OK, welcome back a little bit early perhaps, but welcome back
for some extra. Thanks, Mark and Debbie for
joining again. Now I'm going to say we've got
to recognize that that a lot of people respect or at least have
a lot of hope in Donald Trump and his election.
A lot of UK column members have that as well and some people
pushed back quite hard. And what I said about him on
Monday and well, first of all, Mark, I'd be interested in what
you thought about, about sorry on Wednesday, what we what we
said on Wednesday. Well, I didn't watch it ultra
intently. It it was just the basic idea
that you can't necessarily expect policy to change markedly
or significantly between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Of course, that's based on the truth that there's an
establishment out there of power behind the throne that will only
tolerate so much nuance, that will only tolerate coloring
outside their lines so much. And and that's true, Donald
Trump is something of a gadfly. Of course, he, he grew up in a
different wealth lineage than let's say the Rockefellers.
He had some inherited wealth, but he worked for it more than
these mad toys like Rockefeller, Morgan and so on.
A mad Toid is a person of great intelligence with criminal
inclinations. But so, so Trump is, is
something of a different animal to be sure, being powerful in
the New York City and New Jersey real estate markets, things like
that. A bit of a gadfly.
I think that carrying that over to politics, that big business
attitude, has had some good effect.
Certainly in his first term, he was able to impose some needed
tariffs on Chinese imports and put some revenue in our Treasury
as a result. He balked at the Federal
Reserve's policies and was quite outspoken at times about that.
He probably could have went a little further on that one.
He certainly he trimmed or at least temporarily cut back on
WHL funding. He was a bit duplicitous in
COVID, boosting the COVID regime with Operation Warp Speed and
yet complaining about some of the lockdown measures and things
like that and again, being skeptical of The Who and
withholding their funding. Something of a mixed bag there.
All in all, I think that certainly he's not a boring guy.
You'll never be bored with Donald Trump, that's for sure.
And he's got a chance to prove himself now, to show his
nationalist and American America First bona fides are real, to
intensify some of the good things he did in his first term.
And all eyes are on him and his. His backers, be they Americans
or elsewhere, need to hold his feet to the fire.
And I think if they do, I think they'll get reasonably
satisfactory results. But Trump is under pressure from
groups like the CFR Council on Foreign Relations, whose
overview of Trump I I recited and reported on in the main
segment today. They don't just look at him and
talk about him and assess him against a globalist measurement.
They want him to do the things that they want.
And they're highly influential. The CFR comes out of big money.
It comes out of Rockefeller, it comes out of Morgan.
They don't play around. They've got journalists in there
holding pen. They have papers that they put
into congressional committees advising them on what to do.
And they have personnel who will go to the State Department,
possibly of the Trump administration, go to the
Pentagon, possibly under the Trump administration.
So the CFR isn't just some armchair philosophy sitting in
overblown leather chairs sipping caviar.
They are. They want action on the
globalist agenda and they don't see a lot of that in Trump.
They they give him pretty bad grades, as I noted in the main
report. So Trump would appear to be that
America first or that everyone wants.
But appearances can be misleading.
You have to be careful. Any politician, you have to be
careful. And it's going to be a matter of
the people getting involved and holding his feet to the fire.
If he hires too many CFR people in his administration, people
need to balk at that. They need to send him letters.
They just they need to say we don't like what we're seeing.
So people have to stay involved and not just get overly
inundated by the man on the White Horse that's going to save
us all. A phenomenon.
He will be a market improvement over Joe Biden.
Of course, that's not saying much.
Just about anybody. Alfred E Newman of Mad magazine
would be an improvement over Joe Biden.
But but Trump does have a lot of cojones.
He's got a lot of courage, I think, to to be assertive when
he needs to be. So there's a lot, a lot of eyes
on Trump now. He's going to have to live up to
his core promises that people are going to have to keep his
feet to the fire. And if he's really the American
America First nationalist that the CFR doesn't want, then
Donald Trump has to prove it. The proof will be in the
pudding. And that's why we're
journalists, to make sure that the facts get out so people can
make these judgments. Yeah.
OK, so, so let me ask you this then.
Obviously, he's in a much, much stronger position this time than
he was in 2016 because he appears to be winning the the he
appears to be winning in the House of Representatives.
He, he has a majority in the Senate.
Does let's just take the majority in the Senate for a
second. Does him having a majority in
the Senate guarantee that whoever, basically whoever, he
chooses for positions in his cabinet will get the Senate
approval that they need? Certainly will increase the
likelihood Americans at least need to keep an eye on their
senators as to who's being nominated for what and what
they're approving. You know, what if there, if
there were to be a change in the Supreme Court, let's say
Clarence Thomas, a flagship conservative, were to step down,
He's getting up in years and they were to replace Clarence
Thomas. That would be an important one.
You know, various departments in Department of Defense,
Department of State are are going to be going to be really
important where the where Senate approval would be required.
And let's not forget the pandemic treaty that the final
touches of which are being put put on right now.
According to James Roguski. People can go to
jamesroguski.substack.com to see the latest on that.
Will the Senate, will they treat it as the treaty that it is?
And will Donald Trump and his administration raise that
specter and say you senators have to treat this like a
treaty, The Constitution requires your advice and
consent. And if Trump is so inclined,
this treaty doesn't look good to me.
I don't like the smell of it. I urge you to decline on this.
That would be a, a major bellwether issue right there,
Mike. And in terms of the House, I, I
think they're still looking at the final touches on what the
House majority would be for the Republican Party.
Not all Republicans are of the same persuasion.
Some are the purely big business kind of Rockefeller Republicans
that don't like the new brand of Republican that Trump represents
a slightly more populist bent. Hopefully that's genuine and not
deceptive, but it is better than his first term.
And another factor in it, Mike, is that Trump can be a little
bit more unequivocal now because I don't believe he can serve
another term beyond this one he's just been elected to.
And so he's got to really get to business.
He's got four years. He can move with more impunity
now. And so let's we'll see just how
courageous he is and just how genuine he is.
The proof, again, the proofs in the pudding.
There is a lot of confidence among a lot of people I know in
Donald Trump, but, you know, my job as a journalist is not to be
on the bandwagon, but, you know, reportedly layout the
information that can make a difference.
And just a final point on this then, I mean, in his first term,
they, they basically had them that we could call it the deep
state had them tied up in knots with various kinds of, you know,
Russia gate inquiries and, and legislate, you know, sort of
judicial kinds of things. Are we going to see the same
types of attacks on on him? Is he going to be tied up in
knots again? Does he have the cojones to
actually deal with that this time?
Because he didn't the first time round that.
Is one of the best questions I've heard asked Mike that is
essential the media, even though Jeff Bezos confessional that I
reported on last week shows that they're sinking and finally he's
admitting it's their own fault. And the Los Angeles Times had a
similar melee at their their newsroom.
No more endorsements. It's our own fault, you know,
but losing viewers, losing subscribers, board members from
editorial boards, resigning. But the media is pretty
incorrigible. They and elements of what we
call the deep state, rhino, Republicans, the Democratic
Party, etcetera, etcetera. I believe you're right.
They're going to kick a lot of dust in Trump's face.
There's going to be a lot of allegations, probably things we
don't expect to try and trip him up, and he's going to have to
cut through that with a very straightforward way of doing
things not to be too distracted or or too dismantled by the S
storm SH, the shite storm that's sure to come his way.
There's a lot of interest that didn't want him back in there.
So that is the big question. Can he resist what will be an an
even bigger shite storm this time around?
Yeah, Debbie, what are your thoughts?
Oh, well, I mean, I can never understand actually why, you
know, when somebody's elected in America, you've got this two
months sort of transition time. It seems an awful long time.
Whereas here in the UK, you know, we have an election and
our prime minister's in Downing St. overnight, you know, the
removal spans have been and gone.
So I've always found that a bit strange.
But I think, you know, when it comes to Trump, I get why people
are. So thank goodness Trump's got
in, because clearly if if, I mean, this is just a
hypothetical, but if Kamala had got in, perhaps that would have
triggered a civil war. I don't know.
So I get the reason that people are very relieved that Trump's
gotten in. And nobody was more pleased when
I saw him withdraw from The Who last time.
I mean, it's yeah, it's all right.
And he's a charismatic character with a personality.
I mean, you know, Boris, we were all fascinated with Boris's
personality because Boris has got, he goes.
He goes places where angels fear to tread, let's face it.
And I think Trump does, too. And I've listened to many
pastors in the Bible Belt in America, and I get it.
I get why everybody's like make America great again.
But I agree with Mark in that I think he has got to what is he
going to do? He's MAGA Make America Great
Again. So is he going to stick to his
promises and stick to America first?
This is what's going to be interesting.
What if Iran, for example, should attack Israel?
Will he get involved or will he go, you know what this is about
America, this is about me protecting our people and we're
not going to get involved if China and if the China and
Taiwan thing hots up, is he going to turn around and go none
of my business? I'm making America great again.
And you know, he's very tight with Elon Musk, Neuralink, you
know, SpaceX, all all he he put in.
I think it's called Space Force Mark just before in his last
term and warp speed. So I'm I'm very much on the
fence, but I don't think personally we should expect any
one person, especially a politician, to come in and save
us. I think it's if we all sit back
and go, oh, fantastic, Trump's in now he's going to make it all
right. I think we really need to to be
cautious of a feeling like that and let's see what he does.
But I get why so many people are happy that he's in.
But I think it's early days and yeah, we'll see.
So I agree with everything you said there, Debbie.
I mean, a couple of points I would make.
It is dangerous if people put all their faith in one person
and therefore then say, well, I don't need to get involved
because he's going to sort it out for us.
I think that is very, very dangerous.
I think though, that that with respect to foreign policy, which
is really what I was saying on Monday, it's clear what they are
intending to do. And to this to this degree, I
mean, Mark was was suggesting that that the the issue with
Trump and NATO was was a bit overblown in in the in the main
news. But the point here is that the
NATO establishment, the the military industrial complex has
been wanting the European Union to step up to the plate on
defence for years. And the EU, the EU, the sort of
EU establishment, has been wanting the EU member states to
step up to the plate for years. And we've been covering at the
UK column this whole drive for European Defence Union.
Now defence union is not any different to monetary union or
any of the other unions that the EU has.
They have all these policy areas that they describe as unions
where they've merged everything, your monetary union, the euro
and so on. They've merged the, the, they
effectively move the, the power base from the member states
legislatures up to the European Commission level.
And of course, as we know, the European Commission is selected
effectively. It's not, it's not a popular
vote which chooses the people that that sit in that.
So Ursula von der Leyen never had a popular vote for her to be
in her position. But she wants control of EU
defence decisions and they want, we've been talking about this
for years. They want single point command
of and control of the militaries of the European nations.
And Trump has without question, been used by the NATO
establishment to drive fear within the populations of
European member states in order to give the political elites
within those countries the mandate to move forward with
this project. And that that is going to be the
case. But of course he has contributed
to this himself because we reported in 2018 his speech at
the NATO, the the opening of the new NATO headquarters in
Brussels where he was basically telling the, the, the leaders of
European member member states off for not spending enough on
defence. The UK has said it is going to
lead the way by spending 2 1/2 percent on defence.
And they have said, Jeremy Hunt was saying yesterday, we don't
need to worry because as soon as the UK spends 2 1/2 percent,
everybody else in the EU will start spending 2 1/2% as well,
right? So we're leading, we're leading
the charge here, but but the fact that Trump is now president
is going to reinvigorate it already has reinvigorated.
In fact, Orban yesterday at the EU meeting was talking about the
reinvigoration of this move towards a European defence
infrastructure. So, so that's already happening.
That's one of the things that's already happening as a result of
Trump winning the election. And the, the, the video clip
that I showed of, of, of Vance on Monday where he was
describing the, what he saw as being the, the way that things
would work. That the, that the United
States, the Trump administration wants Israel to step up to the
plate and deal with Iran. They want the European Union to
step up the plate and deal with Russia.
And they want to be able to focus. the US wants to be able
to focus itself on China. And that, that, that is not a
policy that JD Vance has been expressing on his own.
That is something that has gone right through the, the Trump
sort of platform forever actually, and, and going back
and, and it has, I mean, even people like Nigel Farage are
echoing this, right? So, so that that is going to be,
I believe the now on the Israel matter.
In the meantime, of course, and Mark, you can tell us a little
bit more about this because Debbie's talked about this
transition period. So we have a transition period
now where Biden is still supposedly the president, but
there's this hand off to Trump. And how does that work?
Because aircraft have just been sent because RAF Lake and Heath
is effectively a United States Air Force Base, even though it's
called RAF Lake and Heath. And it's just been upgraded for
nuclear weapons because the F35 USF 30 Fives are going to be
stationed there and so on. But a whole bunch of aircraft, I
believe F Fifteens, I can't remember, I think it's F
Fifteens, have just flown from Lake and Heath to the Middle
East in preparation for a potential attack by Iran.
And as Vanessa was saying on Wednesday, that that is very
likely to happen now. And Iran, certainly the rhetoric
seems to have strengthened somewhat and they are intending
to do something with Israel very, very soon.
So, So there's already US assets been moved into the region
potentially to get involved in that if that happens or when
that happens. So, Mark, how does this work?
Can Trump, does he already have the ability to to to change that
policy or is that something that he has no control over until
January? The answer would be he has no
direct control over it until he's actually inaugurated.
All he can do now is express his opinion.
Joe Biden is still president, like it or not.
And it's a dangerous time in the sense that Joe Biden could
simply go along if he if he already supports this thing, or
he could easily be pressured to support it if he doesn't go
along with it because, hey, he's going to be out of there fairly
soon anyway and he can let Trump pick up the pieces.
So it's a time when exploitation can happen, when they when they
pass legislation in America. Some of the worst legislation in
America has been passed during the time of transition, which as
Debbie noted, is extended here compared to the UK.
It's a very sensitive time between the election of a new
president and the seating of that new president.
Some of the worst legislation in U.S. history, including the
Federal Reserve Act, has been passed in that time gap, what
they call the lame duck session, the lame duck time.
So, yeah, we, we have to be very watchful right now.
All Trump can do is make his views known, and he can be
pretty assertive. Of course, his views will be
widely reported, so it'll have a lot of impact.
But Joe Biden is still president, so it's a it's a
sensitive time. Right.
OK. And, and if, if, if something
egregious like that was done in this lame duck time, would would
would Trump have the ability to just revoke that by some kind of
executive order as soon as he became president?
Generally speaking, yeah, he he could reverse a policy.
Just like when Joe Biden got in, he took down the border wall
that was being built and piled a lot of those sections only four
or five miles from where I'm sitting.
And I'm going to be watching whether those slightly rusting
border walls, metal sections will be removed from the land
along some old railroad tracks and taken, taken to the border
and re erected. So, yeah, just like Biden
counteracted a lot of border policies, Trump theoretic in
many ways, realistically could could counteract some of these
foreign policy measures. It might not be real easy, but
the answer is generally yes. Yeah, OK.
But in the meantime, of course, sorry Debbie, go ahead.
Sorry, no, I was just going to add very quickly too, because
you know, when you think about Trump, we also covered last week
Professor Claire Wardle a misinformation information.
Now this, I know it's always been an issue, but Trump was
really the catalyst when he came out with fake news, because
after he came out with the term fake news, everybody just went
into OverDrive and invented this information disorder where we're
now seeing misinformation, disinformation and
malinformation. And if you take it back,
although it was going on in World War One, World War 2,
propaganda, etcetera, misinformation, it really became
an industrial complex as soon as Trump uttered those two words,
fake news. We mustn't forget where that
originated and where it started at the previous Trump
presidency. I mean, and I have to say, you
know, I've seen how he's been dealing with the press over the
last day or two and he's he's not taking any nonsense from
them. I will give him that and they
are trying their best to make him look like an idiot, but he's
not. He's not.
He's not falling for it at this stage, which which that is a
positive thing, I suppose. Now let's move from one world
leader Debbie to another. Well, we've got to come.
We've got to talk about the royal family.
I mean, you know, and I'm going to be talking loads more about
the royal family. And also by the way, I just want
to add very, very quickly, thank you for mentioning Scrap the
App, Mike, in the main news, because I'm going to announce to
our viewers right now, every single week, I'm going to be
doing something about Scrap the Apps, whether it's the NHS app,
that would be the first one, or whether it's your bank app or
whatever, I'm going to be doing that.
But you know, the royal family, I'm so interested in the royal
family. And it seems that Channel 4 are
interested in the royal family too.
Thank you to so much, so much to everybody who sent me this, that
Channel 4 were doing a big expose and the king, the Prince
and their secret millions. And it's like when I started to
watch it, I thought, oh, wow. And there were a few, there were
a few wow or whoa moments if you like, but also a lot of the
material we have covered in our series The Green Kings.
So we found out through dispatches that King Charles is
charging the NHSNHS hospitals, this is in London, 11,000,000 to
park ambulances on the land. I mean, that's just the tip of
the iceberg, but I just want to remind.
Hold on, just before you remind everybody, can I just ask the
question, Debbie, because, because I've seen this in
Plymouth as well, a bunch of ambulances being parked up.
Why are the ambulances being parked up on this land in the
first place? No, that's a really good
question. I mean, that is, that is the
$1,000,000 question, isn't it? And this is what is exposing now
the king of unsustainability, because he's, he's getting in
all of this money from charities, from the NHS, Serco
businesses, I mean, you name it everywhere.
And we've been exposing it on the column for absolute ages.
And I would say to people, you know, go and have a look at the
Green King. And even if you are a staunch
royalist, like my mother, who is a staunch royalist, it may just
surprise you because this is based on fact.
You know, we build everything. We, we, we base everything on
evidence and fact. And one of the things that we
brought out was the saviour of the world, you know, and people
were shocked when they saw the statue of Prince Charles as he
was then, as the saviour of the world, with wings and a
loincloth, standing on a hill of skulls with a crucifix on there.
And you can make whatever you want.
I mean, there's so much to be said about that picture.
But you know what? I've got a little tiny clip.
There was a little trailer from the Channel 4 Dispatches expose.
Have a look at it and see what you think.
Hold on, I have to find it first.
Keep talking. I'll keep talking.
Well, it was shocking, quite honestly.
And I really do think that King Charles, he's got his fingers in
every single pie. Have a look.
Tonight, what Charles and William aren't telling you about
their secret millions, their private estates.
The Duchess of Lancaster and Cornwall make Charles and
William £50 million a year, but they have repeatedly refused to
reveal exactly which properties they own.
Can we have a report on the the list of?
Properties. I don't see why.
And details of how these estates make their staggering profits
and from where, have remained secret until now.
Wow. God Almighty.
But this is a really, really important revelation.
Thousands of documents obtained by Dispatches reveal how hard up
government departments, schools and even the NHS are helping to
keep the cash rolling in for Charles and William.
You're making money off a. Journey making money.
Off the poor personally. It's all shrouded in secrecy,
isn't it? I don't know why we don't find
out. More about it actually.
Our evidence shows how the commercial activities of these
private estates are undermining their environmental commitments.
Well, this is the worst performing kind of property.
Well. We can reveal to you that the
landlord we are talking about is the Dutchie of Cornwall, which
was managed for about 50 years by Charles, who is now the King
and is now run by Prince William.
OK, that does surprise me. I think when you own so much,
it's hard to comprehend how people could appreciate.
Such a small beach. They clearly don't understand
who we are and what we value. They are exempt from most of the
taxis we all pay and there are now calls for that to change.
This would be a brilliant. Time for the monarch to say I'm
going to be open. And I want to be treated as
fairly as anybody. It is public money.
It's taxpayers money, your money.
It's my money. It's the fewest money.
It's your money and it's being stolen.
And if it's not being, if it's not that there's tons of other
stuff that he's filtering off money from charities, he's
filtering off money from sports. He's sucking out the money from
celebrities of which he's become part, his family connections,
his close family connections. We cover all of this in the
Green King. So when you look at now where
everybody's asking questions about the royal family, and it's
not just our UK royal family, but it's also you'll see the
Spanish king got mud thrown at him recently with regards to
Valencia floods. I can tell you that Prince
Charles came to visit me after I lost my house to floods and mud.
Does he care? No, they don't care.
And in Cornwall, I'm on a rant now.
In Cornwall, when any of the Royal family do come down to
Cornwall, they temporarily fix the potholes of where their
royal carriages or royal cars are gonna go and it's a cheap
Phil just so that they think honestly the whole thing is a
scam. There's much more to come on
King Charles, what his dealings are, who he is, who he's linked
to, who his family are linked to and what has his agenda been for
the last 50 years? He has been the Prince in
waiting for a reason, and that reason is now that he is the
globalist of he's the top globalist in the world, in my
opinion, and he's got an awful lot to answer for.
And as people are starting to ask questions, more and more
dirt is coming out. But yes, King Charles, I'm
keeping a very close eye, but not just King Charles on
Princess of Wales, on Queen Camilla, on their family.
I'm keeping an eye on all of them at the Duke of Edinburgh,
Prince Edward, his family, the Duchess of York, Andrew.
What are all these people up to now and I don't.
Forget, don't forget Princess Anne.
Now Princess Anne is very interesting because she hides in
the background. You don't really see very much
of her, but she's behind common purpose, she's behind CSC
leaders, she's behind the Windsor Leadership Trust.
She's all the, all the, the globalist leadership programmes
that are placing people in positions of power and authority
in the country and she's right there supporting, supporting it.
So you know, she also has a role to play.
Oh, don't even stop me. And you know what?
It's I'm find myself in this really sort of again, it's a
divisive situation because my family, my mother and my family
are very pro royalists. And if I turned around right now
because I'm at my mother's, is that?
An age thing, Debbie, is it, do you think it's, do you think
it's, do you think the older generation are would be more pro
monarchy and the younger generation actually wouldn't be
too worried about seeing the back of them?
I definitely think that's in it. And of course the older
generation remember the Queen and many people have got,
although the Queen her first, let's not just forget her first
public visit after lock up was portoned down.
So there are question marks there too.
But a lot of people think of the Queen.
But my mum is, is very, very pro royalist.
And if I turn around now, you know, she's, we've got pictures
in this House of, of my father with the now king of my father
with the Princess Royal. So, you know, military
connections have led to introductions.
And I myself met Charles. And when I trained at the Royal
Free, it was opened by the Queen.
So I met the Queen. But now when I see how much is
involved and how much corruption and dirty dealings there are,
it's simply staggering. And I think more of this is
going to evolve. We're going to start start
seeing more. But as regards to the young
generation, yeah, I don't think the younger generation really
care, to be quite honest. I think they could take it or
leave it. And I mean, a problem we have
here, Mark, is that, you know, we're we're Lombard with this
historical artifact, but the United States.
And maybe, maybe there are people that would say, well, we
should be a Republic. And then we look at the United
States and, and of course you're, you supposedly, you
supposedly don't have an aristocracy.
And that's nonsense. You absolutely do have an
aristocracy. All the names that you
mentioned, Rockefeller and Bush and all these Harriman and all
these types of people that, that, you know, go to Yale and
Harvard and whatnot and consider themselves to be the blue bloods
of, of urination. I'm not certain that that you're
in any better position actually. There's a slight difference,
only that it's less based on blood and more based on money, a
kind of a money accuracy, but the effect is about the same.
And in a way it's worse in a in the sense that it's a little bit
more hidden. The average American is just
beginning to grasp that the, the political system and the
politicians we see the branches of government are, are an
outward thing. But inwardly behind the throne,
there's old money lines and those lines of inheritance.
They, they park their money and tax exempt foundations while the
rest of us pay taxes. So it's, it's a different kind
of royalty built a slightly different way and it's more
deceptive. But in, in the end, the effect
is about the same. A republican form of government,
a Republic I think is a pretty good one, but it's also an
extremely fragile one. Even even James Madison talked
about that, as did some of the other founders, Benjamin
Franklin. It's a Republic if you can keep
it. They knew it was fragile, and
they were right. Yeah, anyway.
Finders sorry, the the founding fathers saying at the time, I
can't remember whether it was Adams or or Franklin or whoever
it was, you know, we, we should not be moving to a party
political model. This is this is a recipe for
disaster. Yeah, George Washington too.
Yeah. And then they were vindicated
big time on that one, as well as Jefferson.
It's sad because the the political parties make
everything into an ideology, because one important point
about the presidency, the irony is, is that in the ideal sense,
it almost shouldn't even matter who who the president is because
they step in. Their job is to see see to it
that the laws are faithfully executed.
They're supposed to have adherence to and reverence for
the Constitution, the letter of the law, and they're supposed to
apply those principles. Whoever steps into that gap is
supposed to apply the very same principle.
So in some ideal Republican sense, it shouldn't even hardly
matter who the president is. So because they have a, that's
a. Really important point because
that's exactly the role of the monarch as well.
And in the Britain, the monarch has subverted that role and
well, in a different way, the presidency, the the role has
changed. And political parties are a
chief way that that's been achieved.
What, you have to adhere to the party, but the party isn't
totally in in tune with the Constitution.
Wait, you don't want to fight that word That means you're an
isolationist. What the Hell's wrong with you?
We don't like no isolationist around here.
And that's a big one with the CFR.
They don't like them isolationist.
You know, they they they're, they're, they're them redneck
rat wingers. You're so, yeah, it's pretty,
pretty sensitive stuff, Yeah. Anyway, I don't know if you
wanted to. I had a couple other slides and
I don't want. To take a look, we're out of
time, Mark, but but you did want to show this the second clip
from Gordon Sinclair, so why don't you introduce that?
Yeah, well, he has a little bit more to say.
This this guy was really interesting Canadian journalist,
as I mentioned the way he spoke up and one of his main things
was he always knew the main press, even the legacy Press of
his day was still even then getting into statism to preach
the gospel of the state. The state can't be wrong about
fluoridation. The state can't be wrong about
vaccination. If the moon, if the moon's made
of cream cheese and the state says it, it must be true.
But he had a way of saying things as well as the specific
topics he addressed. So, you know, to learn more
about Gordon Sinclair, let's let's listen to a little bit
more from him. I object on the grounds of my
rights as a citizen to refuse medicine.
I don't want this medicine and I challenge the authority of
anybody to force it on me. You can go to a drug store and
buy a can of this sodium fluoride, but under the laws of
our country it will have to be labeled poison.
This is a must. It is a basic chemical used in
rat and bug poison. No one disputes that point.
No one claims that fluoride is useful to any adult anywhere on
earth under any condition or combination of conditions.
They do claim that it is helpful to some of the teeth of some of
the children, that it is not cumulative in the human system
and that it will not be injurious.
OK, we're right back to my point and that point is this.
Why, if this is supposedly good to a limited group in the
population, is it forced in the water of all of the people all
the time? One of the rights we have to
protect is the individual right to take or refuse medicine, and
I don't want that right trampled under foot.
Well, that's all from Gordon Sinkler, who normally does only
the weather on assignment. Well, thank you, Gordon.
A bit of a character. I think you're muted, Mark.
Sorry, I I had there was extra noise here.
Yeah, he was quite a guy. I like the little, the dry sense
of humor he had as well. I normally do the weather, but
now I'm going to let it let you have it on fluoride.
So. And he's.
Right. He's completely right, You know,
Mike, because what he said there was medicalizing water, medical
water. And recent interview with Joy
Warren. She she said this is what she
does. I'm not suggesting that anybody
else should or could, but this is what Joy does.
She says that because she didn't agree to receiving medicalised
water, she doesn't pay her water rates for clean water.
She pays the sewerage rates, but she doesn't pay for water
because she says she's then got to go to the extra expense of
getting either reverse osmosis or distillation to remove that
fluoride from the water because she doesn't choose to drink
water that's been medicalised. And thus far, the water company
have not insisted that she pays that particular part of her
water bill. But this is all about
medicalising water. And in the first clip that
marks, but of course, you don't know the dose.
Nobody knows how much fluoride they're getting.
It depends on how much water you drink, you know.
So this is a huge, this is a huge move in the USA.
It could have huge effects here in the UK I'm hoping.
Go ahead. One other quick thing, he
mentioned that kids don't drink a lot of water.
That's even more true now. And to the extent they do, it's
not out of the pipe, it's not out of the out of your tap.
So you know the the fluoride is largely bypassing the kids
anyway by putting it in. Hold on, hold on.
Is it? Is it though?
Is it because they're drinking fizzy pop instead?
And, and what is in that? You know, what is it?
What's the water base that's used for that?
OK, that's true. Yeah.
I don't know what the I don't know what the concentrations
would be. I I, I meant in the strict sense
of public water being used for that purpose and it therefore
it's going to get in food too, because water is going to be
used to make bread and and so on.
So yeah, point taken. But the I just don't want to
viewers to forget that RFK now being rolled out once again
because this happened last time regarding medical matters.
He's now being put up there once again, RFK junior as some sort
of health advisor, maybe on some panel for Trump.
And he's the one that I quoted in the main news saying they
will call for a national ban of fluoridation upon getting in
office. So those that have all eyes on
Trump, this is a real bellwether issue because just like with
vaccination, if if you can make if you can assert your will on
fluoridation and make it happen, that would be a measurement that
Donald Trump is who he says he is.
That would really prove his freedom loving impulses that are
that are, you know, prove they're genuine that you can
make foreign policy changes. You can do this or that.
But if you can make a change on fundamental vaccination policy
or fluoridation, that really proves a lot.
Let's say, for example, he was able to get the the legal
protection removed from Big Pharma for vaccine damages that
Reagan, a big a conservative Republican, passed in 1986.
Let's say Trump were to repeal that and expose Pfizer to all
the lawsuits that it deserves for mRNA and all that.
Boy, if Trump were to do that, then then, you know, he really
would be on a White Horse in a, in a sense.
So, you know, a lot of a lot of proving things, proving grounds
are coming up here, a lot of key pivotal issues that'll really
show where he's at. It's coming right up.
Yeah, OK, OK. Well, we will watch this.
Order two pregnant women the effects of drinking fluoridated
water on pregnant women for the unborn baby because of the
neurodevelopment developmental conditions that have been seen
as a result of fluoride such a big subject very important.
Yeah, OK. And lowering the IQ of children.
Yeah, children who have been born and preborn as well.
Yeah. Yeah.
Super. Yeah.
OK. Well, look, we've got to leave
it there for today. Thank you very much to Mark and
Debbie. Hope everyone has a great
weekend. Absolutely. 1:00 PM as usual on
Monday. See you then.
Bye. Bye.