SPEAKER JOHNSON CHANNELS RON PAUL: "We are going to cut 3% from DOJ, 7% from the ATF, 6% from the FBI, and 10% from the EPA."

Real Spending Cuts?!

They said it would never happen here.

They said Powell at 5.5% was irrelevant.

They said Tom, you're crazy.

I AM crazy.... I've also been dead right. https://t.co/iPA6YjOYe9

— Tom Luongo (Head Sneetch) (@TFL1728) March 6, 2024

ALEX NICOL: What a lot of people don't understand is that the Renewable Energy Act creates a subsidy environment where if you build wind turbines you are paid between $600,000 and 900,000 per turbine per year as a subsidy alone.

So they pay $12,000 to the farmer, but they get $600,000?  

So, he gets $12,000 a year, but if anything happens to it he's got to fix it?  

Yeah when they catch on fire, they're responsible for their neighbor's property going up in smoke.  That kind of thing.

Hilarious if not also terrifying.

You see, we have an opportunity to awaken.

A once in a generation opportunity to realize that we have been governed by LIARS. Not good intentioned people or midguided...but genuine LIARS.

Once you see it, you can never unsee it. https://t.co/B6NPZcqSVw

— 🔬 ))ay( 🚴‍ (@jjcouey) March 6, 2024

Alex Nicol.

Alex, now, you used to work for the federal government.

I did, yeah, for 7 years.

Doing what?

I was policy advisor for a liberal party senator.

Until you were saying that you were working about the windmills? 

Yes, the area that I was working in was renewable energy, and basically it was my job to uncover a lot of the stuff that was going on with renewable energies equipment that was put in in 2002 during the Howard government.  That was the Liberal Party put there in place, and I was looking at the mess that it had created.  What a lot of people don't understand is that the Renewable Energy Act creates a subsidy environment where if you build wind turbines you are paid between $600,000 and 900,000 per turbine per year as a subsidy alone.  

Well, if it's on your property?

No.  What happens is that the wind company comes in and leases they pay a lease to the farmer to build the wind turbine and that in effect makes sure that the farmer is still liable for the turbine and they pay a lease of $12,000 a year usually and the company gets paid between $600 and $900,000 per turbine per year.

So they pay $12,000 to the farmer, but they get 600,000?

Exactly.

Per turbine . . .  

Yep.

This is a big incentive to put in turbines.

Yeah, and the landowner takes the liability for the turbine.

So, he gets $12,000 a year, but if anything happens to it he's got to fix it.  

Yeah when they catch on fire, they're responsible for their neighbor's property going up in smoke.  That kind of thing.

Woooow.

And effectively that money, that that subsidy getting paid to the wind farms is draining $40 billion a year out of the Australian economy and it's paid by everyone, householders, schools, hospitals, everything, everyone.  It's not just coming out of your tax, it's coming out of your power bill.

Is this why power bills are going up? 

That's why power bills are going up . . . 

So power bills are going up to pay for wind turbines that don't work?

Exactly.

And why don't they work? 

They don't work because for a start they draw power off the grid so they have to have coal-fired power in order to turn.  They're not windmills, they're turbines.

Sorry, what do you mean, the power to turn, we see them turning . . . that's not the wind that's powered generating turning?

Essentially.  They have to draw power off the grid, so they have to draw coal-fired power off the grid in order to turn.  What happens when the wind picks up, they do start to create electricity of their own but that electricity is so intermittent and unreliable that when it gets back to the grid it has to be balanced on the grid which you can't do with your coal-fired power station, you can't ramp your coal-fired power stations up and down.  So the coal-fired power station stays at the same level because it takes 24 to 48 hours to get up to heat anyway, just let off steam as the wind comes on to the grid so there's absolutely nothing about them that works apart from draining that amount of money out of the Australian economy and it's going offshore.

That money's going offshore . . . 

 

Thank you to Steve Bartin.

2:00.  We have the big decision come out of the Supreme Court yesterday.  This is huge, and, of course, as I predicted on the show, it would be a very interesting decision.  I initially predicted a couple of months ago that it would be a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump.  Guess what?  It was essentially a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Trump.  All 9 justices argued that Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot, but 4 of them had reservations about it.  There was a concurring opinion that was almost a dissent.  As I said, it was going to be 5 to 4, and then after listening to the arguments I thought, well, it's going to be 9 to 0, or 8 to 1, but it turned out to be 9 and 0 in favor of Trump "staying on the ballot," but the arguments against it, kind of this expansion of the 14th Amendment, certainly the 3 liberal justices believe that Amy Coney Barrett, who I thought would be in the 5 to 4, who I thought maybe Roberts would go to the 4 but it was Barrett.  She is certainly still saying that maybe the state can do something with the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of that, but regardless, I was right on both accounts.  That's why you listen to the show and that's why on social media I said I should be making Rush Limbaugh kind of money.  

3:30. Let me go into some of the things about this; in fact, I'm not going to read the decision very much.  I'll say some general things about the decision.  First and foremost, I think that Barrett in some ways is actually right that states can enforce provisions of the Constitution.  I mean state judges take an oath to defend the Constitution, and so do state officers.  They do it.  This is what I've mentioned about Texas.  Texas can enforce the Constitution.  They can round up people crossing the border illegally, send them back to Mexico, or wherever else they are from.  They can do that.  State officers take an oath to support the Constitution.  Now, what states don't have to do is enforce unconstitutional laws.  I've talked about that on this show.  That's non-commandeering.  But if the law is constitutional, and they take an oath to do it, then they have to enforce those things.

4:20. Now, the situation with the ballot is very interesting because it wasn't until the late 19th century that we had the States involved in that process, and some of that was because of the 14th Amendment.  But also because states wanted to regulate who could and who could not be on a ballot; in some ways, that's a little bit of an expansion of power that maybe they don't have.  Private entities or parties can put anybody they want on the ballot.  The states can sort that out after they get nominees, but you can have any party nominate anyone.  And if that person had been convicted of, say, insurrection, well, then the state could potentially leave them off the ballot, or if that person was a criminal or another way of what if they were in jail well that person could be kept off the ballot I mean there are some things you know like when if they're not old enough whatever the situation is the state can review that and say no well this person can't be there also Congress has a role in that regard as well they can refuse to see people in Congress but the state certainly gets to decide to choose it's electors so in that way there could be some control of that for the states.  

LATYPOVA: Since 2005, all biolab facilities in Ukraine have been under the US Government and DOD control. For world peace reasons, of course, you understand.

You should read Sasha Latypova regularly.  

In today's article, titled, "World Exclusive: Everything You Wanted to Know About Biolabs in Ukraine, Now Revealed!"

Her subheading reads "DOD Operation Warp Speed, or OWS, confirms--pathogens are made in the labs.  It's okay when WE do it!  It's to save Grandma and for warfighter readiness . . . ."  You've got to love the dragon-sleighing sarcasm.

It's 2024 and we're still confused about COVID-19 origins, that is until now.  

World Exclusive: Everything You Wanted to Know About Secret Biolabs in Ukraine, Now Revealed!, by @sasha_latypova https://t.co/0zaamrAAKg

— St. Michael, the Archangel (@aveng_angel) March 6, 2024

Her article starts, 

Here is the document in question (in Ukrainian): the agreement between Ukraine and US, signed in August 2005, that turns over the control of the Ukrainian biolabs that store and work with “pathogens” to the US government.  Link to auto English translation.  

This is just remarkable.  The US has contracted with Ukraine to make bioweapons since 2005, almost 20 years ago?  So, this would mean that the U.S. knew the source and origin of the bioweapon, COVID-19, since at least 2005.  Check out the wording in the contract.  

Desiring to implement the Agreement between Ukraine and the United States of America on Assistance to Ukraine in the Elimination of Strategic Nuclear Weapons, as well as the Prevention of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, signed on October 25, 1993, with subsequent amendments and additions (hereinafter referred to as the "Framework Agreement") in the part relating to the prevention of the proliferation of technologies, pathogens and knowledge that could be used in the development of biological weapons,

It's an agreement "on Assistance to Ukraine in the Elimination of Strategic Nuclear Weapons, as well as the Prevention of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, signed on October 25, 1993.  

So it's an agreement to create weapons of mass destruction that replace nuclear weapons? 

And what took place between 1993 and 2005?  

Despite this change of control over Ukrainian biolabs nearly 20 years ago, just a few days ago this information was presented on Twitter as earthshattering news (again, I must add): “Russian authorities assert that the bio-research initiatives undertaken by the US Defense Department in Ukraine necessitate a thorough legal review, including scrutiny by pertinent international organizations.” 

And for the necessary levity on the subject, Sasha writes, 

Putin found the Ukrainian Rada website, at last!

https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1761652212944576946. 

I have to admit that I took part in hero worship of Putin.  See here.  

Here's a summary of the 2005 Ukraine-US agreement on Ukrainian Biolabs:

Agreement between the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the U.S. Department of Defense: 

The agreement is a part of the Framework Agreement signed in 1993 between Ukraine and the United States of America on assistance to Ukraine in the elimination of strategic nuclear weapons and the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The agreement focuses on preventing the spread of technologies, pathogens, and knowledge that can be used in the development of biological weapons in Ukraine, especially at the facilities designated by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.

Assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Defense: 

The U.S. Department of Defense will provide free assistance to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine in the amount of 15 million U.S. dollars, subject to the availability of funds allocated for this purpose. The assistance may include, but is not limited to, assistance for joint research into biology, identification and response to hazardous biological agents, and improved protection, control, and reporting of biological materials to reduce the risk of theft or unauthorized use of hazardous pathogens located at facilities in Ukraine. The U.S. Department of Defense may also provide other types of assistance by written agreement with the Ministry of Health of Ukraine.

Obligations and responsibilities of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine: 

The Ministry of Health of Ukraine will use the assistance exclusively for the purpose of preventing the proliferation of biological weapons, and will not divert or transfer it to any other use or recipient. The Ministry of Health of Ukraine will facilitate verification and inspections by the U.S. Department of Defense of the materials, training, and services provided under the agreement. The Ministry of Health of Ukraine will also transfer copies of dangerous pathogens and information obtained from the Infectious Disease Surveillance Network to the U.S. Department of Defense for joint research in preventive, protective, and peaceful purposes.

All of this in exchange for $15 million. LOL. Major LOL! This is embarrassing. For comparison, Robert Malone got $20+M to conduct just one fake study… Who negotiated that deal? I hope they got a bit more cash since 2005. It appears they did: A contract for “infrastructure development” was awarded by DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency, yes, that’s DOD), to Labyrinth Global Health, including a subaward for “COVID research” in Ukraine in 2019. According to Labyrinth’s website, it appears to be a “global consultancy” that facilitates “private-public partnerships” in various regions of the world = a conduit for the US Government and DOD capturing healthcare government agencies and any research/manufacturing facilities abroad with money and contracts, so that they are all “aligned” with the US global objectives. It is not clear what “covid research” in 2019 in Ukraine entailed, but judging from Labyrinth’s stated business activities, it does not appear to be making viruses/toxins, but rather “facilitating”, training staff, giving grants for propaganda papers, and market research/surveys about pandemic topics. In other words, teach the locals to brainwash themselves for the US/globalist purposes. Just to recap this article so far:

Since 2005, all biolab facilities in Ukraine have been under the US Government and DOD control. For world peace reasons, of course, you understand.

Next, let’s test your Biolab awareness. What do you think goes on at these dangerous, remote, secret locations? They obtain, store, grow, and experiment with deadly pathogens, right?

Do you mean like this? DOD press conference, March 5, 2020: 

A notorious neocon and protege of Dick Cheney, Nuland led the Obama administration's overthrow of Ukraine's government in 2014, leading to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

🧵THREAD: Victoria Nuland announces resignation as Biden's Undersecretary of State

A notorious neocon and protege of Dick Cheney, Nuland led the Obama administration's overthrow of Ukraine's government in 2014, leading to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

In December 2013,… pic.twitter.com/yt7dJNQqW6

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 5, 2024

Victoria Nuland when she first entered government and when she officially left.
Evil transforms you. pic.twitter.com/U1vINB9bnZ

— Big Fish (@BigFish3000) March 5, 2024

Victoria Nuland's replacement, John Bass, former Ambassador to Afghanistan who oversaw the U.S. withdrawal from the country.

Victoria Nuland's replacement as Deputy Secretary of State is John Bass, a former Ambassador to Afghanistan who oversaw the U.S. withdrawal from the country.

This is turning into an even bigger 💩 show that it already was. pic.twitter.com/yMhrC09Ncz

— Olga Bazova (@OlgaBazova) March 5, 2024