Podcast appearances and mentions of Al Gore

After retiring from a career teaching physics, chemistry and biology, Lynne Balzer began organizing extensive notes from a decade-long investigation of the climate change issue. Considering all the facts and looking at the connection between the science, history and politics of this issue, Lynne reached the inevitable conclusion that “human-caused global warming” is one of the greatest hoaxes ever visited upon mankind. Working with Faraday Science Institute, a nonprofit organization, she has researched the topic of global climate change for thirteen years, sorting out fact from fiction.00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction00:30 UN IPCC and Environmental Hijacking01:32 Failed Predictions and Real Data03:06 Historical Scientific Perspectives04:22 Acid Rain and Environmental Regulations05:54 Al Gore's Influence and Political Maneuvering07:23 Senate Hearings and Media Manipulation08:53 Roger Revelle's Skepticism and Legacy21:38 Legal Battles and Controversies31:17 Modern Misrepresentations and Media Bias42:51 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsTranscripts and summaries of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesExposing the Great Climate Change Lie (2023): https://a.co/d/i6iRW1yRoger Revelle 1980 speech (85 minutes): https://youtu.be/HzE4oDwoYyY?si=ZmNLFpouHOSdo_YvOther Lynne Balzer appearances on this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080/search?query=balzer=========My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

We are all overdue to share some amusing celebrity impressions so witness the shitshow where Cam, Mike & James all go ballistic with their many celeb and politician impressions.   They include: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hugh Hefner, Richard Nixon, Liam Neeson, Norm McDonald & Al Pacino!   We then (unexpectedly) conclude with an impression of Allan Sherman, George Takei & Cookie Monster starring in Cruising: The Musical.   I wish I was making that up!

For the month of August, we’re highlighting episodes from the 2024-2025 season of Energy Policy Now. We’ll be back with new content, and a new season, on September the 9th. Former Republican U.S. congressman Bob Inglis offers a conservative perspective on climate solutions in discussion with Penn climatologist Michael Mann. --- (This episode was recorded on February 13, 2025, during Penn Energy Week) Politically conservative and concerned about climate change? In this special episode of the Energy Policy Now podcast, Penn climatologist Michael Mann talks with Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina and current executive director of RepublicEN.org, about bridging the partisan climate divide. In a wide-ranging conversation recorded live during Energy Week at Penn 2025 at the University of Pennsylvania, Mann and Inglis discuss a conservative view on climate change, how conservative messaging on climate has evolved over time, and how common solutions might be found in an era of partisan climate divide. Inglis also offers his view on carbon pricing and strategies to reign in carbon emissions in the U.S. The conversation is moderated by Sanya Carley, faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Bob Inglis is a former U.S. representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. He is the executive director of RepublicanEn.org at George Mason University. Michael Mann is director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. Sanya Carley is the Mark Alan Hughes faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Important note on the conversation: Due to a technical problem, the first two minutes of Bob Inglis’ conversation are difficult to hear (from 5:40 to 7:40). We’ve transcribed those two minutes in the show notes, below, to make it easier to follow along. A full transcript of this and all Energy Policy Now podcasts is available on the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy website. Bob Inglis (5:40): Yeah, so for my first six years in Congress I said that climate change is nonsense. All I knew was that Al Gore was for it. And as much as I represented Greenville-Spartanburg South Carolina, that was the end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant. But that’s the way it was my first six years. Out of Congress six years, as you just heard, doing commercial real estate law again and then, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again before, our son had just turned 18, so he was voting for the first time, and he came to me and he said, dad, I’ll vote for you. But you’re going to clean up your act on the environment. His four sisters agreed, his mother agreed. New constituency, you know. So you got to respond to those people who can change the locks on the doors to your house, you know. So, very important to respond to these people. And so that was step one of a three step metamorphosis. Step two was going to Antarctica with the [House of Representatives] Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the iceberg drillings. Step three was another Science Committee trip and, um, really a spiritual awakening which seems improbable, right, on a godless Science Committee trip, because we all know that all scientists are godless. Right? Well, apparently not. Because this Aussie climate scientist was showing me the glories of the Great Barrier Reef. I could see he was worshipping God in what he was showing me. You know, St. Francis of Assisi supposedly said “preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words.” So Scott Heron, this Aussie climate scientist who’s now become a very dear friend was doing that. I could see it in his eyes, it was written all over his face. It was in his excitement about what he was showing me. He was clearly worshipping God. So I knew we shared a world view. Forty words were spoken. Related Content How Identity Politics Shape U.S. Energy Policy https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/how-identity-politics-shape-u-s-energy-policy/ Climate Action in the Age of Great Power Rivalry: What Geopolitics Means for Climate https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-action-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry-what-geopolitics-means-for-the-climate/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.eduSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The episode title is completely ridiculous. Thanks, ChatGPT 4.1. Also it thinks Jack is me. I'm not here to change that. Any of you people seen us in the same room? Yeah, I thought so.

Send us a textJoin Big Rich Klein in an engaging conversation with Roger Salazar, a dynamic figure in the off-road community and a member of the California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Commission. In this episode, Roger shares his journey from a small town in California to the bustling political scene of Washington, D.C., and how his love for off-roading has intertwined with his professional life.Background & Early Life: Roger talks about growing up in Lodi, California, in a blue-collar family with a passion for cars and off-roading. He reflects on his education and how he skipped third grade due to his early academic prowess.  Political Career: Roger outlines his path into politics, including his time as an intern and press secretary at the White House under President Clinton and his role in Al Gore's presidential campaign. Off-Road Passion: Roger delves into his deep-rooted love for off-roading, tracing back to his family's legacy with Jeeps. He shares stories from his adventures on the Rubicon Trail and his involvement with the Sierra Treasure Hunters Off Road Club. OHV Commission Goals: Roger discusses his ambitions for expanding off-road trails in California and his vision for a continuous trail from the Mexican to the Oregon border. He also mentions the importance of preserving access to iconic off-road areas like Oceano Dunes.Final Thoughts: Rich and Roger explore the intersection of politics and off-roading, emphasizing the need for thoughtful advocacy and community involvement to ensure future access to public lands. Roger leaves listeners with his commitment to fostering off-road opportunities and preserving the adventurous spirit of the community. Support the show

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In a first-of-its-kind decision, an AI company wins a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by authors. It's part of a larger fight that is remaking the internet. This episode was produced by Gabrielle Berbey, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Rebeca Ibarra, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristinsdottir, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Noted fan of the internet Al Gore with his boss at the time, President Bill Clinton. (Photo by Sharon Farmer/White House/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Originally coined in the 1990's, the Information Superhighway was a term used to describe digital communication systems that is mostly associated with then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore. The basic idea was to be able to provide access to information to all, no matter what the level of income was. With the explosion of the World Wide Web, essentially, the Internet became the information superhighway. Other resources describe the concept as “…directly connects millions of people, each both a consumer of information and a potential provider…” or “a route or network for the high-speed transfer of information…” or “something that will link every home or office to everything else – movies and television shows, shopping services…” And it changed the world. No one saw it coming, any more than people alive in 1890 anticipated the US Freeway system. With that in mind, today's news cycle gets some context as we talk about all the headlines fit for a Wednesday! We start off with trending news, including the historical 8.8 quake in far eastern Russia. Is it one of the biggest in history as is being claimed? Then we talk about the Trump EU tariff deal and what it means for geopolitics. Tim takes on hurricanes and the frequency of those over the last couple years, and it's probably for a reason you did not expect. We look at an immigration warning for America based on the July deal signed between Starmer and Macron. Finally, AI is spiritual. Sci-Fi has told us it is forever in the future, but truly, it's here -  and we still think it's in the future. A fertile ground for massive deception. Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A

In unserer neuen Folge sprechen wir mit Philipp Schröder, Mitgründer des Energie-Unternehmens 1KOMMA5°. Gemeinsam beleuchten wir die zentralen Herausforderungen & Chancen auf dem Weg zur Klimaneutralität bis 2045. Philipp erklärt die Bedeutung von technologischen Innovationen & zeigt, welche Rolle Smart Meter & KI spielen. Was braucht es, um Deutschland klimafit zu machen? Wie kann Künstliche Intelligenz die Energieversorgung optimieren? Und warum sind mutige Entscheidungen & Hoffnung so entscheidend für den Klimaschutz? Er erklärt uns den Unterschied zwischen New- & Old Energy. Philipp wuchs auf einem Biobauernhof in Norddeutschland auf, wo er früh ein tiefes Verständnis für nachhaltige Lebensweisen entwickelte. Nach dem Abitur begann er ein Jurastudium an der Universität Hamburg, das er jedoch nicht abschloss. Stattdessen entschied er sich für einen praxisnaheren Weg & setzte sein Studium an der Universität St. Gallen fort, mit einem Fokus auf Management erneuerbarer Energien. Schon während seines Studiums zeigte Philipp eine ausgeprägte unternehmerische Leidenschaft: Er gründete mehrere Startups, insbesondere in den Bereichen Solarenergie, erneuerbare Energien & nachhaltigere Investitionen. Diese Erfahrungen führten ihn zu einer bedeutenden Rolle bei Tesla, wo er als Country Manager für Deutschland & Österreich tätig war und die Entwicklung des Unternehmens in diesen Märkten maßgeblich prägte. 2021 gründete Philipp gemeinsam mit Micha Grüber, Jannik Schall & Philip Liesenfeld das Startup 1KOMMA5°. Als Co-Founder & CEO setzt er sich seither mit voller Energie für eine klimaneutralere Zukunft ein. Das Unternehmen ist 2023 mit über eine Milliarde Bewertung 23 Monate nach Gründung zum sogenannten Einhorn geworden. Diese Folge wurde im Oktober 2024 aufgenommen. Links Website: https://1komma5.com/de/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/1komma5grad_com/ Empfehlung Literatur von Al Gore: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Supporter Wir bekommen heute einen Immunbooster von voelkeljuice.de Der BioZisch Light Nature Energy liefert mit Mate, Guarana und Kräutern natürliche Power für den Tag – ganz ohne klassischen Zucker-Taurin-Mix, aber mit viel Vitamin C und nur 17 kcal pro 100 ml. Für das Immunsystem gibt's den Ingwer-Kurkuma-Shot, ausgezeichnet mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis und randvoll mit Vitamin C aus der Acerolakirsche sowie Direktsaft aus fair gehandeltem Ingwer und Kurkuma. Mehr Infos zur Wirkung und Herkunft beider Produkte findet ihr auf voelkeljuice.de . ZWEIvorZWÖLF Infos/Kontakt Website: https://www.zweivorzwoelf.info/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zweivorzwoelf/ Produktion & Musik: David Wehle david@zweivorzwoelf.de, https://www.instagram.com/david_wehle/ Redaktion & Interviews: Andrea Gerhard https://www.instagram.com/andreagerhard_tall_area/?hl=de

John welcomes legendary Democratic strategist Bob Shrum to discuss Donald Trump's inability to extricate himself from the Jeffrey Epstein quagmire and the opportunity for Democrats to weave the story into a broader political narrative. The Los Angeles-based Shrum, who rose to prominence as Ted Kennedy's speechwriter and played a central role on both Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns, also offers his take on his state's governor, Gavin Newsom; his city's mayor, Karen Bass; Texas state legislator and rising star James Talarico; and what it will take to make the Democratic Party great again. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

IN US NEWS: Trump is trying everything he can to distract you like talk about NFL and send evil variant of rogue from x-men out to the press so we don't talk about Epstein files.IN POP CULTURE: Conservatives on Jubilee. The Coldplay Kiss Cam Couple! New Reality TV shows! Scheana Shay's hook up list!

Losing the 2000 election was the best thing to happen to Al Gore. He has since become insanely wealthy and admired around the world by peddling climate alarmism. Hollywood gave him an Oscar for his fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and (like Michael Mann) he claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his environmental activism.Yet despite trillions of dollars in propaganda, there's a sign that Gore's message of doom is in big trouble: He gave a TED Talk attacking “climate realists” by name. That's BIG, folks—it shows that the truth, the data, and reality are winning.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and our special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, will cover some of the breaking and crazy climate news of the week from around the world.Antarctica is gaining ice, defying the predictions of climate doomers. A BBC presenter is worried that climate scientists might be a monolithic ideological bloc. An environmental protection charity in Scotland is finally pushing back against wind power because of how it kills threatened bird species. And a “controlled burn” by our government betters turned into a raging inferno at the Grand Canyon that destroyed a historic building.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X—we'll answer the questions you leave for our panel in the chat! In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Losing the 2000 election was the best thing to happen to Al Gore. He has since become insanely wealthy and admired around the world by peddling climate alarmism. Hollywood gave him an Oscar for his fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and (like Michael Mann) he claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his environmental activism.Yet despite trillions of dollars in propaganda, there's a sign that Gore's message of doom is in big trouble: He gave a TED Talk attacking “climate realists” by name. That's BIG, folks—it shows that the truth, the data, and reality are winning.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and our special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, will cover some of the breaking and crazy climate news of the week from around the world.Antarctica is gaining ice, defying the predictions of climate doomers. A BBC presenter is worried that climate scientists might be a monolithic ideological bloc. An environmental protection charity in Scotland is finally pushing back against wind power because of how it kills threatened bird species. And a “controlled burn” by our government betters turned into a raging inferno at the Grand Canyon that destroyed a historic building.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X—we'll answer the questions you leave for our panel in the chat! In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Sean bienvenidos a un nuevo Spaces en directo desde Twitter. Esta será una entradilla corta para hablar sobre los orígenes del poder de la familia Kennedy, para ello voy a utilizar un artículo de la web vigilant citizen,ciudadano vigilante, una especie de técnico preocupado pero de USA. Dice así: “Los Kennedy fueron considerados, en su momento, la Familia Real de Estados Unidos: una poderosa dinastía que además era querida y admirada por el público. Sin embargo, la asombrosa "Maldición Kennedy" impactó profundamente a la familia, ya que numerosos miembros perdieron la vida a temprana edad y en extrañas circunstancias. Esta serie de artículos revelará datos menos conocidos sobre los Kennedy y explicará cómo el destino de la familia se relaciona con el gobierno en la sombra que gobierna Estados Unidos. Joseph Patrick Kennedy Sr. fue quien orquestó el ascenso de la familia al poder. Fue una figura destacada del Partido Demócrata y de la comunidad católica irlandesa de Estados Unidos. También fue un exitoso hombre de negocios, pues amasó una fortuna comprando y fusionando varios estudios cinematográficos de Hollywood e importando y distribuyendo bebidas alcohólicas en Estados Unidos después de la Ley Seca. Durante su carrera política, Kennedy se convirtió en un asesor cercano del presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt y fue nombrado presidente inaugural de la Comisión de Bolsa y Valores de Estados Unidos (SEC). En 1938, fue nombrado embajador de Estados Unidos en el Reino Unido, un prestigioso cargo donde estableció vínculos con la nobleza británica y presenció los inicios de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Trató con personas pertenecientes a los "linajes Illuminati" (según la definición de Fritz Springmeier), como los Rothschild, los Astor y los Sassoon. Mantuvo una estrecha relación con el magnate periodístico y figura destacada de los Illuminati, William Randolph Hearst, quien posteriormente contribuyó al despegue de la carrera de JFK. Durante la carrera política de Kennedy Sr., asesoró a Roosevelt, masón de grado 33 y primer Gran Maestro Honorario de la Orden de DeMolay. Roosevelt, quien también fue asesorado por los notables ocultistas Manly P. Hall y Nicholas Roerich, ordenó la colocación del Sello de los Estados Unidos (el símbolo Illuminati de la pirámide con el ojo que todo lo ve) en el billete de dólar. Joe Kennedy Sr. también formó parte de varias órdenes de élite, como los Caballeros de Malta y la Sociedad de Peregrinos, un grupo altamente secreto que incluía entre sus miembros a los Rockefeller, los Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, miembros de la realeza británica, varios líderes de la Sociedad Skull and Bones, masones, Caballeros Templarios y presidentes de la Reserva Federal, así como ejecutivos de importantes empresas y medios de comunicación. De hecho, la Sociedad de Peregrinos es probablemente el grupo de élite más influyente que existe. En 1944, Kathleen, hija de Joe Kennedy, se casó con William Cavendish, duque de Devonshire (un cargo muy prestigioso dentro de la nobleza británica). El duque de Devonshire era Gran Maestro de la Gran Logia Unida de Inglaterra, el órgano rector de la mayoría de los masones en Inglaterra, Gales, Estados Unidos y la Commonwealth. Tras el fallecimiento prematuro de su hija, Joseph Kennedy declaró: Si Kathleen y su esposo vivieran, yo sería el padre de la duquesa de Devonshire (primera dama de compañía de la reina) y el suegro del líder de todos los masones del mundo. Por lo tanto, Joseph Kennedy estaba muy bien conectado con la élite oculta y los linajes Illuminati de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña. Si bien albergaba la esperanza de convertirse en candidato presidencial, su oportunidad se cerró cuando, ante la amenaza de una invasión nazi, declaró que «la democracia en Gran Bretaña ha terminado», añadiendo que «la batalla por Gran Bretaña no se trata de democracia, eso son puras tonterías». A puerta cerrada, Kennedy también fue descubierto simpatizando con Hitler y el movimiento nazi. También se le citó profiriendo diversas declaraciones antisemitas en conversaciones con los Astor. Consciente de que la indignación que causaba le impediría llegar a la presidencia, Kennedy padre actuó entre bastidores y se concentró en «colocar» a sus hijos en puestos de poder. Tenía la riqueza y, aún más importante, los contactos con la élite necesarios para que sus planes se hicieran realidad.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nacido el 17 de enero de 1954 en Washington D.C., es un abogado, activista ambiental y figura pública estadounidense, y su reciente papel como Secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) desde febrero de 2025, lo que ha generado controversia, especialmente por sus políticas sobre vacunas. Conocido por ser parte de la influyente familia Kennedy. Hijo de Robert F. Kennedy, exfiscal general y senador, y sobrino del presidente John F. Kennedy, ha forjado su propio camino, centrándose principalmente en el activismo ambiental y, más recientemente, en posturas controvertidas sobre la salud pública. Como presidente de la Waterkeeper Alliance (Alianza para la protección del agua), una organización dedicada a la protección de los recursos hídricos, Kennedy ha liderado esfuerzos para combatir la contaminación y promover esa palabreja tan manida por los de la agenda 2030, la sostenibilidad, ganándose reconocimiento por su trabajo en defensa del medio ambiente. Su trayectoria como abogado ambientalista incluye casos destacados contra grandes corporaciones por daños ecológicos, aunque si rascamos un poco vemos que la asociación Riverkeeper, la organización fundadora del movimiento fue la que logro la recuperación del rio Hudson por mas de mil millones de dólares. Ambas organizaciones fueron pioneras en reclamar la "restauración" de los ríos, un eufemismo que en realidad significa la destrucción de presas y otras infraestructuras hidráulicas y energéticas. Modelo que se ha replicado en todo el mundo golpeando especialmente a España. Los otros litigios han sido muy mediáticos pero en realidad hablamos de poco dinero y poca afectación para las multinacionales que contaminan el planeta de verdad. Kennedy comenzó su carrera profesional como asistente de distrito en Manhattan y, en la década de 1980, se unió a organizaciones como Riverkeeper y el Consejo de Defensa de Recursos Naturales (NRDC), enfocándose en la protección ambiental. En 1986, se convirtió en profesor adjunto de derecho ambiental en la Universidad Pace y, en 1987, fundó la Clínica de Litigios Ambientales de Pace. En 1999, fundó Waterkeeper Alliance, de la cual fue presidente durante 21 años, liderando esfuerzos globales para proteger los recursos hídricos. Su trabajo incluyó demandas exitosas contra municipios y corporaciones por violaciones de la Ley del Agua Limpia, consolidándolo como una voz prominente en la defensa del medio ambiente. Recibió reconocimientos como "Héroe del Planeta" de la revista TIME y el Premio Sartisky a la Paz, reflejando su impacto en este ámbito. Nosotros sabemos que Roma no premia a traidores, ergo, el no ha traicionado a Roma. Su carrera inicial se centró en la conservación de ecosistemas y la lucha contra la contaminación, especialmente en el impacto de estas en la salud humana. En 2014, co-fundó Children's Health Defense, una organización dedicada a abordar el aumento de condiciones crónicas infantiles, como el autismo, lo que marcó su transición hacia temas de salud pública. Children’s Health Defense (CHD), fundada por Robert F. Kennedy Jr., mantiene una postura crítica hacia la vacuna triple vírica (MMR, contra sarampión, paperas y rubéola), centrada en cuestionar su seguridad, eficacia y obligatoriedad. Esta afirmación se basa en el estudio de Andrew Wakefield de 1998, que relacionaba la MMR con el autismo. Dicho estudio fue retractado por supuestos fraudes científicos aunque si investigamos veremos que se trata de una argucia legal. A través de su sitio web, redes sociales y documentales como Vaxxed (coproducido por CHD), la organización difunde mensajes que cuestionan la MMR, alegando que los riesgos no se divulgan adecuadamente. Esta organización y sus posturas han sido criticadas por promover teorías conspirativas, como la idea de que la enfermedad de Lyme es un arma biológica, una afirmación que revivió en una audiencia del Senado el 5 de febrero de 2025. En los últimos años, Kennedy se ha posicionado como un crítico vocal de las políticas de vacunación, cuestionando el consenso científico y promoviendo escepticismo hacia las vacunas. Esto ha generado una polarización significativa, con seguidores que ven en él un defensor de la libertad individual y críticos que lo acusan de difundir desinformación. Sus libros, como “Timerosal: Que hable la ciencia” (2014), reflejan su enfoque en los supuestos riesgos de los conservantes en vacunas. Kennedy es un charlatán que solo está redefiniendo el negocio de los laboratorios mientras engaña, esperanza e ilusiona a los ingenuos. En unas recientes declaraciones dijo sobre las vacunas covid que “no superan los beneficios supuestos”, además de mencionar la “falta de datos de alta calidad que demuestren la seguridad de las vacunas de ARNm durante el embarazo” y la incertidumbre en cuanto a los beneficios para las madres gestantes y sus bebés”. Pero como podemos ver en la web del CDC, Notas del calendario de vacunación infantil, se sigue vacunando a bebes a partir de los 6 meses contra una enfermedad imaginaria como es el covid, con vacunas que se ha visto que presentan muchas reacciones adversas. Independientemente de las palabras de Kennedy al final las mujeres embarazadas son "personas de riesgo" para el CDC y por tanto se las recomienda vacunarse del covid. La administración bajo el mandato de Kennedy ha dicho que «todas las nuevas vacunas se someterán a pruebas de seguridad en ensayos controlados con placebo antes de su autorización», sin embargo la FDA acaba de aprobar una nueva inyección de Moderna sin un solo ensayo controlado con placebo. Los estudios con placebo empezarían a finales de este año y concluirían en 2027, pero la vacuna mNexspike de baja dosis ya esta en el mercado para personas de 65 años o mas o entre los 12 y 64 con al menos uno o más factores de riesgo subyacentes. Es más, Kennedy está permitiendo que siga la investigación para encontrar vacunas a la carta. Al respecto dijo: ”Un impulso para sustituir las vacunas de talla única por vacunas genéticamente personalizadas que sean seguras y eficaces para todos”. Leemos en una nota de prensa del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) del pasado 1 de mayo lo siguiente: “Washington, D.C. - Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) y los Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH) anunciaron hoy el desarrollo de la plataforma de vacunas universales de próxima generación, Generation Gold Standard, utilizando una plataforma de beta-propioctona (BPL) activada por todovirus. Esta iniciativa representa un cambio decisivo hacia la transparencia, la eficacia y la preparación integral, financiando el desarrollo interno de vacunas universales contra la gripe y el coronavirus de los NIH, incluidos los candidatos BPL-1357 y BPL-24910. Estas vacunas tienen como objetivo proporcionar una protección de amplio espectro contra múltiples cepas de virus propensos a pandemias como la gripe aviar H5N1 y los coronavirus como SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, y MERS-CoV. Nuestro compromiso es claro: toda innovación en el desarrollo de vacunas debe basarse en la ciencia y la transparencia del patrón oro, y sometida a los más altos estándares de pruebas de seguridad y eficacia, dijo el secretario del HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.” Nos están hablando no solo del covid, si no de la gripe aviar y el virus MERS… En abril de 2024, Kennedy lanzó una campaña para la nominación presidencial del Partido Demócrata, pero en octubre de ese año anunció que correría como independiente, rompiendo con el partido al que su familia ha estado históricamente vinculada. Su campaña se centró en temas como la libertad individual, la transparencia gubernamental y la reforma del sistema de salud, pero enfrentó desafíos en términos de apoyo y cobertura mediática. El 23 de agosto de 2024, suspendió su campaña y respaldó a Donald Trump en un mitin en Arizona, con la intención de mantener su presencia en la boleta en estados no competitivos. Este movimiento fue visto como una estrategia para influir en la política nacional, especialmente en temas de salud. El 14 de noviembre de 2024, Donald Trump lo nominó para el cargo de Secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), un puesto que asumió el 13 de febrero de 2025, tras una confirmación ajustada en el Senado con un voto de 52 a 48, donde Mitch McConnell fue el único republicano en votar en contra. Este nombramiento marcó un hito, ya que Kennedy se convirtió en el primer candidato presidencial independiente en ocupar un puesto de gabinete después de postularse para la presidencia. Su confirmación enfrentó oposición, con más de 17,000 médicos firmando una carta en enero de 2025 instando al Senado a rechazar su nominación, reflejando las preocupaciones sobre sus posturas en salud pública. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., al asumir el cargo de secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), poseía una cartera de inversión considerable que incluía acciones en empresas que, en teoría, debería regular en su rol. Según una carta de información presentada el 21 de enero de 2025, a pocos días de asumir su cargo, ante la Oficina de Ética Gubernamental de Estados Unidos, RFK Jr. se comprometió a desinvertir en varias compañías, incluidas las biotecnológicas CRISPR Therapeutics y Dragonfly Therapeutics, en un plazo de 90 días si era confirmado para el puesto. El invertía en empresas de terapias genéticas tales como CRISPR Therapeutics y Dragonfly mientras advertía de los riesgos de esas mismas terapias a través de su Fundación Children's Health Defens, en lo que consideramos una acción hipócrita. Un documento separado detalla un extenso listado de relaciones económicas, que incluye inversiones en empresas destacadas como Amazon, Apple, Vanguard, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, Rockefeller Access Fund, Disney, Warner Bros, entre otras, evidenciando la magnitud de su portafolio. Desde su toma de posesión, Kennedy ha implementado una serie de políticas controvertidas. El 13 de febrero de 2025, firmó la Orden Ejecutiva 14211, creando la Comisión "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA), que preside, con el objetivo de investigar las enfermedades crónicas infantiles y evaluar las amenazas de los medicamentos con receta. El 22 de mayo de 2025, lanzó el informe MAHA, que posteriormente fue criticado por contener citas a estudios inexistentes, con la Casa Blanca atribuyendo los errores a problemas de formato. El 29 de mayo de 2025, se informó que su equipo agregó nuevos errores al informe, empeorando la situación. Otras acciones incluyen el despido de aproximadamente 5,200 trabajadores federales de salud recién contratados de agencias como los CDC y el NIH el 14 de febrero de 2025, y la eliminación de la mayoría del personal del Instituto Nacional para la Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional en abril de 2025, cancelando programas como las aprobaciones de equipos de seguridad para el lugar de trabajo y la investigación sobre la salud de los bomberos. El 9 de junio de 2025, removió a los 17 miembros del Comité Asesor sobre Prácticas de Inmunización (ACIP) de los CDC y los reemplazó con nuevos miembros, una decisión que generó críticas por potenciales conflictos de interés. El 20 de febrero de 2025, instruyó a los CDC a suspender las campañas publicitarias de vacunación contra la gripe durante una temporada de influenza severa, enfocándose en el "consentimiento informado". Durante un brote de sarampión en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos en 2025, que reportó 146 casos, 20 hospitalizaciones y 1 muerte en Texas a finales de febrero, Kennedy hizo comentarios públicos el 26 de febrero de 2025, afirmando falsamente que hubo dos muertes y cuatro brotes ese año (16 en 2024), y sugirió que la cuarentena fue la principal razón de las hospitalizaciones, lo cual fue refutado. Promovió tratamientos marginales como el aceite de hígado de bacalao y la vitamina A, y escribió un artículo de opinión en Fox News el 2 de marzo de 2025, calificando a las vacunas de "elección personal" y recomendando vitaminas, lo que llevó a informes de toxicidad por vitamina A en niños infectados. El 28 de marzo de 2025, enfrentó más críticas por promover tratamientos no convencionales, como vitaminas, lo que generó alarma entre los profesionales de la salud. El 25 de marzo de 2025, su desinformación llevó a la renuncia del principal encargado de la comunicación de salud pública de los CDC, y el 3 de marzo de 2025, el principal portavoz de HHS también renunció, citando "desinformación y mentiras". El 28 de marzo de 2025, el principal oficial de vacunas de la FDA también renunció por razones similares. En julio de 2025, Kennedy enfrenta demandas legales significativas. El 7 de julio de 2025, la Academia Americana de Pediatría, la Asociación Americana de Salud Pública y otras organizaciones médicas demandaron a HHS y a Kennedy por cambios unilaterales en las recomendaciones de vacunas, específicamente por eliminar las recomendaciones de vacunas contra el COVID-19, argumentando que estas acciones son ilegales. Estas demandas reflejan la creciente oposición de la comunidad médica a sus políticas. Además, el 25 de junio de 2025, acusó a Gavi, una agencia global de vacunas, de ignorar la ciencia en la inmunización de niños, una afirmación que ha sido controvertida y criticada por expertos. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. elogió recientemente la Operación Warp Speed, (lanzada en mayo de 2020, bajo la administración de Donald Trump, con el objetivo de acelerar el desarrollo, la producción y la distribución de vacunas, tratamientos y diagnósticos para la COVID-19), calificándola de "logro extraordinario" y "demostración de liderazgo" del expresidente Donald Trump. Esta declaración supone un cambio notable para Kennedy, que anteriormente había criticado la iniciativa. Sus comentarios se realizaron durante una audiencia en el Senado, destacando las complejidades de la lealtad política y la evolución de las narrativas que rodean el despliegue de la vacuna COVID-19 de la administración Trump. Las acciones de Kennedy como Secretario de HHS han generado un debate intenso sobre el equilibrio entre la libertad individual y la responsabilidad pública en salud. Su promoción de la iniciativa MAHA, incluyendo giras por estados como Oklahoma y Louisiana en julio de 2025, busca revolucionar el sistema de salud, pero muchos lo ven como una fuente de temor por su enfoque en teorías marginales y su rechazo al consenso científico. Su legado como activista ambiental sigue siendo notable, como dijimos fue miembro y directivo del grupo ambientalista Riverkeeper. El bagaje de esta ONG inspiró un libro cuyo prologo fue escrito por el también promotor de los créditos de carbono Al Gore. Robert Kennedy es un calentólogo que dio un discurso durante el concierto de la misma temática catastrofista llamado Live Earth que organizó David Rothschild y Al Gore entre otros. Robert F. Kennedy Jr durante “la Marcha Popular por el Clima” en Nueva York que se llevó a cabo el domingo 21 de septiembre de 2014 dijo: “que es lamentable que no existan leyes para reducir el escepticismo sobre el cambio climático entre los legisladores” y “"Ojalá existiera una ley que los castigara”. ¿No tiene ojos en la cara el señor Kennedy para ver que la geoingeneria está detrás del supuesto cambio climático? El ayuntamiento de Adeje, en la isla de Tenerife, le pago una visita para hablar sobre el cambio climático. Un ayuntamiento de un pueblo de 50.000 habitantes trae a una superestrella como el señor Kennedy para que les cuente una milonga que solo han visto unas 100 personas en Youtube. Les pondremos la charla en la descripción del podcast. Y es que hay mucho dinero para este tipo de campañas que en realidad promueven la Agenda 2030 al igual que otras supuestas luchas como la libertad sexual. RFK Jr. ha sido un luchador por la comunidad LGBT y el "matrimonio igualitario". En 2011 se unió a su Campaña de Derechos Humanos en Nueva York junto a Mike Bloomberg, Fren Drescher, Kevin Bacon, Whoopi Goldberg y otros. Es una marioneta mas del poder al igual que lo fue su tio o cualquier otro miembro de la familia Kennedy. El New York Post lo relacionó presuntamente con Epstein y el Lolita express, en un largo y documentado artículo publicado en diciembre de 2023. No solo muestra una fotografía de RFK Jr. y su amante durante una fiesta que ofreció Epstein en 1994 si no que recoge declaraciones del propio Kennedy reconociendo que viajo por lo menos dos veces en el avión del pederasta en compañía de niños. Su amante por aquel entonces que luego terminaría siendo su esposa, Mary Richardson Kennedy, se suicidó en 2012 dos años después de divorciarse de Kennedy. Por aquel entonces estaban empezando a salir a la luz los escándalos de Epstein. En el New York Post podemos leer: “Kennedy era tan cercano a Epstein que el multimillonario tenía una larga entrada para “Kennedy, Bobby y Mary” en su “pequeña libreta negra”, que incluía contactos de personas de la alta sociedad y políticos, así como de las jóvenes a las que agredió sexualmente.” Christina Oxenberg miembro de la depuesta familia real serbia (el príncipe Andrés de Gran Bretaña es primo segundo), es una vieja amiga de la familia Kennedy y escribió un libro en 2021 donde habla de esa relación: “Esos viajes tuvieron lugar hace aproximadamente 30 años, mucho antes de que la conducta criminal del Sr. Epstein fuera de conocimiento público”. “En junio de 1989, el magnate de la prensa británica Robert Maxwell organizó una fiesta en el Lady Ghislaine, a orillas del Potomac, en Washington, D. C. Entre los invitados se encontraban el reverendo Jesse Jackson, exsecretario de Defensa, el director de la CIA y dos Kennedy.” Robert Maxwell era el padre de la compinche de Epstein, la supuesta madame, que atraía y manejaba a las chicas jóvenes con las que Epstein chantajeaba a la flor y nata mundial. Una Doctora que huyó a México estuvo denunciando a este particular Kennedy de que le estaba enviando acoso mafioso organizado e intentos de asesinato con tipos de la C I A. Esto durante la plandemia, antes de ingresar como miembro del "gobierno" actual de USA. Por supuesto este tipo de noticias son tildadas de bulo por las agencias verificadoras. Pero conozcamos un poco de dónde vienen estas agencias. Y es que la CIA, las agencia de verificación y los Kennedy son como uña y carne como se puede ver en documentos desclasificados de la propia CIA. Desde 1985 la CIA planeó como introducir sus ideas en el público. Para ello se infiltró junto al FBI en varias universidades como la Escuela de Gobierno Kennedy de Harvard. Desde allí se empezaron a crear las primeras agencias de fact checking como Crosscheck y otras bajo agencias como First Draft...agencia cuya supervisión recae en la propia CIA. Para Maldita.es la verdad brota de estas fuentes. Como os digo la propia CIA dio una conferencia en 1987 para dejar claro que las mentes más privilegiadas debían compartir pupitre con algunos de sus agentes. Esto es ya es duro de por si...pero aún no es nada para lo que esconden estas agencias de verificación. Una pequeña búsqueda os arrojará quién está detrás de la financiación de las principales. Incluyendo las españolas maldito bulo y otras. Las Fundaciones Avina y Ashoka son sus principales garantes. Nuestros amigos de Desmontando a Babylon nos lo contaron en varias ocasiones como en BdlV - dab radio temporada 7.0 Episodio 03 No somos m ashokas Clara Jiménez Cruz, la cofundadora y CEO de Maldito Bulo fue elegida Ashoka Fellow (una changemaker) en 2019. ¿Qué es eso de Ashoka y de que va ese tema de los changemakers, los hacedores del cambio o emprendedores sociales? Básicamente hablamos de unas cuantas familias poderosas, entre ellas la suiza Schmidheiny y la belga Emsens y De Cartier, todas ellas propietarias de las multinacionales que explotaron el amianto, creando y financiando estas agencias de verificación con la complicidad, como no, de los Estados Unidos. Así que ya veis, las multinacionales que contaminaron con amianto todo el mundo occidental y que han provocado cientos de miles de muertes por cáncer están detrás de las agencias que verifican si la información es real. De esto no oiréis hablar nunca al flamante RFK Jr. Estamos ante un político que habla sin dejar clara su postura en muchos puntos importantes, por ejemplo, durante su comparecencia en la audiencia del 29 de enero de 2025 para considerar su nominación como Secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos le hicieron esta pregunta sobre la IA: “La inteligencia artificial está transformando la investigación, el desarrollo y la prestación de servicios sanitarios. Tiene el potencial de mejorar la atención al paciente, los resultados sanitarios y la eficiencia. La IA también podría ser utilizada por los pagadores para limitar el acceso de los pacientes y crear obstáculos adicionales. ¿Qué papel cree que desempeñará el HHS en la gobernanza de esta tecnología transformadora?" Y esta fue su respuesta: “La inteligencia artificial tiene el potencial de cambiar fundamentalmente la forma en que se prestan los servicios sanitarios y los servicios humanos. Teniendo esto en cuenta, es posible que sea necesario considerar nuevas políticas y enfoques en toda la industria y el gobierno. El HHS puede apoyar mejor a los pacientes ofreciendo un entorno regulatorio claro y estable, cuando sea apropiado, con respecto a la seguridad, la eficacia y la transparencia, al tiempo que crea un amplio espacio para que el sector privado innove y amplíe la competitividad de Estados Unidos.” Le preguntaron sobre la transparencia. “Sr. Kennedy, la primera administración Trump tomó medidas importantes para mejorar la transparencia en la atención médica. Los programas y requisitos de transparencia en la atención médica, si se amplían, podrían ofrecer una oportunidad única para ayudar de manera significativa a reducir los costos de la atención médica y mejorar la calidad de los resultados. Si se confirma su nombramiento, ¿seguirá apoyando estos esfuerzos mediante la implementación de programas piloto de transparencia adicionales y políticas del HHS para ampliar aún más el trabajo que el gobierno federal ya ha comenzado en materia de transparencia?” Respuesta: R: “Si se confirma mi nombramiento, me comprometo a instaurar la transparencia en todos los programas y actividades del HHS, para que los estadounidenses puedan recuperar la confianza en el sistema sanitario. Además, espero con interés trabajar con el Congreso para presentar reformas legislativas que proporcionen a los estadounidenses una transparencia sin precedentes en su sistema sanitario.” Le preguntaron por la pandemia de Covid y se limito a contestar como lo haría un político. “La pandemia de COVID-19 puso de relieve el papel fundamental de la telesalud, que permite a los pacientes mantenerse en contacto con sus equipos de atención médica mientras permanecen seguros en sus hogares. Pero más allá de la pandemia, la telesalud sigue ofreciendo esperanza e innovación, desde el apoyo a los servicios de salud mental hasta la gestión de enfermedades crónicas, la mejora de la atención materna e incluso la solución de la escasez de personal en el sector sanitario. Presenté la Ley de Modernización de la Telesalud, un proyecto de ley bipartidista para hacer permanentes las flexibilidades de telesalud promulgadas durante la pandemia de COVID-19, con el fin de garantizar la cobertura continua y el acceso a la atención médica para los estadounidenses. Si se confirma, ¿cómo planea el HHS trabajar con el Congreso para garantizar que millones de beneficiarios de Medicare no pierdan el acceso a los servicios de telesalud y caigan abruptamente en el «precipicio de la telesalud»?” Respuesta: “La telesalud es una herramienta importante para proporcionar acceso a una gama de servicios de atención médica cruciales, especialmente para quienes viven en zonas rurales y en áreas con escasez de proveedores. Si se confirma mi nombramiento, espero trabajar con el Congreso para garantizar que los modos innovadores de prestación de atención médica, como la telesalud, maximicen la calidad y el acceso a la atención para los beneficiarios de Medicare.” Y es que durante el Covid se gano mucho dinero sometiendo a la población a medidas tan absurdas como usar un bozal que no servia para nada. Tenemos un escándalo en España que relaciona a la oficina de la Fundación Human Rights que dirige Kennedy con este tema de las mascarillas. El hijo de Nati Abascal se compró entre otras cosas un yate de 13 metros de eslora con sus comisiones. Encima bautizó a la embarcación como Feria en honor al titulo nobiliario que ostenta la familia, el del famoso pederasta Duque de Feria. Fue la presidenta de la universidad americana CIS, María Díaz de la Cebosa que es a la vez la persona que lleva en España la fundación Human Rights que preside Kennedy la que le facilitó al imputado Luis Medina el teléfono de Carlos Martínez-Almeida, el primo del alcalde de Madrid, José Luis Martínez-Almeida. Los dos empresarios imputados se llevaron 6 millones de euros de un contrato para la compra de material sanitario. El hijo de Naty Abascal y su exsocio, absueltos de estafar al Ayuntamiento de Madrid, todo quedo en agua de borrajas. Le preguntan sobre el SIDA y responde esto: “El presupuesto anual del Instituto Nacional de Alergias y Enfermedades Infecciosas impulsa investigaciones fundamentales; entre los ejemplos se incluyen el desarrollo exitoso de nuevas vacunas contra el VRS, un fármaco aprobado por la FDA que retrasa la aparición de la diabetes tipo 1, una vacuna de ARNm contra el VIH y mucho más. Explique por qué planea detener este trabajo y a quién beneficiará.” Respuesta: “Si se confirma mi nombramiento, espero evaluar todas las agencias y programas para asegurarme de que están cumpliendo la misión de devolver la salud a los estadounidenses.” Las agencias de verificación son un invento, como hemos visto antes, de las grandes multinacionales y estas mismas empresas siguen trabajando sin cortapisas bajo la administración de este supuesto antivacunas que no lo es tal. Estas agencias no nos contaran la verdad jamas y no hablaran de la relación de este Kennedy con los grupos antivacunas que promocionan en verdad la Agenda 2030 y la Nueva era. Ni de esto ni de la La trágica historia de Rosemary, la hermana de J.F. Kennedy a quien su padre mandó a lobotomizar. Yo no me fiaría mucho de una familia que es capaz de realizarle una lobotomía a una pobre joven con problemas derivados de su nacimiento. En el parto no pudo respirar por no dejar que saliera de forma natural esperando casi dos horas por un médico que no llegaba. Una criada mantuvo las piernas cerradas de la madre… Hablamos de una joven con pequeños trastornos de aprendizaje que llegó a socializar con la realeza británica. Fue expulsada de Inglaterra por las declaraciones de su padre que afirmaba “que Reino Unido no podía ganar la guerra y que la democracia había terminado”. Regreso a USA y al final fue recluida en un convento...era incontrolable y una Kennedy incontrolable es un problema de estado. En un articulo de BBC news leemos: “Encerrada en un convento, se volvió desafiante a las restricciones. Las monjas no pudieron controlarla. "Muchas noches", recordó la prima de Rosemary, Ann Gargan, "la escuela llamaba a decir que había desaparecido y la encontraban vagando por las calles a las 2 a.m.". Pronto se supo que Rosemary se estaba escapando, según un compañero paciente que compartió muchos años del confinamiento posterior de Rosemary, para ir a tabernas y encontrarse con hombres en busca de atención, consuelo y sexo, escribió Elizabeth Koehler-Pentacoff en The Missing Kennedy.” Su padre tenía aspiraciones políticas para sus hijos y Rosemary era un peligro así que decidió someterla a una lobotomía con solo 23 años. Seguimos leyendo en BBC news: “Tras perforar agujeros en el cráneo de Rosemary, Freeman insertó un cuchillo y comenzó a cortar los lóbulos frontales de su cerebro. Atada a la mesa, ella estaba despierta y aterrorizada durante el procedimiento. De repente, se quedó en silencio y cayó en la inconsciencia. La operación había sido un catastrófico fracaso. Rosemary quedó sin poder caminar ni hablar. Incluso después de años de terapia, no podía pronunciar más que unas pocas palabras y nunca recuperó completamente el uso de sus extremidades.” Murió en 2005, a los 86 años tras pasar 63 largos años aislada, recluida en centros de internamiento privados sin recibir visitas. Si son capaces de hacer eso con uno de los suyos, que no serán capaces de hacer con un extraño. A continuación se presenta una lista de los principales eventos considerados parte de la «Maldición Kennedy». Si bien es improbable que todos estos eventos fueran resultado de una conspiración contra la familia, es difícil ignorar el fuerte patrón de sincronicidad, también conocido como «coincidencias significativas», asociado con los Kennedy. 1941—Se creía a menudo que Rosemary Kennedy padecía problemas mentales. Algunas fuentes afirmaban que padecía enfermedades mentales, como depresión y esquizofrenia. Debido a sus cambios de humor cada vez más violentos y severos, su padre, Joe Sr., organizó en secreto que se sometiera a una lobotomía. La lobotomía, en cambio, deterioró aún más sus capacidades cognitivas y, como resultado, Rosemary permaneció internada hasta su fallecimiento en 2005. 12 de agosto de 1944—Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. murió cuando su avión explotó sobre East Suffolk, Inglaterra, como parte del Proyecto Anvil. 13 de mayo de 1948—Kathleen Cavendish, marquesa de Hartington, murió en un accidente aéreo en Francia. 23 de agosto de 1956: Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy dio a luz a una hija muerta, Arabella. (Aunque está enterrada en el Cementerio Nacional de Arlington junto a sus padres con una placa que dice "Hija", sus padres tenían la intención de llamarla Arabella). 9 de agosto de 1963—Patrick Bouvier Kennedy murió dos días después de su nacimiento prematuro. 22 de noviembre de 1963—El presidente estadounidense John F. Kennedy fue asesinado en Dallas, Texas. Lee Harvey Oswald fue acusado del crimen, pero Jack Ruby lo mató a tiros dos días después, antes de que pudiera celebrarse el juicio. El FBI y la Comisión Warren concluyeron oficialmente que Oswald fue el único asesino. Sin embargo, el Comité Selecto de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos sobre Asesinatos (HSCA) concluyó que dichas investigaciones presentaban graves deficiencias y que Kennedy probablemente fue asesinado como resultado de una conspiración. 19 de junio de 1964—El senador estadounidense Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy sufrió un accidente aéreo en el que fallecieron uno de sus asesores y el piloto. Fue rescatado de los restos por su colega senador Birch E. Bayh II y pasó semanas hospitalizado recuperándose de una fractura de espalda, un pulmón perforado, costillas rotas y una hemorragia interna. 5 de junio de 1968—El senador estadounidense Robert F. Kennedy fue asesinado por Sirhan Bishara Sirhan en Los Ángeles, inmediatamente después de su victoria en las primarias presidenciales demócratas de California. Sirhan fue declarado culpable del asesinato de Kennedy y cumple cadena perpetua en el Centro Correccional Richard J. Donovan. 18 de julio de 1969—En el incidente de Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy se cayó accidentalmente de un puente en la isla de Chappaquiddick, atrapando fatalmente a su pasajera, Mary Jo Kopechne, en su interior. En su declaración televisada del 25 de julio, Kennedy afirmó que la noche del incidente se preguntó si realmente pesaba una terrible maldición sobre todos los Kennedy. 13 de agosto de 1973—Joseph P. Kennedy II era el conductor de un automóvil que se estrelló y dejó a su pasajera, Pam Kelley, paralizada. 25 de abril de 1984—David Anthony Kennedy murió de una sobredosis de cocaína y Demerol en una habitación de hotel de Palm Beach, Florida. 31 de diciembre de 1997—Michael LeMoyne Kennedy falleció en un accidente de esquí en Aspen, Colorado . Kennedy era sospechoso de estupro tras mantener una relación de tres años con una niñera de 14 años. 16 de julio de 1999—John F. Kennedy, Jr. falleció cuando la avioneta Piper Saratoga que pilotaba se estrelló en el océano Atlántico frente a la costa de Martha's Vineyard debido a un error del piloto. Su esposa y su cuñada también fallecieron. – Wikipedia, “La maldición de Kennedy” ………………………………………………………………………………………. Conductor del programa UTP Ramón Valero @tecn_preocupado Canal en Telegram @UnTecnicoPreocupado Un técnico Preocupado un FP2 IVOOX UTP http://cutt.ly/dzhhGrf BLOG http://cutt.ly/dzhh2LX Ayúdame desde mi Crowfunding aquí https://cutt.ly/W0DsPVq Invitados Dra Yane #JusticiaParaUTP @ayec98_2 Médico y Buscadora de la verdad. Con Dios siempre! No permito q me dividan c/izq -derecha, raza, religión ni nada de la Creación. https://youtu.be/TXEEZUYd4c0 ………………………………………………………………………………………. Enlaces citados en el podcast: AYUDA A TRAVÉS DE LA COMPRA DE MIS LIBROS https://tecnicopreocupado.com/2024/11/16/ayuda-a-traves-de-la-compra-de-mis-libros/ La vida oculta de los Kennedy: La dinastía de la élite que fue diezmada (Parte I) https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/kennedys-elite-dynasty-got-decimated-pt/ La vida oculta de los Kennedy: La dinastía de la élite que fue diezmada (Parte II) https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/hidden-life-kennedys-elite-dynasty-got-decimated-pt-ii/ La vida oculta de los Kennedy: La dinastía de élite diezmada (Parte III) https://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/hidden-life-kennedys-elite-dynasty-got-decimated-pt-iii/ Moderna consigue aprobación de la FDA para mNexspike, su vacuna COVID de baja dosis con acceso limitado https://www.infobae.com/estados-unidos/2025/06/01/moderna-consigue-aprobacion-de-la-fda-para-mnexspike-su-vacuna-covid-de-baja-dosis-con-acceso-limitado/ Kennedy es un charlatán que solo está redefiniendo el negocio de los laboratorios mientras engaña, esperanza e ilusiona a los ingenuos. Se sigue vacunando a bebes a partir de los 6 meses. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-notes.html#note-covid-19 Independientemente de las palabras de Kennedy al final las mujeres embarazadas son "personas de riesgo" para el CDC y por tanto se las recomienda vacunarse del covid. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb2506929 FDA aprueba nueva inyección de Moderna sin un solo ensayo controlado con placebo https://cienciaysaludnatural.com/fda-aprueba-nueva-inyeccion-de-moderna-sin-ensayo-controlado/ PowerPoint de Children's Health Defense "El público exige una vacuna Covid-19 segura". "Lo que muchos quieren realmente es un programa de vacunas seguras para todos, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻." "Un impulso para sustituir las vacunas de talla única por 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 "𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱" 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 que sean seguras y eficaces para todos" Fuente de las diapositivas (13 y 54): https://childrenshealthdefense.org/protecting-our-future/covid-vaccine-safety-concerns/ Nota de prensa del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) del pasado 1 de mayo. Washington, D.C. - Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) y los Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH) anunciaron hoy el desarrollo de la plataforma de vacunas universales de próxima generación, Generation Gold Standard, utilizando una plataforma de beta-propioctona (BPL) activada por todovirus. Esta iniciativa representa un cambio decisivo hacia la transparencia, la eficacia y la preparación integral, financiando el desarrollo interno de vacunas universales contra la gripe y el coronavirus de los NIH, incluidos los candidatos BPL-1357 y BPL-24910. Estas vacunas tienen como objetivo proporcionar una protección de amplio espectro contra múltiples cepas de virus propensos a pandemias como la gripe aviar H5N1 y los coronavirus como SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, y MERS-CoV. Nuestro compromiso es claro: toda innovación en el desarrollo de vacunas debe basarse en la ciencia y la transparencia del patrón oro, y sometida a los más altos estándares de pruebas de seguridad y eficacia, dijo el secretario del HHS, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-nih-announces-generation-gold-standard.html Noticia de 11 de abril de 2025. La FDA aprueba vacuna de ARN mensajero contra la "gripe aviar". La FDA concedió la designación de vía rápida a una vacuna candidata de ARNm autoamplificante (ARCT-2304) para inmunización activa con el fin de proteger contra el subtipo H5N1 de la gripe A, también conocida como gripe aviar. La designación responde a la necesidad no cubierta de prevención del subtipo H5N1, que sigue siendo un riesgo sanitario mundial, y en noviembre de 2024 se inició un ensayo de fase 1 (NCT06602531) de la vacuna. https://www.drugtopics.com/view/fda-grants-fast-track-designation-for-potential-bird-flu-vaccine Robert Kennedy Jr invirtió en varias empresas de terapias genéticas tales como CRISPR Therapeutics y Dragonfly por un lado, mientras advertía de los riesgos esas mismas terapias a través de su Fundación Children's Health Defens por el otro. Dejo de participar en dichas empresas por los conflictos políticos que suponía su cargo sanitario en la Administración Trump no por conflictos éticos por su discurso contradictorio en Children's Health Defense. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/rfk-jr-will-divest-interests-crispr-tx-dragonfly-if-hhs-role-confirmed-letter Robert Kennedy es un calentólogo que dio un discurso durante el concierto de la misma temática catastrofista llamado Live Earth que organizó David Rothschild y Al Gore entre otros. https://youtube.com/watch?v=KG5zckBejK0&t=26s Robert F. Kennedy Jr. elogió recientemente la Operación Warp Speed, calificándola de "logro extraordinario" y "demostración de liderazgo" del expresidente Donald Trump. Esta declaración supone un cambio notable para Kennedy, que anteriormente había criticado la iniciativa. Sus comentarios se realizaron durante una audiencia en el Senado, destacando las complejidades de la lealtad política y la evolución de las narrativas que rodean el despliegue de la vacuna COVID-19 de la administración Trump. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xxOhOAXfjZw Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Los negacionistas del cambio climático deben ser castigados por ley Septiembre de 2014 https://www.al.com/news/2014/09/robert_f_kennedy_jr_climate-ch.html Robert Kennedy Jr presidió Waterkeeper, grupo ambientalista que acabó fusionándose con RiverKepper de la que también fue abogado. Ambas organizaciones fueron pioneras en reclamar la "restauración" de los ríos, un eufemismo que en realidad significa la destrucción de presas y otras infraestructuras hidráulicas y energéticas. Modelo que se ha replicado en todo el mundo golpeando especialmente a España. https://es.waterkeeper.org/revistas/volumen-14-n%C3%BAmero-2/deja-que-nuestros-r%C3%ADos-corran-libres/ Robert Kennedy Jr fue miembro y directivo del grupo ambientalista Riverkeeper. El bagaje de esta ONG inspiró un libro cuyo prologo fue escrito por el también promotor de los créditos de carbono Al Gore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riverkeepers Robert Kennedy es un activista climático. Conferencia en español y en Adeje, Tenerife https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzW2APdiMJs RFK Jr. ha sido un luchador por la comunidad LGBT y el "matrimonio igualitario". En 2011 se unió a su Campaña de Derechos Humanos en Nueva York junto a Mike Bloomberg, Fren Drescher, Kevin Bacon, Whoopi Goldberg y otros. https://youtu.be/66DspDO3Oyo Una Doctora que huyó a Mexico estuvo denunciando a este particular Kennedy de que este tipo le estaba enviando Acoso mafioso organizado e intentos de asesinato con tipos de la C I A. Esto en etapa de plandemia, antes de ingresar como miembro del "Robierno" actual de Usa. se lo relacionó presuntamente con Epstein y el Lolita express, presuntamente señor juez, como diría Ramón. https://nypost.com/2023/12/08/news/pictured-robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-jeffrey-epstein/ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. retirará sus inversiones en dos biotecnológicas si es confirmado para dirigir el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS). Como secretario de Sanidad, RFK Jr. dijo que desinvertiría en varias empresas -incluidas CRISPR Therapeutics y Dragonfly Therapeutics- en un plazo de 90 días, según una carta de información presentada el 21 de enero ante la Oficina de Ética Gubernamental de Estados Unidos. Otras empresas de la lista son Amazon y Apple. La carta que se refiere es esta: https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/F3C8425ED335BB5685258C1A00565D57/$FILE/Kennedy%2C%20Jr.%2C%20Robert%20F.%20%20AMENDED%20finalEA.pdf Y este es el documento separado donde declara un listado de relaciones económicas. Llama la atención los nombres de Vanguard, City Bank, Deustsche Bank, Rockefeller Access Fund, Disney, Warner Bros, etc https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/A56222F259495B0D85258C1A00565073/$FILE/Kennedy%2C%20Jr.%2C%20Robert%20F.%20%20AMENDED%20final278.pdf La trágica historia de Rosemary, la hermana de J.F. Kennedy a quien su padre mandó a lobotomizar https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/1299723370892857344 La CIA en la escuela de gobierno Kennedy de Harvard https://x.com/tecn_preocupado/status/1781965457458712761 Audiencia para considerar la nominación de Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., de California, como Secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearingto-consider-the-nomination-of-robert-f-kennedy-jr-of-california-to-be-secretary-of-health-and-human-services María Díaz de la Cebosa, el supuesto 'enlace' entre Luis Medina y el primo de Almeida, admite que les puso en contacto https://cadenaser.com/2022/05/09/declara-maria-diaz-de-la-cebosa-el-supuesto-enlace-entre-luis-medina-y-el-primo-del-almeida-en-el-caso-mascarillas/ El yate que compró el hijo de Naty Abascal con la comisión de las mascarillas para Madrid https://www.elindependiente.com/espana/2022/04/06/el-yate-que-compro-el-hijo-de-naty-abascal-con-la-comision-de-las-mascarillas-para-madrid/ "Caso mascarillas": el hijo de Naty Abascal y su exsocio, absueltos de estafar al Ayuntamiento de Madrid https://www.larazon.es/madrid/caso-mascarillas-hijo-naty-abascal-exsocio-absueltos-estafar-ayuntamiento-madrid_2025031967da93fc6e9585000103b2e5.html Diagrama falsa disidencia anti vacunas https://t.me/MiVidaMiOxigeno/13790 ………………………………………………………………………………………. Música utilizada en este podcast: Tema inicial Heros Epílogo El Último de la Fila - Lejos de las leyes de los hombres (Versión 2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tkV4PmfJx4

Glenn is shocked to see the day that the Senate passed the bill that will defund NPR and PBS, as the bill now heads to the House. Glenn and Pat further discuss the disconnect between President Trump and his base regarding the Epstein files. When did the whole Epstein files issue begin? Glenn plays a segment from Michelle Obama's podcast, in which she and her husband, Barack, address rumors that they are headed for a divorce. Was this all staged? Glenn and Pat also compare an awkward cheek peck Obama gave Michelle to other awkward kisses in the past few years, including an "icky" one from former VP Al Gore. Glenn examines the Ten Commandments and reveals how they alone can restore our republic. Glenn argues that when America removed the Ten Commandments, it didn't just remove God; it removed the blueprint for civilization. Glenn and Pat discuss the importance of striving to pursue the truth, regardless of the outcome. Our Republic President Justin Haskins joins to discuss how President Trump's tariffs are somehow not driving inflation. Was Glenn Beck wrong when it comes to tariffs? Mercury One executive director J.P. Decker joins to discuss how Mercury One is joining the fight to get the Ten Commandments back into public schools. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

--{ "News is the Most Perfected Form of Fiction"}-- Just a few things to think about regarding the floods in Texas and the Jeffrey Epstein files. Francis Bacon, New Atlantis - Magic, Spells, Change, Chemistry, Alchemy, mRNA - Novus Ordo Seclorum, An Earthly Order - Neocons Praised Obama for Continuing the Agenda They Started - Donald Trump and Iran - Tony Blair - Late 1960s British Television Episode, The News Benders, Donald Pleasance, "The news is the most perfected form of fiction" - Al Gore, An Inconvenient Spoof - The Persona of Jeffrey Epstein - Total Control Over Speech - 5G is Part of the Whole New Way of Living - Manipulation of Psyche and Emotions - Abortion, Euthanasia - Crowds are Easy to Create - The Money System - Farming - Energy, Technocracy - The Georgia Guidestones - Infertility in the West.

Jonah Goldberg and Remnant guest emeritus Chris Stirewalt are coming to you live from a necrophiliac brothel in Rangoon (more commonly referred to as the American Enterprise Institute) to school the children, pontificate on the problem with third parties and why America owes Al Gore an apology, and take a walk down Declaration of Independence lane. Show Notes:—Vintage Jonah for National Review: “Is Gore An Alien?”—Jonah's installment in The Dispatch's The Next 250 series—Chris Stirewalt on Calvin Coolidge—Calvin Coolidge, “Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration” The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regular livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Friends Flip Out: How Much Is Too Much? | Aging, Diet Myths & Climate Chaos

Aaron McIntire examines the fading grip of climate alarmism, from the 1970s global cooling fears to Al Gore's warming predictions and Greta Thunberg's emotional outbursts over "climate change." Joined by Dr. Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, they discuss why climate models fail, why human flourishing trumps catastrophic narratives, and how developing nations prioritize energy over alarmist policies. Plus, a look at the Cornwall Alliance's book, Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism.   AM Update, Aaron McIntire, climate change, global warming, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Cornwall Alliance, Cal Beisner, human flourishing, energy policy, climate models, CO2

In this urgent and hard-hitting talk, Nobel Laureate Al Gore thoroughly dismantles the fossil fuel industry's narrative of "climate realism," contrasting their misleading claims with the remarkable advancements in renewable energy. Drawing on data showing clear signs of progress across the world, Gore makes a powerful case that we already have everything needed to solve the climate crisis — and reminds us of what the most valuable renewable resource actually is.Want to help shape TED's shows going forward? Fill out our survey!Learn more about TED Next at ted.com/futureyouFor the Idea Search application, go to ted.com/ideasearch Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Lehane has a solid gold resume in professional politics: consultant and oppo research in the Clinton White House, Press Secretary to VP Al Gore, and the source of the report on the "vast right wing conspiracy" so infamously cited by Hillary Clinton. Lehane also handles a wide array of corporate, Labor, entertainment and sports clients. Until recently he was Head of Global Policy and Public Affairs for Airbnb, and since 2024 has been VP of Global Affairs and a member of the executive team at OpenAI, a leading artificial intelligence organization based in San Francisco. Lehane joined us to talk about the opportunities and dangers of this fascinating new technology and to make the case for the importance of California maintaining its role as a global leader in AI.Plus - who had the Worst Week in California Politics?1:26 Capitol Weekly this week4:53 The Top 100 is coming!10:23 Chris Lehane11:32 What is Open Ai?14:25 Fastest growing internet platform15:29 Ai to benefit humanity16:17 Impact on jobs17:01 Ai is going to change everything - on the level with electricity, fire and the wheel22:24 "Building democracy in at the front end"25:36 Educating lawmakers about Ai28:17 Twenty percent of Californians now use Open Ai30:01 How do legislators set up guardrails?33:47 The "Big Beautiful Bill" precludes state Ai legislation - will it pass?  Should it?39:28 Competition between US and China41:21 End on a high note: California is the leader in Ai43:01 The Red Flag Law45:45 #WWCAWant to support the Capitol Weekly Podcast? Make your tax deductible donation here: capitolweekly.net/donations/Capitol Weekly Podcast theme is "Pickin' My Way" by Eddie Lang"#WorstWeekCA" Beat provided by freebeats.io

Send us a textMike Nellis is the founder of Authentic, a digital fundraising firm that's raised over $1 billion for it's clients including Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and numerous Governors, Senators, and high profile organizations. He was also a Senior Advisor to Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign, the co-founder of White Dudes for Harris in the 2024 presidential campaign, and an active thinker and leader on how progressive politics has to evolve in a changing world.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up in a conservative, middle class home in Omaha...Anti-Iraq War protests draw Mike into political activism...Mike's time as an Obama volunteer and fellow in the '07-'08 Iowa Caucus...On the campaign trail from Nebraska to North Carolina to Connecticut and more...Mike's connection to the 2016 Bernie Sanders' campaign...Mike's take on why a full primary would've helped the Kamala Harris' 24 presidential effort...Mike founds Authentic, a firm focused on online fundraising...Mike's time as a Senior Advisor to Kamala Harris 2020 presidential bid...Behind the scenes of designing the Harris' 2020 logo...Mike's recent focus as a General Consultant for campaigns...Why Democrats have become so risk-averse?Mike co-founds the White Dudes for Harris 2024 group...What Democrats must do to better appeal to younger men...The right balance of economics vs culture in Democratic campaigns...Should messaging and governance go big or go small?Where do Democrats need to move to the center?Mike's encouragement for those working in politics to stay healthy...AND...90s pro wrestling, AKAs, Avon, Brene Brown, George W. Bush, Pete Buttigieg, Carter Lake, James Carville, Bob Casey, Shirley Chisolm, Bill Clinton, John Fetterman, Flagrant, Scott Galloway, Jared Golden, Al Gore, Nikki Haley, hollowed-out banks, John Kerry, Larry King, Jane Kleeb, Scott Kleeb, Dan Malloy, Joe Manchin, Elaine Marshall, Ross Morales Rocketto, Morningside University, Elon Musk, music appreciation class, Trevor Noah, Martin O'Malley, Orange Theory, Ben Ostrower, Jordan Peterson, Ro Khanna, Chris Rock, Joe Rogan, Pat Ryan, Adam Schiff, Lis Smith, Tim Tagaris, Andrew Tate, Vampire Weekend, Theo Von, Tim Walz, Paul Wellstone, Wide Eye Creative & more!

This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check o... This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tennessee Lawmakers Push Back Against Doxxing Of ICE Officials  • Trump Fires Al Gore's Chief Of Staff On TVA Board & More!  The Tennessee Conservative's Brandon Lewis fills In For Yaffee On Talk Radio 102.3FM!

In which we remember the good and sane bush years. Watching: An Inconvenient Truth (2006), Davis Guggenheim & Al Gore Send us a question, comment or valid concern: auxiliarystatements(at)gmail.com DISCORD: https://discord.gg/csqrrRRD

You're listening to Burnt Toast! Today, my conversation is with Lauren Leavell. Lauren is a weight neutral fitness professional and content creator. She focuses on creating inclusive environments for movement and exercise to help clients feel strong and confident, and previously joined us on the podcast back in 2023. Lauren is an oasis in a sea of toxic online fitness and wellness culture. And it has been super toxic lately! So I asked Lauren to come on and chat with us about the recent dramas happening on Tiktok and Instagram.Yes, we get into the girl who said nobody over 200 pounds should take Pilates.We also talk about how to stay grounded when this noise is happening online, and how to seek out inclusive movement spaces—whatever that looks like for you. Today's episode is free but if you value this conversation, please consider supporting our work with a paid subscription. Burnt Toast is 100% reader- and listener-supported. We literally can't do this without you.PS. You can always listen to this pod right here in your email, where you'll also receive full transcripts (edited and condensed for clarity). But please also follow us in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, and/or Pocket Casts! And if you enjoy today's conversation, please tap the heart on this post — likes are one of the biggest drivers of traffic from Substack's Notes, so that's a super easy, free way to support the show!Episode 197VirginiaLauren, it's so great to have you back on the podcast! It was one of my favorite conversations. It was two years ago that you were here before, I think.LaurenI know! Honestly, we could have a conversation once a month about toxic fitness stuff. VirginiaThere's always something. For anyone who missed your first appearance and has missed the 72,000 times I say “I love Lauren's workouts,” can you introduce yourself?LaurenI am Lauren Leavell. I am a certified personal trainer and group fitness instructor. I've been doing that for almost a decade at this point, which is so wild. I'm not tired of it yet, which is amazing for me. I have a virtual program online, and Virginia is a member of tat community.VirginiaA groupie.LaurenHonestly, yes. Love that. I teach live classes and on demand classes. All of them are body neutral, and most of them are lower impact, because we're here for a good time and a long time. And I also have private training clients who I program Stronger Together workouts for.When I'm not doing that, I'm apparently complaining on the Internet. Well, I try not to complain too much on the Internet. And stalking cats in my neighborhood.VirginiaYou are my favorite Internet cat lady.LaurenHuge, huge accolades here.VirginiaFavorite Internet cat lady. That should be in your bio. And you are talking to us from France right now! Do you want to talk about that?LaurenI'm really leaning into my Sagittarius lifestyle. I just picked up my life in Philadelphia and decided to move to France. People keep asking me, why? And my answer is, why not? My partner and I are child-free except for our two beautiful cat daughters. But they're pretty easy to move. So we packed up our lives and moved to France. We are still really new here, really getting into it. And I'm genuinely just so excited for all the new stimuli. VirginiaOf course for folks listening to this episode, it is now mid-June, so we're going to talk about something that happened a month ago, and it is forgotten in the attention span of the Internet. But I still think it's very important to record for posterity that this happened. So Lauren, can you walk us through what I'm going to call Pilatesgate.LaurenPilatesgate occurred when a woman decided to come on TikTok, and really just rant. You can tell that she was a little bit amped up. She was talking about how she did not believe that people in larger bodies—specifically, if you are over 200 pounds—you should not be in a Pilates level two class. She was really insistent, and talked about how you should be doing cardio or just going to the gym. And then she followed up with: “You also shouldn't be a fitness instructor if you have a gut.” Like, what's going on? The overall tone of it was she was extremely agitated. VirginiaShe felt this deeply.LaurenShe was very bothered. Mind you, the person saying this, obviously, is not in a fat body. She's not in a larger body. I think the tone of her video and how agitated she was is what really sparked the conversation around size inclusivity and fitness and blatant fatphobia and anti-fat bias. But it all started with someone having a very agitated car rant that I'm sure she didn't think would go the way that it went.VirginiaI think she thought people were going to be like, Hell yeah! Thanks for saying the truth. I think she thought there was going to be this moment of recognition that she had spoken something. But I would love to even just know the backstory. I assume she just walked into a Pilates class and saw a fat person and lost her mind? I can't quite understand what series of events triggered the car rant, because I can't imagine having really any experience in my daily life that I would be like, “That was so terrible I need to take to the internet and say my piece about it,” and to have the experience be…I observed another human being.LaurenRight? I think that from from her follow up video it seems like she's been doing Pilates for a while, and maybe was agitated that someone was either getting more attention or she just maybe felt some type of way in general.VirginiaI wonder if the fat person was better at Pilates than her, and that made her feel bad.LaurenIt could be anything. Just like you said, like the presence of being there, maybe even having a conversation with a teacher—something triggered her. It could have even be been seeing something online of like a fat person doing Pilates as an instructor. I know plenty of fat Pilates instructors.And the apology videos were really like, “I need to work on myself.” And also, you know…you could have worked on yourself before releasing that rant into the internet space.VirginiaI give her one tiny point for how it is a very full apology video. So often an apology video is like, “I'm sorry people were upset,” you know? Like, “I'm sorry that this bothered you.” And she is like, I truly apologize. I have to work on myself. This is bad. She does own it to a certain degree.LaurenI think it's also because she experienced consequences. Her membership was revoked and she either lost her job, or at least is on punishment from her job.VirginiaWhich is correct! She should experience consequences. Plus there was a tidal wave of of videos coming out in response to her first one being like, what is wrong with you? This is a terrible thing. The backlash was quick and universal. I didn't see a lot of support content for her. I saw just a tidal wave of people being like, what the fuck?LaurenI think the people who would have maybe supported that kept their mouths shut because they saw what was happening. There are people who support that message and feel exactly the same. It was almost like she was like, channeling that type of rage. And I think, again, the agitation is what sets this video apart from every other video that's released 500 times a day on my FYP somewhere about people expressing anti-fat bias in fitness spaces, right?VirginiaShe said the thing that is often implied, and she said it very loudly. She also said it so righteously. It was a righteous anger in the first video. That, I think, was what was startling about it, I was glad to see the backlash—although, yes, as you're saying, there is so much more out there. And really she looks like she is 12 years old. I think she's like 23 or something. So this is a literal child who has had a tantrum. That happens every day, that some young 20 somethings says a fatphobic thing, right?LaurenI mean, actually, I was, at one point, a young 20 something saying fatphobic things to myself and out in the ether.VirginiaFrom my esteemed wisdom as a 44 year old, I try to be like, Thank God Tiktok didn't exist when I was 23! Thank God there's no record of the things I said and thought as a 23 year old. So, okay, babygirl, you did this and we hope you really do do the work. But as you're saying, she said something that is frequently echoed and reinforced by fitness influencers all over Al Gore's internet.You sent me a Tiktok by a fitness influencer Melania Antuchas, who posts as FitByMa. We see her leaning into the camera at a very uncomfortable-looking angle, saying, “If you don't like the way I train or instruct, don't come to my class because I'm going to push you to be your best self and you just need to take it,” basically. Can we unpack the toxicity of this kind of messaging? Because I do think this kind of messaging is what begets the angsty 23-year-old being appalled that there's a fat person in her Pilates class.LaurenYes, totally. I think that that person may actually be like an Internet predecessor to the rant, if I'm going to be honest. This person's content, against my own will, has been showing up frequently.VirginiaThank you for your service, by the way, that you have to consume all this fitness content, and see all of this.LaurenI've been seeing a lot of this person's videos, and a lot of Pilates instructors have actually had a lot to say about it, because what she's pitching as Pilates is not traditional Pilates, either mat or reformer. It's inspired by, but we really shouldn't be calling it that. And some people were like, “It seems like more of a barre class.” And I'm like, get my name out of your mouth. What are you talking about?VirginiaYou're like, don't you make me take her! I don't want her!LaurenYes, please don't come over here with this. So I think it's a combination of the fact that maybe her workouts feel a little mislabeled to a lot of people who are professionals in the field, and then her teaching style is extremely intense. And that's really what I would love to get into. Because I think if you've been a casual fitness person, you have experienced these type of intense motivational instructors and and maybe when we rewind to when we were the age of the ranter, that would have worked. That does work on a lot of people. What this person is saying is if you don't like it, don't come to my class. There are always going to be people who love a punishing, intense type of motivation because they never experienced anything else. They don't know how to find motivation or how to exercise without the presence of punishment.VirginiaThis is certainly endemic of a lot of CrossFit culture, a lot of boot camp culture. There are a lot of fitness spaces that are really built around this. Like, “no pain, no gain.” You've got to leave it all on the mat. You've got to always show up and give 200% no matter what. And I guess that is, as you're saying, motivating to some people.LaurenTell me about your childhood, if that's what you like. You know? And it's also a result of the United States culture in general, it is extremely punishing. And if we really stop and interrogate why we enjoy this, and why we only feel motivated by this intensity and someone getting up in our face, then we might have to slowly chip away at all the other places where softness has been denied and love and openness and acceptance have been denied. But it's to make you stronger. It's to make you better.VirginiaIt's like capitalism as a workout. LaurenIt's definitely a reflection of that type of culture, because some people maybe won't be motivated by anything softer, because they've never experienced softness.VirginiaAnd they've never been given permission to exist in a more multifaceted way, like you're either successful or you're not. You can either take it or you can't.LaurenAnd pain leads to success, right? Like, even though we all know—well, many of us know that—a lot of successful people have done no no suffering to get there. Other people have done the suffering for them.VirginiaExactly. It's just where you're born, which family you're born into, that lead to the success. The idea that there are no excuses, which was a recurring theme of her videos. Like, you're going to push yourself to be your best self or I'm going to push you to be your best self. That whole thing was so interesting to me because it was like, so you're not allowed to just have a headache one day? You're not allowed to be a neurodivergent person who has different needs and bandwidth? You're not allowed to be human, really, in this in this context.LaurenNo, not at all. And it really shows. I mean, I get it. And I have seen it over and over. But the ableism that exists in fitness spaces is almost like you're almost unable to, untangle them in so many spaces. And that's part of my job. It's been really, really, really interesting to be someone who's attempting to untangle those because how can I be motivational to people who have never experienced motivation outside of the intensity and the ableism and the pushing past. That's why I'm always talking about how unserious it is. Because this woman is telling me I have no excuses, and I have to go 100%. Like, girl, this is literally a 45 minute class. What are you talking about? This is 45 minutes of my life. Like, yes, with consistency you'll get results from fitness. And those don't have to be aesthetic! You will get your results from fitness if you are consistently doing a 45 minute workout. But consistently doing it doesn't mean doing it 100% every time.VirginiaRight? And let's not forget, we're just rolling around on a floor. LaurenWe're rolling around on the floor! Hopefully in a good class, we're mimicking movements that we would like do in our lives that would cause our bodies to meet those muscles. So if I'm moving furniture, it's usually not intensely at a speed run, I just need to be able to pick up my side of the couch! VirginiaAnd move it three feet and put it back down again.LaurenI think the the intensity of fitness is often overblown. And of course, this is hard to say as a fitness instructor who's not thin, because they'll be like, well, that's why you're fat.I think it's really deeply psychologically baked into fitness for a lot of people, that it has to be horrible. And that's my first experience with working out. Like, I thought it had to be horrible. Because I grew up in a family of women who only worked out when they needed to change their bodies. So it was like, oh my gosh. Remember when I was like, seriously working out for six months? It was always a sprint,VirginiaYou can't sustain the Mean Girl workout. Like, that's not a way to live. Or if you can, it's a warning sign that you can live with that much punishment for that long. LaurenYeah, definitely. Growing up, I thought that that's what all workouts were going to be. I did a lot of Stairmaster in my early 20s.VirginiaThe most Mean Girl of all cardio equipment.LaurenYes, I mean, that should have been a warning sign. But, I do think about this now, you know, I'm walking up a ton of stairs every day. I'm like, okay, well, do I need to go on a stairmaster, or am I able to just live my life and have to carry my groceries upstairs?VirginiaRight? I mean, being able to climb stairs is useful. And it's always really hard.LaurenA number one goal of people when I talk to folks, they're like, “I just want to be not winded when I go up and down stairs.” I'm like, I have horrible news for you.VirginiaIt's never going to happen.LaurenIt's a situational thing. You're dressed in regular clothes, carrying up three bags of groceries after carrying them in from your car, or not being warmed up, or carrying, a baby in a baby carrier, those baby carriers that are 400 pounds. Yeah, you're going to be winded.VirginiaI've lived in a fifth floor walk up in a sixth floor walk up, and I never got better at the stairs in the years I lived in those apartments. And I was a skinny 20 something when I was doing that. It never got easier, not one day.LaurenLiterally being out of breath is a sign that we're working those cardiovascular muscles. Just let them be out of breath real quick.VirginiaThat's a really helpful reframing. We jumped so aggressively into chatting about all of this that we should probably spend another beat for anyone who's confused, explaining that people who weigh over 200 pounds are allowed to do Pilates! Can you just explain why what she was saying was total bullshit? LaurenTotally. I think that people, at any weight, can do whatever workout they want or don't want to do. And I think particularly if you're a woman or socialized as a woman there are always these imaginary limitations on what your weight should be. And I think that that's really where the 200 pound conversation came in, right? Because for a not-fat woman, anything over that weight is really unfathomable to them. I definitely remember conversations around that within my own household of like, oh, we can't possibly weigh over this number. And I'm sitting there, like…VirginiaCan you not? Because I'm doing it. Here I am.LaurenSo I think that that's really where that number came from. She pulled out a number that she thought was just like, beyond anything. And I think it's also important to remember that so often, when people are asked to assess what people weigh, they have absolutely zero idea.It's really hard for people to tell other people's weight based on how they look. So I think that that was why that number was picked.VirginiaIt sounds so scary.LaurenIn her head, 200 pounds is really, really big and really scary. And going back to weighing whatever anybody weighs, I think Pilates is a great workout for people who are in, all different types of bodies and diverse bodies. Pilates is super low impact in a lot of ways, and really good for folks who have chronic illnesses, particularly like reformer, because it could be recumbent and you're not putting a lot of stress on your joints in the same way. So the idea that this workout that's really almost like super in line with disability and rehabilitation, to say that there's like a weight limit—again, fatphobia, joining in with ableism—is like, so so off base. So deeply off base.VirginiaFat people can do any workout, but Pilates in particular happens to be a workout that can be extremely body inclusive when it's taught well.LaurenExactly. I think that that maybe also added to some of the outrage and and honestly, some of me thinking it was very funny. I'm not someone who regularly weighs myself, but I've always been someone who was extremely heavy, as a person. Even as a child, there were stories about me versus my cousin who was three years older than me and a boy, and how he weighed less than me for most of our childhood. I have always been so solid. And I think growing up, many of us heard like, oh, that person has the body of a swimmer. That person should play volleyball or basketball or whatever. I'm like, what is this body type meant for? Like, shotput? And then I'm teaching Barre, you know? I think it's just so made up. And yes, maybe it's good for people who swim to have long limbs, great. But when we close ourselves off to types of movement based on body types and weight limits, then people have a harder time finding things that they enjoy, because maybe they don't enjoy something that they “look like they should.”VirginiaJust because you don't have long limbs doesn't mean swimming can't bring you a lot of joy.LaurenRight? Just because I don't have long lean muscles doesn't mean I can't teach Barre. The language around Barre and Pilates is always “long and lean.” And I just feel that's so funny as someone who's not long and lean. I love not being long and lean and and enjoying my classes. Some of the outrage did come from that number being named, because it's a misunderstanding of what real people in the real world weigh when you are not around those types of people. But I also think that there are a lot of limitations put on bodies, particularly larger bodies, and what you can and can't do. I have another video that's actually making a resurgence right now, probably because of this conversation that fat people should only do cardio, because if you lift weights, then you might gain more muscle mass, which would increase your scale weight. So you should only do cardio, because that's how you're going to lose weight, which is inaccurate and very boring.VirginiaAnd it's just really drilling into and this was the core of what she was saying. It's the core of that Melania video, that exercise is only a tool for weight management. That you would only exercise to avoid or minimize fatness, and right?LaurenAnd because Pilates “isn't actually good for burning fat,” you definitely shouldn't be doing it if you're fat.VirginiaYeah, you should be at the gym running. And it's completely ignoring the many other reasons we would exercise, the benefits you can actually achieve. Because, as you're saying, weight loss through exercise is a very murky thing for most people. And it's just ignoring all the other reasons you would do it that are more fun.LaurenYeah, like “I like it.” You're allowed to like things! But again, if you're socialized to only know shame and punishment, then the idea that people do things out of pleasure is hard to wrap your mind around.VirginiaSpeaking of shame and punishment, I wrote recently about Andy Elliott, who is actually a sales trainer, but he's also a bodybuilder. He's always cold plunging. He's always recording from a cold thing of water.LaurenAgain, pleasure, right? We can't have warm water. We made this technology, use it.VirginiaNo, no. He's like in Dubai, sitting in a barrel of cold water, posting his rants. And he posted this video showing off his twelve and nine year old daughters and how he had challenged them to get a six pack in less than two months. And they got shredded in two months. Then in this room full of his male sales trainees, he had them take off their sweatshirts and show off their six packs to a room full of men. It's revolting, on so many levels. But one thing I've been thinking about as I had to look at the Andy Elliot crap and then looking at this other crap, these extreme examples of toxic diet culture in some ways, I think, are unhelpful. Because they make us more dismissive of stuff that's not that. It's like, well, it's not that bad. Do you know what I mean?LaurenIt's moving the the spectrum of what's normal and what's not normal.VirginiaSo it's like, “Well, I didn't say 200 pound people can't come to Pilates, so I'm not being fatphobic.” Or “I'm not showing you a nine year old with a six pack, so I'm not being fatphobic.” But it shouldn't have to be that bad!LaurenIt also somewhat negates the fact that most of us are not exposed to the extreme. We're exposed to the more insidious anyway.VirginiaRight? Because the insidious is what your coworker is saying in the break room at lunch about how she's only eating a salad.LaurenIt's the stuff that we get daily exposure to, as opposed to these extremes where most people can point out, like, oh that's wild.VirginiaMaybe don't force your children to get six packs? It's pretty clear cut. On the other hand, I kind of feel like the needle is moving on what is extreme because of the rise of MAGA and MAHA wellness culture. We're unfortunately normalizing a lot of this really intense and harmful rhetoric.LaurenI've been thinking about it a lot, and I think number one, yes. Also the anti-intellectualism. That also helps push these things, because if someone's shouting confidently enough, they could sell anything. You said that person is in a sales job. Like, that's part of that thing. It's psychological. It's not even based in facts. But I think that it's on the rise, for sure, because it's not being checked. And I also think that in that more insidious way, it's on the rise because people are seeking to fly under the radar, and they're seeking safety in their bodies being read as safe.In this super conservative and rise of fascism, falling in line is a way that some people will seek safety, right? But it obviously, when we get into ranking bodies as good and bad and purity testing bodies. Like, if that even exists, that means someone has to be at the bottom. It's very clear that when we're saying take control. Hyper individual. Yeah, I did it, and you could do it, too, applying your situation to other people's. Like, that's not how science works. Number one, that's not how genetics work. And I think that people of all like races, ages, and abilities, you know, will seek safety in flying under the radar in a regime that's getting scarier and more intense. So I think that bodies and fitness is definitely a way that people will get there.VirginiaYeah, it's a logical survival strategy in a really dark time, for sure.LaurenSo I think that that's part of the reason why even people who wouldn't identify as like MAHA are on their health and wellness, and they don't realize how quickly it gets there, but it does pretty instantly. But as someone who is has multiple marginalized identities myself, I often see people who are in similar situations, and I look at them with a lot of compassion because, yeah. Like, if you're disabled, if you're Black, if you're poor, being fat on top of that, you just checked another box for people. And I feel like that is where this intensity comes from all sides. And that's why we're seeing even more diverse voices echoing this type of message, because people are seeking safety, and they might not even know that that's what they're seeking. But I can see it because I get it.VirginiaYes. That breaks my heart, but it is logical when you have those multiple marginalizations. Fatness is the one that you've been conditioned to think you can and should change.LaurenIt's supposed to be fully within your control. And then that's when we dip into disability being within your control. And the idea that you could just take vitamins or do red light or coffee enemas or something, and you're going to cure your your chronic conditions. Like if you haven't tried it, then you know you're not trying hard enough. So I think it's a really slippery slope, and it gets there very quickly.VirginiaYou've mentioned ableism a few times, obviously, because it's really core to this conversation. I'd love to hear a little more about how you think about ability in your classes. Anyone who's taken your class knows how completely different they feel from the Melania version. You've clearly put a lot of thought into how to be inclusive of ability.LaurenI appreciate that. I work really hard, and I try to advertise myself as someone whose classes are many levels or most levels, because I think even saying that something is all levels is not being fully like aware of the scope of people's ability. So I try to be very clear in my communication. I don't know how I got here, personally. Again, the pendulum definitely swung with me. I was someone who I would consider was Orthorexic and all on my organic everything, blah, blah, blah. Particularly when it like was coming down to my PCOS and how much of that was in my control.VirginiaPCOS triggers a lot of rabbit holes.LaurenRight? And, like the fatphobia in my own family mixed with that. But I think at some point it just clicked, like we all have the ability to become disabled if we're not already, you know? We could. And disability is a spectrum. We usually like start checking off more and more boxes towards that. But because ableism is so rampant, most people would never identify something going on as a disability. Wearing glasses, wearing hearing aids, needing captions, needing accommodations. They wouldn't identify those as a disability because it's horrible to be disabled in this world, so we try to avoid saying that.I think realizing I had so many folks coming to me who were burnt out by all the stuff we just spent all this time talking about—and I was burnt out in that world. And that's how I got spit out the other side. I was like, I'm going to do things differently. And more and more and more people started really identifying with that. And I got to know people individually within my memberships, and they shared about what they had going on, and oh my gosh, your classes have been so great because I have POTS, or I have EDS, or I have chronic pain, or I also have PCOS, I have PMDD—all these things.And because I am who I am, and I'm someone who is neurodivergent and I'm a nerd and I want to know what's good for people who have POTS? What's good for people who have blood pressure issues? What would be like a good modification or variation to throw out there to people who might not even know that that's going on with them, because again, our medical system. Like, oh yeah, I get dizzy sometimes. Like, okay, girl, can we elaborate? But I think that just realizing, no matter who it was, every single person in my membership can contribute to my ability to teach better, because if one person says it, 10 people are probably experiencing it. That's why I love the feedback. I love that! That hurt? I have no idea. I have one body. I literally have only this body, right? You have to tell me if something hurts, right? I don't know, that doesn't hurt me. Or that does hurt me, and I don't do it, but that works for you. So you have to tell me. So I think that that's really where it resulted from people being comfortable feeling honest and sharing, and my desire to continue making things feel good and challenging. Because I think that people think you have to sacrifice movement being challenging. Like it can't it can still be challenging and not horrendous and punishing.VirginiaYes, this is what's hard to articulate when I tell people how much I love your classes. This is the needle you're threading. We think of it as so black and white. Either you're someone who wants to go so hard, like the Melania video, or you're someone who's like, exercise needs to feel like a warm bath, or I'm not going to do it. And there is a middle space. There's a huge middle space.LaurenYes. And that's the neutrality of it all, which is yeah, I'm allowed to do this hard thing and and really invest when we're talking about the consistency and no excuses. But if we're talking about a 45 minute workout that you're doing maybe two times a week, and investing in 30 seconds of challenge or discomfort, and investigating how that feels in your body and doing it. And then after six weeks, suddenly, wow, that thing that was uncomfortable six weeks ago is no longer uncomfortable. This new thing was uncomfortable. And that's why I love movement so much. Because I feel like you can not solve, but get to the bottom of, investigate, interrogate and get to know parts of your body. And and I really do feel like the work that we do in 45 minute classes empowers people enough to go out and tell people at their jobs to eff off, you know? Like, it gives people the ability to get to know themselves well enough to know what they're willing to tolerate.VirginiaI feel like when I do your videos, there's always a point where honestly, I might be watering my plants or just lying on the floor, and then there's always a point where I'm actually so in it and pushing really hard. Do you know what I mean? And it's like, it can be both things. I get to choose which is the part that I'm going to be like, yeah, I'm holding this 20 second plank the whole time. I'm going to go for my heavier weights. We're going to do that.LaurenBecause it doesn't need to add up or count for anything, but it always does, even if you're like, I'm just doing this to do something. That just just doing something will still add up and it'll still come up later. And I think it doesn't need to be that serious. It's never that serious.VirginiaAny other fitness trends that are making you especially grumpy right now, or anything good you want to highlight?LaurenI mean, honestly, the backlash to that rant was good, right? There were so many good responses, I actually followed a couple people. I do think people being able to recognize that as blatant anti-fatness was good. It was a good gut check for a lot of people. And I think that that, yeah, it was good for me. That that made me feel, oh, there are seeds of hope.VirginiaNo, we haven't fallen as low as I fear sometimes.LaurenNo, and it's really hard. I've heard Jessamyn Stanley say, like, “Sometimes I don't remember that people act this way.”VirginiaOh God, yeah. You're really still out there being like this?LaurenYes, yes, yes, yes. So I think there was a lot of silly, goofy and and very good responses to that. I love that push and pull that we can hopefully sometimes see and still have this dialog about. I feel like it's really important. And with so many people intentionally losing weight right now, I think it's really important to see people who are not necessarily in traditional fit bodies doing fitness.VirginiaGod, it's so important. ButterLaurenI was going to be funny and say that my Butter is actually butter, now that I'm living in France.VirginiaYou're living in butter country.LaurenI have been trying different butters all the time. Hopefully people who are listening, maybe their weather is getting better. So this is a, this is like a freebie recommendation, but just a little photosynthesis. Now is a really good time to give yourself space, to open up your body again after a winter. Just a little bit of fresh air and a little bit of sunshine and a little bit of phone getting thrown across the room. Which is what I have been trying to do every single day. It really makes a huge difference. So, phone down, photosynthesis up. That is what's getting me through right now. And I hope that other people can enjoy that. Doesn't mean you even have to go outside! Crack a window, allow yourself to be a human being. And it's free. You don't need a discount code for it. You don't need someone to sell it to you on Tiktok shop. You were allowed to be a person existing for completely free.VirginiaYes, so true. That's really good. My Butter, in honor of you, my favorite Internet cat lady is going to be my cats. I'm going to give them a shout out. Licorice and Cheese. We adopted these kittens last year after my kids begged and begged. I mean, I've always been a cat person, but our old man cats had passed away. We had no cats for a while. And they make me so happy. They just are such love bugs. Because the weather is better, I think Cheese has taken your notes about photosynthesis, and so he's regularly trying to jailbreak, to get outside. He's trying to get outside all the time. So we are having a little cat drama in my house where the kids go outside, forget to close the door. Cheese is on it. He's trying to get out there, and we get him back inside. But we have a screen porch, so they do get to go out and live their best life on the screen porch, which makes them really happy.LaurenOh my gosh, I love when they photosynthesize. My new place has lots of big windows and lots and lots of sunshine, and my girls have just been absorbing the sun. And they're both trying to go out on balconies, which we're doing the same thing you're doing, because one pigeon goes by, and my cat's diving.VirginiaAnd I live in the woods where there are a lot of predators. We did have an old man cat who in the final years of his life, we did let outside, because we were like, you've had a good run. And we're thinking quality of life at that point. But these two babies, I want them for many, many years. We can't risk the coyotes. And I think one of them really gets that. Licorice is like the boss of the house, but he's terrified of the outside. I think he recognizes he's a big fish in a little pond, and he needs to stay that way. But Cheese is like, oh, that's my world. I want to get back there?LaurenYes, maybe a harness? Maybe that can be what the kids do this this summer is harness train Cheese.VirginiaWe've never tried the harness with them.LaurenHe's still young. My girls are full grown, and when I put a harness on them, they fall over. They're like, it's the last day they're ever going to live. They're like my bones don't work anymore. What did you do to me? We've been trying to harness train them so that they can go back outside, because we did have a yard before, but I think if he's young and eager to go outside, he might put that harness on. And that's also a good summer project.VirginiaOh, I feel like my 11 year old's going to get really into this. Okay, I'm going to give it a go. I'm going to report back. Well, Lauren, thank you so much. Tell folks where they can find you. How can we support your work?LaurenYou can find me at Lauren Leavell Fitness and I have a membership—the level up fitness membership, where you can join live classes. You can take on demand classes. Again, it's a silly, goofy mood over here. There are classes of different lengths. You don't need a ton of space or equipment. I currently don't have, really any equipment. I have. I have two pound weights.VirginiaI've been enjoying the recent videos where you're like, well, I'm doing this move that I'd normally have a 20 pound weight with a 2 pound weight.LaurenPretend these are 20 pounds! So we really are accepting of all scenarios that you have going on fitness-wise here. And like I said, the replays are there if you're not someone who gets catches live classes, totally get it. Or you just don't want to come to a live class. And then, if you are looking for more, I do have some workout videos on YouTube, which are kind of a sample of my teaching. They're a little less weird than I normally teach. I'm a little bit more polished on YouTube. And then, of course, Lauren Leavell Fitness on Instagram, and Lauren Leavell Fit on TiktokFay, who runs @SellTradePlus, and Big Undies.The Burnt Toast logo is by Deanna Lowe.Our theme music is by Farideh.Tommy Harron is our audio engineer.Thanks for listening and for supporting anti-diet, body liberation journalism! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit virginiasolesmith.substack.com/subscribe

On this week's Talkhouse Podcast we've got a couple of guys who found huge followings—on the internet and elsewhere—in different ways, but with similar outlooks: Adam Met and Julian Shapiro-Barnum. Met is one-third of the brother band AJR, who've found massive pop hits over the past decade with cheeky but sometimes deceptively deep songs like “Bang” and “World's Smallest Violin.” Perhaps those more into the indie-adjacent world have heard their collaborations with Weezer. But for purposes of this conversation, Met is wearing one of his many other hats, which include Columbia professor, non-profit founder, and as of this week, published author. He just released his first book, AMPLIFY: How to Use the Power of Connection to Engage, Take Action, and Build a Better World, As you may have guessed from the title, it's about action and advocacy, including in the area of the climate crisis, for which Met is an ardent activist. He casually mentions hanging out with Al Gore here, which may be a Talkhouse first. The book aims to provide strategies for folks who want to do their part, which is a noble cause if you ask me. It features pop-culture names like Ben Folds and Jim Gaffigan, in addition to folks more known in the activism world. It's out now. The other half of today's conversation is Met's pal, comedian and internet personality Julian Shapiro-Barnum. An inquisitive guy by nature, Shapiro-Barnum recorded a series of internet videos over the years that were largely conversations with regular people, and during the pandemic he hit on the idea of chatting with children about how they manage to stay positive when everything seems so crazy. That idea became the very popular series Recess Therapy, which is as charming as it sounds—and, it should be noted, launched the “corn kid” into internet fame. These two jump right into a lively conversation about how music and advocacy can go hand in hand, about Julian's various shows, including Recess Therapy and Celebrity Substitute, and lots more. Enjoy. Thanks for listening to the Talkhouse Podcast, and thanks to Julian Shapiro-Barnum and Adam Met for chatting. If you liked what you heard, please follow Talkhouse on your favorite podcasting platform, and visit Talkhouse.com for lots of good stuff. This episode was produced by Myron Kaplan, and the Talkhouse theme was composed and performed by the Range. See you next time! Find more illuminating podcasts on the ⁠⁠⁠Talkhouse Podcast Network⁠⁠⁠. Visit ⁠⁠⁠talkhouse.com⁠⁠⁠ to read essays, reviews, and more. Follow @talkhouse on ⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Twitter (X)⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠Threads⁠⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠.

From the Amazon Rainforest to Sustainable Gardening: Matthieu Mehuys' JourneyHost John Duffin interviews award-winning author and podcast host Matthieu Mehuys. They discuss Matthieu's profound journey from a childhood fascination with plants in Belgium to becoming a leader in regenerative gardening. After a transformative experience in the Amazon Rainforest and battling potentially grave illness, Matthieu turned obstacles into opportunities. He details his innovative approach to creating low-maintenance, ecological gardens and offers practical advice. We get to explore success stories, the 'Garden of Your Dreams Masterclass', and the broader impact individuals can have on their lives and the environment through sustainable practices. Learn how to transform your passion and follow your dreams by reconnecting with nature.You have more impact on the planet than you think. When you want to learn more about Matthieu, and how you can build your own sustainable garden, here are a few links. Websites:Landscape Design - https://www.paulownia-la.com/Book - https://www.12lawsofnature.com/Masterclass Garden of Your Dream - https://www.gardenofyourdreams.com/Socials and Calendly LinkCalendly link: https://calendly.com/garden-of-your-dreams/30minPersonal Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/matthieumehuys/Paulownia Landscape Architects - https://www.instagram.com/paulownia_la/00:00 Introduction and Personal Story00:24 Welcome to Your Message Received Podcast01:30 Meet Matthieu Mehuys: Award-Winning Author and Podcaster02:40 Matthieu's Early Fascination with Nature03:57 From Passion to Profession: Landscape Architecture05:06 World Travels and Discovering Permaculture06:18 The Impact of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth08:54 Experiences in India and Community Efforts13:26 Costa Rica's Environmental Success Story16:03 The Amazon Rainforest Adventure26:17 The Importance of Listening27:18 Starting a Business from Scratch27:37 Refining the Vision32:20 The Garden of Your Dreams Masterclass35:02 Low Maintenance Gardening42:24 The Impact of Regenerative Farming45:36 Personal Growth and Responsibility48:13 Exclusive Opportunities and Final Thoughts

How does biodynamic farming transform a vineyard into a thriving, interconnected ecosystem? What do wild orchids reveal about the health of a vineyard? How do France's preschool lunches help to create a nation of gourmets? In this episode of the Unreserved Wine Talk podcast, I'm chatting with Caro Feely, author of the terrific memoir Grape Expectations: A Family's Vineyard Adventure in France.   You can find the wines we discussed at https://www.nataliemaclean.com/winepicks   Giveaway Three of you are going to win a copy of her terrific book, Grape Adventures. To qualify, all you have to do is email me at natalie@nataliemaclean.com and let me know that you've posted a review of the podcast. I'll choose three people randomly from those who contact me. Good luck!   Highlights How did Caro's daughter's medical emergency shape her perspective on risk? Why did Caro feel like a bad mom in the early years of the winery? How has living in France influenced Caro's approach to food and wine? When did Caro realize the wine business was becoming financially viable? What are some of the most interesting aspects of biodynamics? What's the significance of wild orchids in a vineyard? Which wine would Caro pair with her favourite childhood food, marmalade on toast? Why would Caro want to share a bottle of wine with Al Gore?   Key Takeaways As Caro explains, often biodynamics is just picked on as a woo woo, but really, it's about listening to your land and being present. Biodynamics is organics, plus. It's essentially three things: It's working with plant and animal-based sprays to keep the vineyard healthy, using the biodynamic calendar to do things at the right moment. It's about listening to what's going on in the sky. We all notice the sun, but all the other bodies in the sky also have an impact. Lunatic comes from the fact that the moon does have an effect on us. The final thing is to think of your farm as a whole farm system as a living thing where everything is connected. We can't just look at the vine on its own, like a unit of production. It is a living thing, and it is a vibrant living environment. Caro says that when they bought the farm in 2005, it was conventionally farmed. They started organic farming and in 2008 the wild orchids came back. The systemic fungicides had worked their way out of the soil. Essentially, our soil health was coming back. The mycorrhizae, the fungi growing symbiotically with the roots of the vine, helps them to extend their network, to get more nutrients. However, mycorrhizae will not be there if you're using systemic fungicides. Caro loves France's respect for food and for taking time to enjoy it. There's a tradition in the country where everybody, no matter what they do, is somewhat of a gourmet and knows about food and wine. She thinks it does go back to schools with their three-course lunch when they're two and a half at preschool.   About Caro Feely Caro Feely is a writer, yoga teacher, wine educator and organic farmer. She leads authentic, personalized and educative wine tours, wine courses, walking tours and yoga retreats near Bordeaux in France. She is a published author, an engaging speaker, a registered Yoga Alliance yoga teacher, a WSET* wine educator, and a professional with many years of workshop, presentation, teaching, and management experience. Caro offers accommodation, tours and yoga at her organic farm in Saussignac.         To learn more, visit https://www.nataliemaclean.com/339.

In today's episode:Is Trump signaling a white swan event?The President gives the West Point commencement address and a Memorial Day addressThe WNBA and Alex Soros celebrate the five-year anniversary of whatever that George Floyd op wasSam Harris gives a legalistic defense of his intellectual seriousness in covering for his support of Joe Biden and denial of Biden's mental conditionJordan Peterson has no idea whether or not he's a Christian, probably because he doesn't know what Christianity isThe AI doomers have begun to sound exactly like Al GoreInfluenders - a significant piece of artIs there a shadow State Department, and would that be a bad thing, or unconstitutional?The King of Canada comes to Canada to read a speech written by the Canadians he's giving the speech toThe Based Dictator in Venezuela's party wins another election and, totally coincidentally, Trump grants Chevron and Venezuela a reprieveWWIII is about to begin between Russia and "the West" if the Regime can only convince us to believe a bunch of things that can't be trueNewt Gingrich and Mark Levin make the neocon position even more embarrassing.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorLinks, articles, ideas - follow the info stream at t.me/veryreasonableHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comJoin the new information infrastructure - get Starlink: https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-1975306-67744-74Other ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site:https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/https://cancelcouture.comFollow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

 Today, we're taking a look at a predecessor to DOGE: The Reinventing Government project (officially known as the NPR, for National Partnership for Reinventing Government). The NPR ran for almost the full duration of President Bill Clinton's two terms, and led to the elimination of over 100 programs and over 250,000 federal jobs.Both NPR and DOGE are case studies in a long history of government reform efforts — some more successful than others. Our guest is John Kamensky, who served as Vice President Al Gore's deputy for the National Performance Review (NPR) for eight years. Kamensky was colloquially known as “Mr. Checklist” for his work organizing the Reinventing Government initiative.Kamensky is a clear-eyed observer, and he doesn't hedge about NPR's failures and missed opportunities. In some ways, the Reinventing Government Initiative was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut headcount, spending, and regulation at the end of the Cold War and change the way the government operated.We discuss:* Did the NPR actually work?* What was the Board of Tea Experts?* Why was the federal government subsidizing mohair?* NPR made the federal workforce older. Was that bad?* What doesn't Elon understand about the federal government?You can find the transcript for this conversation at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Congressman Jared Moskowitz: Pro-Israel, Proudly Jewish, and Unapologetically Honest | Behind the Bima

Trump is sending a clear message: he's not going away quietly. “ If you read The Washington Post, even The Wall Street Journal, but especially The New York Times, the question is, can MAGA survive after Trump steps down? “ There's arguments on both sides whether a popular movement can survive its creators. …   Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 to succeed him. And what did Barack Obama do? He repudiated Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council. And he went hard to the Left. And the result of that is we got a destroyed or an irrelevant Democratic Party.” 00:00 Introduction: Is Trump a Lame Duck? 00:23 Trump's Media Trolling and Third Term Speculation 01:29 Historical Context: Movements and Their Leaders 01:52 Reaganism and Its Aftermath 02:49 Clintonism and Obama's Shift 03:28 The Future of MAGA: DeSantis and Beyond 05:46 Conclusion: The Enduring MAGA Ideology Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump makes a historic trade deal with China to lower tariffs. Democrats pull their own insurrection by storming an ICE facility in Newark to defend gang members. President Trump signs an executive order slashing the cost of prescription drugs and bringing fairness to America. Dana explains how Obamacare caused the prescription drug prices to soar. Trump tells a story about a friend of his who “takes the fat shot drug” . Stephen Yates from Heritage joins us to break down Trump's trade deal with China, the India-Pakistan ceasefire and Qatar's gift to Trump.  Al Gore bashes President Trump, saying he sees parallels to early Nazi Germany. A Republican lawmaker is pushing for a $5 tax stamp instead of removing suppressors from the NFA entirely. The Labor Department admits that hundreds of thousands of Biden Jobs were fake. Dana shares her thoughts on Trump accepting a $400 Million Boeing 757 from the Qatari Royal Family to replace Air Force One. What is taking Boeing so long to produce an American-made plane? A conspiracy goes viral of Emmanuel Macron hiding a bag of cocaine when sitting next to Keir Starmer. Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Relief Factorhttps://relieffactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com My personal gold company - get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit. PLUS, you could qualify for up to 10% in BONUS silver.Byrnahttps://byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off. Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANA.HumanNhttps://humann.comSupport your metabolism and healthy blood sugar levels with Superberine by HumanN. Find it now at your local Sam's Club next to SuperBeets Heart Chews.  KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - Keltec Innovation & Performance at its best.All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana10 for 10% off your entire order.PreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DanaWith your help, we can hit the goal of 1,000 ultrasounds this month! Just dial #250 and say “Baby”. Ancient Nutritionhttp://ancientnutrition.com/DanaCollagen and wellness, powered by Ancient Nutrition—get 25% off your first order with promo code DANA.Home Title Lockhttps://hometitlelock.com/danaProtect your home! Get a FREE title history report + 14 days of coverage with code DANA. Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock—terms apply.Ground Newshttps://Groundnews.com/DANAGet 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan.

In 1998, the United States Congress tried to tame the wild internet with a new law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But buried in its fine print was a provision that would end up giving tech giants ultimate legal protection and control, and stop innovators from fixing what's broken. Host Cory Doctorow traces how a law written for a different era led to the arrest of a researcher, became the playbook for Meta's enshittification, and lets platforms degrade your online life today — protecting them while they do it.  Guests in this episode include Seth Schoen and Pam Samuelson. Archival recordings feature Dmitry Sklyarov, Bruce Lehman, Al Gore, and Steve Sipress. 

[WEEKEND RECAP 05-11-25] Instead of reporting the good news, CNBC's headline read:“Private payroll growth slowed to 62,000 in April, well below expectations”To fully understand the job numbers, one must note that the government massively cut Fed jobs and still outperformed expectations. However, CNBC couldn't report the good news. Speaking of the irony of numbers, the day Al Gore was born there were 7000 polar bears on Earth. Today, only 26,000 remain.How about these numbers?Government spending dropped 5.1% in the first quarter. That is a reason to celebrate, and I have to wonder if this is the first time this has happened in modern times.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

Researchers from Tongji University in Shanghai found the frozen continent suddenly reversed its decades-long trend of catastrophic melting and actually gained record amounts of ice in recent years. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey friends, heyyyyy✨Climate change is scary (and very real), so this week, we decided to dive into the world of Eco Horror✨Tap in to hear some of our favorites films from this sub genre, some new discoveries, Al Gore's redemption song, and so much more!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join Jim and Greg for Thursday's 3 Martini Lunch as they react to a new climate report that undercuts years of doomsday predictions, economic numbers that show a slight contraction in the first quarter, and the Democratic National Committee using identity politics in an attempt to oust David Hogg from party leadership.First, they spotlight a new study from the University of Exeter revealing that polar ice levels have remained largely stable over the past 20 years. The report supports research suggesting climate patterns are cyclical, with polar ice naturally growing and receding. Jim and Greg contrast these findings with decades of dire climate forecasts from Al Gore and others.Next, they break down the U.S. GDP decline of 0.3 percent in the first quarter. They explain how the drop was mainly caused by a surge in imports ahead of President Trump's tariffs. Without the rush of incoming goods, GDP likely would have risen more than three percent. What does this say about the current state of the U.S. economy and where it is headed?Finally, they have a lot of fun watching the Democratic National Committee turn to identity politics in it's latest, obvious attempt to run David Hogg out of its leadership. There is now a challenge to Hogg's election back in February. One of the candidates he defeated says the election process was unfair to women of color. Jim and Greg have some fun imagining what the DNC will look like if this woke approach is followed to its natural conclusion.Please visit our great sponsors:It's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in Understanding Capitalism with Hillsdale College. Visit https://Hillsdale.edu/MartiniThis spring, get up to 50% off select plants at Fast Growing Trees with code MARTINI, plus an extra 15% off at checkout on your first purchase!  Visit https://fastgrowingtrees.com/MartiniIf I needed to find a doctor quickly, Zocdoc is what I'd use. Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and head to https://zocdoc.com/3ML to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about CNN's Scott Jennings sparring with Gene Rossi and Abby Phillip about FBI Director Kash Patel's announcement of the arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan for intentionally misleading ICE agents while trying to arrest an illegal immigrant after his court hearing; Axios' Alex Thompson trying to deflect blame for the mainstream media's blatant denial of Joe Biden's cognitive decline at the White House Correspondents Dinner; the EPA's Lee Zeldin fact-checking a New York Times reporter to her face by re-reading her own words back to her; Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson, mocking her claim of being a regular person in front of a live crowd; Megyn Kelly's savage response to George Clooney saying she isn't a journalist; Al Gore getting a wake-up call during his “Real Time with Bill Maher” appearance where Maher gave him a reality check on what Americans are ignoring global elites like him; and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Rumble Premium - Corporate America is fighting to remove speech, Rumble is fighting to keep it. If you really believe in this fight Rumble is offering $10 off with the promo code RUBIN when you purchase an annual subscription. Go to: https://Rumble.com/premium/RUBIN and use promo code RUBIN Kalshi - The first and only legal place in the U.S. where you can trade on the outcome of real-world events. Get a free $10 credit when you trade $100! Go to https://kalshi.com/rubin and download the app Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill's guests are Al Gore, Sen. Adam Schiff, Bret Stephens (Originally aired 4/25/25) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Segment 1 • The death of the Pope signals the likely election of a liberal leader. • The papacy's doctrinal errors, based on tradition and magisterium, mislead millions about salvation. • Softened evangelical perspectives, like Russell Moore's, fail to address the papacy's eternal consequences. Segment 2 • Melito of Sardis' 2nd-century sermon contrasts with today's shallow Easter preaching. • Modern sermons are moralistic, neglecting the true gospel of Christ's sacrifice. • A return to gospel-centered, Christ-focused preaching is essential to understand Easter's real significance. Segment 3 • 90% of pastors affirm climate change, but many Christians are unsure about the issue. • Dr. Jason Lisle tackles climate change from a biblical and scientific perspective in a Fortis webinar. • The narrative of human-caused climate change is shaky, with natural cycles and past periods of warming showing no human influence. Segment 4 • Al Gore's climate predictions failed, and the sun's cycles are a bigger factor in climate changes. • Water vapor and clouds, not CO2, account for 75% of the greenhouse effect. • The human contribution to CO2 is small, and the panic surrounding it is built on weak claims. – Preorder the new book, Lies My Therapist Told Me, by Fortis Institute Fellow Dr. Greg Gifford now! https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/liesmytherapisttoldme – Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

4-24-25 Afternoon Rush - WILD Blake Lively Cheating Rumor Explained & Al Gore Defends Democracy! Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash rushhour to get free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince dot com slash rushhour.go to patreon.com/daveneal for more bonus content!

The UK's green zealots and a rogue U.S. billionaire plot to dim the sun with acid rain-causing chemicalsZelensky's Crimea obsession threatens to escalate the Ukraine war into global catastropheErratic tariffs tank global trade by 49%, sabotage Trump's own energy goals, pushing us toward a depressionGold soars to $3,500 as Trump's Soros-linked Treasury Secretary schemes a “New Bretton Woods” resetAI guru's Mechanize startup aims to obliterate all human jobs, and a $17 billion CO2 pipeline scam steals billions through tax subsidies, endangering lives with deadly leaksCalifornia's Gas Car Ban: Constitutional ChaosCalifornia's audacious plan to ban all gasoline cars by 2035 is backed by a dozen rogue states. Will the Supreme Court slam the brakes on this green madness? Who has the authority to stop this prohibition? 15:07 Al Gore's African Power Grab: Solar Scam or Dictatorial Depopulation Plot?Al Gore's back with a diabolical new scheme to “save” Africa by shoving unreliable solar panels and windmills down their throats, all while keeping the continent in the dark! Promising to “leapfrog” fossil fuels, Gore's plan masks a sinister agenda to de-industrialize the West and trap Africa in poverty, ensuring dictatorial control for globalist elites. 29:04 Dimwits in UK and US Plan to Block the SunGeoengineering was dismissed as a conspiracy theory until they want to go large.  The UK's radical green government pumps £50 million into a chilling plan to dim the sun and in the US its a radical entrepreneur      Even better, they're injecting a gas that they banned for causing “acid rain”.  Remove CO2 and sunlight and produce acid rain—what dimwits dreamed this up? 46:20 Yet Another Study Shows “THE VIRUS” Wasn't The Problem     As the White House pushes COVID as an “accidental lab leak” from Wuhan's gain-of-function lab, Greek researchers reveal the oft repeated truth     From Dictator Dan's brutal Australian lockdowns to Trump's vaccine push, uncover the lockstep conspiracy they want to hide by claiming “lab leak” 1:00:22 LIVE comments from audience 1:07:01 Zelensky Demands Crimea or War Continues: Did Crimea EVER Belong to Ukraine?      Tensions ignite as both Trump and Vance slam Zelensky for rejecting a peace deal to freeze the Ukraine-Russia conflict, demanding Crimea instead!     In a fiery social media clash, Trump accuses Zelensky of risking Ukraine's total collapse, while Vice President Vance threatens to pull U.S. support entirely.     What are Crimea's deep Russian roots?     Will Russia ever give up the home to its Black Sea Flee? 1:14:43 Tariff Uncertainty is Locking Down the Economy Sabotaging Trump's Stated GoalsEven Trump's “drill baby drill” agenda crumbles as energy firms predict a million-barrel-a-day drop. As Trump-aligned influencers and pundits claim China will be hurt worse in the “war”, Trump's unpredictable dictates freeze markets, sabotage nuclear projects, and threaten a depression worse than the Great Recession. 1:34:16 Gold Soars to $3,500 as Global Reset Looms: Trump Treasury Sec Wants “New Bretton Woods” with Globalist Organizations Leading      Gold skyrockets to a jaw-dropping $3,500 an ounce, markets in chaos, and the dollar crumbling!     Tony Arterburn, DavidKnight.gold, joins to expose a sinister global reset orchestrated by Trump and his Soros Treasury Secretary for “stakeholders”.     A warning of a coming depression worse than 1929 with tariffs, meme coins shenanigans at Mar-a-Lago — is Trump pulling the strings or just a pawn in a bigger game? 2:19:00 GREATER Replacement: AI Guru's Plan to Wipe Out ALL Jobs"A famed AI researcher launches Mechanize, a startup hell-bent on replacing every human worker with chatbots and robots! He promises to mechanize EVERY human worker worldwide as Google pays top AI talent to sit idle in “garden leave” schemes 2:24:05 Exposing the CO2 Pipeline Scam: Billions in Tax Subsidies Stolen are the ONLY Reason for Projects      Jeff Weiss unveils the sinister CO2 pipeline scheme—a multi-billion-dollar bipartisan heist (and how we break out of this system, co-author of Free Indeed: Ten Truths to a Life Lived Free)     From eminent domain land grabs to deadly CO2 leaks that could wipe out entire ecosystems, this is a spiritual and economic war     It's the latest twist in wealth transfer as Jeff recounts his personal experience with wind grifts and the seduction of local politicians in the pipeline of green cash. If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

The UK's green zealots and a rogue U.S. billionaire plot to dim the sun with acid rain-causing chemicalsZelensky's Crimea obsession threatens to escalate the Ukraine war into global catastropheErratic tariffs tank global trade by 49%, sabotage Trump's own energy goals, pushing us toward a depressionGold soars to $3,500 as Trump's Soros-linked Treasury Secretary schemes a “New Bretton Woods” resetAI guru's Mechanize startup aims to obliterate all human jobs, and a $17 billion CO2 pipeline scam steals billions through tax subsidies, endangering lives with deadly leaksCalifornia's Gas Car Ban: Constitutional ChaosCalifornia's audacious plan to ban all gasoline cars by 2035 is backed by a dozen rogue states. Will the Supreme Court slam the brakes on this green madness? Who has the authority to stop this prohibition? 15:07 Al Gore's African Power Grab: Solar Scam or Dictatorial Depopulation Plot?Al Gore's back with a diabolical new scheme to “save” Africa by shoving unreliable solar panels and windmills down their throats, all while keeping the continent in the dark! Promising to “leapfrog” fossil fuels, Gore's plan masks a sinister agenda to de-industrialize the West and trap Africa in poverty, ensuring dictatorial control for globalist elites. 29:04 Dimwits in UK and US Plan to Block the SunGeoengineering was dismissed as a conspiracy theory until they want to go large.  The UK's radical green government pumps £50 million into a chilling plan to dim the sun and in the US its a radical entrepreneur      Even better, they're injecting a gas that they banned for causing “acid rain”.  Remove CO2 and sunlight and produce acid rain—what dimwits dreamed this up? 46:20 Yet Another Study Shows “THE VIRUS” Wasn't The Problem     As the White House pushes COVID as an “accidental lab leak” from Wuhan's gain-of-function lab, Greek researchers reveal the oft repeated truth     From Dictator Dan's brutal Australian lockdowns to Trump's vaccine push, uncover the lockstep conspiracy they want to hide by claiming “lab leak” 1:00:22 LIVE comments from audience 1:07:01 Zelensky Demands Crimea or War Continues: Did Crimea EVER Belong to Ukraine?      Tensions ignite as both Trump and Vance slam Zelensky for rejecting a peace deal to freeze the Ukraine-Russia conflict, demanding Crimea instead!     In a fiery social media clash, Trump accuses Zelensky of risking Ukraine's total collapse, while Vice President Vance threatens to pull U.S. support entirely.     What are Crimea's deep Russian roots?     Will Russia ever give up the home to its Black Sea Flee? 1:14:43 Tariff Uncertainty is Locking Down the Economy Sabotaging Trump's Stated GoalsEven Trump's “drill baby drill” agenda crumbles as energy firms predict a million-barrel-a-day drop. As Trump-aligned influencers and pundits claim China will be hurt worse in the “war”, Trump's unpredictable dictates freeze markets, sabotage nuclear projects, and threaten a depression worse than the Great Recession. 1:34:16 Gold Soars to $3,500 as Global Reset Looms: Trump Treasury Sec Wants “New Bretton Woods” with Globalist Organizations Leading      Gold skyrockets to a jaw-dropping $3,500 an ounce, markets in chaos, and the dollar crumbling!     Tony Arterburn, DavidKnight.gold, joins to expose a sinister global reset orchestrated by Trump and his Soros Treasury Secretary for “stakeholders”.     A warning of a coming depression worse than 1929 with tariffs, meme coins shenanigans at Mar-a-Lago — is Trump pulling the strings or just a pawn in a bigger game? 2:19:00 GREATER Replacement: AI Guru's Plan to Wipe Out ALL Jobs"A famed AI researcher launches Mechanize, a startup hell-bent on replacing every human worker with chatbots and robots! He promises to mechanize EVERY human worker worldwide as Google pays top AI talent to sit idle in “garden leave” schemes 2:24:05 Exposing the CO2 Pipeline Scam: Billions in Tax Subsidies Stolen are the ONLY Reason for Projects      Jeff Weiss unveils the sinister CO2 pipeline scheme—a multi-billion-dollar bipartisan heist (and how we break out of this system, co-author of Free Indeed: Ten Truths to a Life Lived Free)     From eminent domain land grabs to deadly CO2 leaks that could wipe out entire ecosystems, this is a spiritual and economic war     It's the latest twist in wealth transfer as Jeff recounts his personal experience with wind grifts and the seduction of local politicians in the pipeline of green cash.If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTFor 10% off supplements and books, go to RNCstore.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Pope Jeffy??? Time to pay off those student loans! Are tariff deals around the corner? China coming to the table on trade? JFK and RFK files have been released, but where are the Epstein files? Al Gore goes after the Trump administration and pulls out the Nazi comparison … of course. YouTube turns 20 years old today! Have scientists discovered a new color? China plasters solar panels all over a mountainside, but how much power is produced? Community service and diversion program for Tesla vandal in Minnesota. Introducing the Chewbacca defense in the Frisco, Texas, stabbing case. Was Joe Biden photoshopped into the Biden family Easter photo? Another male claiming to be trans in a women's locker room. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 00:18 Pat's Mouse is Dead 00:35 Pope Jeffy Maximus 07:41 Fed Govt. to Collect Student Loan Payments 10:52 White House Updates on Tariffs Deals 13:36 China is Ready to Make a Deal with America 15:05 Trump on Epstein Files 19:47 Trump Explains China's Deal 22:13 Earth Day Celebrations in San Francisco 27:18 Al Gore Compares Trump to Hitler? 30:35 Chewing the Fat 49:56 Our Power, Our Planet Week 58:43 Update on Tesla Vandalism 1:07:38 "The Chewbacca Defense" 1:12:19 Glenn Beck with Steve Bannon 1:16:41 Joe Biden Photoshop? 1:20:08 More Food-Dyes getting Banned in the USA 1:23:09 Pat Gray BINGO! Winner 1:24:44 Another YMCA Incident in Kansas City 1:29:55 Nancy Mace "Tranny! Tranny! Tranny!" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, we replay audio from Elizabeth Warren trying to defend Joe Biden's cognitive ability. Also tariff's effect on auto parts, first quarter GDP numbers, Al Gore's lies about ethanol with audio from San Francisco event, student loan forgiveness push back and much more. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Founder and Executive Director of Power The Future Daniel Turner joins Fox Across America With Jimmy Failla to share his reaction to former Vice President Al Gore's outrageous comments about the Trump administration. Jimmy gives his take on American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten attempting to defend teaching kids about books related to gender and sexuality. PLUS, Boundary Stone Partners Senior Vice President Emily Domenech checks in to talk about how the Democrats can't seem to get out of their own way. [00:00:00] Weingarten addresses SCOTUS case on parental rights [00:37:30] SCOTUS standing in the way of Trump's deportations [00:55:30] Daniel Turner [01:14:20] Rainn Wilson calls out Stephanie Ruhle over Biden cover-up [01:32:20] Emily Domenech Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

War Room Democrats Vandalize Trump Tower, Al Gore Compares MAGA To Nazis And More!

Paris Marx is doing a solo episode this week to bring together some important issues that have been on his mind lately. This is a recording of a talk Paris gave in Auckland, New Zealand on how Silicon Valley's alliance with Donald Trump forces us to reassess the politics of the internet and challenge our collective dependence on US tech as it embraces the project of American empire.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Eric Wickham.Also mentioned in this episode:Paris co-wrote a white paper on digital sovereignty and has written about the need to challenge US tech in response to Silicon Valley's alliance with Trump.Paris also mentioned the EuroStack and British Digital Cooperative report.Dark Times Academy offers courses on a wide range of topics.Support the show