70 enforce this or not?” Fitts: I think that the state and local governments need to take it to court, and I think that it’s more than that. I think that we need to start setting up escrows and asserting common law right of offset. And if the Federal government won’t assert common law right of offset, then I think that the state and local governments have the right pro rata for their citizens to assert common law right of offset against the New York Fed, the New York Fed member banks and the Fed, and the San Francisco Fed. Farrell: At a minimum, it puts them on record. Fitts: The state AG’s could do this be- cause they have the power to do it. Farrell: They have to start doing it be- cause, at a minimum, this puts the Federal government on record. Are they going to support and uphold the Constitution or not? Fitts: The other thing is that it places the $21 trillion back on the table. Don’t say that there isn’t any money; there is plenty of money. “You have all of the money over in Global 3.0, and we are over in 2.0, but that is our money. Legally you can’t take it.” You could reintegrate 2.0 in 3.0 financial- ly if you asserted that common law right of offset. The last question is a question we ask every quarter, and don’t have an answer every quarter. That question is: How does the governance structure on Planet Earth work? Farrell: I’m still of the opinion that there is not a single structure. I think that you have several factions that are all vying to be at the top of the heap. I think that what Mr. Global may try to do, and we touched on this earlier with NASA and the agreement with the Russians to build a space station between the Earth and the moon. The Russian and the European space agency signed a similar agreement some months ago. In effect what you have is the United States, Russia, and Europe (aka Germany because they are really the ones in charge of the space program) agreeing to build this space station. What I suspect is happening here, in terms of geopolitics and governance structure, is that their attempt to build out a genuinely global government structure on Planet Earth and from Planet Earth, has failed. I think that they are changing the game. They are going to build it top-down rath- er than bottom-up. By top-down, I mean in space. Fitts: Space weapons? Farrell: Not only space weapons, but the very interesting thing that is emerging if you’ve been following the space program, is you find groups getting together to organize and draw up space constitutions for how we are all going to live in this glo- rious international cooperation group hug out there. They’re going to build that out there and impose it from there to down here. It’s easy to do if you have weapons up there and I’m strongly suspecting they already do. Fitts: I think they do, too. Farrell: General Mattis said something very interesting about North Korea. He said that we have all sorts of military op- tions, and I blogged about this a few days ago. When he said that we have several military operations, one reporter was very astute. I wish I knew who it was. He said, “Does that include kinetic weapons?” Do you know what his answer was? “Yes, but I don’t want to discuss that right now.” People need to understand what he said and need to understand the significance of that. Fitts: Beyond fake news! That is very sig- nificant and I hadn’t picked up on that. Farrell: It’s hugely significant because if people don’t know what a kinetic weapon is, it’s sometimes called the ‘Rod of God’. It’s a solid projectile that is shot towards the surface of the Earth at such extreme velocity that the kinetic impact itself is equivalent to a nuclear weapon without the nasty radioactive fallout that results from it. Fitts: Thus protecting South Korea. Farrell: Thus protecting South Korea and Japan. The signature of these weapons is a very, very deep crater, and absolute blast- wave devastation equivalent to a nuclear weapon in the surrounding area. I think they exist because, going back to the Chinese chemical plant explosions, if you look at the craters of some of those explosions, they are very, very deep. It’s as if something just bored down into them. I’ve long suspected that maybe those chemical plants were taken out by such a weapon. Fitts: That is what I believe also Farrell: When Mattis came out and said that, I thought, “Whoa!” Fitts: That is a real warning to the Kore- ans. The same thing. Farrell: That is a very big warning to the Koreans and the Chinese and the Rus- sians, but the problem there is you are dealing with two nations that have the technological capability to do the same thing. In other words, here is the bottom line. What I’m telling you is that your standard nuclear weapon on a missile is as obsolete as the dodo bird. Fitts: That may be why Trump went to the United Nations. You need interna- tional support to do that. You can’t arbi- trarily do it because other people could do it back. Farrell: Precisely, and I do think that there are certain nations that are capable. The key thing about these types of weap- ons and the geopolitical consequences of them is that they have the strategic punch of thermonuclear weapons – of hydrogen bombs. They can be made that powerful if you have a power supply up there to launch them. Personally, I don’t think that there is any real obstacle with them. The key thing there is that they really do make nuclear weapons obsolete because you now have a strategic weapons platform that doesn’t VI. News Trends & Stories with Dr. Joseph Farrell