Their grip on information, the grip of the legacy media on the narrative is slipping.
And it is through podcasts like yours and people who do deep dives and do investigation
to these things. More and more people become aware of it.
One of the reasons people just aren't buying, for example, everything that happened
during COVID, they're just not believing the federal government because the
federal government is not worthy of their trust.
You're listening to The Corbett Report.
Welcome, friends. This is James Corbett of The Corbett Report,
coming to you in September of 2025, specifically one week before the anniversary
of the events of 9-11-2001.
And today's guest that I'm going to be talking to, well, if you're a regular
person, you may know him as Ron Johnson, a senator who was elected to the United
States Senate for the first time in 2010.
He might also know that he served as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs from 2015 to 2021, and that he remains a member of that committee.
You might also know that he currently serves as a ranking member of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations and is also a member of the Budget,
Finance, and Aging Committees.
But if you are one of those special, enlightened people who get all your information
from the mainstream media, you might know Senator Ron Johnson from such headlines
as, Ron Johnson has gone full 9-11 conspiracy nut,
GOP senator to hold hearings on bonkers 9-11 conspiracy theory,
Ron Johnson goes full 9-11 truther in deranged rant, and my personal favorite,
GOP's Ron Johnson peddles fringe 9-11 conspiracy theories, reaches new low.
So what has got the brave truth-telling truth-tellers of the mainstream media all in its hizzy?
Let's find out, shall we? Senator Ron Johnson, thank you for joining me today on The Corbett Report.
Well, James, I had not seen or heard of those headlines, so thanks.
You are welcome. It is part of my duty to let people know the press that is
following them and the sort of things that are attendant upon treading into
the minefield of 9-11, as I'm sure you're already aware from other sources.
Today, obviously, I want to talk about the fact that you are going to be a keynote
speaker at next week's conference called Turning the Tide, 9-11 Justice in 2025
that's going to be taking place in Washington, D.C. from, I believe, September 10th to 12th.
Anyway, the details will be linked up in the show notes if people are interested
in attending that event.
But a United States senator talking about 9-11, a new investigation in 2025, what is going on?
Let's start this conversation by talking about yourself, your own personal experience
of 9-11 and your own impressions, your own thoughts of the events at that time when they took place.
Sure. Well, in 2001, I was running a manufacturing plant.
I was producing plastic, and like most Americans that were alive at that point
in time, had access to a TV.
All of a sudden, you hear a plane hit the World Trade Center.
You think it's probably a small little plane, you know, pilot, something happened.
Then you saw another plane smash into it. And, you know, I think my reaction was,
very common, this changes everything. The world just changed, and it did.
And so, yeah, that's, you know, I had shared that same experience.
None of us who are live and watching that day will never forget that moment.
But at the same time, I think like the vast majority of Americans,
people around the world, pretty
well bought the narrative, just accepted what the government told us.
And I think really where things started changing for me, Obviously, I became U.S.
Senator not to do investigations, not to investigate 9-11.
I became U.S. Senator because we're mortgaging our children's future.
I knew Obamacare wouldn't work. It hasn't.
So those are the two main issues. I sprung up from the Tea Party.
I still view myself more Tea Party than Republican, but you've got to join one
side, and I'm far more aligned with Republicans.
But then, as you said, I became chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Right at the time when the revelation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal broke, the Benghazi scandal.
And it just so happens, I mean, the Homeland Security Committee used to be just
called Governmental Affairs. It was the Senate Oversight Committee.
We can provide oversight on virtually anything in government.
It's our responsibility to do so.
But in particular, we have legislative jurisdiction over federal records.
And so the Hillary Clinton email scandal required oversight,
but it's also right within the jurisdiction of the committee.
It's just something I had to look into.
So we investigated that. That began my investigatory career as U.S. senator.
That opened my eyes to the lies, the corruption of federal agencies.
Then fast forward, and I'm trying to really condense this, COVID hit.
Nobody in the center of the house were investigating things like or holding
hearings on early treatment.
Everything was all about the COVID injection, you know, a vaccine, Operation Warp Speed.
And I was watching, you know, this hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin,
all these things being, these treatments being suppressed.
The, quite honestly, the pandemic being blown way out of proportion.
This wasn't Ebola, it wasn't SARS-1, it wasn't MERS, you know,
This wasn't a 40% fatality rate.
It was going to be something like maybe a really, really bad flu season.
So I was holding hearings on. I was just trying to provide information to the
public, further notice, further evidence of how the federal government and its
agencies lie repeatedly to the American public.
Then I met Bobby Kennedy, and I remember doing a podcast, I think it was in
Nashville, with Bobby Kennedy.
I walked into the green room, and he's talking about visiting his father's apparent
assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, in jail,
and telling the story about his father's assassination, which,
again, does not line up with the narrative of the government and mainstream media.
And so at that point in time, Bobby turned me on to a book, JFK and the Unspeakables,
The Devil's Chessboard, about our CIA.
And again, your eyes just continue, your eyes keep opening wider and wider and
wider, and you see the government covering things up.
I just finished a book, Blowback, on the Oklahoma City bombing.
It's just amazing, James, how many people held in jails commit suicide.
You have key witnesses to key moments in our history.
So after a while, these things just continue to pile up.
And specifically on 9-11, now I'm chairman of the Department of Subcommittee Investigations.
As ranking member, our chairman then, Richard Blumenthal, he wanted to do an
investigation of the PGA's negotiation with LIV. golf.
I didn't think it was particularly appropriate that we do that.
But the result of that, he held a pretty high profile hearing.
The result of that is we had all the 9-11 families start approaching me in the
hallways of our Senate office buildings,
pleading with me to use this moment to get the FBI to turn over an unredacted
version of their report on what Saudi Arabia knew about 9-11.
That's what started me down this journey on 9-11. So in that hearing,
kind of bushwhacked Senator Blumenthal, and I asked him to join me in requesting
the FBI provide that unredacted report, which they never did, of course.
But that then connected me to people who wanted to convey information to me.
I've got a good friend, a contractor in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Ben Ganther,
Ganther Construction, knows a lot about construction.
Knows a lot about structural engineering, who quite honestly started sending
me the best of James Corbett report and connecting me with Richard Gage.
And so I started looking at documentaries, you know, like yours,
calling out Bravo 7, Building 7, Graham McQueen's kind of final interview.
And again, when you get the information, your eyes open up, you see these very
legitimate questions being raised and no answers being provided whatsoever.
In fact, then when you just raise the issue, when you question it,
you get those kind of headlines.
I'm just asking these very legitimate questions. Why can't we do that?
Which, of course, just raises my suspicion level. So that's pretty well,
you're the expert on this.
I mean, the Richard Gaze of the world, the structural engineers,
the firefighters who know the history of, you know, these steel buildings not
coming down because of basic fires. You need something else.
The first time, I'd never even heard of Building 7.
20 years later, I had never heard of Building 7. And all of a sudden,
you see the video and you go...
Sure looks like controlled demolition to me. And then you start watching the
documentaries and you hear about the structural engineering professor up in
Alaska doing a four-year study on that, completely refutes what NIST study.
You hear about the 9-11 commission. Again, I can just go on and on.
I'm not an expert on this.
I've just heard all the questions and they sound completely legitimate to me.
And so you ask yourself the question. So why can't you even ask these questions?
I think an interesting component of this is because people don't want to know the answer.
I mean, it opens up, which I can completely understand from the position of
the President of the United States, our relationship with foreign,
I can certainly understand why,
if the truth were ever known,
we may want to just slam that Pandora's box.
So that's kind of the position we're in right now. I think the questions are
legitimate. They've been raised.
People don't want the answers. A lot of people do, but a lot of people don't.
Well, I certainly people in certain positions of power probably do not want
people questioning what really happened on that day, because there are a lot
of uncomfortable answers.
And one example of that that you just raised there in your own personal story,
you talk about the Benghazi hearings, for example, that you were a part of.
And as we know, of course, obviously, the investigation was very much into how did U.S.
Servicemen and other personnel end up dying there. But really,
the real question was, what was that CIA annex doing there in Benghazi in the first place?
And oh, as it turns out, they were running guns into Syria, running weapons
into Syria so that the U.S.
State Department could continue its destabilization operation in Syria with
the support of al-Qaeda, who it turns out were the good guys again back in the
2010s when they were fighting Bashar al-Assad.
So I think that's, again, it's just another window into what I understand we
concentrate on the date of 9-11-2001 for obvious reasons. But that is just one
part of a much, much bigger story that gets into some very uncomfortable questions about the U.S.
Government's complicity in acts of terrorism around the world.
And I can understand why people are very reticent to get into those questions. So let's get into them.
It's a story of lies. It's a story of lies and deception that really span decades.
You know, I mean, it goes, you talk about the FDR in Pearl Harbor,
you know, but I mean, up to more modern times where I'm living,
you know, the JFK assassination,
Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, just go right down the list.
What really happened there?
I don't know whether we will ever know. I know, you know, President Trump promised
to release all the files on JFK.
Great. I mean, I never expected any kind of bombshells out of there because
I would expect that anything that was really incriminating has long been destroyed.
Just like a lot of people just happily die, you know, or just accidentally die. Yeah.
Well, as, you know, you point out, this is just part of a larger story.
And in fact, as one of the 9-11 commissioners said when cornered at one point,
9-11 was a 20-year conspiracy.
And oddly, no one in the mainstream media has followed up with him what he meant by that.
But I have a feeling it probably does talk to that bigger picture of al-Qaeda and U.S.
Government operations. So let's start talking about some of the actual information
that we got and some of the investigations that have already happened.
Because I was pleased to inform, I was a bit nervous when I first went into
that NBC News article about you calling for a new 9-11 investigation.
But I was very relieved when they informed me that apparently all question of
Building 7 and what happened to it have been debunked.
And they literally link to their
own news story from 2008 about the NIST report. So don't worry, guys.
NIST has looked into it and found nothing at all unusual about Building 7's collapse.
Of course, there was the 9-11 Commission appointed by President Bush.
Originally, it was going to be headed by Henry Kissinger, but he had some conflicts
of interest with people named bin Laden, who may have been clients of Kissinger
and Associates. So he stepped aside.
And don't worry, Philip Zelikow really ran that commission from behind the scenes.
And of course, we have the joint congressional investigation,
which, by the way, large sections of were classified and held behind secrecy for decades.
So nothing to see here, guys. It's all been debunked. Tell us about what you
know about the investigations that have happened in the U.S.
Government already and why they are inadequate. Well, again, you're the expert here.
So, you know, I've just been a receiver of information up to this point.
I'm not here to reveal anything new that you don't know a whole lot more about than I do.
I'm just kind of waiting to see what's going to happen here.
I do know, for example, that, you know, Tucker Carlson is set to release a five-part
series on 9-11 based on his investigation.
What I do know is the government back in the 60s had far greater control over
information than they have today.
They had far greater control over information in 2000, 2010, even 2020.
Their grip on information, the grip of the legacy media on the narrative is slipping.
And it is through podcasts like yours and people who do deep dives and do investigation
to these things. More and more people become aware of it.
One of the reasons people just aren't buying, for example, everything that happened
during COVID, they're just not believing the federal government because the
federal government is not worthy of their trust, of being believed.
And so that's really the state of affairs right now. It's a very sad state of affairs.
You would like to have a society, you'd like to have institutions that people
could rely on, that they had faith in.
When you get to this level, when the general public simply has very little faith
or no faith in its institutions, it's very dangerous for society.
It's not a good sign. So, yeah, I would like to restore that trust.
But the only way I know of restoring that trust is by revealing the truth,
making government and government agencies more trustworthy, which they currently are not.
You're seeing right now, I'm about ready to head into a hearing with RFK Jr.
In Senate Finance. I mean, it'll be interesting to see the 16 ways on Sunday
he will now be attacked by.
For simply wanting to return and restore integrity to science and to the federal
health agencies who have been captured by big pharma and big agriculture and big food.
American people know that. There's a reason why the Maha movement is so strong
is I held an event with RFK Jr., Dr. Casey Means, in September.
This is called American Health and Nutrition, Second Opinion.
And among all the excellent testimony, there was one witness, Dr.
Chris Palmer, a psychiatrist who does a lot of work investigating the impact
of nutrition on mental health.
And his little snippet, I think it was probably the most noteworthy,
he said, they don't want causes discovered of chronic illness.
They don't want this discovered. I think the same can apply to 9-11.
They don't want to know the answers.
Okay. And like I say, when you consider the geopolitical ramifications of actually
knowing the truth, again, I don't know what the truth is, but I could imagine,
I've heard different theories,
the geopolitical ramifications of the actual truth on 9-11 might be pretty devastating.
It might completely upend the world order as we know it.
So again, I understand why powerful institutions might be uncomfortable with
questions being asked along these lines.
And unfortunately, I think people have lost their lives for less than asking
questions about uncomfortable events like this. So I take it very seriously.
Let's talk about that issue that you raise quite rightly, the issue of trust,
the fundamental issue of trust and the public's lack thereof in governmental
institutions for obvious reasons.
I mean, obviously what just took place with regards to the COVID scandemic being
a very, very good example of why the public has completely lost trust in its institutions.
And I imagine most of the people in my audience have a high degree of skepticism
about the possibility of a new 9-11 investigation coming from the U.S.
Government. Don't worry, we investigated and found ourselves guilty of nothing.
The cynicism of people has reached probably record highs at this point.
So let's address that specifically.
What, if you were to be part of a new Senate investigation into 9-11,
how would it be different than the ones that have been conducted before?
Why would you be hopeful that there would be actual information forthcoming
from such an investigation?
Well, because people like you who have dug into this thing now for,
you know, 20, almost 25 years, you've dug up an awful a lot of information if
given a platform, if given a forum,
for more Americans to see as opposed to, I don't know what you're following is on social media.
But again, they do a pretty good job of suppressing this kind of information.
But if you're actually given a public forum and, quite honestly, the legitimacy of a U.S.
Senate hearing, more people would have their eyes open.
So I think that would be groundbreaking. Yeah.
Well, you said it yourself. It was 20 years after the events before you saw
Building 7 and what happened to it.
That is shocking. I mean, you would think a U.S. senator, of course they know
about Building 7. No, maybe they do not.
And what about the average person on the street?
Probably has no idea what Building 7 even is, let alone why they should be interested in it.
So yes, getting this information in front of a wider audience,
shall we say, might be important, at the very least,
to get public perception, public information at a higher level than what we're
used to, unfortunately, from the mainstream media.
So let's talk about the process. I mean, what is it that you're proposing exactly,
a Senate Oversight Committee investigation or some other form of investigation?
Right now, I'm not proposing anything. I haven't scheduled a hearing.
I'm somewhat open for business. I had a very interesting chance encounter with
a gentleman that was leaving the Hart building as I'm walking in, gave me his name.
Said that he was government employee that volunteered to help clean up 9-11.
He was assigned to go out someplace, it might have been in New Jersey,
you probably know about this site, where they took all the steel,
which, again, is just another bizarre thing.
I understand I wanted to clean it up, but then, as the firefighters point out,
You know, broke every rule or law or regulation as relates to firefighting investigations
and got rid of all the evidence.
But what this fellow was designed to do is sift through the remains or the debris
of, I believe, Building 7 and pick out anything that looked like an electronic device.
He said he left his name by front office. They have no record of it.
So, you know, I'd like this guy to recontact me.
But maybe you know other people who were on the same crew.
But that's just sort of suspicious right there. I mean, they're wholesale moving
this stuff out, selling it out to China, get rid of it.
But yet they're separating out all the electronic components.
Again, it's just a bit of evidence, something that, you know,
a legitimate, what was all that about?
You know, first of all, do we know who ordered the removal of all that debris?
Do we know who ordered it then sent over to China and destroyed?
Who made those decisions? Have we ever gotten answers on that? And I'm asking you.
I mean, again, those are just, you know, Richard Gage put together a very good,
about a 50-question list of the major questions, right?
That list of questions raises questions in my mind.
So, again, the way I would structure a hearing literally just be ask the questions.
What are the outstanding questions that probably ought to be answered?
Try and organize it in a...
In a manner that is revealing, okay, that is convincing.
Just to not leave that information hanging, I would suggest people check out
my 9-11 Suspects series on, for example, Rudy Giuliani to talk about the destruction
and removal, the illegal removal of the debris.
Also, in my 9-11 Trillions documentary, I talk about Convar,
the German firm that was hired to go through the recovered hard drives from
the WTC and what did not come out of that investigation is probably worth people's time and attention.
But there's, as you say, there's a million pieces of information like that that
deserve following up in a way that will have actual teeth to it.
Ultimately, I think it would be great if we could get some actual on-the-record
testimony from people under oath. That would be at least a step in the right direction.
I'm sure you're aware that former Congressman Curtis Weldon has been calling
for the empaneling of a new 9-11 commission,
would you a presidential commission of inquiry would you
be interested would you be supportive of such an initiative i would
that would take the president to do that uh you
know right now i think this president's got a lot of a lot of irons in the fire
so i'm not sure you know how much time and quite honestly political capital
he wants to spend doing that i do know the firefighters if that commission were
to be appointed want no politicals involved and i i don't disagree with I mean,
you want structural engineers, you want expert.
People that are experts in the different issues here, again,
the same kind of folks are putting together these documentaries.
Those people you are on the commission, totally divorced outside of government.
Part of the problem here, you go back to George Washington who warned us in
his farewell speech about foreign entanglements.
We haven't heeded his warning very well.
When you are entangled in all these foreign operations, I mean,
you can justify, well, you do need to keep some secrets inside government for
national security, right?
Well, if you didn't have so many frickin' foreign entanglements,
you wouldn't have to keep so many frickin' secrets, right?
So I think there's a growing recognition in America that maybe we're a little
too far flung. Maybe we put our nose in too many people's business.
Maybe we ought to concentrate on our own. And if we did that,
again, there's no justification in my mind.
For example, CDC and the FDA withholding all the information on vaccine injuries and what they knew.
And, you know, there just isn't. I mean, here we are five years after that,
after, you know, four or five years after the pandemic.
And, you know, I'm still, you know, Bobby Kennedy has, we've turned over something
like eight and a half million pages initially now. That's pretty radical transparency,
but that's pretty overwhelming as well.
But it took a new administration, somebody like Bobby Kennedy,
to break that logjam of information being held by CDC and FDA.
Now, we don't know how much of it's already been destroyed.
Again, when you get information from government, you always have to take it
with a grain of salt because you just realize that they've gotten very good
at knowing how not to be FOIA'd.
We uncovered that needle in the haystack. Like this Dr.
Morin, who basically is bragging about how, hey, I got this gal that will tell you how to avoid FOIA.
You know, don't communicate with me on my government server. Go through Gmail.
We're seeing evidence of that as well. Let's talk about this over the phone, not through email.
So, I mean, they're already quite good at understanding that FOIA laws can trip them up.
So, they're avoiding FOIA like a plague. So it's hard to get the truth,
the entire truth, all the documents out of the federal government because they
either destroy them or they don't create them.
You know, that's a great example. And for people who want to know more about
that, the search term to use is FOIA lady.
I have the FOIA lady who lets me know how to avoid that information. Yeah.
It's just an example. And we got that email, not from the government.
We got that email from a university that had been on the distribution list of that email.
So the government never turned over, but, you know, university did.
And again, my staff going through like 115,000 pages of documents pulled that
needle out of that haystack.
Absolutely incredible and think of how many more needles are in all of
the haystacks that are out there so i think again who
knows what you're going to find when you start investigating you know you've raised the
uh the covet issue because i know you have been dogged on that issue over the
past few years for people that don't know tell us about your efforts um in trying
to achieve justice for the people who have been vaccine uh harmed over the past
few years yeah i mean that's a real tragedy it's probably the main reason i
ran for a third term i'd rather be home um but But,
again, I was holding hearings with Chairman of Homeland Security on early treatments.
And, of course, the doctors that testified had their careers destroyed, people like Dr.
McCulloch and Pierre Corey and others.
Again, makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, to this day, I don't know why don't
we spend more time investigating treatment for disease.
Again, because vaccines, there's no liability to them. They're multi-billion
dollar businesses, and that's the way we've set the thing up.
So anyway, so I'm holding hearings on early treatment.
People are getting injured. I fortunately was connected very early on with Michael Eden.
He was a 30-year employee of Pfizer, ended up Senior Vice President of Research.
His background's in toxicology. He went through...
All the reasons that he was beside himself when he found out what his colleagues
were doing with that injection.
I said, Ron, there's a long list of ingredients we don't put in injectables
because they're toxic to the body.
When I found out my colleagues were actually going to produce something that
was going to turn the body's cells into a manufacturer of something that was
toxic to it, I couldn't believe it. He literally was beside himself.
That conversation right there convinced me, there was no way I was ever going
to take that experimental injection.
And as a result, I was actually watching the safety surveillance systems that FDA and CDC were touting,
before they got their emergency use authorization to then once the data started
coming in and they had to hire more people because the adverse event reports were so overwhelming,
then they started denigrating their own VAIR system.
So all of that, you know, you can't rely on that. I mean, false reports and
it doesn't prove causation.
But I was watching. And so I raised the issue, I think, with Francis Collins
about what was happening on VAERS, the thousands of deaths.
At that time, 46% of those deaths, there were a couple thousand,
were occurring on the day of injection or within one or two days. This is in April 2021.
And Francis Collins, in a meeting with some other Republican senators,
they're all paying themselves in the back that they got the test gets right.
So I'm the skunk in the room. So, you know, Dr. Collins, are you paying attention
to what your VAERS is saying?
And he said, Senator, we've determined six people have died from the J&J injection.
But other than that, you know, Senator, people die. That's how cows it was.
So I'd raise that issue. I kept publishing my VAERS chart.
When I'd go on media, those media figures would sometimes be deplatformed by Facebook.
Just because I'm showing the actual data from, I'm not making it up,
I'm showing the actual data, the growing number of deaths being reported worldwide.
You know, what percent are occurring on day zero, one, or two.
Who finally got contacted by a former Green Bay Packer, Ken Rutgers,
a lineman, whose wife was vaccine injury.
And he's, can you help us? And he said, well, I can provide you a form.
I can give you a platform. I guess that's what I'm kind of offering to people
who are questioning about 9-11. I can offer a platform.
Again, understand what you're subjecting yourself to. And, of course,
we did this in June of 2021 in Milwaukee.
We had Brianne Dressen there. We had Maggie DeGarry. We had,
you know, people with just heartbreaking stories.
And of course, the media, we were about a dozen Wisconsin news media cameras there.
You would think they would show some level of sympathy with these victims.
Now, the first question out of Ken Rutgers was, oh, you can try and make money off a lawsuit here.
So that, you know, again, kind of a long story.
But that's how I got involved in advocating for the vaccine injured because nobody else would.
Or quite honestly, nobody else is. Very few people.
Okay, you've got children's health defense. I mean, those people who've been,
you know, the Bobby Kennedy kind of kept at arm's length as he's doing his environmental talks.
But finally, a mom found out where he lived, came up with a stack of research.
So I'm not leaving to look at this. And to Bobby Kennedy's credit,
he read the research on childhood vaccine injuries and he wouldn't turn his back on them.
And that's the secret here, James.
Once people's eyes are opened, it's pretty darn difficult to close them.
Now you can force them to close them, you can turn your back, but it's pretty hard.
And that's certainly what we're finding with the, for example,
the mRNA, which by the way, it's not true mRNA, it's modified,
so it doesn't degrade in the body.
So now it's circulating the body, they have no idea where, how long it's gonna exist, okay?
It's out of control. But.
No, I lost my train of thought. Well, let me just comment on that because you
make a number of important points, one of which,
let me just commend you for avoiding that term vaccine and using the correct
experimental mRNA injection terminology to use, because I think we do have to
speak about this. And you're exactly right. It's modified RNA.
That's the mod in Moderna, is it not?
So I think a lot of people are not, again, like Building 7 or these types of
issues, are not informed of the fundamental bedrock questions in this.
And we have been exhorted to trust the science, which is, of course,
why faith in science and institutions surrounding that has plummeted over the
past few years because people were lied to.
Having said that, as I say, the cynicism and skepticism is rising,
and I can certainly attest to that from even my own audience.
Many people very skeptical of, say, Bobby Kennedy.
If he knows about the harm that is being caused by these injections,
why did he not on day one just outlaw all of the experimental mRNA injection
technology until it can be proven safe and effective.
What do you say to that? For people who do not know the political process and
how political capital is actually accrued and spent, how do you address that kind of cynicism?
Well, I understand he's taking over an agency that has tens of thousands of people.
Most of them are completely opposed to what he's trying to do.
Some of them are complicit and culpable in this, you know, in line to the American
public covering up those lies. You know, saying it was going to stay in your
arm when they knew it was going to biotribute all over the body.
So he's up, and he's up against powerful forces. I mean, I think they are,
and you've heard reports, you've seen things, they're literally spending millions
to just destroy him, okay?
And they're ramping it up. And, you know, you see the, we'll call it a kerfuffle
at the CDC and all these people resigning and stuff, you know, good riddance, okay?
I think something like 1,000 CDC employees have signed a letter to,
you know, asking him to be fired. well, good, you just identified yourself,
they ought to lose their job as well.
But no, we are up against powerful forces. Now, I will say on the mRNA,
again, science has been corrupted.
I think that's obvious. When you pay for science, you get the result you want.
And so you got pharmaceuticals companies paying for science.
They do their own studies.
They've captured the agencies.
But...
My problem with this is you go down so many different rabbit holes here.
But the bottom line is you're up against powerful forces. He's trying to thread
a needle. I'm also the author of Right to Try.
So I can't tell you definitively, did the mRNA, did it help save lives?
I think a lot of, you know, even skeptics will at least admit,
well, it did boost antibodies. And for the vulnerable, you might have had a higher antibody level.
And, you know, particularly for the elderly or people with comorbidities,
it might have reduced the severity of the illness, might have saved lives.
And that's entirely possible.
I can't, you know, there's no good study on that, but that's entirely possible.
So, you know, this is a platform. I think the mRNA platform,
particularly for things like cancer, is very promising.
Okay, we're trying to advance science here. should have been used in a mass
vaccination campaign in the midst of the pandemic.
I would argue absolutely not. People like Gert von den Bosch would certainly
back me up on that. I'm just basically quoting him.
So, again, the world is not black and white.
There can be real benefits to mRNA therapy. It's gene therapy,
but let's not lie about it. Let's give people informed consent.
And that's basically what's happening. I think that's the hopeful sign here.
When you have, I think a Rasmussen report said something like a quarter of the
American public believe they know of somebody who died from the injection.
You know, more than 50% knew somebody who was seriously injured by the injection. You can't hide that.
Again, this was administered to, you know, billions of people.
People saw it. They saw it with their own eyes. They're not denying it.
So that's hard to cover up.
You know, people like you with 9-11, you just need larger platforms.
More people need to understand the legitimate questions that simply have not been answered.
Excellent. Well, we will agree to disagree on the potential utility for mRNA injections.
I think they are a travesty in every way, and we've been lied to top to bottom
about them. But perhaps that is getting a bit off of the main topic of today.
Let's get back to the fundamental bedrock here, Turning the Tide, 9-11 Justice in 2025.
You are going to be appearing there along with, as I mentioned,
former Congressman Kurt Weldon, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou,
and a host of researchers who have spent decades looking into these questions.
Tell us about this event and what you're going to be speaking about.
I'll probably leave the audience as unsatisfied as I'm leaving you.
Again, I'm not an expert on this. And I know I ventured into the whole COVID
realm here and the injection realm.
But it's the same issue.
It's the exact same issue. It is government not being honest with the American public.
Even though we pay for government, we pay for these studies, we pay their salaries.
But they're insulated from us. And they believe they're a power unto themselves.
Whether it's in the CIA, the FBI, Department of Justice, NIH,
FDA, CDC, it's the same problem, it's the same issue.
And I would argue the root cause here literally is the size,
scope, cost of government and its influence over our lives. It's way too big.
It's way too big. Back in 1930, the federal government consumed about 3.5% of our GDP.
Back then, state and local governments were 9.1%. That was the foundational premise of this nation.
Most government, close to the government, governed where it's more effective,
more efficient, more accountable, right? We've turned that on its head.
Under Obama, government reached 24.4% after the Great Recession.
Last year, we're at 23.9% because, as Rahm Emanuel said, boy,
never let you good prices go to waste, and they didn't.
We went from $4.4 trillion in spending in 2019 prior to the pandemic to $6.5
trillion, and we never looked back.
This year, we're going to spend over $7 trillion, and as much as I've been screaming
about we have to return to a reasonable pre-pandemic level, just like we did after World War II,
We went from 11.7% of spending up to 41. We weren't crazy enough to stay at 41%.
We've been crazy enough to stay at 23.4%. Okay, but it's government that is the problem.
Our founders were geniuses. They realized we're not angels.
We're men and women. We're flawed. If we don't want to live in chaos and anarchy,
we need some form of government.
But it needed to be limited. Do only the things that they were going to enumerate in our Constitution.
We've gone way beyond that. And I would argue it hasn't worked.
It hasn't worked. We haven't listened to Washington in terms of staying out
of foreign entanglements.
We've grown government. Government causes or exacerbates more problems than it solves.
So it's the same issue across the board. Government is too big.
What is 9-11 about? I mean, is it? Is it our foreign entanglements?
I mean, what is it? You know, if we would have been focused on America,
if we had much limited government, if we paid attention to George Washington, would 9-11 even happen?
No matter what happened, would it have happened? I don't know.
But we need a complete rethinking in the American mind.
Stop being dependent on the federal government. Shrink its size,
its scope, its cost. That's the solution.
But, I mean, there are very few of us who think that.
Well, you can count me among them that I think, yes, we should reduce our dependency
on government and increase our independence in every way, shape and form.
So I agree with that. Let's let's end it on that note of Concord.
And if I may be so bold as to give you some advice, Senator,
I would say continue ignoring the headline writers because they matter not.
Continue doing what you're doing and continue asking questions.
I think people are appreciative of that, and I hope people will support people
who are out there putting their careers and their reputations on the line to
ask the uncomfortable questions, even if the answers are not what everyone wants to hear.
Senator Johnson, thank you very much for your time. Let's direct people once
again to the Turning the Tide 9-11 Justice in 2025 conference,
where you'll be speaking next week. The link will be in the show notes.
But on that note, thank you very much for your time today.
Well, thanks for everything you've done as well. Take care.