President Joe Biden tried diverting funds from the border wall but a federal judge has blocked him from doing so. Under the ruling, it was determined that the funds were already allocated to the wall, and that they can’t be taken and used for other programs that are related to the border. The ruling is now being used as an example of the concerns that the immigrant crisis is being run by design. Meanwhile, the United States may deploy the Marines to Haiti to help fight off the violent gangs now trying to take over the country. The recent push is the culmination of events that started a few years ago, when local leaders were asking the United States and United Nations to send troops to Haiti. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss this topic and others, and answer questions from the audience. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇 https://ept.ms/3TvB5WX Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

The federal government has now admitted that it has been actively flying illegal immigrants directly into the United States. So far, it has facilitated air travel for 320,000 illegal immigrants. This is in addition to the others who travel to the U.S.–Mexico border and surrender themselves to authorities to enter the amnesty system. Behind this program is a government app that is gaining more attention, known as CBP One, and allows migrants to schedule appointments with U.S. authorities to illegally enter the United States. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss this topic and others, and answer questions from the audience. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇 https://ept.ms/3Ix8Tgb Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

On Tuesday, Louisiana became the 28th state in the nation to pass something known as constitutional carry. In practical terms, the constitutional carry laws strengthen the Second Amendment rights of people living in those particular states by allowing citizens to conceal carry their weapons without a government-issued permit. Basically, as long as you are a legal gun owner, you are now allowed to conceal carry within the state—with the idea being that such a right is bestowed upon you by the Constitution itself. Essentially, in these states, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only “permit” that you need to carry a gun. Despite the rhetoric being amplified by the mainstream media about how “limiting access to guns is the popular consensus opinion,” in reality, it’s the exact opposite. Over the past 30-odd years, people across the country have elected representatives to their local state legislatures who then subsequently expanded gun rights. Watch the video: 🇺🇸 Epoch Times 25¢ Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Exclusive video on EpochTV: Jack Smith Demands Twitter Info on All Americans Who Interacted With Trump | Facts Matter According to a heavily redacted search warrant and other documents released earlier this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded information on Twitter users who liked or retweeted President Trump’s tweets leading up to January 6th. Twitter ultimately complied. This means that if you interacted with President Trump’s Twitter account before he got kicked off — well, your name is literally on a list. Watch the exclusive video 👉 https://bit.ly/3TaF5wp

The Supreme Court is readying to hear a case that could determine whether censorship on social media platforms is legal, or whether it violates the constitutional protections on free speech. The case focuses on laws in Texas and Florida that restrict social networks from carrying out political censorship. Critics are in turn saying that it’s government censorship to restrict the platforms from censoring. But regardless, the Supreme Court could focus on the broader topic of the legalities of online censorship overall. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss this topic and others, and answer questions from the audience. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇 https://ept.ms/3v0sGS4 Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

Dr. Robert Lufkin was once a self-described “product of the medical establishment,” with a fruitful career as a professor of medicine. He’s published hundreds of scientific papers, and has received millions of dollars in government funding. But when, out of the blue, he was diagnosed with four seemingly unrelated chronic diseases—and told that he was going to have to be on medication for life—he started looking elsewhere for answers. “It was through lifestyle changes that I was able to reverse these very serious and potentially fatal diseases, and get off all medications for them,” Dr. Lufkin says. Today, Dr. Lufkin educates people far and wide on how to take charge of their metabolic health, and is in the process of building new healthcare institutions, including a managed care organization and an undergraduate medical school. He is the author of, “Lies I Taught in Medical School: And the Truths That Can Save Your Life.” Watch the clip: “The growth in these diseases is unprecedented in our history, and they’re frankly not sustainable. Half the adult population is hypertensive, the growth rate in type 2 diabetes is going to approach 50 percent of the population soon. When that happens, all these chronic diseases are going to explode. And it doesn’t have to be that way, because this disease is reversible with, in most cases, lifestyle,” says Dr. Lufkin. 🔴 WATCH the full episode (44 minutes) on Epoch Times: https://ept.ms/Y0302DrRobertLufkin FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Dr. Robert Lufkin, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Dr. Robert Lufkin: Jan, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’m a fan of your program and it’s so much fun to be here. Mr. Jekielek: You are a distinguished medical professional. I'd like to let our audience know what you’ve done. Please tell us about yourself. Dr. Lufkin: I’m a product of the medical establishment. In other words, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, although I acknowledge there are conspiracies out there, and there are perverse financial incentives and other incentives in our industry. But basically, I’m a product of mainstream medicine. I’ve spent my entire career at two large medical schools with the academic rank of full professor. I have published hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers. My laboratory has received millions of dollars from the federal government and NIH, as well as from drug companies and equipment manufacturers. I am really speaking from the inside of the medical school academic establishment. Mr. Jekielek: But you had an experience that changed you? Dr. Lufkin: Yes, just a little about my background. I was raised by my parents. My mom was a registered dietician so she specialized in nutrition. Growing up we followed the food pyramid. We religiously avoided saturated fat, and we ate low fat foods. We avoided butter because of the saturated fat, and we substituted margarine that had trans fats and industrial seed oils. We ate a lot of grains and junk foods, which we thought were healthy at the time. Then fast-forward, I went to medical school and eventually entered a career in academics where I essentially spent my whole career. Everything went along fine until about 10 years ago. Out of the blue, I was diagnosed with four chronic diseases that completely took me by surprise. I went to specialists to educate myself about these diseases and find out how to treat them. They basically prescribed prescription medicines for each one. They told me the diseases were more or less unrelated and the prescription medicines would be necessary to not only treat the symptoms but also to control the underlying disease. Although they did recommend lifestyle changes, they also said, “Sure, it’s worth improving your lifestyle, but the reality is you’re going to be on these drugs for the rest of your life. Lifestyle really doesn’t work for these things.” That was a wake-up call for me. It got my attention very quickly and I began talking to other experts. I began doing research and understanding about these diseases, and I eventually began to question the things that I had been taught. I looked closely at some of the breakthroughs in our understanding that have been made in the last few years. It changed the way I thought about these diseases. I realized that a lot of what I had been teaching, and sadly, what many of my colleagues are still teaching about these diseases and metabolic health in general was incorrect. When I implemented a program myself with lifestyle changes, I changed some things very radically, like diet, sleep, exercise and stress reduction. When I went back to my doctors, they couldn’t believe it. They thought the labs were broken. They wanted me to retest the labs. Long story short, what happened was all my labs returned as normal. The diseases were essentially reversed and I was off all prescription medicines, and that’s where I’ve been ever since then. Mr. Jekielek: What were the diseases? Dr. Lufkin: One was an arthritis, a type of arthritis called gout, which is due to urate crystal deposition. There was hypertension, and I was in good company because half of adult Americans have hypertension. The third one was pre-Type 2 diabetes, because my blood sugars were abnormally high. The fourth one was dyslipidemia, which was an abnormality of blood fats. If you think about it, arthritis and hypertension are not really related. Blood fats and arthritis also don’t have an association. But I came to understand that these diseases are all fundamentally driven by the same basic mechanisms. Unfortunately, there aren’t prescription medicines for these mechanisms. What works for reversing these diseases is lifestyle changes. The good news is that lifestyle is in our control. We get to make choices every single day when we wake up; what we’re going to eat, how we’re going to exercise, and how we’re going to live our lives. It’s really empowering that we can take back control of our health with our lifestyle. Mr. Jekielek: You’re saying that you changed your diet and some of your habits and that’s it. Then you went back and they said, “These labs can’t be right.” Dr. Lufkin: That’s correct. I was following the standard, recommended American diet, with that food pyramid, and I basically turned it upside down. I began doing things like intermittent fasting and fairly aggressive dietary changes and I’ve never felt better. I don’t consider it a diet now, I just consider it the way I live. Being in ketosis, my brain is clearer than it has ever been. I don’t want to eat carbohydrates anymore in the middle of the day or snack all the time. But to answer your question, yes, it was through lifestyle changes that I was able to reverse these very serious and potentially fatal diseases and get off all medications. I’m not recommending that people stop their medications without their doctor’s approval, because that could be dangerous. I am not saying to just stop everything and try lifestyle. I’m saying begin lifestyle. You‘ll find that when you go see your doctor, they’ll tell you you don’t need the medicines anymore if you have the same success that I had. Mr. Jekielek: We’re here with Dr. Paul Marik at this FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance] conference. He started treating Covid in a way that was unorthodox and much more effective. He similarly had this realization that a lot of what he had been taught wasn’t entirely correct, and then embarked on a journey looking at diabetes. He has this whole cancer monograph of hundreds of peer reviewed research papers showing off-label drugs and vitamins that have profound impact on reducing the incidence of cancer. A lot of research has been done well and we just don’t know about it. Dr. Lufkin: Yes, there is a tremendous amount of research being done and 7,000 papers are written every day. Mr. Jekielek: On these lifestyle changes, people have researched them. It’s not just someone just saying, “Oh, I’m going to try this. Dr. Lufkin: Yes. There are peer reviewed prospective controlled studies for diabetes where people can reverse type two diabetes with dietary interventions to the point that they go off insulin and all drugs. The results are out there. But the medical system is a large institution and there are a lot of institutional drivers and factors. You can go to a hospital and say, “I have a program for diabetes. I can take 90 percent of your Type 2 diabetics off their diabetes meds and return them to a normal blood glucose level. I want to offer you this program.” However, diabetes is the number one cause of surgical amputations and it drives a lot of surgical business. Today, Type 2 diabetes is the number one cause of renal failure, renal transplants, and dialysis. That’s a huge business. Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of blindness. Type 2 diabetes is a major driver for cardiovascular disease, stroke, and heart attack, which statistically is the number one killer that determines most of our longevity. Alzheimer’s disease is now strongly linked to glucose metabolism, which is what diabetes is, to the point where some authors are referring to Alzheimer’s disease as Type 3 diabetes. Diabetics have a much higher rate of cancer as well. All these diseases are linked, and coming up with a program to reverse diabetes is going to change everything in healthcare. Mr. Jekielek: What you’re talking about is unfathomable, because you’re suggesting that the health system wants to keep people sick. Dr. Lufkin: There are things built into the health system. I don’t think any human being wants to hurt another human being or wants them to be unhealthy. Perhaps subconsciously we tell ourselves things that make us do things. But I believe that the people are basically good and they want to do good things. But looking at the other side of the argument, there are biases built into our institution. In other words, say I’m a doctor in a clinic and I have a diabetic patient. I get to spend seven minutes with them. It’s much easier to prescribe metformin and insulin and take a couple lab tests than it is to do an entire program about a low carbohydrate diet and switch over their whole eating structure. It’s been known that carbohydrates drive Type 2 diabetes for a long time, it’s not a secret. But getting people to avoid junk foods and avoid the carbohydrates that drive Type 2 diabetes is a big ask. Right now in our healthcare system, it’s not enough for the doctor to just say, “Stop eating carbohydrates and you won’t need this insulin.” Sometimes the patient says, “I'd rather have a pill or even a shot than change my whole diet and give up all my junk food and change my way of living.” There are many different factors. There’s a lot of pushback from individuals. Junk food itself is addictive and junk food is mainly carbohydrates. It’s high in seed oils. All these things drive insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes. I confess I’m a recovering junk food addict and I know how hard it is to give that stuff up. It’s not enough for the doctor to just tell me, “Don’t eat junk food.” I know enough not to eat junk food, but there are subconscious drivers that we all have that drive our addictions, and it’s not easy to get over them. Patients come to me for their diabetes and I tell them, “Just cut out carbohydrates.” They'll go to another doctor. They will say they want a pill and want something that works like that. But this diabetes effect, this insulin resistance, and this metabolic abnormality that was driving all four of the diseases that I had, it turns out that it drives not only those diseases, but also all the chronic diseases that essentially determine our longevity. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease are all driven by that. If we improve our metabolic health, not only do we lower our risk of getting these chronic diseases, we actually improve our longevity and change many of the phenotypes or appearances of aging. It’s not just being healthier, but it’s actually that we will live a lot longer. It’s dramatic how these things are all tied together. Mr. Jekielek: You said the food pyramid is actually inverted. I believe I saw a South Park episode about this. Dr. Lufkin: Yes, it’s on my Twitter feed, or Instagram as well. Speaker 1: Sir, we’ve got a match. Speaker 2: Nutrition is stabilizing. Speaker 1: We’ve got a well-balanced vaccine, sir. Mr. Jekielek: Okay, so how is that? Please explain that. Dr. Lufkin: That’s a great question. One of the prime drivers of the metabolic disease state that we’re all in, and the epidemic of these chronic diseases that we’re facing in the 2020s had its origin back in the 1960s and ‘70s when United States public health got into making policy for nutritional decisions. Basically, it was around the mistaken idea that dietary cholesterol and dietary saturated fat drives heart disease, and heart disease was and is the number one killer. The United States created a food pyramid plan which emphasized a low fat diet and a high carbohydrate diet, which is basically a junk food diet. It is a pyramid with carbohydrates and sugars at the bottom and things like fats at the top of the pyramid where you eat less of them. This pyramid then became public health policy and all the schools use this for kids. Mr. Jekielek: I remember being taught something like that. It was the same structure as you described, especially concerning saturated fat which was the enemy. Dr. Lufkin: Exactly, cholesterol and eggs too. Today, even the conservative, orthodox cardiologists will admit that dietary cholesterol doesn’t really affect serum cholesterol. Those egg white omelets at the restaurants you see, you don’t need to eat those anymore. In my opinion, one of the healthiest things we can eat is an egg. But these dietary changes starting in the ‘60s and ’70s have now swept through society to where we’re consuming large amounts of junk food, which means a large amount of carbohydrates and refined carbohydrate sugars, and a large amount of seed oils, which are industrial oils. They have the benign sounding name of vegetable oils but there’s no vegetables in them. They were originally developed as a lubricant for German U-boats in World War I with Crisco oil. But they’re unhealthy, and in my opinion, they drive insulin resistance and drive inflammation. We are now seeped in these things. On top of that, with this fast food revolution, it’s not just what we’re eating that’s bad, but we’re eating all the time. When I was growing up, we used to eat three meals a day. Then basically it became, “No, eat six small meals a day.” My kids at school have snacks scheduled into their day. People are eating all the time. Eating itself drives inflammation which is our normal response to food being in our gut. Anytime you eat something, the body normally gets a little inflamed just as a protection from that foreign protein, that foreign material coming into the body. If you don’t want to change what you’re eating, you can still improve your health just by not eating all the time. In other words, narrow your eating window. Cut out between-meal snacks, maybe even skip breakfast, and maybe even skip lunch. I eat one meal a day and I’ve never felt better. I don’t get brain fog in the middle of the day and I’m in ketosis nearly all the time. For me, it’s a healthy way to be and I love it. Mr. Jekielek: I started a keto diet years ago. I go on and off it as a weight loss thing. It actually works well when you’re in that state of ketosis. The fat is being burned instead of the carbohydrates. Dr. Lufkin: If you think about ketosis, human beings evolved over hundreds of thousands of years primarily as hunter-gatherers. If you’re a hunter-gatherer, you eat when you have a kill, and then you may fast for a week, at which point you’re in ketosis. Jared Diamond, who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Yuval Harari, who wrote Sapiens, both famously agree that the worst possible thing that human beings have done was the development of agriculture 12,000 years ago. You can see why, because agriculture made food available nearly constantly. That was accelerated, of course, with refrigeration and junk foods. But as food became more and more available, people did not go into ketosis, because there wasn’t this period of fasting between the hunt and the kill. As I researched it more, the amazing thing about ketosis is that it doesn’t just help diabetes, but it also helps cancer. It’s a cancer treatment or an adjunct to chemotherapy for patients. For many Alzheimer’s disease patients, ketosis helps bring back their memory. One could argue that ketosis was the natural healthy state of human beings throughout history until literally the last 12,000 years. Some of the most amazing things about ketosis is its effect on neurodegenerative diseases like Guillain-Barre syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, and certainly seizures. Fasting, which drives ketosis, is an accepted treatment for seizures. There is a whole body of work about how junk food drives violence in kids. These are correlation studies, not controlled prospective studies, so causality can’t be inferred. But there are certainly some correlations with people eating junk food and becoming more angry, becoming more depressed, and becoming more anxious. Some of the possibilities out there now are really exciting. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned the agrarian revolution being the worst thing that happened to humanity, but arguably, it created civilization. Then it wasn’t all bad, but you’re saying in terms of the body. Dr. Lufkin: Yes, in terms of the body. Certainly, when I heard that, I thought, “This can’t be true. Civilization allowed people to have philosopher classes and working classes, different classes of people with spare time to have food served.” But interestingly, there is now evidence that there were some relatively advanced civilizations much earlier than we thought, like Gobekli Tepe in Turkey and another similar site in Egypt as well. Before the agricultural revolution, it may not be that we were all hunter-gatherers, living in caves. But you’re right, it is a balance. There were benefits from agriculture. Mr. Jekielek: It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We have been conditioned to believe that a pill or some medical intervention is going to solve our problem. We’ve given away our responsibility for our health to the doctors. That also translates into the use of all sorts of medications, many of which interact with each other in negative ways. I’ve heard statistics about how many medications some people take. These all have side effects. The more you take, the more likely one of those side effects will come up. Some are hidden and will come up later. We’re now a highly medicalized society. Dr. Lufkin: That’s a great point. Part of it is that if I go to a doctor, I'd much rather get a pill than get a lecture about exercising more and changing my diet. I used to believe that lifestyle didn’t really matter, and what really worked was a pill. Furthermore, I used to believe, and many people still believe, that taking the pill will actually not just treat the symptoms of the disease, but it will actually control the disease and make them healthier. That’s really not true in many, if not most cases. For example, in Type 2 diabetes, giving the patient insulin and metformin to control the blood sugar spikes doesn’t really control the long-term effects of the disease. You still continue to progress with your diabetes. You get your foot amputated, you get your renal failure, you get your blindness, you get your heart attack, and you get your Alzheimer’s. People aren’t aware that in many cases, these pills don’t really solve the problem. They just treat the symptoms. The interesting thing is there’s no pill for metabolic disease. There’s no pill that you can take that will reverse these things. Metabolic disease is driven by lifestyle and lifestyle is really the secret to curing it. Mr. Jekielek: The corollary is that you have to be responsible. No one will do it for you, especially these 3-letter agencies that avoid responsibility at any cost. It’s a theme in our society that people want some external factor to fix things. Dr. Lufkin: Exactly. I love this about your show which questions the narratives and asks the big questions about science and other things in our society. To your point, we need to take responsibility. A lot of medicine over the 20th century developed a very paternalistic attitude. You let the doctor take care of everything. They’re going to take care of everything and you turn over all responsibility to the doctor. The problem with that is, as we’ve seen, the doctor doesn’t control your lifestyle. You control your lifestyle. We all control our lifestyle, so we need to learn that we’re in charge of our health, not the doctor. Mr. Jekielek: If I recall correctly, half of what professors in medical school teach their students is wrong. That’s very disturbing news. Dr. Lufkin: One of the greatest physicians of all time, Sir William Osler, famously made one of the greatest comments about medical education when he addressed a group of medical students on the day of their graduation. At the time, most medical students were male. He said, “Gentlemen, I have a confession to make. Half of what we’ve just taught you is wrong. The problem is we don’t know which half.” People who understand medical education or even science itself will know that science is a process. It’s all about questioning the existing narrative and throwing out the stuff that’s incorrect and learning the new stuff. Sir William Osler pointed it out beautifully, and that’s the theme for my book. I have the clickbait title of Lies I Taught in Medical School. It goes through that half of the things I taught were wrong. Hopefully, it can help people avoid the mistakes that I made and which nearly cost me my health and my life. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell us how you are trying to change things. Dr. Lufkin: After I was able to reverse my own health conditions I wanted to get the message out to people, and I had written many textbooks as part of my academic career. Mr. Jekielek: To be clear, the message is that lifestyle will transform your health. Dr. Lufkin: That’s right. We are in charge of our health. The medicines that we are prescribed for the chronic diseases that are trying to kill us really don’t treat the underlying disease. If you want to get to the root cause, you need to change your lifestyle and change your metabolism and your metabolic health. That is the message of the book. I began to look at new ways I could get the message out. I had never been on Twitter and I wasn’t a big Facebook person, but I embraced social media. I began using Twitter and I just passed a hundred thousand followers. I have 250,000 total on social media so far, and I began reaching out to them. We were publishing this book. A couple of weeks ago I was in Costa Rica filming a TV series on longevity and health and wellness and metabolism. It just got picked up by PBS and the Discovery Channel and will be airing in about six months to a year. I realized that it’s not enough just to educate people and get the message out. We need to change things in the healthcare system. On the next step of my journey, together with other physicians in Los Angeles, we’ve purchased and put together a managed care organization in Southern California. It has over 100,00 patients, 200 physicians, 200 primary care physicians, and 600 specialists. Mr. Jekielek: To be clear, is this an existing provider? Dr. Lufkin: Yes, we are acquiring it. It’s important to note that these patients are underserved. In other words, they are Medicare and Medicaid, which means they’re socioeconomically disadvantaged. That means generally they have poor health and poor access to healthcare. It is our mission to change that. We’re going to bring in the latest cutting edge technology, some of the things in my book, some of the things we’ve talked about, and some of these ideas of lifestyle to these people. There is an advantage to having a managed care organization like this instead of an insurance company that makes money by denying claims. With managed care, we make money by making the patients healthier. We can spend the resources of the organization on anything that works. It can be red light therapy, it can be massage, it can be meditation, it can be movie theater tickets, or whatever incentivizes the patients to actually be healthier. That’s what we are doing. On top of that, we’ve built an innovation lab where young companies can come in and we will incubate their healthcare technology. We try it on some of the patients who want to try it out. If it works, we amplify it across the network and help them get started. We’re setting up a venture studio fund so that these companies can be funded. We just realized that it’s a great thing to do. It’s great to show healthcare change. That’s a big step. But we wanted to go one last step, and that was the education process. We’ve set up a new graduate medical education program for family medicine, psychiatry, and transitional medicine at a hospital in southern California. This summer, we’re starting a radiology program to teach some of these newer ideas of medicine. We’re even considering starting a new undergraduate program, which would be a new medical school as well. Mr. Jekielek: That’s absolutely great. But this is what I keep coming up against, there’s also so much that’s not working right. Dr. Lufkin: Yes. The knowledge is out there and it’s just a matter of getting it into the people’s hands. I used to think that I just needed to tell my friend who’s a diabetic not to put sugar in his coffee and he will be fine. He’s an intelligent person. I explained about glucose. He gets it and he knows. But what happens the next time I see him having coffee—he’s putting sugar in it. It’s the addiction thing. It’s not enough just to tell people sometimes. They may need to be enrolled in a coaching program with an addiction component. We’re starting to use a low dose Naltrexone, which is an addiction medicine that works for other types of substance abuse. We’re applying it for patients with junk food addictions and carbohydrate addictions. Mr. Jekielek: The drug Ozempic is big in the media these days and a lot of people take it. Apparently, there are problems with it. How do you understand that drug? Dr. Lufkin: It’s a great drug in that it helps people with weight loss, but the problem is you have to be on the drug long term. When people get off the drug, they frequently rebound. Also, the drug is fairly expensive. This is basically taking a pill when lifestyle would do it. For some of these people, they’re not able to get into a program and learn lifestyle changes that can make a difference. With things like ketosis people say, “How do you have the willpower to only have one meal a day?” The answer is, “I don’t. I’m a junk food addict.” But once we get into this metabolic state of ketosis, the appetite goes away. Then I’m not hungry and it’s easy. Can you eat just one potato chip? Of course not, you have to eat the whole bag. Potato chips are junk food and they’re full of carbohydrates. They drive insulin and they drive our hunger. Can you eat just one hard-boiled egg or one slice of cheese? Of course you can, because it doesn’t contain the macronutrients that drive insulin and drive your appetite. By eating healthy foods and avoiding junk foods, our appetite naturally goes away or is maintained in control. This is for many people, but not all people. Some people need surgery and need Ozempic and these other drugs. But it’s possible to do it without these things if the right programs are in place. Mr. Jekielek: With any of these drugs there’s always some side effects. You’re talking about using the body’s own systems to deal with the issue, which seems like a better idea. Dr. Lufkin: Even the longevity drugs like metformin or rapamycin, which turns down mTOR, people say, “Why don’t I just take rapamycin, increase my longevity, improve my metabolic health?” Fine, you can take rapamycin. I take rapamycin, but I also do it with lifestyle because there are things that can benefit from lifestyle that rapamycin probably doesn’t provide. We don’t understand the systems well enough to know how any of these drugs really work. But lifestyle is a proven thing that’s been developed over tens of thousands of years. Mr. Jekielek: As human beings are prone to accepting orthodoxies and once we accept them, it’s hard to change our minds. With this inverted food pyramid, it’s disturbing when you think about the impact it has had over generations. Now, we find it has been indoctrination in the wrong direction. I’ve talked to people about this and they say, “How could that be? I won’t accept that.” Dr. Lufkin: I’m saying it’s the opposite, but many, many intelligent people disagree with me. The National Nutrition Council that designs the food pyramid issues an updated version every few years. It continues the narrative that cereals and grains and carbohydrates should be a significant portion of our diet, with a smaller amount of protein, and then avoiding saturated fats. There is one reason the council comes up with these recommendations, and there was a fascinating paper that came out on this. There are a number of conflicts with the council concerning the major food manufacturers who basically benefit from manufacturing junk foods. They sell junk foods that the food council then recommends in the food pyramid. One problem is there’s not a lobbying force for lifestyle. Lifestyle is free. If I fast during the day, I actually save money because I don’t spend it on breakfast or lunch and I have more time. But there’s no lobbying group for that. We’re up against a number of financial influences that drive the system even in the face of knowledge. To the contrary, people are still getting the information. Our school lunch programs are still driven by this food pyramid and these food recommendations. The narrative today is such that if anyone handed a 12-year-old child a lit cigarette, everyone would be aghast and it just wouldn’t happen. But someone can hand a 12-year-old child a bowl of sugar cereal and pour chocolate milk on it, and nobody thinks anything of it. Actually, it’s very damaging to the child, even at that age. It drives the incidence of Type 2 diabetes in children which at one time we didn’t see at all. Changing the narrative is possible. I used to think drinking orange juice was healthy. Most people think orange juice is healthy. You see it on television and movies as a healthy breakfast, but in my opinion, it’s not. It’s basically sugar and it’s like eating a candy bar. We need to change that narrative so that people can instinctively realize what is healthy, and realize that lifestyle can have a dramatic effect. It’s a big challenge to do that. Mr. Jekielek: Yes, it feels like the challenge of our time. Dr. Lufkin: It does. The growth of the chronic diseases that we’ve been talking about are unprecedented in our history, and frankly, this is not sustainable. Half the adult population is hypertensive. The growth rate in Type two diabetes is going to approach 50 percent of the population soon. When that happens, all these chronic diseases are going to explode. It doesn’t have to be that way because this disease is reversible in most cases with lifestyle. Mr. Jekielek: I’ve become interested in brain chemistry and the hippocampus. We hear that 80 percent of common Covid vaccine injuries are actually neurological. Also, Alzheimer’s disease has skyrocketed. Dr. Lufkin: Absolutely. Mr. Jekielek: It’s a disease that was almost unheard of 100 years ago. Dr. Lufkin: Exactly. Alzheimer’s represents the ultimate failure of the medical research establishment. For decades there has been unlimited money available to come up with a treatment for Alzheimer’s. To this day, there’s no significant pharmaceutical treatment for Alzheimer’s that will have any significant effect on the progression of the disease. Researchers like Dale Bredesen and others have come up with innovative techniques where they look at Alzheimer’s not as a disease of amyloid beta, but actually as a disease of many different things. It may be vitamin D deficiency, or it may be a parasitic infection. It may be lead or mercury poisoning. There are many different factors, but one of the factors is glucose metabolism. It is known that you could diagnose Alzheimer’s disease with a PET/CT scan, which looks at brain glucose. Low metabolism of grain glucose indicates Alzheimer’s disease in certain patients. Ketosis is an alternate fuel source for the brain beyond glucose. When Alzheimer’s patients are put on a ketogenic diet and they go into ketosis, the brain is able to use ketones instead of glucose. Many of the patients are able to have significant improvements in their memory from these ketogenic diets. Heather Sandison, a protege of Dale Bredesen, runs a bunch of clinics. They are actually nursing homes for Alzheimer’s disease and they’re pretty much unique. I’ve never heard of anyone else doing this. She has a program where the Alzheimer’s disease patient goes in, gets treated, gets better, and then goes home. Usually, Alzheimer’s is a one-way street. You go into a nursing home and you don’t come out. Mr. Jekielek: I would like to invite some of the folks you mentioned today onto the show to talk about this. Any final thoughts as we finish up? Dr. Lufkin: Every morning when I get up, I get to choose my lifestyle. I get to make choices about the food I eat, what I put in my mouth, and how much I exercise. It’s a choice we get to make every single day to take control of my health and longevity. Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Robert Lufkin, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Dr. Lufkin: Thank you, Jan. It’s been great. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Dr. Robert Lufkin and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. 🔴 WATCH the full episode (44 minutes) on Epoch Times: https://ept.ms/Y0302DrRobertLufkin Epoch Original DVD collection:

Retailers are cutting back on variety. Various brands are reducing the number of options for products and are instead focusing more heavily on just their bestselling goods. This shift is being touted as a response to difficulties in the market, and to a push to make life easier for people doing their shopping. But, the shift also aligns with an agenda described under the C40 program for “Reducing Consumption-based Emissions.” In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss this topic and others, and answer questions from the audience. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇 https://ept.ms/48FPdkX Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

In a massive win for former President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously in his favor on Monday and ruled that states cannot bar him from appearing on the ballot. This decision is extremely timely, given the fact that on March 5, two of the states that have attempted to kick President Trump off the ballot—Colorado and Maine—will be holding their primary elections. However, even though this ruling definitively concluded that states cannot kick President Trump off the ballot, that actually did not stop the Trump disqualification effort. Instead, within hours of this ruling being made public, the effort to get President Trump kicked off ballot morphed, going from the state to the federal level. All, of course, in the name of saving democracy. Watch the video: 🇺🇸 Epoch Times 25¢ Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Exclusive video on EpochTV: Jack Smith Demands Twitter Info on All Americans Who Interacted With Trump | Facts Matter According to a heavily redacted search warrant and other documents released earlier this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded information on Twitter users who liked or retweeted President Trump’s tweets leading up to January 6th. Twitter ultimately complied. This means that if you interacted with President Trump’s Twitter account before he got kicked off — well, your name is literally on a list. Watch the exclusive video 👉 https://bit.ly/3TaF5wp

A new bombshell court filing has just been dropped in Fulton County, Georgia, which reveals (through extensive cell phone tracking data) that District Attorney Fani Willis almost certainly lied to the court during her testimony. This data, subpoenaed from AT&T, shows the alleged whereabouts of Nathan Wade in the year leading up to him being assigned special counsel. And it reveals that, despite what they claimed under oath, Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis certainly spent a lot of nights together for two people who were just friends. Watch the video: 🇺🇸 Epoch Times 25¢ Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Exclusive video on EpochTV: Jack Smith Demands Twitter Info on All Americans Who Interacted With Trump | Facts Matter According to a heavily redacted search warrant and other documents released earlier this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded information on Twitter users who liked or retweeted President Trump’s tweets leading up to January 6th. Twitter ultimately complied. This means that if you interacted with President Trump’s Twitter account before he got kicked off — well, your name is literally on a list. Watch the exclusive video 👉 https://bit.ly/3TaF5wp

“Currently, the government spends 45 percent of GDP in Britain. You know, that is a pretty astonishing figure. It’s 36 percent in the United States, so you’re not that far behind. But in Britain, it’s 45 percent, and I don’t think that represents a proper free market economy.” In this episode, I sit down with Liz Truss, former prime minister of the United Kingdom. We dive into the reality of mass immigration and net-zero climate policy in Britain and discuss how parliamentary powers are being supplanted by unelected bureaucracies. “Even though we left the European Union, most of the European laws are still on our statute books. So, it’s a bit like getting divorced and still living in the same house as your ex-husband,” says Ms. Truss. “We’ve reduced carbon emissions, but that’s because we’re importing more goods from countries like China, who are building coal-fired power stations. So, there’s no net benefit to the planet. All that’s happened is we have empowered our enemies, and we’ve damaged our own industry.” Watch the clip: We also talk about the anti-Israel protests sweeping Britain, and Islamist threats targeting members of Parliament. “There’s clearly a basis of self-loathing. The people who are on the streets chanting in favor of Hamas or saying ‘capitalism is evil’—they don’t like Britain. They don’t like the British way of life. They don’t like our values,” she said. “A lot of conservatives just think this is a normal political fight. It’s not a normal political fight. This is an enemy within our own country.” 🔴 WATCH the full episode (23 minutes) on Epoch Times: https://ept.ms/S0229LizTruss FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Liz Truss, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Liz Truss: Great to be here. Mr. Jekielek: Last night at the CPAC International Summit, you said something astonishing. Many people in the U.S. and in liberal democracies around the world are concerned about the rise of the administrative state. People here were complaining that there’s only 3,000 elected positions in our administrative state of millions. You said that in Britain there are only 100 of those elected positions, and the room went quiet for a moment. Please tell us about that. Ms. Truss: That is right. In Britain, we have a permanent civil service who are career civil servants. Then we have a hundred special advisors, and just to be clear, those people don’t run departments. Those people advise ministers. The entirety of the state, all the government departments in Britain, are run by the permanent civil service. Plus, we have something called quangos, which are quasi-non-governmental organizations, things like the EPA in America. We’ve got the Environment Agency in Britain and those are all independent of democratically-elected ministers. The situation is that a lot of power has essentially been outsourced from the democratic process into the so-called independent process. That’s a problem for democracy. Mr. Jekielek: This is a situation where essentially career bureaucrats run the show. Please tell us about your experience. You were the prime minister, the highest office in the land. How much power did you use? How much did you actually have? Ms. Truss: As prime minister, I set out a very clear agenda. I was supported by the party membership in becoming the leader of the Conservative Party to deliver that agenda; cutting taxes, cutting the size of government, and taking some of the power back from the unelected bodies that I’ve talked about. When I put those policies through, I found there was leaking going on with my plans. There was briefing done with the press. There was a lack of support from those bodies for the policies, which they made pretty clear. That made it very, very difficult for me to deliver in what were quite volatile economic times. Mr. Jekielek: We’ve heard all sorts of things in the legacy media, and we have our own reporting in the Epoch Times about what happened. At the end of your role as prime minister, how do you view what happened? Ms. Truss: What I found was that the forces of the bureaucracy and essentially the establishment in Britain were just too great to take on with the amount of political support I had. That’s the bottom line. There was not enough support from Conservative MPs to really change these things. That is why I am now determined to build up the support, because we need these policies in Britain. Currently, the government spends 45 percent of GDP in Britain. That is a pretty astonishing figure. It’s 36 percent in the United States, so you’re not that far behind. But in Britain, it’s 45 percent. That does not represent a proper free market economy, and it’s not giving people the opportunities they need. That is why we need to deal with the bureaucracy and the establishment’s resistance to change. All these people are protecting the status quo. They are protecting their vested interests, and that is not what the people of Britain want. Mr. Jekielek: The power is supposed to come from the people. This concept is enshrined in every liberal, democratic constitution. But somehow, right under the noses of the British people, a lot of this power has eroded. Is that your contention? Ms. Truss: Our constitution has been watered down and undermined. The core concept of the British constitution is parliamentary sovereignty, that the MPs elected in the House of Commons have sovereignty over decisions. That is what the prime minister is. He or she represents the leadership of parliamentary sovereignty. What has happened is that parliamentary powers have been outsourced. A lot of this happened under the Tony Blair government when the traditional role of the Lord Chancellor was abolished and he created a new Supreme Court. We didn’t have the separation of powers in Britain. Previously, the legal system was accountable because the Lord Chancellor sat in the cabinet. Now, that is gone. Instead, you have an independent Supreme Court. We also saw the development of lots of agencies. I mentioned the environment agency. We had the creation of the Office of Budget Responsibility. The Bank of England was given independence, and the Bank of England governor was pretty much made unsackable. If you’ve got a Bank of England governor that is unsackable, and a prime minister that is sackable, that changes the balance of power. That is what has happened in Britain, and it’s crept up on us over the years. You’ve seen more and more agencies develop. You’ve seen these powers taken away from the Lord Chancellor. You’ve seen the creation of international law as well. The ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] has proved to be a massive issue when we want to deport illegal immigrants. All of these things have built up, and they have denuded Parliament of its sovereign role. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about Brexit for a moment, because Brexit was viewed as a coup against the establishment. Certainly, it was viewed that way here in America. One of the core issues of Brexit was the issue of unchecked immigration. But once Brexit was achieved, things did not change all that much. Ms. Truss: No, in fact, immigration has gone up. We have record immigration this year. There are two points I would make. First of all, even though we left the European Union, most of the European laws are still on our statute books. It’s a bit like getting divorced and still living in the same house as your ex-husband. We’ve done the part of leaving the EU, but we’ve still got all that bureaucracy in Britain. This is one of the things that the administrative state doesn’t want to let go of. They don’t want to let go of that closeness to Europe. They don’t want to let go of that regulation. Bureaucracies like regulation. It gives them power. You’ve got all that stuff still in place. On immigration, because of the extra powers that have been given to the legal system and taken away from politicians, the Left are able to thwart immigration policy through the legal system. They’re using every trick in the book to try and stop conservative policies from being delivered. Mr. Jekielek: This parallels some of the scenarios that we see here in America and in many other countries. Ms. Truss: What has happened is the Left is not succeeding at the ballot box in Britain. They are spending all their energy on lawfare to stop conservative policies or to use the administrative bureaucracy to stop conservative policies. Mr. Jekielek: I’m hearing the Conservatives are expected to be trounced in this coming election. Is that accurate? Why would that be, given what you are saying? Ms. Truss: The opinion polls are not looking good. That’s certainly true. But if people think things would get better under a Labour government, they are completely wrong. Look at the Labour Party. They’re currently backing these protesters on Hamas, and they’re not strong on defense and foreign policy. Also, they want more power for the bureaucratic state, so we will have the current situation on steroids if Labour gets in. What you’re talking about is a frustration of the public, that the things they want delivered like proper control of our borders isn’t happening. I’m saying to Conservatives that we need to be bolder. We need to actually change the institutions. We need to restore parliamentary sovereignty. We need to get rid of these quangos that are stopping conservative policies from being enacted. We need to demonstrate to the public that we’re not going to be the same. We need to show the public we’re prepared to do that and we understand there’s a problem. Because if we don’t do that, then the danger is that Labour gets in power and they do even more of this. Mr. Jekielek: You’re also advocating for internal reform among the Conservatives. Do I understand that correctly? Ms. Truss: We’ve got a movement called popular conservatism and it’s about advocating these policies. We’re saying it’s not enough just to have conservative policies. It’s not even enough just to get in a position of power. Unless we change the system, we’re actually not going to be able to deliver the policies. That’s why the situation is quite similar to here in the U.S. You do have a huge administrative state, so the problem isn’t just which party is in power. The problem is that the system has become antithetical to change. That is also true in the UK. Mr. Jekielek: In the U.S. we see this erosion of power away from the legislature into the administrative state. In your case, it would be the Quangos. But Congress isn’t that unhappy with that, because Congress can say, “It wasn’t us, it was the agencies.” Then the agencies can say, “It wasn’t us, it was Congress.” Ms. Truss: People are going to say, “What’s the point of you if you don’t actually make any decisions in the House of Representatives or the Senate? What’s the point of you?” That is my worry for democracy. People elect us to make decisions and we are meant to represent the people of our constituencies, or districts in the case of the U.S. If all these powers have been outsourced to these bodies because we’re too afraid to make decisions, what’s the point of us? That is a threat to democracy, and I’m very worried about that. We could repeal the acts that created the Supreme Court. That’s what we should be doing. We’ve got all this legacy legislation that essentially tied politicians’ hands and we need to be bold and change that. That’s what I’m advocating. I’m saying that we’ve got to explain to the public what’s gone wrong. Rather than politicians being courageous and making difficult decisions, it’s been palmed off and it’s not working. But the first step, and actually in some ways the understanding of this is better in the United States, is that people have to understand the administrative state is a problem. It’s not just politicians being hopeless. It’s also that they can’t actually do things because their hands are so tied. Mr. Jekielek: We were talking about immigration. When you talk about immigration, you’re talking about unchecked immigration, not immigration writ large. Ms. Truss: We need to reduce the number of legal migrants and we also need to deport illegal migrants as well. We need to do both of those things. Mr. Jekielek: I want to talk about net zero. There almost seems to be a consensus on these net zero policies. Ms. Truss: There really isn’t. The government has now postponed things like banning oil boilers, which they threatened last year. My constituents got very angry about that because they didn’t want to have to replace their oil boilers with a heat source pump. People are angry about energy bills being too high as well. The reason energy bills are so high in Britain is because we’re not doing things like fracking. It’s banned because of net zero, so people don’t like the effect of the policies. We have to communicate that this effect is being caused by this net zero legislation. People now understand with the war in Ukraine how important it is to have your own energy independence. Britain is a net energy importer. We could be a net energy exporter if we built more nuclear energy, and if we got on with fracking. Those are the arguments we have to make. There’s growing concern about the cost. The problem is that we legislated first and then looked at the cost later. In Britain we have reduced carbon emissions. But that’s because we’re importing more goods from countries like China who are building coal-fired power stations, so there’s no net benefit to the planet. All that has happened is we have empowered our enemies and we’ve damaged our own industry. Mr. Jekielek: We’ve outsourced our emissions to our enemies, which is bizarre. Ms. Truss: It is bizarre. The Left and the environmental movement have been very successful at making everybody think they are nice. But actually, it has been a Trojan horse for collectivism and taking away power from sovereign nations. That is happening in international bodies and it’s a big problem. The Left no longer make traditional socialist arguments. They don’t argue for control of the means of production and things like that. Instead, they say, “We’ve got to be kind to the environment. We’ve got to be kind to transgender people. If you don’t agree with these policies, you’re a nasty person.” Mr. Jekielek: You’ve just described the weapon. The weapon is basically a kind of slander, and everyone hates being slandered. It has been such an effective weapon. Ms. Truss: It has. It’s a weapon used against conservatives, and too many conservatives accept the premise. They accept the premise that somehow it’s nice to advocate for these policies. No, it’s not. What we’re effectively doing is making people poorer because they can’t afford energy. We’re exposing our young people to dangerous, irreversible treatments. That’s not nice. We need to talk about what the actual consequences of those policies are. It’s like performative empathy or something like that. Politics is full of performative empathy, and it’s one of the things I dislike most about it. It is difficult being in the age of performative empathy, because it’s not a rational argument. But we have to show people what are the consequences of these Left-wing policies, what they are about, and why they are wrong. It’s about taking power away from individuals and families to make decisions and instead putting power in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats or international authorities. That is collectivism, and it’s collectivism by the back door. This is particularly important for the English-speaking democracies, where the problem is most acute; United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. The Left has been very effective at mounting these long-term campaigns, like on the environment and transgender rights, and spreading them. The whole development of social media has helped spread that Leftist ideology as well. Mr. Jekielek: At the same time, you could argue that social media was very important in Brexit or the unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016. Ms. Truss: That’s true, but I’m trying to explain why it has spread in such a way across the free world. For example, in Britain, we ended up having protests about Black Lives Matter and we had people taking the knee, including the leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer. This was an issue in the U.S. and had nothing to do with us, and yet people in the UK had become involved. In my view, they had become indoctrinated by the overall narrative of Black Lives Matter, which we don’t want to hear about. We know that essentially it has Marxist roots. We know that. But that wouldn’t have happened 40 years ago and that stuff would not have spread. Of course, you’re right, good ideas spread as well. We have to make our ideas more contagious than those of the Left. Brexit is a good example of that type of movement. You’ve also got malign regimes pushing some of these messages and funding some of these organizations. The Soviet Union used to fund Left-wing organizations like the CND. You now have a modern version of that, and these people are being funded by our enemies. Mr. Jekielek: In the UK, there are these massive pro-Palestine mass rallies of 500,000 people. Under closer scrutiny, some people see them as pro-Hamas. Why do you think the scale of this is so great in Britain in particular? Ms. Truss: As you say, it’s happening all across the world. But what we haven’t seen enough of in Britain is the police actually cracking down on some of the vile anti-Semitism that’s taking place at these rallies. We have an accountability problem and we have an enforcement problem in Britain. But it’s a very small minority of Brits who actually think that way. But it’s getting oversized because of the extreme tactics of those demonstrators. The most worrying thing recently is that MPs are being threatened. MPs are being threatened to change their vote in the House of Commons because of these vile, extremist demonstrators. That is when we need to make sure our laws are properly enforced. Mr. Jekielek: Did one step down? Ms. Truss: You’re right. A Member of Parliament stepped down because his office was torched. There was an arson attack on his office. He represents a very strong Jewish area in London. Over the past 10 years, two MPs have been murdered. MP security is a real issue in Britain. Mr. Jekielek: What are the steps today that we can take? What’s your message to the American people? Ms. Truss: We need to be brave and advocate conservative values. We need to be proud of our countries. We need to not compromise with the Left. I said in my speech earlier that you can’t triangulate with terrorists. You can’t compromise with communists. They want to destroy our way of life. These people on the Left who advocate this point of view, they’re after the destruction of Western civilization. Too often, conservatives don’t understand this, and that’s the aim. These people are not trying to be helpful. They are actively trying to undermine our way of life, and that is why we need to be brave at taking them on. We need to make sure that our institutions are properly, democratically accountable, so that they cannot be captured by these extremists. Too often in Britain, corporate organizations, universities, and government departments have been captured by these extremists. They’ve been captured by this ideology because there’s not enough pushback. There’s clearly a basis of self-loathing. The people who are on the streets chanting in favor of Hamas, or saying capitalism is evil, don’t like Britain. They don’t like the British way of life. They don’t like our values. A lot of conservatives just think this is a normal political fight. It’s not a normal political fight. This is an enemy within our own country. Mr. Jekielek: Liz Truss, any final thoughts as we finish? Ms. Truss: No. It’s been fantastic to be on the show. Mr. Jekielek: It’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Ms. Truss: Thank you. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining former British Prime Minister Liz Truss and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. 🔴 WATCH the full episode (23 minutes) on Epoch Times: https://ept.ms/S0229LizTruss Epoch Original DVD collection:

The United States is being pulled in two directions when it comes to crime and policing. President Joe Biden has signed an executive order called the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which puts deeper restrictions on police. On the Republican side, however, former President Donald Trump is arguing that American police are the best in the world but are not being allowed to do their jobs. In this live Q&A with Crossroads host Joshua Philipp, we’ll discuss this topic and others, and answer questions from the audience. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇 https://ept.ms/3uVJRnP Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

In a surprise decision, a federal judge has just ruled in favor of Texas’s attorney general, and in so doing, he opened a pathway for other states to be able to challenge the federal government in a serious way. Specifically, the federal judge ruled that the $1.7 trillion government funding bill that was passed in December 2022 was actually passed unconstitutionally. To explain why that is, as well as what this means for both Texas as well as the other states in the Union, let’s go through the details together. Watch the video: 🇺🇸 Epoch Times 25¢ Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Exclusive video on EpochTV: Jack Smith Demands Twitter Info on All Americans Who Interacted With Trump | Facts Matter According to a heavily redacted search warrant and other documents released earlier this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded information on Twitter users who liked or retweeted President Trump’s tweets leading up to January 6th. Twitter ultimately complied. This means that if you interacted with President Trump’s Twitter account before he got kicked off — well, your name is literally on a list. Watch the exclusive video 👉 https://bit.ly/3TaF5wp

Three days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that clarified an aspect of law important for anyone who ever finds themselves in court being accused of a serious crime. Watch the video: 🇺🇸 Epoch Times 25¢ Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale Exclusive video on EpochTV: Jack Smith Demands Twitter Info on All Americans Who Interacted With Trump | Facts Matter According to a heavily redacted search warrant and other documents released earlier this week, Special Counsel Jack Smith demanded information on Twitter users who liked or retweeted President Trump’s tweets leading up to January 6th. Twitter ultimately complied. This means that if you interacted with President Trump’s Twitter account before he got kicked off — well, your name is literally on a list. Watch the exclusive video 👉 https://bit.ly/3TaF5wp