskett, now if you remember her, she is the representative from the US Virgin Islands. She’s the one who sent Matt Taibbi a letter basically saying that you have perjured yourself and you could potentially serve time in jail for perjury.

And she was very much one of the, her and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, were very much attacking Matt Taibbi and and Michael Shellenberger (for their reporting on the Twitter files). So much more of the same here. Obviously, what they’re here to talk about is completely lost on her. You know, there you have RFK junior saying, ‘we’ve got to get back to you know a better place in politics. We have to hear each other out. Censoring is not helping us. It’s depolarizing the country. This is just not a good thing.’ And that is obviously, the entire idea, is completely lost on her. This is a little snippet of what she had to say:

[00:19:02] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1142

Stacy Plaskett

But more importantly, again, I go back to just the fact that we are creating a platform for these, for this kind of discussion. Not about the censorship, not about free speech, but the content of some of that speech that we are amplifying in this room.

Kim Iversen

‘I can’t believe we’re platform forming these people and amplifying this speech,’ so she’s saying what we need to censor, we should be censoring. She also later went on to say, by the way, that she’s appalled that her Republican colleagues intentionally chose to elevate this rhetoric, to give these harmful, dangerous views a platform in the halls of the United States Congress.

She said, ‘There’s no doubt as to why they’re making the choice. It’s not to guard free speech or to ensure equality for all. All of this is to show us by their conduct over and over again that any attack on Joe Biden to get Donald Trump back in the White House is what they need to do.’ That was what she was claiming here.

Now, I hate to subject you to this, but I have to. I am so sorry. I have to subject you to this, but this is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz attacking RFK junior and basically misrepresenting his comments that he had made that really made a lot of headlines, claiming that he was saying that COVID was bioengineered to help Jews and Chinese and go after whites and Africans. And, and I’m sorry, I have to subject you to this. Watch this, I’m sorry:

[20:31] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1231

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

[She repeatedly attacks RFK Jr without giving him a chance to respond. It’s truly despicable behavior.}

[24:06] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1446

Kim Iversen:

OK, I’m sorry I had to subject you to that. She is just cringe. Oh man, oh man, oh… I don’t know how these meetings don’t just break out into all out brawls. It feels like they should. She obviously mischaracterized everything that she, that he said. And the last thing that she was going over was when he spoke at the anti-mandate rally in Washington DC, he mentioned that Anne Frank could at least hide and that people that were hiding from mandates, it wasn’t as easy to hide because of basically digital Big Brother is what he was talking about. He’s talking about the digital era and the spying and the cameras and the checks and, you know, the digital vaccine IDs that you would have to have. All of those things. So, obviously very much mischaracterizing it.

But here’s Thomas Massie to the rescue. He shows up, you know he’s the scientist that went to MIT, and he introduces the studies that RFK Jr referenced and he introduces these into congressional record. Watch this.

[25:03]

https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1503

Thomas Massie

‘I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record to study that Mister Kennedy just referenced: “New Insights into Genetic Susceptibility of COVID-19.” The main body said that they investigated genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 by examining DNA polymorphism in ACE2 and TMPRSS2, those are receptors for COVID, in 81,000 human genomes, And they found unique genetic susceptibility across different populations. I have another document that I would like to ask unanimous consent with objection to submit and this is from the FDA. “FDA review of efficacy and safety Pfizer by antech COVID-19 vaccine.” This is dated December 10th, 2020 and it shows that the Pfizer trial and the USDA broke down the effectiveness of the vaccine into seven different racial categories because this was also a concern of theirs and it would frankly be delinquent not to study the effects across different racial categories,

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

But, Mr. Kennedy said it was bioengineered to target on Caucasians and spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. That is different…

[26:18]

Kim Iversen:

It seems like there should be able to be maybe a lawsuit there, like a slander lawsuit, for RFK Jr against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz because she’s not quoting him. She is summarizing with her own spin as to what he said. It’d be one thing if she quoted him directly but she’s instead spinning it making claims and, you know, that he actually did not make.

There was a lot of other testimony like I said. There were two other witnesses, the woman that reported on Hunter Biden’s laptop for the New York Post and also one of the attorneys in the Missouri vs. Biden free speech, the social media censorship case. But in the interest of time, we just don’t have time to play those clips. But they did a really great job as well testifying.

I do want to play for you, however, a couple of clips from Wiley. She is the one who is the one that Democrats brought in. Maya Wiley, she’s a civil rights attorney, and here is a civil rights attorney essentially arguing on behalf of Democrats that censorship is something that should happen for the protection of people. And this is always the excuse they use as we must censor because if we don’t censor then we’re going to be infringing on the rights of others because others are going to be harmed or others are going to feel bad or they’re going to be targeted and that infringes on their rights and so therefore we need to protect those rights by taking rights away from other people. And that’s essentially the argument that Democrats make by and large.

But here’s the clip of Representative Stewart asking her if she agrees with whether or not, whether or not she thinks the government should be in charge of this. So watch this clip.

[27:59] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1679

Mr Stewart:

Do you agree the government shouldn’t be responsible for restricting views that the American people are exposed to? We agree on that, right? You wouldn’t answer it at first but it’s clear that you do agree with that.

Ms Wiley:

That’s a different question.

Mr Stewart:

OK, so to my question, do you agree with that or not?

Ms Wiley:

I agree that the government should not violate our constitution.

Mr Stewart:

Do you agree with my question?

Ms Wiley:

Your question is…

Mr Stewart:

This is so simple.

Ms Wiley:

It is not so simple.

Mr Stewart:

So I’m gonna ask you one time and it is so simple, a 7th grader could understand this question. Should the government be responsible for the views and the facts that the American people are exposed to?

Ms Wiley:

The problem I have is that I don’t know any facts in which the government…

Mr Stewart:

You’re unable to answer question which for me is fairly shocking as an American citizen.

Kim Iversen:

Really shocking. It’s shocking that we have now devolved into a society where people believe that it’s for the greater good to censor. That is antithetical to the United States Constitution, to what we stand for. When governments get involved and start censoring because they believe it’s for the best interest of the people, that is what so many dictators around the world do. That’s why they do it. They do it because they think, ‘Well, this is for your own good. I must, it’s for your own good.’ And it is so dangerous. That is not the country that we want to be living in.

And here’s Jim Jordan making that point about the good old days. Remember the good old days of the ACLU? Watch this.

[29:34] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1774

Jim Jordan:

Ms Wiley you were a lawyer for the ACLU?

Ms Wiley:

I was.

Jim Jordan:

Mr. Kennedy, I remember when the ACLU defended the First Amendment. They were the champions of the First Amendment. Do you remember that? Do you remember that ACLU?

RFK Jr:

I remember when the ACLU represented Nazis who they who they were appalled by.

Jim Jordan:

Appalled, disgusted by and yet they would defend the crazy things they said right? That that’s how much the First Amendment meant to them, right?

RFK Jr:

Exactly.

[30:00] https://youtu.be/qIX4Ozs8R8A?t=1800

Kim Iversen:

Exactly. I remember those good old days as well. I remember being a young elementary school student in the state of Idaho, where there was literally a neo-Nazi camp and a bunch of neo-Nazis in the state, and everybody was very much against them. They wanted to have a parade, and they were allowed to have the parade. No one went to the parade that they were allowed to have.

I remember asking this question of my father, of my teachers: ‘Why are we allowing this?’ You know, all of us young kids sitting there appalled that Nazis would be allowed to march in a parade in our streets. And they said to us, ‘Because of the First Amendment, they’re allowed. They have their free speech rights. We might not like it. We don’t have to go to their parade, but they’re allowed to do it because of the First Amendment.’

And we, little children, not understanding, very much like Maya Wiley, clearly not understanding, reverting into our little like lizard brain emotions and saying, ‘You know what, we shouldn’t allow this. You know, as children, where are we? We shouldn’t allow this. This is wrong. This is terrible. This is bad.’

And the adults who had better insight than we did as children, the adults who understood the importance of free speech, said, ‘We know, kids. We know that this is appalling. We know it’s abhorrent. We know that we don’t agree with this, but we must allow it because you don’t want the government stepping in and silencing you, thinking that, because they determine from their morals that you’re wrong, because one day it’s going to be you. If it’s them today, it’ll be you tomorrow, and you don’t want it to be you tomorrow.’

And the great state of Idaho protected the free speech of those neo-Nazis. I know a lot of people want to look at Idaho as a red state, ‘Oh, well they supported it.’ No, we did not. Nobody in the state of Idaho supported that. But they were allowed because Idahoans supported free speech.

And it’s appalling that these days, and I get it, I get the emotions. I get you. You feel like, ‘I’m doing this for the greater good. We have to protect. But we must. It’s going to hurt people’s feelings, or what have other people agree, and they join in.’

And you know, those parades did not swell. Those parades did not get larger. People did not join in on those neo-Nazis. In fact, they went away. We allowed them to march the streets, and ultimately, everybody ignored them, and they went away.

You cannot be afraid of bad ideas, thinking that your fellow Americans are going to be sucked into those ideas. You have to have faith that you’ve given them a good education, that you’ve taught people, and that people can make up their own minds. You have to believe that your fellow Americans are not idiots. I mean, but you know, a lot of people, they don’t believe that. They believe that their fellow Americans are idiots. They believe that they must tell them what to do, otherwise, they’re going to make bad decisions.

And that is, unfortunately, where we’re at with so many in the government right now, and so many of our leaders. I mean, to hear our leaders defending censorship, that is something that little children are supposed to be doing because they’re emotional and they can’t understand it, not our congressional leaders. But this is where we’re at today, and it is very dangerous.

We are on a dangerous path right now with censoring ideas, good and bad. None of them should be censored, no matter how much we want to. So, good for Robert F. Kennedy Junior for saying his peace, for Jim Jordan and for Republicans for inviting him and others to talk about the censorship that is going on in our government and in our society.

And we’ll hope that something comes of this. Not sure what can come from it, but awareness, awareness and people rallying behind the fact that they do not want censorship in our society. I think it’s ultimately a good thing.

Source: Oracle Films

On July 4, 2023, leaders from multiple countries met at the European Parliament in Brussels to voice their concerns about the WHO’s pandemic treaty and urge the citizens of the world to resist it.

The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty grants excessive power to unelected bureaucrats, posing a threat to human rights and freedom, and citizens must unite to challenge and resist these restrictions.

Watch the full, 3-hour live stream replay here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwL4HLvHEcI

TRANSCRIPT

Lewis Brackpool:

This is Louis Brackpool reporting for Grit News in collaboration with Oracle Films. Today, as you can see, I’m here in Brussels at the European Parliament, where seven representatives of their respective countries are banding together to challenge the World Health Organization on their pandemic treaty.

The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for international public health. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and for those who are unaware, the pandemic treaty is a proposed international agreement. And, in the eyes of the WHO, they look to quote ‘strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response’.

Some are arguing that this international agreement will grant unelected bureaucrats unprecedented power to enforce harsher, stricter lockdowns than before, along with mask mandates and various other restrictions. So, I’m here to report on what these representatives are saying and arguing against the WHO.

Mislav Kolakusic (Croatia):

Today is an important day for the future – the future of European citizens and the whole world. After three years of hard censorship, I am very pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss the problems with the World Health Organization in this Parliament.

We want to start a public discussion and public action with our citizens. The World Health Organization is demanding that all countries surrender authority to declare pandemics and procure so-called vaccines into their hands.

Virginie Joron (France):

This global organization therefore tacitly validates the failure of the European Union in terms of management of the pandemic and vaccination policy, with a flagrant lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and draconian measures linked to the health pass.

Ivan Vilibor Sincic (Croatia):

WHO has failed humanity in the COVID crisis and must be held accountable. They have trampled on human rights and medical ethics and behaved more like a public relation agency for the pharmaceutical companies. WHO is corrupt and it is more corrupt the higher in the hierarchy, in the organization’s structure, you go. Many of the employees, including top jobs, are linked to private interests following the principle of revolving doors.

Cristian Terhes (Romania):

The biggest threat that we are facing right now is the threat to our national sovereignty, to the supremacy of our constitutions, and implicitly unfortunately to our fundamental rights, because if all of these powers that were granted through our constitutions to our national institutions as our authorities, will be handed over to a global institution that is not accountable to anybody, and is led by people who are not elected by us as citizens, then we are done – without rights.

Justyana Walker (Poland):

The main thing about today is that what we really, really want is for people to understand that we cannot move and be heard if we don’t do it together.  We as citizens decided to use the ECI, which is the European Citizens’ Initiative, as a tool to be publicly recognized and finally heard. The European Citizens’ Initiative, as my colleague Philippe has said prior, was introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007. It was inspired by Switzerland and its existing direct democracy tools. It aims at increasing direct democracy by allowing EU citizens to participate in the development of EU policies.

Nowadays, we are hearing more frequently that the European Parliament and the European Commission see the disconnect between the people and the institutions, and yet they proceed to listen to these self-elected representatives, such as the Director-General of the WHO, or the head of a non-profit organization such as the World Economic Forum. This continuous curbing of freedom and loss of trust is the reason why we want to introduce the Trust and Freedom Initiative.

Thanks to the tremendous work of our team that includes not only doctors, lawyers, and activists, but also us as mothers and fathers, people from different walks of life, we will be putting forward our ECI, the European Citizens’ Initiative, to the European Commission within the coming weeks.

Dr. Maria Hubmer-Bogg (Austria):

This is something that is really big. I think we will collect easily, easily over a million signatures. It’s not only that people see how many we are, it’s that people have something in their hands that they can literally use to challenge their regional politicians. It’s bringing this uniting effort that we would not have with the petition in just one country.

Phillip Kruse (Switzerland):
This is the most dangerous aspect in the past three years: it was the violation of the integrity of our body, our right of self-determination, to make our own choice regarding what kind of medication we want to apply. And we want to do it based on accurate and correct information. And this is why we are here today. There was no protection of this most personal, most vulnerable aspect of our life in the past, and there will be none in the future if we don’t act today.

Mattias Desmet (Belgium):

We really are at risk in our society to relapse from a democratic system into a new kind of totalitarianism, a kind of technocratic new totalitarianism. And I think that for instance, the new treaty of the WHO is a major leap forward in this direction.

Alexander Christ (Germany):

I reject the idea that in the future, not only actual diseases but a mix of data analysis, computer models, artificial intelligence and test results should justify risk assessment at the discretion of the World Health Organization.

Andrew Bridgen (UK):

The Global Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations will allow the WHO to declare a public health emergency of international concern, a PHEIC abbreviated, and not only when to call it but how long it would last, and when it would be over. And I suspect that it would be a very long time before we had democracy returned to our independent parliaments.

I call on every elected representative around the world to resist these WHO power grabs. Our work with the European Union, our work with these MPs, we have the same goal which is to protect our citizens’ human rights and all of humanity. And if we can stop it here, then so be it. I know that we will be on the right side of history. I want history written pretty quickly because we need to get over this. It’s been a very dark chapter in human history.

The politics of right and left has gone. It’s now the politics of right and wrong, good and evil. 

Fiona Hine (UK):

Secondly, I call upon the citizens of the world to unite in their respective countries as we will do in ours, and across all continents of the world, and to tell those citizens that you do have a choice. You have the power to affect change and you have a voice, so use it. Now, we must work together to stand against this power grab and at the very least, raise mass awareness, encourage and demonstrate mass non-compliance. You have a choice not to choose their new normal. Thank you.

Lewis Brackpool:

The event also featured virtual contributions from Pastor Artur Pawlowski from Canada, and doctors David Martin and Peter McCullough from the United States.

NOTE: Calgary pastor Artur Pawlowski is currently facing 10 years in prison for delivering a sermon during the 2022 Freedom Convoy in which he encouraged truckers to continue blocking the Canada-U.S. border. Nathaniel Pawlowski (the next speaker) spoke on behalf of his father

Nathaniel Pawlowski (Canada):

I would like to stand here and tell you all the things about freedom and democracy that I like, but I no longer know those things. They have been taken away from us Canadians. Canada has fallen. We no longer have freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, or the right to protest, or assemble, or associate, or express ourselves, or have free media, or disagree with the government. Anyone who does so is arrested, charged, and jailed as political dissidents.

Nick Hudson (co-founder of Pandemics – Data and Analytics, also known as PANDA):

We know both in theory and in practice that centralization causes nothing but misery because it destroys the mechanisms of error correction, leading to doubling down on flawed policies. And it cannot do otherwise, especially not in the highly centralized institutions that have been captured by these hubristic people.

History is replete with examples of tyrants enamored of their centralizing visions, believing each time that they hold some perspective or some asset that their predecessors lacked. Today, it is the false belief that access to more data and bigger computers will mean that this time is different, but it isn’t different. People still make mistakes, and when those who amassed great power and control do so, the results are disastrous.

Christine Anderson (Germany):

I am really, really glad that finally, people stand up and came forward. I really hope that this initiative will be successful and, at the very least, it will hopefully wake up the people to what’s really going on. Like I said, we are talking about freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, and we are about to be stripped of all of that. I do whatever I can to fight them.

Justyana Walker (Poland):

This is what we need: we need everybody’s voice, and without that voice as an individual voice and collective voice, we will not be able to succeed. So we want to show the unity and how many of us there are.

Christine Anderson (Germany):

We are here today to tell you, WHO globalitarian misanthropists, we are here today to tell you, you picked this fight, you wanted this fight. Well, guess what? You’ve got it. Let’s fight.

Because these brave citizens, my colleagues and I, we will not tire to fight you every step of the way. These brave seven citizens and millions and millions more around the world, these are the people you will have to reckon with from now on because we are millions. Millions around the world. It is you that is the small fringe minority. You are the ones who do not have the right to dictate to the people what they want and what they don’t want. So take it from me, take it from us, take it from these seven citizens who gathered here today, take it from the millions and millions of people around the world. We will bring you down! And we will not tire until we have done just that.

Lewis Brackpool:

So there you have it. We’ve wrapped up the speeches from the MEPs and the international speakers here in Brussels, where many of them are making their voices heard against the pandemic treaty. It’s safe to say, from the speeches and from what they’ve been saying to me, that they are sick and tired of unelected bureaucrats encroaching on everyday people’s lives. This has been Lewis Brackpool, reporting in Brussels, the European Parliament, for Grit News in collaboration with Oracle Films. Thank you.

Source: Team Kennedy

Drawing inspiration from his uncle’s (JFK’s) landmark 1963 address at American University, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivers a speech of monumental significance. RFK  Jr. talks passionately about how the US must prioritize peace and diplomacy in order to heal the country and establish “not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”

Watch JFK’s absolutely brilliant peace speech:

If you truly want peace in the world, then please share these videos.

NOTE 1: RFK Jr.’s speech begins at 11:30 into the video.

NOTE 2: You can read the transcript and listen to JFK’s 1963 speech HERE.

NOTE 3: Be sure to watch more great videos by Team Kennedy HERE.

Kim Iversen talks with Tony Lyons about how RFK Jr’s rising popularity and anti-corruption stance are being silenced by the Democratic Party. Dems fear RFK Jr.’s potential as a corruption fighter and prefer Biden who they believe will continue to implement their corrupt policies.

• 00:00 🚫 Democrats are attempting to silence the rising favorability of RFK Jr, fearing his potential as a corruption fighter and preferring Biden who they believe will follow their corrupt policies.
  • RFK Jr’s rising favorability in the polls is causing fear among Democrats who are attempting to silence him, despite his potential as a corruption fighter.
  • The Democratic party is shunning RFK Jr. and holding on to Biden because they believe Biden will follow their corrupt policies and do as they tell him, rather than truly running for president.
  • Democrats are pushing back against supporting RFK Jr because they fear his honesty and his ability to fight against corruption, so they are trying to keep him out of sight to prevent people from voting for him.
• 03:19 🚫 RFK Jr. believes mainstream media is censoring him, while the Democratic party ignores him and tries to hand the nomination to Biden, but he continues to engage with the public and believes alternative media is crucial for winning the election.
  • RFK Jr. believes that the mainstream media is censoring him and that alternative media, such as podcasts and radio shows, will be crucial in winning the upcoming election.
  • Bobby is the only candidate actively engaging with the public, conducting interviews at the border and discovering that people from all over the world are crossing, while the Democratic party is trying to ignore him and hand the nomination to Biden.
• 05:31 📺 RFK Jr’s rising favorability and alignment with Trump’s views have led to questions about why he is running as a Democrat, with the speaker suggesting that he could appeal to both parties as a third-party candidate due to flaws in the current two-party system and the Democratic party’s shift towards war and censorship, emphasizing that RFK Jr. is not an anti-vaxxer but an anti-corruption advocate who questions the safety and testing of vaccines, sharing similarities with Donald Trump in his fight against corruption.
  • RFK Jr’s criticism of the Biden Administration’s border policies and his alignment with Trump’s views resonate more with people on the right, leading to questions about why he is running as a Democrat.
  • The speaker discusses the potential for a third-party candidate to appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the flaws in the current two-party system and suggesting that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could run as a Democrat despite not fitting into the traditional Democratic box due to the party’s shift towards war and censorship.
  • RFK Jr. is not an anti-vaxxer but rather an anti-corruption advocate who wants to question the safety and testing of vaccines, and he shares similarities with Donald Trump in his fight against corruption.
• 08:42 📺 RFK Jr. has been a long-time fighter against corruption, advocating for capitalism of the middle class, but his support for Israel and hesitation regarding Palestinians has caused controversy among left-leaning individuals.
  • RFK Jr. has been fighting corruption for 50 years, bringing lawsuits against corrupt officials and corporations, and he is pro-capitalist, advocating for the capitalism of the middle class, not the corrupt corporations working closely with the government.
  • RFK Jr’s support for Israel and his hesitation regarding the Palestinians has caused controversy among left-leaning individuals who believe that Israel has too much influence on American politics.
• 11:00 📺 The speaker discusses the importance of recognizing Israel as a partner in the Middle East while also holding them accountable for human rights abuses, emphasizing the need for all countries, including the United States, to strive for the highest standards of human rights.
• 12:38 🔇 RFK Jr’s rising favorability is being silenced by the Democratic Party after his controversial comment on vaccine mandates was taken out of context, potentially influenced by pro-Israel super PACs, leading to his wife publicly condemning his remarks.
  • RFK Jr’s rising favorability is being silenced by the Democratic Party due to backlash he received for a comment he made on the anti.
  • RFK Jr’s recent controversial statement about vaccine mandates was taken out of context by the media, potentially due to political pressure from pro-Israel super PACs, leading to his wife publicly condemning his comments.
• 15:01 🚩 RFK Jr’s rising favorability and willingness to challenge powerful groups is inspiring demands for debates and real democracy, as he is seen as a non-corrupt president who can solve issues and is not influenced by big corporations or a corrupt government.
  • Powerful groups in the government, media, and corporations are afraid of Robert F Kennedy Jr and are trying to find any reason to silence him, but he is willing to listen to different voices and change his mind.
  • RFK Jr is a non-corrupt president who is not influenced by super Pacs, big pharmaceutical companies, big oil companies, big media, or a corrupt government, and he may have the ability to solve the issues in the Middle East.
  • Bobby Kennedy’s rising favorability and willingness to discuss any subject without being controlled by powerful groups is leading the American people to demand debates and real democracy, rejecting the idea of a president who doesn’t feel the need to justify their decisions.
• 18:26 🗳️ The Democratic party should stop pretending to be democratic and admit that they don’t hold fair elections or primaries.

Source: Team Kennedy

Faced with a wall of censorship and propaganda, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has developed an unusual campaign strategy—telling Americans the truth. In Episode 1 of this series about his presidential campaign, Mr. Kennedy describes how God, nature, and his family’s legacy have inspired him to run for the highest office.

In this powerful and poignant speech (transcript below), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shares his vision for America. He is committed to truth and transparency, and ending government lies and the corrupt merger of state and corporate power. Drawing from his father’s teachings, Kennedy Jr. vows to serve “Kennedy people” – the underserved, the overlooked, and the voiceless in society, and to help all the homeless, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, who are Americans first. With a call to protect creation and a deep sense of the divine, he presents his presidential campaign as a crusade for truth and unity, promising to take back the country for the American people.

TRANSCRIPT:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK, Jr.): We’re going to do a mass experiment, a new kind of mass experiment: what happens when you tell people the truth and see what happens? My job is to tell people the truth and if Americans have an appetite for that, then I will be president.

Dr. Christiane Northrup: This is a time to bring America back together. We have been torn apart and if anyone can bring it back together, it’s the Kennedys.

Dr. Robert Malone: I hope that what he can do is to break through by just being himself; being his honest self – very selfless, very focused on doing the right thing and hopefully, people will be able to see that. But, we are absolutely up against a major, major media wall.

RFK, Jr.: The reason people were having fights with their family is because the families were being lied to about information. And some family members believed the lies, and some did not. And that caused polarization, and it amplified the vitriol. It poisons all of society when the government is lying and when the media is lying to you: when the trusted source of information can no longer be trusted.

Dr. Pierre Kory: You know, it’s really hard to tell how many people are awake and have, you know, how much this is exposed to the average American because we’re living in a sea of propaganda and censorship.

Dr. Christiane Northrup: What’s happened here today is that you have lifelong Republicans, lifelong Independents, lifelong Democrats. It’s time that we ended the schism. The people standing here today do not identify with any political party. We identify with unity, with health, with freedom – because that’s what’s important about today.

Cheryl Hines: My husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is going to come out and make a very important announcement. Are you ready for this?

Dennis Kucinich: The next president of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.!

RFK, Jr.:
My mission over the next 18 months of this campaign and throughout my presidency, will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power that is threatening now… [Applause] a new kind of corporate feudalism in our country – to poison our children and our people with chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs, to strip-mine our assets, to hollow out the middle class, and keep us in a constant state of war.

These lockdowns were a war on the poor, and they were a war on American children. There’s been a systematic attack on our middle class, and the coup de grâce was the lockdown. The lockdown was the biggest shift in wealth in human history. I don’t want, you know, the Democratic party to be the party of fear, pharma, war, and censorship.

55 years ago last month, I sat as a 14-year-old boy, behind my father as he announced his campaign for the presidency of the United States. And my father, at that time, was in many ways in the same position that I’m in today. He was running against a president of his own party. He was running against a war. He was running at a time of unprecedented polarization in our country, and he had no chance of winning.

My father, when he declared, had not a single molecule in him that he believed that he could win the Democratic nomination. And, the day he died, he won the California primary, the most urban state in this country, and the same day, the South Dakota primary, the most rural. He had succeeded in uniting America.

I was with my dad when he died in Los Angeles, and we brought him back to New York. Then we brought him from Penn Station in New York to Union Station in Washington, DC. Normally, that’s a two-and-a-half-hour train ride, but it took us seven and a half hours because there were two million people on the tracks. That, I will never forget, as a 14-year-old boy, what saw from the windows of the train that day. All of the urban train stations in Trenton, Newark, Philadelphia, and Baltimore were crowded with black and white men singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

God talks to human beings. There are many factors: through each other, through organized religion, through the great books of those religions, through wise people, through art, and music, and literature, and poetry. But nowhere with such detail and grace and color and joy as through creation. When we destroy a species, when we destroy a special place, we’re diminishing our capacity to sense the divine, understand who God is, and what our own potential is as human beings. We deserve a president in this country who cares about these things and who talks about these things to the American people.

My father, when he came back one time from the Delta, he said (we were all at the dinner table when he came in) and he said, ‘I was in a tar paper shack today. It was smaller than this dining room, and there were two families living there. The children get one meal a day. And when you get older, I want you to help those people.’

When we would go into Southeast Washington or Appalachia, he would say to us, ‘These are your people. These are Kennedy people.’

He said, ‘Other people, the big shots, the corporations, the millionaires, don’t need the Kennedys. They have lobbyists, they have PR firms, they have lawyers.’ And he said, ‘These are your people, and these are the people you need to spend your life helping.’

And when I’m president, I’m going to be president for those people. We’re going to take back this country. You give me a piece of ground and a sword, and I am going to take back this country with your help – to help all the homeless, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, who are Americans first.

Thank you all very much.

Source: By Ron Paul | RonPaulInstitute.org

While we were being distracted by the ongoing Russia/Ukraine war – and Washington’s increasing involvement in the war – tremendous developments in the Middle East have all but ended decades of US meddling in the region. Peace is breaking out in the Middle East and Washington is not at all happy about it!

Take, for example, the recent mending of relations between Saudi Arabia and formerly bitter adversaries Iran and Syria. A China-brokered deal between the Saudis and Iran has them re-establishing full diplomatic relations, with the foreign ministers of both countries meeting in Beijing last week. It is the highest-level meeting between the two countries in seven years.

Additionally, Riyadh is expected to invite Syria back into the Arab League and Syrian President Assad may attend the next Arab League summit. Syria was suspended from the Arab League 12 years ago when then-US allies in the Middle East signed on to Washington’s “Assad must go” policy that wreaked havoc across the region.

And the nearly decade-long war in Yemen, which has devastated that population, appears to finally be ending, as Saudi Arabia is expected to announce an end to its US-backed war on that country. Troops from the United Arab Emirates are leaving Yemen and a Saudi delegation is arriving to negotiate a peace deal.

To normal people the idea of peace breaking out in the Middle East is a wonderful thing. But Washington is anything but normal. President Biden dispatched his CIA Director, William Burns, to Saudi Arabia in a surprise visit last week. According to press reports, Burns was sent to express Washington’s surprise and frustration over the peace deals going through. Biden’s foreign policy team “has felt blindsided” by Saudi Arabia’s sudden move to get along with its neighbors.

Washington is angry that Saudi Arabia will start trading with Syria and Iran because those two countries are still under “crippling” US sanctions. One by one, as these countries begin ignoring US-demanded sanctions, the entirety of US foreign policy is being exposed as a paper tiger – just bluster and threats.

Middle East developments have revealed a dirty secret about US foreign policy. Washington has for a long time used a “divide and conquer” strategy to keep countries in the Middle East – and elsewhere – at each other’s throats. Sanctions, covert operations, and color revolutions have all been used to make sure that these countries do not get along with each other and that DC controls who runs the show.

As unlikely as it may seem to some, China has moved into the region with a different policy. China seeks business partners, not to manipulate the internal politics of the Middle East. They may be ruthless in their own way, but it is suddenly clear that the countries of this region are tired of US meddling and are looking for new partners.

We non-interventionists are often attacked as “isolationists,” but as I have always said, it is the neocons and interventionists in Washington who are really isolating us from the rest of the world. Nowhere is that more evident these days in the Middle East. It didn’t have to be this way, but if this is the end of US meddling in Middle East affairs then ultimately it is a good thing for the American people…and for peace.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president in 2024 as a Democrat, according to a statement of candidacy filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, April 5. Kennedy Jr. has a distinguished career as an environmental lawyer and has long been involved in public service and activism. He is a passionate advocate for children’s health and is the chair of the nonprofit group Children’s Health Defense. He has been a very vocal critic of the COVID-19 vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry, Anthony Fauci, and the lockdowns.

He is the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated on his own campaign trail, and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, who was also assassinated in a sophisticated plot with multiple gunmen. Kennedy Jr. believes that there is no doubt that the CIA killed both his father and his uncle.

Kennedy’s candidacy for the presidency represents an exciting opportunity for the Democratic Party. His background and experience make him a strong candidate, and his commitment to public service and activism are sure to resonate with voters.

As the primary race heats up, his candidacy is sure to add energy and excitement to the race and could lead to meaningful discussions about the direction of the country and the role of government in promoting the public good.

The U.S. desperately needs a president with Kennedy Jr.’s knowledge, integrity, history of public service, and a burning desire to create a better world for our children and future generations.

On March 8, 2023, former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield testified at the House COVID hearing and said that there is “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.

Source: The Defender | By READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE…

Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), on Wednesday said he has “no doubt” the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Dr. Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research that likely resulted in the creation of COVID-19 and its subsequent leak.

Redfield made the statement during the first formal hearing of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Former CDC Director Dr. Redfield: "There's no doubt that NIH funded gain-of-function research."

Malliotakis: "Is it likely that American tax dollars funded the gain-of-function research that created this virus?"

Redfield: "I think it did — not only from NIH but from the State… pic.twitter.com/KctyMd092K

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) March 9, 2023

The hearing included testimony related to the lab leak theory as a plausible explanation as the origin of COVID-19 and how the theory was shut down early in the pandemic in favor of narratives that COVID-19 had zoogenic — or natural — origins.

Committee members and witnesses also debated the future of gain-of-function research.

Other witnesses Wednesday included: Jamie Metzl, Ph.D., J.D., senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Nicholas Wade, former New York Times science editor and former deputy editor of Nature; and Paul G. Auwaerter, M.D., MBA, clinical director in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

The hearing followed the subcommittee’s release of a memo revealing that key NIH figures, including Fauci, helped persuade virologists to write an influential article squelching the theory that COVID-19 may have leaked from a lab and asserting the virus evolved naturally.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) last month determined SARS CoV-2 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China — a theory later endorsed by FBI Director Christopher Wray. These developments helped lead to a Senate vote to declassify U.S. intelligence documents on the origins of COVID-19.

Gain-of-function research ‘caused the greatest pandemic our world has seen’

Some of the witnesses called for gain-of-function research to be slowed down, paused or stopped entirely.

Redfield testified that the “COVID-19 pandemic presents a case study on the potential dangers of such research,” and said, “we should call for a moratorium on gain-of-function research until we have a broader debate and we come to a consensus as a community about the value of [such] research.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE…

Watch more of Dr. Redfield’s testimony:

Source: Kim Iversen

On the Kim Iversen show, Jimmy Dore explains why he believes that America is a failed state run by psychopaths.

Partial Transcript:

Kim Iversen (KI): Well the U.S. is spending millions of dollars, shooting down weather balloons, blowing up natural gas pipelines, and bringing us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia and China. Jimmy Dore says America is a failed state run by psychopaths, and I’m not sure I know what you mean Jimmy. What do you mean by that? Welcome to the show.

Jimmy Dore (JD): I can tell you what I mean by that. These people are psychopaths. Isn’t it amazing… I remember the first time I went on Joe Rogan. He was talking about UFOs and – and I said well, why do you think they’re telling you about UFOs now? And he was like no Jimmy it’s real – I talked to the pilot. He saw it. I’m like they’ve, been seeing UFOs since they started flying and just now the military is confirming this. Why is it? Because they want to spend a trillion dollars on a space force. And they want to distract you from the Nordstrom pipeline being blown up? They also want to distract you from Palestine, Ohio.

It’s amazing. You know, Americans are the most propagandized people in the world, and they have no idea that they are. That’s the thing that’s crazy. And the psychopaths are the people who still won’t give their own people Health Care, while they’re sending a hundred billion dollars in bombs to kill other people. They’re blood lust, thirsty psychopaths. We did it to Iraq, we did it to Libya, 20 years in Afghanistan. We did it to Syria, we’re still doing it to Syria. Isn’t that amazing how people can get so outraged at Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine, but no ire, no animosity, not even a blink of an eye to the United States occupying a third of Syria, which is the oil part. So again, we’re the thing we claim to hate; America is the world’s terrorists.

You know, we were supposed to be afraid When Donald Trump was President because he has his finger on the button. And now we have demented Joe and his saber-rattling with two nuclear powers. And these are, of course, economic wars.

KI: And we look like idiots while we’re doing this. You know like shooting down weather balloons, pow pow, pow pow, you know weather balloons and then saying these are some sort of Chinese Tech or maybe UFOs, but they’re really sort of pointing the finger over at China being like wow – making us look like idiots… For one, we can’t tell what a weather balloon is. You know we make it. Oh, it’s some sort of high-tech Chinese, you know, military spy tech that they’ve got going over us. We don’t even know really what it is. I mean we’re just looking like idiots in the process like rogue cowboys.

JD: I I don’t know how the rest of the world sees it, but… if the Chinese wanted to do something provocative like this and spy on us, they already have satellites that can spy, they can zone in, and they can read my credit card with a satellite. They don’t need to put a balloon that you could see with the naked eye over our country.

So again, the United States is the world’s terrorists, they’re doing it constantly. I can’t believe how… we’ll both have shows because the corporate news media is so horrible. And they won’t tell you the truth about anything, especially war. But it’s just mental now – like the news has no resemblance to what’s actually happening in the world. none!

And they’re not talking about this. People are saying that this thing that happened in Ohio is like Chornobyl and I don’t know because nobody will cover it. Nobody will talk about it. People will go to cover it and they get arrested. We’re being ruled by psychopaths who deny you health care in the middle of what they call a deadly pandemic.

The CDC just put the Covid vaccine on the schedule for children. Now you and I both know that children are at zero risk from Covid, so giving kids a Covid vaccine is evil. It’s not just anti-science, it’s literally evil, And Democrats cheer it on like they’re virtuous people and we’re some kind of conspiracy nuts. They’re being duped by the biggest criminals the world has ever seen, which is Big Pharma. We all know they’re criminals. We all know they’ll kill you for a profit, but you weren’t allowed to question it, and now they’re poisoning children with this.

KI: Yeah. It is criminal. And you know, other countries right now are actually banning it or no longer recommending it or even offering it for people under a certain age. You know under the age of 50. And they’re saying you don’t need this. This is only for high-risk. And certain countries, I think it’s Quebec actually just recently said that you’d have to have NOT had covid before they’re now willing to give you a shot. So they’re acknowledging natural immunity and saying natural immunity is better than the shot. You don’t even need a shot if you’ve already had Covid. And you only need a shot if you’re older and high-risk. They’re not even giving it to younger people in their recommendations, and yet here we are sticking it on the list for kids.

This kind of um brings me to something I want to ask you about. But first, oh by the way, I have this I have to deliver. It is Valentine’s Day Jimmy and I do have a special Valentine that came in for you from Anthony Fauci. It was a special delivery. He asked me to give it to you. You know, he won’t let me interview him, but he did ask me to send you that Valentine. So I hope you liked that. You make his heart stop, Jimmy

JD: That was, honest to God Kim, that was such a heartbreaker when you weren’t allowed to interview Dr Fauci, And now you know, The Hill gets recommended to me, Rising gets recommended to me on the YouTube algorithm. And so, if I’m in the shower or something, it’ll play and I’ll hear their Covid takes, and they’re coming around finally. I’s taken a very long time for everybody at The Hill to get on board. They’re still not sure about masks, but they’re starting to follow the money and they realize that Bill Gates… By the way, Bill Gates is now after he cashed in his money that you know he put 55 million dollars into Pfizer Biotech and then he sold. I don’t know how much he sold, but he sold a bunch of it, and then as soon as he did, he started shiting on their backs.

He’s saying they’re not good. It doesn’t stop you from transmitting it. It doesn’t stop you from getting it. It’s not long-lasting, and they’re not good. We got to get better back. All of a sudden, all of a sudden after he gets his money out of it, and so people think that Bill Gates, you know, they think he’s a nice person who wants to help people with vaccines. Bill Gates is a criminal maniac, megalomaniac!

How do you get to be the richest person in the world by helping people? We all know how you get to be a billionaire by crushing people and he’s barely a computer specialist. He didn’t write any of that code that made them money. He’s a monopolist right? He knows how to gin the system and crush people. So Bill Gates, because he wears a crew neck and a sweater, and he looks like a nerd, people think he wants to help people. He doesn’t want to help people. He wants to control people – he’s a megalomaniac just like everybody else.

Why do you think he’s funding The WHO? Governments are supposed to be funding the WHO. You know the number one donor to the WHO is Germany, number two is Bill Gates, and number three is the United States.

KI: Right and actually Bill Gates, donates to other foundations that donate to the WHO. He also does the main funding for GAVI and GAVI Is a main funder for The WHO. So it’s not just the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but he’s got proxy money coming in. So he’s really even more influential than it actually looks like on that list. And he’s got money just coming into these organizations through all of the other organizations that he funds. And that is what’s really scary. He has a disproportionate amount of power over our Health Care system and he thinks he’s some expert on I mean, I suppose I guess he is an expert on viruses.

JD: He’s a College Dropout.

KI: Yeah! Well right! You know: Microsoft viruses this virus.

JD: Oh, I got you oh yeah.

KI: I was trying to make a joke Jimmy.

JD: I’m sorry, I’m sorry, my bad.

KI: My one shot at comedy, and you just you know this is why I don’t do it. This is why I don’t do stand-up. Speaking of that, Why are you not doing your show? Where are you?

JD: Sure yeah, so this week, Aaron Mate is filling in for me this week and next week. And this week I’m in DC for the anti-war rally on Sunday.

KI: We’re both speaking at that.

JD: That that’s right, It’ll be great….

Source: Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard delivers a brilliant speech regarding the Weaponization of the Federal Government during a House Subcommittee meeting.

Source: Congresswoman Nancy Mace

Watch Congresswoman Nancy Mace grill a Twitter exec about censoring top doctors and CDC data during a Congressional oversight hearing.

TRANSCRIPT:

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (CNM): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Twitter fires files were not just about Hunter Biden’s. Laptop Twitter files make it apparent Twitter worked overtime to suppress accurate Covid information. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford, who once tweeted an article he wrote about natural immunity. Thanks to Elon Musk’s release of the Twitter Files, we learned some of his tweets were tagged with the label of Trends Blacklist.

Apparently, the views of a Stanford doctor are disinformation to you people. I, along with many Americans, have long-term effects from Covid. Not only was I a long hauler, but I have effects from the vaccine. It wasn’t the first shot, but it was the second shot that I now developed asthma that has never gone away since I had the second shot.

I have tremors in my left hand. And I have the occasional heart pain that no doctor can explain, and I’ve had a battery of tests. I find it extremely alarming Twitter’s unfettered censorship spread into medical fields and affected millions of Americans by suppressing expert opinions from doctors and censoring those who disagree with the CDC.

I have great regrets about getting the shot because of the health issues that I now have that I don’t think are ever going to go away. And I know that I’m not the only American who has those kinds of concerns.

Another example of what Twitter has done to censor folks is from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard educated epidemiologist, who once tweeted: Covid vaccines are important for high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.

The Twitter files reveal this tweet was deemed false information because it ran contrary to the CDC. So my first question this morning of Ms. Gadde. May I ask of you: where did you go to medical school?

Ms. Gadde (MG): I did not go to medical school.

CNM: I’m sorry?

MG: I did not go to medical school.

CNM: That’s what I thought. Why do you think you or anyone else at Twitter had the medical expertise to censor a doctor’s expert opinion?

MG: Our policies regarding Covid were designed to protect individuals. We were seeing…

CNM: You guys censored Harvard-educated doctors, Stanford-educated doctors, doctors that are educated in the best places in the world and you silenced those voices. My next question is: did the U.S. government… Excuse me, I have another chart I want to show you Ms. Gadde. I have another tweet by someone with a following of a full 18,000 followers. This person put a chart from the CDC on Twitter. It’s the CDC’s own data. So it’s accurate by your standards, and you all labeled this as misleading. You’re not a doctor right, Ms. Gadde?

MG: No, I’m not.

CNM: Okay. What makes you think you or anyone else of Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual accurate CDC data?

MG: I’m not familiar with these particular situations.

CNM: Yeah, I’m sure you’re not, but this is what Twitter did – they labeled this as inaccurate. It is the government’s own data, It’s ridiculous that we’re even having to have this conversation today. It’s not just about the laptop. This is about medical advice that expert doctors were trying to give Americans because social media companies like Twitter were silencing their voices. I have another question, my last one for you, Ms. Gadde. Did the U.S. government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to pressure Twitter to moderate or censor certain tweets? Yes or no?

MG: We have a program.

CNM: Did the U.S. government ever contact you or anyone at Twitter to censor or moderate certain tweets? Yes or no?

MG: We receive legal demands to remove content from the platform from the U.S. government and governments all around the world. Those are published on a third-party website and anyone can review.

CNM: Thank God for Matt Taibbi. Thank God for Elon Musk for allowing to show us and the world that Twitter was basically a subsidiary of the FBI, censoring real medical voices with real expertise that put real Americans’ lives in danger because they didn’t have that information. I also want to thank one of my colleagues, Ro Khanna, because as it turns out censorship isn’t just an important issue to conservatives. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like Ro, found this censorship very concerning and even wrote to you and the folks at Twitter that he was concerned about the first amendment being censored. So I want to thank him for speaking up and speaking out about this issue because this should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue that’s an American issue.

CNM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record, I ask unanimous consent, to enter into the record a Wall Street Journal article from December 9, 2022, by Justin Hart entitled, “The Twitter Blacklisting of Jay Bhattacharya” into the record, please, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman: Without objection, so ordered.

CNM: Thank you and I yield back.