In this podcast episode, Alex Jones discusses the importance of supporting free speech systems like
Infowars as they face potential censorship and legal challenges. He also addresses concerns over
jury selection fairness in high-profile cases and highlights the need for an impartial jury that has
not been exposed to media coverage of the case. Additionally, he emphasizes the significance of
trial by jury in preserving democracy and protecting our freedoms and liberties in America. The
discussion touches upon defamation laws and their application in cases like Alex Jones's involving
the Sandy Hook tragedy. Lastly, he promotes various health supplements and tax advice to fund the
operation of InfoWars."
Declare somebody guilty in the court of public opinion, just in general.
Not even on the basics of a certain issue or topic.
Just in general, this person is guilty in the court of public opinion.
They're bad, they're guilty.
And they run all their propaganda, and they run all their hit pieces.
You could say Alex Jones is an example.
You could say Donald Trump is an example.
You could say Steve Bannon, Roger Stone.
You could show the examples.
So they just declare you guilty, you're bad in the court of public opinion.
Then when they get you in a courtroom, they just say, oh, you're guilty.
And that's the new process.
So, innocent until proven guilty, a cornerstone Of our legal system, a cornerstone of justice in this country, innocent till proven guilty, is being thrown out the window now.
And we all know why.
So whether you love Alex Jones or you hate Alex Jones, if you don't understand the implications of saying innocent till proven guilty no longer applies here, innocent till proven guilty, we're going to take that cornerstone out of our Justice and Legal System Foundation.
If you don't understand how that hurts you, if you don't understand how that goes beyond Alex Jones, whether you love him or hate him, then you have been blinded.
You have been lobotomized.
and you have been propagandized into celebrating your own demise.
unidentified
Rallying patriots worldwide in defense of human liberty. It's Alex Jones.
I myself have had a lot of very important broadcasts in my eight years here at InfoWars, but perhaps on this Monday, July 25th, 2022, at least for the issue of free speech or on the issue of does Alex Jones even get to exist and have a platform and have a voice and be on the air?
As far as those issues are concerned, this might be the biggest transmission in InfoWars history.
Now, Owen Schroer sitting in for Alex today, it's an honor.
And I will be sitting in for Alex for the foreseeable future because Alex Jones is in court this week and next week and who knows how long.
Fighting for free speech for America and fighting for Infowars to continue to go on.
Let me lay out the basics here for you and we'll get into the gruesome details coming up the rest of the way in the first hour.
With legal expertise coverage of what's about to go down.
Then in the second hour we'll have the legal experts in studio with me as well.
But Alex Jones is going to be in court.
In fact, I'm going to be in court some of these days as well.
And so imagine how many other news outlets have to deal with that.
None, really.
In fact, there's really two other people, I would say, in media that deal with the political persecution anywhere close to the level of us here.
And that's obviously Steve Bannon and Roger Stone and what they've had to go through.
But so Alex Jones now in court all week fighting for his right to free speech and for America's right to free speech.
And a lot of people may say, hey, that's not fair to say, that's not accurate to say.
Alex Jones is in court for things that he said and he does.
That has nothing to do with the free speech issue in America.
Well, you'd be horribly mistaken if you fell for that lie.
You'd be horribly mistaken.
Again, we're going to go to the legal experts on this so you don't have to hear my opinion as somebody that's involved or as a talk show host here with interest in the matter.
You'll hear what the legal experts have to say coming up.
But let me just ask you a question.
Let's put it in the context of a question.
If you had a radical liberal that was a judge And that judge got an Alex Jones case in front of them.
Do you think they would be responding to the case from a perspective of, I need to put away any biases that I have and I need to make sure that justice is done here and that we have a true, fair proceeding here?
Or do you think that liberal might say, I've got Alex Jones in front of me, I've got one shot to destroy him, I've got one shot to destroy InfoWars, I'm gonna take it.
Now let's just say that's a hypothetical question, how do you think that would go?
And then depending on how that would go, or how that potentially does go, you don't think that has implications for the rest of America?
You don't think that has implications for the rest of the media?
If an activist judge can just decide they don't like you, and they're going to destroy you, and then that becomes precedent?
If you don't see how that's dangerous for the future of this country, and if you don't see how that's dangerous for the future of free speech, then you're blind.
So when we come back, We're going to be hearing legal experts take first response to what's about to go down in court.
But folks, understand this.
There's a reason why Alex Jones has been saying more than ever, this could be our last transmission.
So I'll expand on that a little further before we go to the lawyers here on the Alex Jones Show when we return from this short break.
Ladies and gentlemen, I will be filling in for Alex for the foreseeable future.
We're really not sure.
It depends on how these court things go.
Alex is in court today for the foreseeable future as well.
I'm also going to have to be in court, so even my exposure is going to be limited in the upcoming weeks as well.
But to pick it up where I left off in the first opening segment here.
A lot of people have been commenting, and you may have noticed, more than ever, Alex comes on air and says this could be our last broadcast.
And while we did have financial problems, and we were having problems funding ourselves, Ourselves here, the crew and everybody.
We were able to assure that we could be funded through the summer with some of the sales we had, getting some products back in stock and having the money bomb and some generous donors.
That all went down earlier this year in the beginning of spring.
And we basically said, this is a big success.
The audience has done it again.
We've now got funding through the summer.
So we took care of some of the financial stuff as far as that being a major issue, at least through the summer.
So we said, hey, we've got the funding now.
We can stay on air till the summer.
And that's when we're going to have our next big challenge, which is the legal challenge.
We're going to hear from legal experts in this hour some of the gruesome details of what is about to happen in this court case going on all week and next week and for the foreseeable future.
Then we're going to have Robert Barnes in studio with follow-up coverage and some of the latest breaking stuff as it begins.
But there's a couple things that are key to understanding.
One is, there is no other media outlet that goes through what we go through.
And that's not because we're criminals, that's not because we're bad people, that's not because we've done anything wrong, it's because we are really going head-to-head, toe-to-toe, intellectually, philosophically, politically, against the criminals that run this planet and have plans for world domination and depopulation.
And they know we're one of the biggest threats standing in their way, just as a populist voice, as a voice of reason and truth and hope, and patriotism and everything else, and so that's why Infowars, or Alex Jones better yet, must be made an example of, must be destroyed.
Now here's an example.
We've got a fantastic crew here, we've got an unbelievable multimedia operation here, but Crew probably hasn't been given a raise in a long time, and they try to get judgments against me, and they say, we're going to get millions of dollars out of Owen Schroer.
We're going to get millions of dollars.
Folks, I don't have millions of dollars.
To be quite honest with you, I don't even have close to a million dollars.
But see, they see what we do here, they see our audience size, and then they just do a compare.
They compare to other people in media to see what they're making, and they say, there's no way Owen Schroer doesn't have a million dollars with his audience and what he's done.
He has a million dollars, we're gonna find it, we're gonna get it.
They do the research, they have all my records, they have everything.
There's no million dollars!
We're not in it for money, folks.
We're not in it for fame.
We're not in it for fortune.
Never has been that way.
Never will be that way.
Would I like millions of dollars?
Would I like beachfront properties all around the world like all these great liberals?
Of course I would!
But I'd rather live in a free country with the opportunity for prosperity than to have all that momentarily.
So just understand, there's a reason why Infowars is target number one.
There's a reason why Alex Jones is in court today, in my opinion, fighting for not only his right to free speech, but for the rights of free speech for all Americans.
Now, here's a basic recap and introduction from the Barnes Free podcast that we're going to be going to for the rest of the hour because, forget about my opinion, let's go to the legal experts who are covering this case.
So here is the Barnes and Free podcast, just an introduction of what is coming up here, what Alex Jones, what InfoWars, what America is up against in the coming weeks in these important times, these perilous times for free speech, for InfoWars, and for America.
So what I mean, the suit that is going to trial this week in Austin, Texas, in Travis County, is by two plaintiffs who were the parents of a child who died at Sandy Hook.
They sued Alex Jones on theories of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Even though Alex Jones, as I recall, never mentioned them by name ever, or said factually specific things about them by name ever.
So it was a unique case in that regard, but the Texas Austin Court of Appeals Uh, basically established a perilous new precedent for speech in media in America, which was that if you say something that the government doesn't agree with, and somebody is upset or offended by what you said, and they have some connection at any level to the event, then they, uh, then you can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress without actually targeting any speech at them individually.
So that was the first extraordinary development in his case, in this case that's going to trial.
The second one is the media mythology about the case, and often the plaintiff's lawyers repeatedly lie about the nature of the evidence in the case, is the mythology is that Alex Jones instigated and initiated and originated the hypothesis that Sandy Hook did not happen at all.
That is completely and utterly false.
99% of what InfoWars printed, published, or broadcast concerning Sandy Hook acknowledged and admitted that the event occurred, that the children died, that it took place, who the shooter was.
The questions that InfoWars primarily, and it's Alex Jones primarily, raised concern the culpability of big pharma and whether SSRI drugs were the appropriate medication.
The questions about the psychiatric treatment of young men in America.
The celebratization of gun violence by gaming in Hollywood culture.
And the potential culpability and complicity in local police response times and local politicians in the school safety arena providing adequate safety mechanisms for the children.
And he said that they were going to wrongfully blame the gun and the law-abiding rights and Second Amendment rights of ordinary Americans as the culprit for these traumatic and tragic deaths.
Midway through, several years after Sandy Hook, some callers would call in and they raised questions about whether the deaths happened at all.
And Jones responded in a way that could be interpreted as agreeing with their comments.
That is the primary basis of the suit.
About, of the 7 million plus words broadcast, plus words broadcast or published by InfoWars and Alex Jones, They've taken about less than 30 minutes of words scattered out over a seven year timeframe and are saying that is the entire basis of their emotional trauma.
What is the second significant factor about this case that is also extraordinary?
Is that it's one of the only defamation cases ever brought where the plaintiffs did not timely seek a correction or retraction.
Indeed, they didn't seek it until the eve of trial itself, the eve of suit itself.
And so you have people saying that they were horribly traumatized by the words of Alex Jones, yet showed no evidence that they even heard the words of Alex Jones at the time.
And if they were so traumatized, why didn't they write a single correction or retraction request for years?
The other factor that's interesting about this case, Is that many of the plaintiffs involved are very political.
They have people running for political office.
They've campaigned for gun control.
They clearly oppose Alex Jones on political grounds.
The lawyers involved are all highly political and have pursued this case for political reasons and have explicitly said their purpose of the suit is to try to shut down and censor Alex Jones for good.
Now what's even more extraordinary about this case Is that the Alex Jones is being prevented from presenting any substantive defense on the legal merits.
He's not being allowed to defend himself on whether or not he said what they claim he said.
He's not being allowed to defend the context in which those words were said.
He's not allowed to present all everything else that he said.
He is not even allowed to say that his conduct wasn't outrageous.
He's not even allowed to say that he is innocent.
He is not even allowed to say that he sees this as a First Amendment issue.
In fact, the words First Amendment and free speech cannot even come out of his mouth or any witness's mouth or his lawyer's mouth through the entire trial.
Not only that, the case is being limited to damages.
And the judge has instructed that the jury is not allowed to hear from Alex Jones or his lawyers about whether the emotional trauma they'll hear about these parents suffering had something to do with the person who shot their kids.
That's not allowed to come up.
So the jury is going to be left with the impression that this horrible trauma that these parents have suffered, the only person they're being allowed to blame is Alex Jones.
So it is, in addition, Alex Jones has been denied his rights to bring motions to dismiss, denied his right to bring motions under the strategic litigation against public participation law, denied his rights to bring summary judgment motions, denied his rights to appeal summary judgment motions, denied his rights in some cases to appeal a motion to dismiss.
It is unparalleled and unprecedented, the sequence of actions that have taken place.
This case makes a Stasi or Soviet style show trial look like an emblem of fairness by comparison.
Last but not least, the judge presiding over the case here in Austin, Texas was identified in the press as previously working as private counsel associated with Children Protective Services.
What I can tell you that typically means, don't know yet whether it means that it's to this judge, but typically that means a judge who defends pedophiles, a judge who defends child abusers.
That's the judge presiding over the Alex Jones case.
This case is a case where the American judicial system is really on trial.
And unfortunately, the verdict looks like it will be a damnation of that system, even though the goal is to issue such a crazy verdict.
That they are able to completely take Alex Jones off the air.
I have so many, actually, because intentional infliction of emotional distress, conceptually, I can understand.
They're already going through trauma because, and I want everyone to understand this, it's a horrible, horrible incident.
It's beyond, it's horror of the purest form.
Nothing about a defense of Alex Jones is intended to be construed as denying it happened, denying the trauma of everyone who survived that, and the parents who lost kids.
None of that.
This is a grotesque incident.
Where the grotesqueness of the incident is not going to be somehow attenuated by railroading some podcaster radio host who might have said some things which could have been a little over the top from time to time, or even overtly over the top.
The idea here is that you have Alex Jones is known for pushing the envelope of questioning narratives.
Floating hypotheses which are tenable sometimes, untenable other times.
The emotional distress Might have been aggravated.
If someone comes out and says, you're lying, you never even had a kid, that can cause emotional distress.
And if they do it at a loud enough bullhorn, they can cause emotional distress.
I understand that.
Nonetheless, the idea to deny Alex the ability to defend, and this was purportedly on the basis for having defaulted or violated his obligations of disclosure under depositions.
Yeah, I mean, what's amazing is Alex Jones has produced more documents and sat for more hours of more testimony, as have other people in the case, on behalf of InfoWars, than any media defendant I've ever heard of.
And yet, even though he's turned over his text, he's turned over his emails, turned over stuff that was sent to a junk email box, turned over all kinds of documents and information, The, uh, they said that he didn't turn over enough and they called him default.
Now here's the real secret behind this and why I predicted that this was a risk from day one, uh, during it.
And for those out there, I am not currently representing Alex Jones, so I am free to speak my mind.
Um, they're already, apparently I've heard.
That the plaintiff's lawyers are complaining about me speaking out about the case.
That's how corrupt these plaintiff's lawyers are.
They're political hacks, standing on the bodies of dead kids to line their pockets and take away other people's political rights.
And I find it disgusting what they've done.
And so, but in this particular context, Jones has produced more discovery than anybody.
I can't find anyone that's produced more discovery than he is, and yet they pretended that he didn't.
Why?
Because they built their whole case on a big lie.
Alex Jones didn't initiate and instigate any of this, number one.
And number two, their big lie was that Alex Jones became famous and made his money because he lied about this.
And that doesn't include everybody else for InfoWars who sat for day after day after day after day after day after day of deposition.
They turned over emails that they shouldn't have even had to turn over.
I mean, they were sent emails in their spam email where someone was trying to plant child CP on their computer system.
And because they turned over all of their emails, anything they'd ever got, even if they'd never read it, then they were accused by the plaintiff's lawyers of sending CP to the families.
Utterly false.
Another big fat lie by the lawyers and the media.
That's how much he turned over.
And like when you dig down and try to get to what exactly it was he didn't turn over, it ends up being very weak.
And by the way, that's not the default standards in America.
I have never seen a default judgment issued in America on these grounds.
Ever.
It's supposed to be specific to the specific fact that wasn't turned over.
That issue can be, if they weren't able to independently acquire the evidence, that fact can be admitted against them.
That's not what this judge has done.
This judge has not allowed him to defend himself on the substantive merits based on a made-up theory of the plaintiff's lawyers.
That the judges knew was false, had reason to know was false, and in order to cover it up and punish and prosecute Alex Jones, they need to do this.
And by the way everybody, people might say, why should I care?
Alex Jones admits he made mistakes about his Sandy Hook reporting.
Maybe these people out there don't like Alex Jones.
Because folks, the same reason we talked about it in 2018 when they banned him from all the social media.
We said, this is a template.
Alex Jones is the example and they're coming for you next.
And the legal theory they got approved in this case is that if you say anything that the government doesn't agree with, that somebody else feels emotionally offended by, they can now sue you into bankruptcy.
And if Alex Jones is any example, you won't even get to defend yourself on the merits in front of a trial by jury.
Remember, Alex Jones was a test case for censorship.
They censored the president after that.
This is another test case.
You know, the media likes to attack Alex Jones and they show you a portrait of Alex with his head on fire.
Like, oh, wow, you know, he must be crazy because he's passionate and rambunctious about the issues and the topics he covers.
Like, for example, When Alex Jones is covering free speech issues in the digital marketplace, yeah, Alex's head is on fire!
Or at least you might think listening, because he understood before most others the implications of censorship on the Internet.
He understood that if it was going to be Alex Jones that was the test case, that it would only be the beginning.
And so he was up here as a firebrand saying, if they censor me, they censor you next.
And then they censored him.
And there was barely any backlash.
In fact, even most Republicans supported it, including on Fox News.
We have an issue with censorship now, unironically.
But you see, we understood Alex was the test case then for censorship on the internet.
Now you see where we're at four years later.
Even the President of the United States gets censored.
Congress members get censored.
Everybody getting censored.
This case that Alex is going through now is the next test case.
So just like we were all Alex Jones dealing with internet censorship, now we're all Alex Jones dealing with free speech rights and really just basic legal principles and justice in a courtroom.
Because people have to appreciate that he's been foreclosed from pleading on the basis of default for failure to produce documents, whatever.
He had been deposed multiple times.
And again, everybody, this is not to defend Alex Jones.
This is to defend the process that needs to be respected in order for there to be justice and not...
Literally, judgments in the absence of defense, because that's not a system anymore.
That's just an execution.
And Alex Jones admitted that he said things that were wrong.
I brought up one chat, which is actually, I think, quite on point.
Winning Reality says Alex was set up, yet the disinformation was calculated and organized.
The calls were mostly strategy.
They pulled him in the direction they wanted him to go.
Alex got so big, he disconnected from his face.
Maybe not that.
But the idea that, look, we know how agitators can work, how agent provocateur can work.
Knowing what they wanted to do, get someone to call in, get them to run with it, you get the soundbite, and you get Alex Jones saying something like, crisis actors, which would imply that there were actually, their kids were not actually killed and that they're acting.
And that's distressing.
I can appreciate that that's distressing.
What would be the defenses?
I'd like to hear on the merits.
What would be the quantum of the damages?
It has to be realistically correlated to what's going on.
Is the distressing part that somebody you're going to call a kook or a wacko says you're crisis actors and not the fact that your actual child was killed in this incident?
Put a quantum on it.
But there has to be a process that has to be respected.
And if it's not respected, you no longer have a judicial system.
You just have show trials like we saw with Steve Bannon.
I may be in and out of the courtroom, depending on circumstances.
Again, I'm not official counsel of record for the Connecticut lawyers and others that may be listening out there, but I'm not going to be silenced just because they would like me to be.
Now, who knows?
These judges are capable of crazy things.
If they try crazy things, I will seek my relief and remedy accordingly.
But it's a sign of where we're at.
And more people should be more concerned with this case, regardless of what they think about Sadie Hook, regardless of what they think about Alex Jones.
Because this is about the American judicial system looking like an embarrassment.
Just like the January 6th cases, and as a good bridge, just like the disgrace of a case that was the Steve Bannon trial.
Um, the idea that a lot of people had never heard of Alex Jones until Sandy Hook, a lot of people in the mainstream did it.
And I remember I only knew vaguely of Alex Jones because Howard Stern made fun of him from time to time.
So at the time of Sandy Hook, I do remember what Alex Jones was saying.
Talking about a hoax.
They were walking around the school as if it was a drill.
Floating the idea.
Entertaining a caller talking about crisis actors.
People are saying there were lies about Sandy Hook.
I'll go with the plausible Scenario, now that we've lived through a Uvalde, that maybe the reason why they rushed to destroy the school was to hide the fact that it didn't have basic safety protocol.
I can appreciate that argument, which some people might call conspiracy theory and others might just call liability theory.
But most people didn't know about Alex Jones in the mainstream until this.
It put him in the crosshairs and they're making an example of him.
And the question is, Robert, I mean, what do you think is reasonable that can be expected by way of any condemnation for the quantum?
Well, I see it as a threefold question, because one is the statute of limitations should have barred these claims.
Texas law requires you to make a correction or retraction request before suit.
That didn't happen here.
So procedurally, this case never should have been brought, period.
It should have been dismissed right out of the gate.
Secondly, the constitutional requirement of colloquium means that you have to make a specific factual statement about a specifically identified individual.
Now, sometimes you can identify that individual by image or by association rather than by name.
But here, there were too many people involved for someone to be, for them to know that it was about that person.
Third, it has to be credible.
So historically, it was your friends or others have to believe it's true about you or it doesn't, it doesn't function as defamation.
It doesn't impact your character.
Here, there's no evidence that happened at all.
There's no evidence that anybody in their community really believed that they were not real.
And in fact, the very nature of saying someone's not real is not necessarily attacking that person because you're saying they're not real in the first place.
You're saying that's somebody else up there.
So this does not fit the definition of defamation.
Procedurally, it never should have been allowed under the law.
And constitutionally, it didn't meet the standard under the First Amendment right to protection of freedom of speech in the press.
But I agree, the real story here was the reason why so many people were suspicious about what happened.
Was in part because the Obama administration chose to politically weaponize it and politicize it?
Uh, they said that, you know, people connected to them said they were going to stand on the, literally said they're going to stand on the graves of these dead kids to get gun control in America, to strip people of their Second Amendment rights.
That led to a lot of people being suspect because of the history of government false flags when they try to take away people's rights.
And the other aspect was the very peculiar behavior of the politicians in Connecticut who were hiding information from their sunshine laws.
It turned out what they were hiding was pertinent to Yuvaldi.
In that, because if the truth had come out, the politicians would have been, would have been properly judged and school safety would have dramatically improved in America, but gun control would have failed as an agenda.
So they were willing to sacrifice more kids' lives to get gun control in America.
And because what was it they didn't do?
They didn't have a basic mechanism to lock the doors from the inside.
And because they couldn't, I mean, they found the kids stacked up in bathrooms, folks.
These kids would not have been dead had they had basic safety mechanisms in place.
The school politicians, and they got away with it.
And they got away with it because the courts let them get away with it.
They got away with it because the Obama administration let them get away with it.
They got away with it because the media let them get away with it.
And part of this whole case is to blame Alex Jones for Sandy Hook, when it was the school politicians who led to Sandy Hook happening at the scale it did, and probably had something to do with Uvalde.
They didn't want people raising questions about school safety.
Don't ask any questions about whether the politicians stuffed cash in their pockets rather than spend it on kids' safety.
They didn't want to ask questions about police response times.
They didn't want questions about Big Pharma.
They didn't want questions about the kid who committed the shooting, about his poor mental health treatment.
They didn't want questions about being able to have guns, like the person in Indiana, constitutional carry.
And he had Kyle Rittenhouse level accuracy.
And that's why a lot of lives are alive today in Indiana, because he exercised that constitutional right to carry and took that guy out with some of the best shooting anybody's seen since Kyle Rittenhouse.
We all knew our government, we all knew politicians were corrupt, but we're really seeing how bad it is now.
So here's the new Democrat strategy.
Declare somebody guilty in the court of public opinion, just in general.
Not even on the basics of a certain issue or topic.
Just in general, this person is guilty in the court of public opinion.
They're bad, they're guilty.
And they run all their propaganda, and they run all their hit pieces.
You could say Alex Jones is an example.
You could say Donald Trump is an example.
You could say Steve Bannon, Roger Stone.
You could show the examples.
So they just declare you guilty, you're bad in the court of public opinion.
Then when they get you in a courtroom, they just say, oh, you're guilty.
And that's the new process.
So, innocent until proven guilty, a cornerstone Of our legal system, a cornerstone of justice in this country, innocent till proven guilty, is being thrown out the window now.
And we all know why.
So whether you love Alex Jones or you hate Alex Jones, if you don't understand the implications of saying innocent till proven guilty no longer applies here, innocent till proven guilty, we're going to take that cornerstone out of our Justice and Legal System Foundation.
If you don't understand how that hurts you, if you don't understand how that goes beyond Alex Jones, whether you love him or hate him, then you have been blinded.
You have been lobotomized.
And you have been propagandized into celebrating your own demise.
And a lot of that goes on, specifically in reference to liberals and democrats, They celebrate getting rid of the First Amendment.
They celebrate getting rid of the Second Amendment.
And they don't even understand how they're celebrating their own demise.
It's incredible levels of propaganda.
And they just think, Oh!
We got Alex Jones!
I got Alex Jones!
Not even a victory for them!
They don't know Alex Jones.
They don't even listen to Alex Jones.
They don't know anything about Alex Jones.
But they just are told, Alex Jones is bad!
And if we get Alex Jones, that's a victory for me!
Even if I have to sacrifice my own prosperity, my own future, my own rights!
I got Alex Jones!
I feel accomplished!
Not understanding how Alex's fate is their own fate.
So we go back to the legal experts now, again, on why people should be concerned about this case.
So I'm here to defend Alex Jones in the court of public opinion, because I believe in him, because Alex Jones is innocent of a lot of the claims that have been made against him.
And when we get to damages, even if you say, OK, I think this case should have gone on.
I don't believe in the constitutional defense.
I don't believe in the procedural defense.
I don't believe in the statutory rights.
Okay.
How much money is Alex Jones supposed to pay?
Some of the people that are suing are like not even related to people who died there.
Is everybody supposed to just start getting big checks?
Big checks?
Even though they never complained at the time about Alex Jones?
I mean, we kind of all know that these are fraudulent complaints.
These people didn't suffer great emotional trauma because of what Alex Jones said.
They're lying about it.
And they think, I mean, I suffered a lot of tragedies in my lifetime.
You know what?
That doesn't give me a right to line my pockets with other people's money.
And it doesn't give me the right to take away other people's rights.
And everybody's scared because like, man, these people suffered a horrible trauma.
Again, some of the people suing didn't.
Some of them are just like FBI guys.
What a crock.
But for those that did suffer a horrible trauma, yeah, that's terrible.
It doesn't give you the right to line your pockets with other people's money.
For trauma, you know you didn't really suffer because of what they said.
And it doesn't give you the right to take away other people's rights, the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the Second Amendment, just because you don't like what happened.
And so, at some point, trauma, this victim identification idea, that, hey, I'm a victim, I'm now morally superior.
I'm a victim, now I get to dictate to everybody what's going to happen with their rights.
Now I get to demand money from other people, like reparations, like other things.
I don't agree with that as a fundamental premise.
And it scared too many people off from defending Alex Jones in these cases, because they're like, jeez, I don't want to be on the side against the Sandy Hook parents.
And I'm just, I'm tired of it, to be honest with you.
No, no, and Robert, I can tell you, like, the pushback I got from even the prospect of having Alex Jones on for a sidebar with you, people just, they have a misconception of Alex Jones to begin with, but setting that aside, one thing I want to touch on.
I remember at the time, The parents who were suing and the plaintiffs who were suing said that they were receiving harassment.
They were getting stalked and doxxed and harassed by people who were incited or influenced or motivated by Alex Jones's discourse.
I remember hearing it at the time and just taking it for granted.
But now I wonder in retrospect whether or not that was accurate.
So like Megyn Kelly once reported, it's in the new Alex's War documentary, which is a pretty solid documentary, which I saw this weekend at the premiere with Alex and some other folks.
It's not a pro-Alex documentary, but it's a pretty reasonable one in terms of being balanced and appropriate.
But in that documentary, it repeated what Megyn Kelly had said, where a defense lawyer for someone had blamed InfoWars for this person stalking somebody that was connected to Sandy Hook.
Problem is, if you dig into the record, that wasn't really true.
That was a defense lawyer looking for an excuse that he thought a liberal judge would buy as to go down on sentencing.
InfoWars, because, and how you would know that?
Because if you actually followed and read InfoWars at the time, you knew that Paul Joseph Watson, the editor of InfoWars, was always critical of anybody who raised questions about Sandy Hook.
You knew how often InfoWars said Sandy Hook happened.
You knew that through most of the time period, Alex Jones always said InfoWars said that Sandy Hook happened.
So you knew how that was an exceptional and occasional and rare and not customary opinion.
So you knew that his people weren't behind any of it.
And to my knowledge, wait for trial.
My guess is they will not produce one person who will say that they did anything bad directly to the Sandy Hook people because of Alex Jones and Enforce.
And they've had years to develop the evidence.
Over 10 years now, there'll be zero evidence to support that media myth.
Yeah, I mean, I was talking to a friend of mine here in Austin about some cases of his that have gone crazy.
And it's because the lawyers are overwhelmingly from the professional managerial class that thinks they're God's gift to the universe, that thinks they're here to tell you what to do in your life.
That's how they handle their own cases and clients.
And they think they're right, and they think they should govern the rest of us.
Just read Gorsuch's wonderful footnote in his concurring opinion in West Virginia vs. EPA, where he describes this was Woodrow Wilson's mindset in the 19-teens.
This has been the progressive, so-called progressive movement, was always a professional, managerial class movement to govern the rest of us.
And as Mark Grobaer recently pointed out, On his answering questions about the JFK assassination with Eric Hunley, on America's Untold Stories, where you can find on YouTube, and at unstructured.locals.com, where they put up a lot of inside information, text, a whole bunch of stuff.
We will be live with them probably a week from Friday for the monthly Freeform Friday Show that's always fun and educational, sometimes in surprising ways.
But as he pointed out, in Eisenhower's farewell address, One of the things he highlighted was not just the military-industrial complex, but he said this new professional class, managerial class running things is probably a problem because of how they will arrogate power to themselves for arrogance.
That's how lawyers are taught and trained.
That's the socioeconomic class that they currently occupy.
That's the class that they come from, overwhelmingly.
Very few working class kids go to law school these days.
And so those of us who are more populist or people oriented or little d democratic oriented, unfortunately, we are the rare exception, as Little Rock mentions, in the practice and profession of law.
It's why people like Alex Jones have such trouble even finding lawyers willing to defend him.
And I have been the only lawyer willing to defend him in the court of public opinion.
And I was doing it before I was his lawyer.
I've done it after I was no longer his legal counsel in these cases.
And that's because he's right.
And it's because America deserves better than what we're getting.
And because I believe in the rule of law.
And what we saw in the District of Columbia this week was not respect for the rule of law.
I'm a self-employed 66-year-old senior who last November moved from the suburbs of Detroit to lead the Nazi governor.
Moved to the panhandle of Florida.
At the time, my family and friends thought I'd lost my mind.
They no longer think that way, but at the time, they did.
And I want to say, God bless you.
Stay on the air.
The devil is a liar.
I'm going to plug one of your products.
I listen all the time, and I heard this guy talking about the iodine supplement, X2, saying, well, he's been taking it, and his memory's getting better, and he's having dreams.
And I'm like, yeah, maybe.
So I had to go back to Michigan for three weeks for business.
I came back, and for a week, I had massive sinus headache, massive sinus condition, and a earache that was driving me nuts.
I said, you know what?
I tried the X2, I had just gotten it.
Two days later, earache was gone, sinuses were cleared, no headaches.
I couldn't believe it.
The stuff is real, it works.
So anyways, I wanna thank you for all that.
unidentified
(upbeat music)
There's a lot of controversy around this network about Alex Jones, for example.
Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist who is apparently...
And that's why I don't joke around as much as I used to.
Even though I tell people, OK, this is a joke, this isn't serious, they clip it out and they say, no, this is what he really believes.
Every day when I leave work, I do this.
That man's a threat to this country.
And they go, look, he admitted in court he's an actor.
Well, yeah, I was an actor in Scanner Darkly.
I was an actor in Waking Life.
I was an actor when I was Cobra Commander.
But it doesn't mean that Alex Jones, the talk show host, up here reading news articles to you isn't a real thing and isn't something I'm actually saying.
And we've got Robert Barnes in studio with us now.
We just heard from him on the Viva Free podcast.
Great legal breakdown.
And in the next segment, what I want to do is kind of a simulation.
Now, Bob is not representing Alex in any cases.
He's not legal counsel here.
He's just here as just independent legal commentary, let's just say.
And so I want to kind of do a simulation in the next segment of what would your opening statements be just as a lawyer that's neutral, not involved in this case.
But before we do that, it's hard to really Talk about the implications of this case, right?
Because we're still in the present.
I mean, we're still dealing with it now, just like when Alex was being censored.
Yeah, we can talk about, we think they're going to censor the president next.
They're going to censor members of Congress.
But people didn't really believe those implications.
They couldn't really see them coming.
It's kind of a hard thing to foresight.
But now we have a test case with the censorship, and I think a test case with what's going on in court.
How do we properly lay out the implications of the results of this court case with Alex Jones so that the American public doesn't get bamboozled into thinking, hey, if we get Alex Jones scalped, that's a victory.
But to understand, no, there's much bigger implications for the average American and for the country than just Alex Jones or Alex Jones-like people or supporters.
I mean, this case is about the power of the American judicial system to strip you of all of your core rights and liberties when somebody accuses you of doing something wrong.
Because if they can do it to Alex Jones, just like what happened with social media, they can do it to you.
And the goal is to prove that they can strip you of all of your rights of due process of law.
Those rights include the rights to bring things like motions to dismiss, motions for anti-slap motions, motions for summary judgment, your right to seek discovery, your right of privacy against invasive discovery.
All of those rights have been violated in the case of Alex Jones and every court that has adjudicated these Sandy Hook cases, both in Austin, Texas and in Connecticut.
But it's not just that.
They've also stripped him of his right to appeal some of those rulings.
A right to an appeal and anti-slap motion in the case of Connecticut.
A right to appeal a summary judgment motion in the case of Texas.
Not only that, they've also now stripped him of his right to trial by jury.
There's a reason why the Magna Carta's fundamental assertion, the most critical, essential, procedural right to guarantee substantive freedoms and liberties, was the right to trial by jury.
What has happened here?
He is not allowed to have a right of trial by jury on the substantive merits of the suit.
He is not even allowed to have a right of trial by jury on many issues that are legally related to whether or not he caused any damages to the people seeking relief in the court.
And that's going to keep going further, as we probably will see and witness in the jury selection process.
The court is likely to preclude and exclude those jurors who are capable of being impartial, and try to stack the jury with prejudiced jurors who have a preconceived conclusion about the case, further inflamed by the judge's ruling.
So this is about, does the rule of law still govern in America?
Do you still have a right of trial by jury?
Do you have a right of due process of law?
Do you have a right of privacy?
Because if they strip those rights from Alex Jones, you're next.
What happens in the court of public opinion now with the power of the mainstream media, which is just totally allied with the Democrat Party.
I mean, you want to talk about collusion, you want to talk about fascism, there it is, the media and the Democrat Party, where I have friends, and this is what I say is the power of it, I have friends that know me, have known me my entire life.
And they'll find some media story about me, and if they even have the courage, they'll send it to me and say, hey, what's going on?
But more often the case is, they see it and they start talking with other people about how I'm bad and how I did this and they can't believe I would do this stuff.
It's like, you know me.
You know me, and they still fall for the propaganda.
They still say, oh wow, Owen Troy I've known him my whole life, no he's not this, no he's not that, but oh my gosh, I just saw this hit piece and now everything changes my mind.
So I've seen in real time how the court of public opinion can be swayed so easily with the propaganda media.
But, here's an example, and I think this is kind of a, it'll tell us where we're at as far as how it impacts the legal system.
Now this might be a stretch, because the cases are obviously different, but I look at the O.J.
Simpson trial.
O.J.
Simpson is still guilty in the court of public opinion.
He's not going to be found guilty in a court of law.
Why?
Because in that process, police planted evidence, tampered with the crime scene, and the judge said, I'm not, like, that's it!
He could be guilty of sin, but the fact that you tampered with evidence, the fact that you planted evidence, you tampered with the crime scene, I can't listen to anything, you can't be trusted, the case is done.
So O.J.
Simpson, guilty in the court of public opinion, but because the way the actual legal system works and the prosecutors blew the case, the police blew the case, O.J.
Simpson's walks.
So now I think we have kind of the different thing where They want to build the court of opinion of guilty against Alex Jones, but then in the process, doesn't even matter!
Doesn't matter what they find in the process.
He's guilty, we're going to rule him guilty.
The decision is not whether he's innocent or guilty, but how guilty he is.
And that's why they have stripped him of his ability to defend himself.
That's why they've stripped him of all of his procedural remedies.
That's why they don't want... I mean, imagine, here you have an Austin Democratic liberal jury.
That's Austin, Texas.
Very liberal jury pool.
Connecticut, very liberal jury pool.
The courts Are so scared and terrified of even a liberal democratic jury hearing the actual evidence in the case that they are preventing Alex Jones from giving them any of that evidence, even making argument about it, even asking questions about it.
So what's going to happen in this case is they're going to try to rig the jury pool, and after they try to rig the jury pool, they're going to tell the jury the only evidence the jury is going to be allowed to hear is the trauma of the plaintiff.
Trauma that doesn't relate to Alex Jones.
But Alex Jones' lawyers will not even be allowed to ask them whether something else might have caused their trauma.
Or whether or not many of these people have been all over TV news all over the place.
So, I mean, did public discussion of their name concern them when they were publicly disclosing their own name everywhere?
So, but those questions can't even be asked!
You can't ask the same honest questions you could in any other courtroom in America and any other comparable case in America.
This is all unparalleled and unprecedented.
There is no example of denying a party their ability to say, hey, I'm innocent.
Denying a party saying, hey, I didn't cause you those injuries.
Hey, I didn't intend any harm to you.
Hey, by the way, I didn't do 90% of the things that you think I did.
So, I mean, for example, Watch, in this trial there will be no evidence, this is my prediction right now, there will be no evidence that anybody stalked or directly harassed any of these plaintiffs at the demand or request of Alex Jones.
That will turn out to have been a huge lie.
Well they don't want the world to know that's a huge lie.
So what do they do?
They don't allow Alex Jones to talk about it.
They don't allow him to present evidence of it.
They don't allow him to testimony in his own behalf on it.
They don't allow his lawyers to even talk about it to the jury or ask questions of witnesses.
This is a rigged trial.
This is, I said it looks like 19th century Australia.
All kangaroos and railroads.
And that's precisely what this case looks like.
And it is a disgrace to the rule of law.
And people have asked why do I speak out about it when I don't represent Infowars, I don't represent Alex Jones.
This is my own independent opinion on the subject.
It is because it is an outrage to the rule of law that should scare and terrify every American that this can happen.
And we need to call it out in the court of a public opinion, expose it for the fraud on the law that it is, so that we ultimately maybe can get justice to the legislative process or the appellate process.
Well, and it's like a bait-and-switch, or like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, when he has to take the gold trinket out and put the bag on it, where it's like, okay, here's somebody that's suffering greatly because the loss of life, suffering greatly because of a tragedy, and that's there on the podium, and you say, look, they're suffering, this is a horrible tragedy, but then you, oop, take that away and put Alex Jones there and say, see?
Now I do want to do a kind of simulation mock opening statement with Bob Barnes today, but I actually want to stick on that comment when we come back, because the jury selection process here is obviously going to be extremely important, maybe even the most important part, quite frankly, considering how this is going to go.
So Bob Barnes in studio with us.
We're going to do a simulated opening statement from Bob Barnes eventually with us here today, but let's come back and talk about the jury selection process, because most people don't even understand how that works.
So let's get into that.
All right, we're going to do a mock, kind of simulated opening statement here with Bob Barnes as we continue on the Alex Jones Show.
But I want to stick with the process of jury selection, something a lot of Americans aren't really aware of.
They don't understand how it goes down.
They don't understand the importance, the implication.
I just so happen to have worked for lawyers and been in jury selection process twice, so I kind of have an idea of what goes on.
And for a lot of cases, Jury selection really is the most important part of the case, and it might not seem that way, but really it is, especially with trial cases that end up with a jury verdict, which is what could be the case for Alex Jones here.
So, we're in the process of the jury selection right now, Bob.
Just kind of go through the basics, just legal 101, what is the jury selection process like, and then Why is it so important?
Why do lawyers and judges really spend a lot of time making sure they get the jury selection process right?
Well, it reflects an old principle that I like to say, which is motivation is the master of reason, reason is not the master of motivation.
What that means is if you want to improve your reasoning, shift your motivation.
Theoretically, that's what we're taught as lawyers to do, though increasingly your woke crowd is not even capable of doing so.
So what does that mean?
It means jurors come in with preordained beliefs about your case.
They often are not consciously aware of their own beliefs.
Some are, and some will lie to get on the jury, as has, I think, happened in the Steve Bannon trial, and happened in the Roger Stone trial.
But some just don't, are not aware of their bias.
You know, it's like, if you meet a certain kind of person, if you meet somebody that's a woke liberal on the issues related to this case, as an example.
Someone who hates guns.
Someone who believes the Second Amendment shouldn't exist.
Someone who's got eight veto signs in their front yard.
Someone who believes that the speech should be restricted.
Someone who believes in safe spaces.
Your classic sort of COVID Karen kind of personality.
That kind of person is not going to be an impartial jury.
But they will often say they are and some of them actually may think they will be.
So that's the first reality is that the jury is the one to make the decisions and jurors come in with preconceptions and preconceived biases that will often shape the case and they will filter evidence in accordance with it.
I call it a memento memory.
In other words, most jurors that walk in are like from the movie Memento.
They remember what they want to remember and they don't remember what they don't want to remember.
It's like any political debate you've ever engaged in with anybody of the opposite side or opposite party.
That's part one.
Now, why do we have trial by jury in America?
It's because it was first established in the Magna Carta.
It was an old principle, which is, you should only be tried by the other members of your community who can fairly and fully assess what you've done, whether it was right or wrong, and what injury it may have caused, and what remedy is appropriate and proportionate.
So that goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.
It's in the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
It's applied to the states through the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Amendments, and then the states have their own constitutional protections for trial by jury, as both Connecticut and Texas do.
And what it means is on any question that is about whether you were morally right, whether you caused injury, what the remedy for injury would be, a jury is supposed to decide that.
Now, historically in America, juries were allowed to decide sentences as well as whether somebody committed a crime.
They're able to decide the law as well as the so-called facts.
The court system has usurped that from the jury because leave it to the courts to say, ah, we think we should have that exclusive power, not the jury.
And because the only party around to enforce the right to trial by jury are the courts themselves, surprise, surprise, courts decided to monopolize that part of the power, the power to determine law to themselves.
So now in America, jurors only get to decide, because of the court system, the facts.
But in the case of Alex Jones, they're not even being allowed to hear those facts in order to determine those facts.
Now, the other important part of jury selection is you're entitled to an impartial jury.
So the jury's supposed to represent the venue that you're from, the community, a fair representation of the local communities, part one.
Part two is they're supposed to be impartial.
In other words, they don't come in with a preconceived bias in the case.
The reality is very few jurors in America are even capable of being impartial in most politically motivated cases.
And so in a case like this, the jurors' preconceived political bias will heavily shape whether they can be impartial or not.
The reality is even Alex Jones fans are actually much more capable of being impartial in this case because they're willing to see whether he did right or wrong, whether an injury happened, and whether remedy is appropriate.
You're Alex Jones haters or not.
They're not willing to listen to the evidence, they're not willing to judge it impartially, they're not willing to make a judgment consistent with the facts and the law.
And so, the hard part for Alex Jones lawyers in court today is, can you find an impartial jury in Austin, Texas?
When there's been all this inflammatory, prejudicial coverage in the media.
Because that's the other aspect that's important in your right to an impartial jury that's representative of the community includes your right to a jury that hasn't heard about the case outside of the case that has biased them in certain conclusions.
And that is a critical and equally essential component of your right, constitutional right to trial by jury, because in the end, it's constitutional democracy preserved.
How do we best protect our freedoms and liberties?
Who do we give power to?
Because that's what, often a question isn't who has a right to something, it's who do we give power to?
Do we give power to unelected judges?
Do we give power to elected judges?
Do we give power to appellate or Supreme Court or district court judges?
Do we give power to the executive branch?
Do we give power to the legislative branch?
Or do we instead give power to 12 ordinary everyday people who will impartially judge the facts and morality of the case and come to a conclusion and judgment of the community?
Our forefathers said the only people we could really trust To protect our freedom, to protect our liberty, is an impartial 12 members of our local community.
That's why trial by jury is so essential.
It's not just about this case.
It's not just about future cases.
It's about the future of freedom and liberty in America.
And just kind of a practical example of this, when I first was selected for jury duty, it was a gentleman who got caught with, I think it was some crack cocaine or something in the streets of St.
Louis.
And part of the question they asked me, they say, have you ever been arrested for a drug offense before?
I said, yes, I was when I was younger in college.
Immediately, they don't want me on the case because they know I'm going to have a bias against police.
They then did some follow-ups and I said, I'm against the war on drugs.
I probably would let this guy walk even if he was found guilty.
I said he shouldn't.
So immediately I was struck from that jury.
So that's kind of part of the process.
Okay, well, you know, this guy's got a bias maybe against police.
This guy, you know, is against the war on drugs.
We don't want him on our jury.
And then in the other case, it was a longer white collar crime.
I think it was money laundering or something.
And the lawyer that I was working for at the time was like, if you land on this jury, you're going to be for months.
This case is going to go on forever.
So he's like, you should probably just say the word jury nullification a couple times Just slide it in there and they won't put you on the jury.
And they were right.
And that's a good process because it is a way to get an impartial jury.
That's just the way it goes.
Now, the one question I have here, and you can answer this quickly because I don't hear it brought up often, but...
What about even the jury duty process?
I mean, is there a chance that that could be rigged?
Is there a chance like Bannon's case, Stone's case, or any other cases where they could make sure that even in the jury duty selection that they kind of even have a impartial just base to choose from?
So, in the defense of Alex Jones, the opening statement really is kind of simple and straightforward.
Why are the jurors there?
The real reason, and what everybody really kind of wanted to know, is what exactly happened in the case of Sandy Hook?
And what jurors mostly don't know, what most ordinary people don't know, is what happened in terms of the cover-up of Sandy Hook by politicians connected to Sandy Hook.
And why people were suspicious of what was going on at Sandy Hook.
The reason was because the school system had pocketed money meant for school safety.
And in fact they did not even have the mechanisms and means in place for the teachers to be able to lock their doors to prevent a shooter from coming in the room.
Or even coming into the bathroom where some of them within the classroom also didn't have a lock on the door where they could even try to keep the children safe.
That big lie about the local politicians keeping the schools safe when they had not, when they had failed a fundamental test, was the number one thing the politicians in Sandy Hook had to cover up.
And they had the willing complicity of the press, the willing complicity of the Obama White House.
Because they wanted the blame to all shift to the gun and the gun manufacturer and Second Amendment rights in America.
That being the cause of the traumatic, tragic death of these young children.
Rather than politicians pocketing money meant for school safety and failing to employ effective school safety mechanisms that would come to haunt Americans in other places all across the country because of those schools' lack of effective school safety systems in years to come.
And because of it, they covered up information related to Open Records Act, Sunshine Laws, FOIA requests, etc.
And that, in turn, triggered a lot of people's concerns and questions that led them down, often, the erroneous path as to what had happened in Sandy Hook.
But people asking questions as to what was really going on and what really happened is something we should want to have happen in America.
We shouldn't want to discourage and dissuade asking basic core questions about big public events that impact things as important as the school safety of young children.
So why are we here in this case?
We're here in this case because the objective is to blame Alex Jones for the horrifying tragedy and trauma that occurred in Sandy Hook.
But Alex Jones wasn't the person who decided not to use school safety mechanisms effectively.
Alex Jones isn't the person who decided not to lock the doors or even provide a means to lock the doors for school children.
Alex Jones isn't the one who failed to have an effective school safety response system or school safety personnel located at the scene.
Alex Jones is not the one that is the one who pulled the trigger.
Alex Jones is not the one who, in fact Alex Jones was the one, exposing questions about big pharma and poor mental health of young disturbed men in America.
Alex Jones was the one talking about the glorification of violence in video games and in aspects of Hollywood that is meant to create these kind of problems rather than cure these kind of problems.
Alex Jones is the one talking about the necessity for school safety to be real and meaningful, and that often means having good people with guns available to defend against bad people with guns.
Alex Jones raised questions.
Some of his questions, by his own acknowledgement, by his own admission, he didn't get right.
Nobody is 100% right.
But what Alex Jones didn't do is cause the death of these young children.
What Alex Jones didn't do was fail to put basic school safety tests in place.
What Alex Jones didn't do was many of the things that people have assumed he did or blamed him for.
Alex Jones simply raised questions.
And some of those questions were on the right track.
And they were questions the press should have been asking, but wasn't.
Our politicians should have been asking, but weren't.
And our public was entitled to answers to, but didn't get.
And so instead, they want you to say that because of the horrific tragedy that happened that day, just blame Alex Jones.
Don't blame anybody else.
Don't blame Big Pharma.
Don't blame the media.
Don't blame the school safety officials.
Don't blame the politicians.
Don't blame the people that are not treating the mental health of our young men well.
Don't blame any of that.
Instead, just blame Alex Jones because he asked questions and some of the questions didn't turn out to be right, but some of them turned out to be very right.
And that is why you're really here.
And it's the attempt to say that any emotional trauma experienced by anybody connected to that tragedy is solely and wholly the fault of Alex Jones.
When Alex Jones isn't the reason why that Sandy Hook happened, just like Alex Jones isn't the real reason we're here.
We're here because this case is about your right to ask questions, your right to demand answers, your right to get meaningful remedies.
That's why we're really here.
They want to deny you, the American people, the right to ask those questions.
They want to deny you, the American people, the right to demand answers.
They want to deny you, the American people, the means to be able to best protect our young children.
And that's why we're here.
So the only verdict is a verdict that affirms our right to ask questions, that affirms our right to demand answers, and that affirms the right to meaningful school safety protection in America.
And that is not aided by suppressing those questions, censoring those answers, or putting Alex Jones in a permanent gag box.
Now, let's think about the precedent that could be set here.
Now, there might not be a law written, right?
But, oh, Alex Jones questions a major event, his entire life is destroyed, his company is destroyed, he's bankrupted, we all know the story.
Well, guess what?
You don't need to write a law for people to see that and say, boy, I'm not going to question anything if they do that to Alex.
But let's just take a look at recent history.
Jussie Smollett fakes a hate crime.
Well, are you allowed to question that?
Or is that propaganda allowed to persist as fact, even though we all know it was fake?
What about Russian collusion?
Remember Russian collusion?
Donald Trump, Russian collusion?
Totally fake news, totally made up.
Are you not allowed to question that?
So propaganda can become fact and influence policy?
What about the Uvalde shooting?
We now know the cops stood down.
It was a good guy with a gun that had to bring down the shooter and save lives.
What if you weren't able to question that?
We wouldn't know about the horrific police response that day.
What about the Hunter Biden laptop?
They said, oh, that's not real.
It's Russian misinformation.
It's Russian propaganda.
Don't look at that.
Don't question that.
The laptop was very real.
So we have all... This is just modern history.
I mean, we're not even getting into the Gulf of Tonkin and other false flags that have led to wars.
I think the USS Liberty and all these other incidents.
So, setting the precedent of someone gets to run propaganda, someone gets to run with a lie, you don't get to question it, and then that propaganda, that lie, is able to influence policy, which is then able to influence permanent law, and it's all based off a false flag, it's all based off of a lie.
So, if they can set that precedent in this case, whether they have to write laws or not, There's going to be major impact when it comes to free speech and media coverage of big events in this country, and quite frankly, the world, depending on how this case goes.
And for people to understand out there, just look at what the Texas Court of Appeals said.
They said, and you look at some of the questions that Alex Jones has been asked, it's if you question any narrative approved by the government, and anybody feels offended Uh, has hurt feelings over your questioning the institutional narrative.
They can now sue you into bankruptcy because they don't like your questions.
And the, it is much more important to have the right to question than it is to preclude people from asking the wrong questions.
And that's what this case is all about.
Just because somebody doesn't get every question right, doesn't get every answer right, is no reason, is no justification to stop them from asking questions and demanding answers in the first place.
For all the great historical reasons we know about.
What if you couldn't ask about whether vaccines were really safe and effective?
What if you couldn't ask about whether a war is really justified or necessary?
We need these questions.
We need Alex Joneses of the world asking those questions because we, the American people, demand answers and we're entitled to them.
All right, final segment here with Bob Barnes, who is going to be covering this trial as it's ongoing.
It could last weeks.
Who knows how long it could go, folks?
A lot of stuff.
We're just beginning the process now.
And again, to clarify, Bob Barnes is not representing us.
He's just here as his own legal commentator.
And he hosts podcasts and stuff as well.
But you know, let's kind of get into the defamation angle of this.
Not even necessarily directly involved with the Jones case here, but just as a more general coverage of defamation.
Because I've looked into this.
I, uh, when I had to get my degree in media, actually the hardest college class I ever took was media law.
I mean, my God, people that, I mean, you know how much you have to read when you go through law school.
That was the one law class I took.
It was like ridiculous how much we had to learn.
Um, but I learned about defamation.
I learned more about it working.
For an attorney growing up, and here's what my understanding of defamation was, and I still believe it is the case, designed this way.
It is so hard to win a defamation case.
It is one of the hardest cases that you can possibly win, and that's why you don't really see or hear much about it.
Here's an example.
I could, I could go right now and I could present dozens, maybe even hundreds of cases of articles and videos and all this stuff of how I've been defamed.
Lies about me, hit pieces against me, they're everywhere.
Now I've brought this to lawyers and you know what the challenge is?
They say, okay, well, there's no doubt that there's an aspect of defamation here.
The problem is, how do you prove losses in court?
How do you prove that because somebody said this or somebody said that, even if they know they're lying, even if it's clearly false information, How do you prove financial damages in court?
Because that's really what the defamation law comes down to, right?
Is, okay, well, you've been defamed.
What did it cost you?
We're going to give you a reward for the damages.
So, sure, I could go into a court of law, present dozens of cases of how I've been defamed, but then how do I equate that to potential lost earnings?
Because that's one of the hardest things to prove.
Potential lost earnings is one of the hardest things to prove, so you don't really see that in the court of law very often.
Generally speaking, that's how I understand defamation.
What's your understanding and background of being involved in the legal process for decades of defamation, and then how does it apply modern day, and how do you see its application changing over the years?
So I've been doing this work on both sides, plaintiffs and defense side, in the defamation context because of its constitutional implications for freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, for the better part of a quarter century.
I represented the Covington kids.
Now let's use that as an example.
There the Covington kids were targeted by a bunch of powerful people.
Lied about.
They tried to destroy their lives, their careers, their futures.
They ended up being subject to death threats and firebombing.
Something that was a really direct connection compared to what I think the evidence will show in this case involving Alex Jones and Sandy Hook.
And what happened?
Judges said, nope, you can't sue.
They said, you can't sue because of this or that or something else.
That gives you an idea.
Those kids are having to go through the appellate process, going to have to go through the legislative reform process to ever get meaningful remedy.
Yet here, in the Sandy Hook cases, they've obliterated all of those rules limiting the constitutional scope of defamation.
So what's what, so defamation is supposed to be when you make a specifically false statement of fact about a specifically identified individual that leads, that causes them both emotional harm and reputational harm in their local community.
And that you do so with a certain state of mind, a certain mens rea, what is usually called malice.
And in this case it's reckless disregard of the truth.
That you knew at the time you made the statement basically that the statement wasn't true or likely to be true about that individual.
Now look at this, and there's the constitutional requirement of what's called colloquium.
This goes all the way back to the New York Times versus Sullivan.
This is why I don't believe any of the cases against Alex Jones, should he even be in court, in a constitutionally honest court, would have thrown out these cases years ago.
Why do I say that?
Because there's a requirement under the Constitution, as the court, the U.S.
Supreme Court said in New York Times vs. Sullivan, that you must make a specifically false statement about a specified individual.
In that particular case, they made a statement about a group.
But generally this is called group libel, is not recognized constitutionally or under the tort law of defamation in individual states.
It needs to be about, sufficiently about you that people knew it was about you.
Not you because you're a group of 100 or a group of 50 or a group of 200.
That it's really about you.
Goes all the way back to a case in New York.
Where they, one group of people made false statements about a group of salesmen of which there were only 10 in that department.
There are other false statements made about a group in which there were more than 50.
Then the court said, in the group that's more than 50, they don't know the statements about you, that's too many people.
In the group that's 10, okay, they probably do think the statements about you because that's sufficiently few.
So look at the Sandy Hook cases.
In the Sandy Hook cases, and almost all of them, there's no allegation that Alex Jones said a specifically false fact about a specific individual.
Not there.
So what did the court say?
The court said we're going to ignore the constitutional requirement of colloquium.
We're going to ignore the tort law of defamation.
We're going to ignore the intentional infliction of emotional distress limitations on torts
and say that now you can sue if you're part of any group that somebody could look you
up on the Internet and see whether maybe you're part of that group, even if that group is
a hundred or two hundred or three hundred or a thousand or more.
This is in direct refutation and a direct opposition to every court case in the history
of the country on class libel claims.
So they have made special standards for Alex Jones.
Not only is he not allowed due process of law, not only is he not allowed trial by jury, not only is he not allowed to say he's innocent in a case, not only is he not allowed to an impartial jury process, he's also not allowed to have the same constitutional and tort protections that have applied to everybody from time immemorial in terms of governing libel laws.
So that's why it goes to anybody could be put at risk now.
So you go out there and you make a statement.
About that can be a reference to a broad group of people.
So let's say you go out there and say, you know what?
COVID vaccines are not vaccines.
They're not safe.
They're not effective.
Now, somebody who feels injured by that can now, under existing Texas law, the Alex Jones exception to the First Amendment, the Alex Jones exception to the Constitution, the Alex Jones exception to due process, the Alex Jones exception to trial by jury, Now suddenly you can be individually and separately sued for any hurt emotions they feel and they can pick a politicized venue that is weaponized against you in the judicial and jury process.
And that is why this case is so dangerous and consequential.
Because constitutionally it puts the First Amendment at risk.
Constitutionally, it puts due process at risk.
Constitutionally, it puts the right to trial by jury at risk.
But also, it's gutting the purpose and principle of defamation law.
And the real purpose is to make government-identified misinformation.
In other words, what people in power call misinformation, to allow individuals to weaponize the legal system, to allow individuals to sue you into oblivion and bankruptcy, into permanent censorship and suppression of information, because you are a dissident.
It is basically converting defamation law into dissident heresy laws.
Basically, Alex Jones is on trial for heresy.
That's what it really is.
And that's what they're trying to do to everybody, ultimately, using Alex Jones as the means to do so.
But hey, if it puts money in my pocket, and if it hurts my political opposition, then oh, let's do it anyway.
Now here's what I'm concerned about, because here's the pattern that I've seen, is that defamation is just going to become another legal tool for the Democrat Party to destroy its opposition.
Basically, only one side of the aisle gets to use it.
Here's some other examples.
Uh, contempt of court or contempt of Congress.
Eric Holder?
He gets to walk, no charges.
Steve Bannon?
He gets arrested.
How about disruption of Congress?
David Hogg?
He gets to disrupt Congress.
Never arrested, never charged, nothing.
Owen Schroer, though?
I'm still in court three years later for doing it.
How about illegal entry to the Capitol?
Stephen Colbert's staffers?
Eh, good for them.
Charges dropped, no harm, no foul.
But if you were a Trump supporter, American patriot, you're still in jail, you're suffering the full extent of the law.
Is defamation going to become the new legal weapon of the Democrats to destroy their opposition when it never is applied to them?
It's going to be a one-side selective means of prosecution and suppression.
What it is, it's recreating the old church, recreating old heresy trials, and being able to lock up dissident thinkers, suppress dissident thinkers, censor dissident thinkers, using lawfare, weaponized lawfare, to do it.
As I've told people, Alex Jones was in business for 25 years, never faced a meaningful lawsuit of any kind.
Then Donald J. Trump wins office to the presidency of the United States.
People realize how influential Alex Jones' audience is.
So they decide to try to take out the audience by trying to take out Alex Jones.
And that's why I say the front line to Alex Jones that was supposed to break is you, the audience.
It's people who continue to go to InfoWars store and make themselves healthier, wealthier, and wiser by buying products that are good for them, that keep Alex Jones on the air.
And you weren't supposed to do that.
You were supposed to fold, you were supposed to capitulate, you were supposed to, when you heard Revere's cry, supposed to hide under your bed, not get your musket and get out and ready to defend the country.
Because ordinary everyday people have rallied to the cry of Alex Jones and defend Alex Jones.
The only way they're going to censor and suppress Alex Jones is if they stop his heart from beating.
Because as long as his heart is beating, freedom and Alex Jones will stay alive.
And that's only possible because you, the audience, helped make it possible.
And if we don't turn it around soon, then it will only get worse.
But as bad as things are, we still have time to prepare.
And that alone is something to be grateful for.
A gravity water filter will provide you with clean, healthy water, even in the event of your taps getting shut off.
And having your own food will save you from getting ensnared in government FEMA camps.
And if you've already stocked up enough for your own family, you might want to consider stocking up for your neighbors.
Some of your neighbors might not be prepared for what's coming, but you can help them by having an abundance of storable foods and water filtration.
Whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
unidentified
Stock up now at preparetoday.com The Bannon conviction, if this is treated like an ordinary case, two misdemeanors in the District of Columbia, at most probation.
What do you think of this verdict and what do you think of what's likely to happen to him?
And then if the defendant violates the judicial order, obviously that becomes a crime.
That didn't happen here.
That didn't happen in the Navarro case.
And the Supreme Court's going to have to resolve that issue.
And I think it was, we resolve it in favor of requiring a judicial order
before Congress can hold somebody in contempt.
unidentified
That's a major constitutional issue.
Take the United States today.
It is living under a kind of totalitarian culture which has never existed in my lifetime and is much worse in many ways than the Soviet Union before Gorbachev.
Go back to the 1970s, people in Soviet Russia could access BBC, Voice of America, German television, if they wanted to find out the news.
If today, in the United States, you want to find out what Prime Minister Lavrov of Russia is saying, Can't do it.
It's barred.
Americans are not permitted to hear what Russians are saying.
Can't get Russian television.
Can't access Russian sources.
That means also that fine American journalists, like Chris Hedges, one of the best, is cut out, barred from Americans, because he happens to have a program running on RT, Russian television.
You want to find out what The adversary is sane, which is of utmost importance.
You can maybe tune into Indian state television and find it out.
You can read it on Al Jazeera.
But the United States has imposed constraints on freedom of access to information, which are astonishing, and which in fact go beyond what was the case in Post-Stalinist Soviet Russia.
I mean, even Alan Dershowitz, even Noam Chomsky, Russell Brand, these are classical liberals, well known as being on the liberal side of the political spectrum, but they see the danger of what's happening in the U.S.
right now, and let's just call it what it is.
It's the Democrat Party, it's the American left, turning into a Stalinistic, Hitler-esque, authoritarian regime, and that's what's going on.
And so anybody in denial of that is only welcoming their own demise.
Anybody in denial of that is only welcoming the own shackles that are going to be put on their legs and arms and mind.
No, it's dangerous where things are going in this country.
And our only hope is that Americans realize it soon enough to stop us from going down this dark path.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I've done now two hours Of one of the most important transmissions of InfoWars history, and I'm sure considering the current news cycle and one of the biggest stories ongoing right now, I'm sure our audience number is up today.
And I haven't even plugged yet, okay?
So, you have to understand, you know, Part of our own problem with not having a bunch of money to run the place is our own fault.
Because we look at the information, we look at where the country is going, and it's just like, that's top priority all the time.
And then you just kind of hit this point, you're like, oh yeah, I gotta fund the operation so that we can stay on air.
And I won't pontificate too much on this, because it's...
I mean, it's kind of embarrassing, actually.
It's nauseating.
I mean, if you saw the legal bills that we have to pay here, and I'm not even complaining.
I mean, obviously, I like our lawyers, but it's like, I'm at the premiere of Alex's War this weekend, and, you know, a bunch of people are coming up to me, and it's like a bunch of lawyers coming up to me, and I'm just with other friends and other people.
I'm like, oh, yeah, that's a lawyer.
Like, how many lawyers do you have?
I'm like, well, I'm in like six cases all the time, so, yeah, there's a lot of lawyers involved here.
But that's just what we deal with.
I'm not even sitting here complaining.
I'm just telling you what's going on.
Well, we're able to fund ourselves by selling products at Infowarsstore.com.
And let me just explain something, too.
Yeah, the supplement industry is a growing industry, and a lot of these top supplement companies make tons of money, gobs of money.
That's because their margins are wide because they sell you a very low grade, low quality product at a high price.
So they have big margins.
And they're able to get in all the big box stores, they're able to get in all the convenience stores, and you know what their model is?
It's sell supplements for profit.
And then all that profit is just profit.
Well, we operate a little differently.
We sell the highest quality supplements with the lowest margins.
That's the operational procedure here at InfoWarsTore.com is find the best quality supplement and then undercut the market at the price.
And so that's what we do.
So we have thin margins.
That's okay.
Here's the problem.
InfoWarsStore.com doesn't exist to make money in and of itself.
InfoWarsStore.com exists to make money to fund InfoWars.
So you see all these stories like, oh, InfoWarsStore.com, they sell the supplements, they're making hundreds of millions of dollars, all this stuff.
No!
If we make $50 million selling supplements, $45 million go into running the company, and then whatever's left goes into paying the crew.
So yeah, I get it.
unidentified
Oh, they say, well look, supplements, they make so much money.
They always tend to forget that aspect, or they intentionally forget to mention that.
Now, having said that, Vitamin Mineral Fusion has been one of the top-selling supplements.
Really, it's not a supplement, it's a drink mix, but, I mean, it might as well be a supplement.
It's been the top-rated, the top-selling drink mix that we have, and it sells out a lot.
Now, I've been a big fan of vitamin and mineral fusion since we introduced it probably about five years ago now.
I always have it in my pantry.
And I learned also a while ago, because folks, we only have a thousand bottles of this.
I mean, that's how hard it is in the Biden supply chain to even get product to sell.
And so I'm not even going to go off on a jag here about the Biden supply chain that we could tell you all about how bad it is just from our own experience in the market.
It's really bad, but I'll just stop right there.
We were only able to secure a thousand bottles of this.
It might sell out in less than a week.
This is one of the most popular products we've ever put out.
I always make sure I have it in my pantry.
That's what I'm saying, is I usually buy five at a time just so next time it sells out I can be stocked up.
It's been sold out for so long, folks, I'm even out of my backup.
I'm on my last canister.
I'm out of my backup.
So, I mean, I know I'm going to be making a bulk purchase.
I know there's going to be a lot of people in the audience making a bulk purchase.
But you know what?
We're not even going to sell it at full price.
We're selling it at a discount.
25% off.
We could actually sell Vitamin Mineral Fusion probably for more money right now and it would still sell out.
Instead, we're going to go 25% off Vitamin Mineral Fusion at Infowarsstore.com.
I start every day with Vitamin Mineral Fusion.
I mix it up every morning with a glass of my filtered water with the filters from Infowarsstore.com and just right there you're getting 100% of your daily value of so many different vitamins, so many different minerals.
It's all right there on the label.
And that's what we do to fund ourselves.
So, Vitamin Mineral Fusion, back in stock, only a thousand canisters.
That's what we were able to get, folks.
I'm sorry, I wish we could have ten thousand, but we were only able to secure a thousand.
We're still selling it at 25% off.
It's at InfowarsStore.com.
And we hope that you will continue to support us and shop at InfoWarsTore.com, Vitamin Mineral Fusion Back in Stock, plus just all the other great supplements that we have there as well.
Okay, quick programming note.
I am going to be hosting the War Room today, and so you see I've got a lot of news on my desk here.
I haven't even covered a single news story yet.
I'm going to be doing most of my news coverage coming up on The War Room today at 3 o'clock.
So if you're looking for the daily news, 3 o'clock when I start The War Room, we're going to be delving into all the news, all the big video clips.
I do have Savannah Hernandez coming in studio in about 20 minutes, and we'll be talking to her about her recent reports.
She just goes everywhere across the country, asks people about gas prices, how they feel, asks people how they feel about Biden.
She goes into the inner cities where it's just, I mean, just overwhelmed with drug addicts.
It's actually really sad, some of the stuff that she captures.
She goes out there braver than most journalists, by the way.
So we'll be discussing that with her coming up.
And then again, I'm going to be doing all the news coverage.
In the three o'clock hour.
So let me do this in the meantime.
You know, here's what.
Because it all it all kind of comes back to the same problem, and that's there is a group, a very small group of elitists.
The best way to trace it and track it is via the World Economic Forum.
Their leaders, what they're doing, like for example, oh they had the uprising in Sri Lanka, the president steps down, World Economic Forum injects their operative into that presidency now, and now they've shut off the gas, and you have to have a QR code if you want to get gas.
That's the World Economic Forum.
So when you hear statements like this from Jacinda Ardern, the failed leader of New Zealand, She's telling you the truth.
I mean, she's as corrupt as the day is long.
She's as bad as it gets when it comes to leadership roles.
But she is being honest.
They're the voice of truth.
You don't listen to anything else.
Here's Jacinda Ardern out of New Zealand telling you how they really feel.
You shut up.
You have no authority.
You have no rights.
You have no free speech.
We're the authority.
We're in charge.
You listen to us and you sit down and you shut up.
Here she is saying it in clip two.
unidentified
...the most up-to-date information daily.
You can trust us as a source of that information.
You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health.
For that information, do feel free to visit at any time to clarify any rumour you may hear.
Otherwise, Dismiss anything else.
We will continue to be your single source of truth.
We will provide information frequently.
We will share everything we can.
Everything you are, else you see, a grain of salt.
And so I really ask people to focus on that.
What was the greatest example of that appears to be this text which originated in Malaysia and has become a viral hoax in Australia and in New Zealand.
How irresponsible is it the people that are sharing that news of a lockdown imminent in New Zealand. Yeah and look
that's the kind of thing that adds to the anxiety that people feel. So I continue to share the
message New Zealanders must prepare but do not panic prepare and when you see those messages remember
that unless you hear it from us it is not the truth and I really ask people just visit covid19.govt.nz
it has all of the up-to-date information and we will continue to provide everything you
need. Now if you don't understand how dangerous that is if you don't understand how dystopian
that is I I just don't even know if I can help you.
But see, this is what the World Economic Forum does is they give you female leaders so it has that kind of motherly, feminine look to it when really it's a blood-drenched tyrant.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a phenomenon happening right now and you're seeing it Somewhat represented in Congress with individuals like Marjorie Taylor Greene are now Myra Flores.
You wish you had more examples of men doing this, but sadly not so much.
We do, however, have a powerful statement from Rand Paul that I want to play here in a second, but let me just kind of lay out the build up here.
Is justice blind?
When Democrats are in charge, she is blind, deaf, and dumb.
Now, that's the headline from Jim Thompson at Red State, but everybody can now see how Democrats have politicized every department of the U.S.
government.
The FBI, The DHS, Border Patrol, the executive branch, the judicial branch, the court system, I mean everything.
It's never been a better example.
Colbert staffers get their charges dropped for illegally entering the Capitol.
Trump supporters still rot in jail for the same thing.
David Hall gets to stand up and disrupt Congress.
No charges.
Owen Schroer still in court for something that happened over three years ago now.
It's never been more obvious.
Democrats can break the law, do whatever they want.
Hell, they even riot and burn down cities.
It's never been more obvious to the average American people who the bad guys are.
Not even necessarily to say Republicans are the good guys.
It's just obvious the Democrats are the bad guys.
Obvious that's the party of evil.
And now the two standards of justice have never been more clear and present either.
And so some people are emerging now.
I don't want to say the victims of this, but that's just the truth.
I mean, Steve Bannon is a victim of the corrupt Democrat Party.
Steve Bannon is a victim of the two-tiered hierarchy of justice now in this country.
And of course, there was a powerful interview over the weekend, Steve Bannon and Alex Jones.
Steve Bannon tells Alex Jones he's one of the greatest political thinkers since founding fathers.
One of the greatest since the Revolutionary Generation, a very powerful interview, Bannon and Jones.
And then, over the weekend, you had Glenn Greenwald here in Austin, Texas, who did an interview with Alex as well, at the premiere of Alex's War, which, let me just say this, Alex not able to be on air today.
Not sure when he will be back on air, or quite frankly, if.
I'm not trying to be doomsayer here, but I'm just telling you what's up.
So, Alex's War premiered this weekend.
It was Saturday here in Austin, Texas, and I just want to say something here.
I'm speaking for myself, and I'll go ahead and speak for Alex.
I never do that, but I will right now.
We just want to thank everybody that came out, and there were so many influential, great people that came out.
Thank you guys so much.
We had such an incredible time.
We met so many great people, shaking hands, taking pictures, everything.
It's just, I wish we could have really, like, livestreamed and televised the whole thing, because if you could see the love Behind Alex Jones, and the love behind this movement, and the friendliness, and the smiles, and the patriotism, everything.
It's the exact opposite of everything they want to represent us, but it really was a great event.
Thank you to Alex Lee Moyer for such a great documentary.
Thanks to Play Nice Productions as well.
Thanks to everybody who came out and promoted it and are sharing it.
But here's what it is, as Rand Paul says, there's going to come a day of reckoning Where people will rise up.
It's going to be peaceful, it's going to be legal, it's going to be lawful, but it's going to save this country and it's going to save the planet.
Here's Rand Paul saying just that on Fox News this weekend.
Alright, tonight yet another example of left-wing violence.
The same radical group offering bounties for the locations of any conservative Supreme Court justice.
They're now attempting to shut down the congressional baseball game.
According to this group, no Republican deserves peace ever again.
Senator Rand Paul, no stranger himself to violent agitators, has been attacked at least twice, including one instance right after the RNC convention, when the senator and his wife, surrounded by far-left lunatics and rioters, barely got out of there with his life.
And of course the incident with the neighbor.
Here now is Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.
You know, Senator, I know Washington, D.C.
is not far off from New York in terms of their lack of willingness to prosecute people that are violent.
At least in Kentucky, the guy that attacked you, as I understand it, paid a price, right?
Initially, a Clinton judge gave him one month, which is what you might get for shoplifting.
Came back later, and another Democrat-appointed judge, but a more fair-minded Democrat-appointed judge, gave him another eight months.
So he got nine months.
But we still have our major newspapers, both the Louisville Courier and the Lexington Herald, writing op-eds saying that it was justified, the attack on me was justified, and that I deserved it because I'm somehow a provocative person.
That my interviewing and my style of interviewing Fauci and others is provocative and therefore I deserve violence.
They're still saying that in the newspaper.
One of our newspapers employed a young man who tried to assassinate the mayor, mayoral candidate of Louisville.
He got two days in prison, and he was released.
The Black Lives Matter bailed him out after two days, and he worked for the Louisville Courier.
We now have a new writer for the Louisville Courier who's been arrested for violent assault, and now he's writing that the violence against me was justified, but he's previously been convicted of assault also.
So yeah, the left wing is egging this on, and if we want it to end, we've got to lock people up.
The violent people need to be put away for as long as we can put them away.
It seems like, okay, in real time I was on the radio on January 6th.
I condemned what was happening.
I condemned it that night on this show.
And yet in the summer of 2020, your Democratic colleagues were either completely silent because it was their base that was involved in the looting, the rioting, the arson, the attacks on police, thousands of cops injured, dozens dead, billions in property damage.
574 riots, very few prosecutions in this case, even though we have a wealth of evidence.
Where are the Democrats that are lecturing us on the need for safety and security on the one riot?
Why aren't they speaking out against the 574 other riots?
A woman in her 60s who's getting cancer treatment wanders into the Capitol during all this, wanders out, doesn't harm anybody, is not involved with violence and she gets longer in prison Then the, you know, people trying to assassinate a candidate get.
Or, you know, it's just amazing what we're doing and who we're letting off of this.
But ultimately there's going to come a day of reckoning where the people who live in New York City, crime disproportionately affects those in poorer neighborhoods and those who are minorities.
One day they're going to rise up and say, We've had enough.
The Democrats are not protecting our children.
Kids are dying at the bus stop.
Kids are dying on the subway.
The Democrats don't care about your kids.
And it continues to happen decade after decade.
There's going to be a day that people are going to wake up and say, we've had enough.
We're going to vote for law and order.
And Lee Zeldin is the law and order candidate.
So I think there is a chance that people will say, I don't care.
Black, white, whatever.
I'm not associated with any party.
I want a stop to the crime and we have to put people in jail.
All right, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
When we come back, Savannah Hernandez in studio to tell her tales of going around the country asking people how they feel about gas prices, seeing the drug addiction in the streets.
That's coming up next.
Joined in studio now by Savannah Hernandez, been working for Truth Social.
uh... going across the country really covering a wide variety of topics she
goes down to the southern border doesn't care incredible coverage there
she goes out in the inner cities and uh... i mean she
deals with some of the most deranged crackheads you're ever gonna see on film
uh... we'll talk about that she interviews people about gas prices also
some strange stuff as far as uh... monkey parks rights or monkey parks protest
as a wack one uh... but will allow will discuss that but that is
Savannah, let's start at the border.
You've been covering the border a lot.
You've been to Arizona.
You've been to Texas.
You've been to California, I think, too, covering the border issue.
What are some of the things that you've covered that you've seen just being boots on the ground down there talking to either border patrol people or the illegal immigrants or just local residents?
What are some of the stories that you've covered that you don't really see getting national attention?
National Guard feels that they are very... Sorry, give me one moment here with this.
Okay.
So National Guard feels that they're of course just very overwhelmed with everything going on right now at the border.
I was actually talking to a couple of the members off the record.
And they were telling me what they're experiencing with the cartel.
One National Guard member found this man who the cartel dipped his head in acid, right?
So it's just a clean skull, flesh on his body still.
And the cartel is leaving these types of people, these carcasses, these dead bodies there for them to find as an intimidation tactic.
So that's one thing that National Guard Border Patrol dealing with.
We also have, of course, the huge influx of migrants, the people in these local communities of Eagle Pass, Texas, really feeling the implications of the open border, feeling like the federal government is working against them with everything going on here.
What we're seeing on screen is some of my coverage from Yuma, Arizona, where you can go and from 12 a.m.
to 6 a.m., you're watching floods of people, hundreds of people just walk over en masse.
There's probably five or six Border Patrol agents there.
Trying to apprehend all of these people.
What ends up happening is because it's such a large group, sometimes they'll get tired of waiting and they'll just run into the local farmer's fields, therefore destroying their crop, ruining their property.
So this is what Americans at the border are experiencing every single day.
Yeah, you need to come pick me up, process me and take me into America.
And we have to keep in mind too that a lot of these migrants are getting a notice to appear because people will look at my reporting and say, look Sav, it looks like you're reporting that Border Patrol is apprehending these people and just letting them go in America.
And I'm like, well, what they're doing is they're giving them a notice to appear.
So they're basically saying, OK, we're going to allow you to stay here in the States.
Make sure you come to this court date so we can work out your immigration status.
Of course, many of those people, the majority of those people, not going to those notice to appear court dates.
When I was down there a year ago, we were talking to some insiders that told me the rate is like 15%, I think, that show up for their court cases on these deals.
And also we saw the new DHS numbers come out about gotaways, right?
Because we're seeing the apprehension numbers, we're reaching historic rates under Joe Biden's administration.
But what about the Godways, the people who didn't get apprehended?
And keep in mind, the reason why these people don't want to be apprehended is because they're human smugglers, drug traffickers, they're members of the cartel.
You know, we just arrested, Border Patrol just arrested not one, but two sex offenders, one of them a child sex offender, just the other week because those who are not trying to be apprehended are the worst of the worst coming over.
So in the fiscal year of 2021 to now, we've had almost a million.
It's a little bit over 900,000.
In the fiscal year of 2021, it was a little bit over 380,000.
In the fiscal year of 2021, it was a little bit over 380,000.
From October of '21 to now, to this point, we've seen, I believe, like
I mean, they tell us we've had two and a half million illegal entries just this year alone.
But who really knows the numbers?
And what's amazing here.
So what I was told a year ago, and I don't know if this is still the case, under Trump, they used to have some sort of a policy to try to keep track of these people where they would have the ankle monitors, right?
Um, now obviously they don't have 2.5 million or 3 million or 5 million or 10 million ankle monitors or however many they would need.
So when Biden reopened the border and the numbers started to influx, they canceled the ankle monitor policy to make sure people would show up for their court dates.
And then they only applied it to If you came into the country and you were on a terror watch list, or a criminal sex offender list, or one of these violent criminal lists, they would still let you in!
You'd still say, okay, come in, but we have to put an ankle monitor on you.
By the way, half of them just cut it off, and then they're just gone, so it doesn't even make a difference, but oh, they'll let you in and they'll give you an ankle monitor.
Most of them still don't show up, they just cut it off, they're in the country, they're good to go.
Terror watch list, rapists, pedophiles, they all get in.
Exactly, I mean look at what's happening right now in Los Angeles with their district attorneys and not allowing prosecutors to come to these court dates, right, when these rapists are out on parole.
They're now barring these prosecutors from coming because we have a society now that is pro-crime and I guess anti-justice.
That's why we're seeing this every single day and it really is heartbreaking to go down to the border and watch these people pour over en masse because I will be very honest with you, many of them are morbidly obese, they're wearing brand new clothes, Oh yeah.
So they're coming over and the reason I've talked to a lot of my friends who cover the border extensively and they say well a lot of them will you know put on a brand new outfit because they know the media is gonna be there and they want to look good as they're crossing the border.
And again, too, I've talked about the rapidly changing demographic in America.
You know, I go out and I do a lot of man on the street reports.
That's usually what I do the most.
And up in Dallas, for the first time, I ran into a language barrier because I'm running into Cubans, Venezuelans that don't speak English, who, of course, Have just crossed over to the border.
They've just gotten to whichever city the NGO gave them a bus ticket or a plane ticket to.
A lot of them heading to New York, actually.
I went into Piedras Negras, Mexico because I wanted to go ask these people, hey, exactly which state are you going to and why?
And they're telling me how many of their friends are already over here, which states they're living in, how many of their family members are heading over as well, and which state they're going to.
New York, surprisingly, and it's funny because I actually went straight from the border in Texas to New York, and I could see in live time the huge demographic change.
You're seeing the illegal immigrants all over.
A lot of the times, my friends would be like, come on, Sab, you can't tell that person's illegal.
And it's like, no, I can.
I can tell they don't speak English.
I can tell they just got over here.
You can tell by their brand new clothes.
You can tell by the fact that they're flooding our airports right now.
And they all have, of course, the documentation that they received from these NGOs.
So again, you know, I come up here and this is a very repetitive thing.
This is nothing new that I'm talking about.
But more importantly, it's like if this continues to go on for another two years, where will our country be?
I remember I was down at the police station here, it was probably like two years ago, maybe less.
I was down there filing a report or something and there was a gentleman outside, middle-aged gentleman, who looked like really in trouble.
And he was out there and I'm walking in and he kind of like comes up to me, kind of aggressively, didn't touch me or anything, but kind of comes up to me like he, I couldn't really understand what he was saying, he needed help or whatever, he couldn't speak English, he looked really desperate, really out of his sorts.
And I walked into the police station and I said, before I even was filing the charge or whatever, I said, hey, you guys know there's a gentleman outside.
He looks like he's in real trouble.
Do you know what's going on?
And they just said, oh, yeah, he's been out here.
He's been out there for three days.
He's an illegal immigrant.
He keeps asking us for rides, asking us for money.
And it's like they just tell him to go back out.
So they come in and they just they have nothing.
They don't know what to do.
They were told they're going to have all this free stuff and they just show up and then they just wander the streets of the U.S.
By the way, folks, this is totally, look, most of these people don't even know what's going on politically.
They're just coming here for free stuff.
They don't know Biden.
They don't know the difference between Biden and a biscuit.
But, oh, hey, put on the Biden shirts.
Look, they love Biden.
Look how great Biden is.
No, it's an illegal immigrant invasion to collapse our economy.
Savannah Hernandez in studio with us from Truth Social does great work out on the streets.
And you actually wanted to correct me on an issue because I was saying they showed the picture of all the people in the Biden shirts and I'm saying that's just a photo op.
Most of these people don't know Joe Biden from a biscuit.
It's kind of the same struggle Joe Biden has.
He doesn't know himself from a biscuit either.
But all jokes aside, you were saying that's not totally the case, that they're actually getting propagandized before they get to the border.
Yes, so I've talked to a lot of people in the right wing, specifically about my reporting, and they'll say, well, let's bring over the Cubans and the Venezuelans because they're fleeing a communistic or socialistic state, they understand true oppression, they understand- Yeah, like, we have refugees, and we have asylum seekers, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
So, you know, I talked to my friends about this and I'm like, well, this is actually a really interesting angle here and I want to go talk to the people coming over here because, you know, right now we're seeing all of these, oh, Hispanics are fleeing the Democratic vote and it's because, of course, Hispanics are very primarily Catholic, they're very family oriented, they're very pro-life, very religious.
So, of course, the Democrats stand for everything that they hate and despise.
So I'm talking to these immigrants and I'm like, you know, what do you think about Joe Biden?
And a lot of them view him as this nice man who's giving them an opportunity for a better life, giving them the opportunity to work.
He opened the borders for them.
And so, you know, I can see the mentality from a lot of people of like, OK, well, these people are fleeing oppression.
They understand what socialism looks like, so they're not going to vote it back in.
But in reality, they're voting for Democrats and they're voting for Joe Biden because they see the Democratic Party, as we all know, as the nice party that gave them that opportunity.
So they're going to give them in turn The Free Stuff Party, and then the other level of this too is, they have all these church groups involved in this, they have all these Catholic church groups involved in this, so then they come in and they go through Catholic church groups or these groups and they think, oh this is good, it's a Christian Catholic thing I'm getting involved with too, but no, it's all cartel run.
Exactly, and it is so funny too, because again, I went from Eagle Pass to New York, so I'm talking to these migrants who, you know, were extorted by the cartels, extorted by the Mexican police, dealt with human trafficking, drug trafficking, saw people get murdered in the Darien Gap, like they dealt with all these very horrific things, talking about what's going on in their country, their tyrannical government, and then I go to New York, and I'm looking at what Americans, okay, are focused in on, And I'm in the middle of a deodorant-free monkeypox protest about how that is the greatest thing that's facing our nation right now is the monkeypox, and I quote, pandemic.
It's ridiculous and it's just so funny to me to see the disconnect between Americans and the issues that we're focused in on versus what's actually going on at our border.
They're protesting monkeypox and they're mad that the government is not providing them with more vaccines for monkeypox, which again only affects the gay community.
And so I talked to a lot of my friends about this and they're like, well, it's a little bit hard to talk about monkeypox because we don't want to just straight out come out and say it's a degenerate disease that comes from having promiscuous sex and orgies.
And so of course, what I love to do with these types of things is let the gay community speak for themselves.
Yeah, I don't know if you want to play any of this, if you want to pitch to it, but this is some of the wack, this is some of the most wacky stuff, the most nonsensical, what planet did I wake up on stuff that you've ever seen.
Literally like, at least some of the stuff you can kind of understand and make sense of where it's coming from.
This is like, you're on a different planet now.
What in the hell is even going on?
I don't know if you want to play some of this footage, but it's like... But it's true!
99% of the monkeypox patients are having anal intercourse!
They're in orgies and they're upset at the government because after they contract an STD from being in a gay orgy, they say that it's because of monkey pox and it's because of the government's response to monkey pox.
Yeah, we can play a little bit of this video because it's, again, listen to this own community from their mouth themselves, how they're contracting monkey pox and how it is spreading.
So you were just talking about sex work, monkey pox.
For the communities who maybe don't understand what monkey pox is, can you explain it to us?
unidentified
Yes, well, monkey pox is an infection.
I try not to say monkey pox so much because it will be racist, but it has a terrible effect and it has a lot to do with robbing and it has a lot to do with robbing by force.
It affects people while engaging in sex.
And for that, it is important to know that for some people, sex is not just pleasure.
So, I'm not even going to try to make sense of that.
Instead, let's do a logical comparison here.
That would be like a drug dealer.
Let's say that there's been a bunch of, I don't know, let's say AIDS or something that's been spreading because of needles, right?
And this guy sells heroin.
And you go up and you say, hey, you know, there's been a big outbreak of Needles spreading AIDS in New York and the drug dealer says, yeah, as a heroin dealer, this is impacting me.
But it's just, what's so amazing to me is, okay, yeah, you're afraid you're gonna get monkeypox because you know the activity you're doing is causing monkeypox, but somehow that's society's problem?
And that's what I wanted to highlight too with this interview, is that our society is so degenerate, and we are so far away from God or any foundation of, you know, traditional family or decency, that these people are out in the streets of New York on a Sunday, At 6 p.m.
protesting because they can't be involved in a disgusting orgy.
I'm just going to be very honest with this.
They're up there and they're protesting because they can't be involved in this promiscuous, unprotected sex.
They think that the government should be responsible for them and they're dealing with what they say is a mental health crisis.
They're blaming the government for their own bad decisions.
And I'm like, how about you just don't be a degenerate and you don't have sex?
And then it turns into this whole argument of like, well, I have to have sex.
And I took video of some of this person's speech and she goes, I wish I was at home screwing somebody right now, but I can't because of monkeypox because I need the vaccine.
Everybody needs this vaccine and the government hates us and they won't give us this vaccine.
And they're literally using the reasoning as to why they need it so they can have promiscuous.
Well, because I remember growing up and I went to a Catholic grade school and then a Christian high school and they used to do, they would do fear mongering and they would show you images of STDs and all this stuff to try to, you know, make sure you don't have promiscuous sex.
You could say it's a bad thing, good thing, I'm not claiming either, but I'm saying, oh wow, there's general awareness being raised that STDs are spreading and now we know how they're spreading and so people don't want to get an STD, like, oh no, and that affects me as a whore, like, oh what a tragedy.
And, but I guess they want free stuff, they want respect, they want us to be enraged for them.
And again, everybody's focused in on monkey pox when our border is wide open.
I went to New Yorkers as well, and another one of the videos I conducted is, what is the craziest thing you've seen as a New Yorker?
And I did this to highlight how degenerate and how much our cities have degraded to where people are watching, you know, crack addicts rub feces on their face and they're like, that's just a normal day in New York.
You see it all the time.
One time a guy was selling me crack while he was peeing.
It was just a funny thing to see.
And I'm like, does nobody understand that this is not normal and this is not how we should be living in America?
And by the way, when they ran these studies in New York, it wasn't just that 90, I think it was 98 or 99 percent of the monkeypox were homosexual men having anal sex.
Almost half of them had HIV!
So they're running around having multiple sex partners at these orgies being HIV positive!
You know, we just had a big rally over here this past weekend up in Kingston.
Four Corners of Freedom, where the seeds of democracy was sown, right across the street.
I'm almost kidding.
You probably can.
I could throw a rock and hit it.
It's where they, at the County Courthouse, before it was County Courthouse, that's where the Constitution, the New York State, was written.
When this was the first capital of New York State, before the British burnt it down.
And it's the third Dutch settlement.
There are more pre-revolutionary war stone buildings here than anywhere in America.
Over 70% of America's constitution comes from the constitution that was written right there.
The constitution has been destroyed by little freaks, clowns, playing presidents, mayors, senators, congressmen, one freak after another.
So we had this big rally here.
We had Judge Andrew Napolitano, Scott Ritter, Gary Null, Progressive Radio Network, Phil Giraldi, former CIA guy, hacked people out in the streets of the huge garden, the Crown Garden.
Couldn't fit them all.
We sent out Several thousand press releases over the past three weeks.
Ran it on Spectrum.
Ads everywhere.
Banned.
Nothing.
Zero, zero coverage.
The local newspaper up here, the Daily Freeman, daily piece of nothing.
Front page story about some stupid thing, a little jazz metastasis, some stupid thing with people outside.
Not a peep.
Not a peep about peace.
Nothing.
I'm a trend forecaster.
I will put my track record up against anybody in the world.
I've been at it for 42 years.
Show me your track record, show me your books, show me your magazines that you've been writing about, and we can begin the conversation.
Otherwise, don't want to hear it.
World War III has begun.
Today it was announced Germany is sending some 13 tanks, howitzers, tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Last Friday, the United States announced they were sending more weapons.
Almost another $300 million.
Over $60 billion has been spent of our money sent to Ukraine.
It's not my country.
I'm an American.
Prestitutes.
Look it up.
In Wikipedia.
I'm the guy that created the word.
The media whores that get paid to put out by their corporate pimps and their government whoremasters.
Anybody that wants war, pick up your garbage and go fight!
It's not my war.
I'm an American.
I honor the Founding Fathers.
No foreign entanglements.
We back.
Yeah, yes, yes, yes.
I had to take my jacket off.
Courtney Heatwave.
Tropical Heatwave.
Temperatures rising.
Da-da-da.
Da-da-da-da.
Da-da.
Yeah, when music used to be music.
I don't have air conditioning.
I hate air conditioning.
I got fans, but they're too loud, so I can't kind of shut them off.
Talking about the war.
The war's started.
Again, I say it over and over again.
If I asked you to give me a gun to blow the guy's brains out across the street, you're an accessory to the crime.
America's an accessory to the crime.
We're at war with Russia.
And not a peep from the prostitutes about peace.
You know why?
Because these little media whores love wars.
You know, there's an article in the New York Times today regarding Alex Jones and they use the word misinformation that is shaping today's misinformation economy.
How about the Mrs. Misinformation that spewed out the disgusting lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and they had the proof with the aluminum tubes that they got from Niger, Nigeria, some crap they made up.
How about that?
How about misinformation that killed over a million people in Iraq, according to some of the data?
Never a word from the mainstream about the words of George Washington in his farewell address when he warned that any nation which, quote, indulges towards another in habitual hatred Or in habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.
He told Americans, observe good faith and justice toward all nations.
By their deeds, the mainstream media does not observe good faith and justice to all.
Instead, their one-sided Warhawk narratives are making Americans slaves to the military-industrial complex.
Indulges, nations which indulges towards another in habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
And there's Dwight D. Eisenhower, five-star general, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, two-term president, warning us in his farewell address on January 17th.
1961.
That the military-industrial complex is robbing the nation of the genius of the scientists, the sweat of the laborers, and the future of the children.
So this is the same military-industrial complex where America's Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin comes from.
You can't make this crap up.
Former guy that sat on the board of directors of Raytheon.
The second largest defense contractor in the world.
And again, do everything you can to support InfoWars.
They have products you can use, and they give you news you could use.
And they're blackballing everybody.
Ooh, I can't say blackballing anymore.
If I say whiteballing, then I would be racist.
I gotta be careful here.
This country's gone down so terribly.
I have to tell you, the rally yesterday, you could go to Occupy Peace, OccupyPeace.com, and you could see the whole show.
Had a hot damn band here.
What a band.
Real music, not this... Real instruments.
They had to play instruments and everything, you know.
Had a great, great, great time.
The people were wonderful.
Packed out.
Out in the street.
All over.
No problems at all.
No problems at all.
Everything went smooth.
People were wonderful.
But I'm very, very sad.
As I said, we sent out thousands and thousands and thousands of press releases.
Zero, zero, zero coverage.
Peace is not allowed.
So there was a Gallup poll that just came out that showed, I'm not making it, it is the band, the Hot Damn Band, man, they were really, real cats, kittens.
They led the Iraq War, an illegal war, based on lies, sat on the board of directors of Raytheon, the second largest defense contractor in the United States, saying one of the U.S.' 's goals in Ukraine is to see a week in Russia.
You, you are not speaking for me with all your little ribbons and your military drag on!
The Prince of Peace whacked up on a cross after he throws the Goldman Sachs gang, the Merrill Lynch mob, the JPMorgan Chase syndicate Out of the temple.
Money changes?
Hey, what do you mean?
We're in charge.
Three days later, he's on the cross.
We have mentally ill, psychopathic, sociopathic people running and ruining our lives.
He also goes on to say, by the way, and I'm gonna come back to it later when we get back, About how Ukraine was killing all those people in the Donbass region for the last eight years.
And the reason I'm on the Alex Jones Show is because I believe in freedom, peace, and justice.
And InfoWars does the best they can to give you that.
You think for yourself.
They don't tell you what to think.
They got their views of it, but they don't have to buy it, and they don't sell it.
But what they do sell that you need to buy to keep InfoWars going and to keep yourself going are these great products that they have.
And one of them that they have now that's a good deal Is there bodies?
And it's the perfect answer to whole body support.
And boy, do we need that.
So it was gone for a while, but it's back now and at 25% off.
So used as a medicinal herb, this stuff's been around for thousands of years.
Turmeric is one of the most studied ingredients known today.
And when you pair with black, you pair it with black pepper bodies is turmeric supplement It takes advantage of the power of turmeric with over 95% of its active ingredients.
So it's just one thing after another.
They pair it with other powerful ingredients, including five different herbs, extracts.
So they really want to help you boost your body for you and your family.
And again, you know, people ask me, what do you do now?
I said, you got to get in the best shape you can physically, emotionally and spiritually.
And this is one of the ways you do it.
So they have these great ingredients.
It's a true 60 win, 360 win that can help you with joint support, mobility support, flexibility support, inflammation support, and it has what you need.
So don't wait until it's almost out of stock again.
If you want to support InfoWars and support your immune system with these powerful Ancient ingredients of turmeric with bodies at 25% off from InfoWars Life.
Do it now, because InfoWars Life, your life depends on it in so many different ways.
So, there you got it.
I was talking before about this guy, Zelensky, the comedian on a sitcom in
Ukraine that became, played the president of Ukraine in the sitcom, became the president.
Preserving unity now, working together for victory is the most important
Such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot, said George Washington.
Oh, you mean Enlightened and independent patriots like myself, who launched Occupy Peace, to close down all the bases overseas, bring home the troops, secure the homeland.
Nobody coming in anymore.
We can't take care of our own.
We take care of our own, then we'll welcome in and put the troops to work to rebuilding our third world infrastructure.
The WPA project, Work Progress Administration project, for the 21st century, is our roads and bridges are collapsing and giving them skills rather than the crap that they're teaching them in the military?
Oh, oh, and then, if you want to go to war, let the people vote.
You want to take our money to go to Ukraine, let the people vote.
Let the people vote.
That's Occupy Peace.
I honor the founding fathers.
I am an independent An enlightened patriot.
I write a magazine.
I put the facts out there.
You ready?
Washington.
Europe has a set of primary interests.
In other words, they got their own deal.
Which to us have none.
Yeah, they've been fighting back and forth for centuries.
Or a very remote relation.
Oh, you mean we're not there with NATO back then?
They could have done it back then.
That ain't ancient history.
There are wars going on all the time.
Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies because they're all fighting for their primary interests.
The causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.
Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of our politics or the ordinary combinations And collusions of our friendships or enmities.
Language is a little different back then.
Enemies.
It's not our business, Washington said.
He warned us.
No one says this.
I say it.
He said it at the rally.
I write it.
But it's ignored.
And instead, they're selling hatred.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, said Washington.
But Zelensky says Russia will not stop Until it gets smashed.
And our Lloyd Austin said, we'll keep giving them weapons to keep smashing them.
And the US is ready to move heaven and earth to help Ukraine win the war against Russia.
Well, you know, I don't know if it was Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha, but one of them said, you better boogie before the lights go out, because tomorrow is iffy.
PrepareitAlex.com, hyperlink to prepareittoday.com, which is run by our great affordable foods distributor,
and the great folks over there, and they have all the food in stock, and the water
filters, the air filters, and all these other best-selling survival
and preparedness items, many of which are the lowest price you're
going to find anywhere.
Could you find something on there maybe lower in Amazon?
Yeah, you want to support the New World Order?
The point is almost all of its lowest price you're going to find, it's all very competitive, PrepareToday.com.
PrepareToday.com.
It's all there, ready to ship now.
And this is how you beat inflation.
You buy food now, and as the price goes up, you save money.
I told you this 30 months ago.
Those of you who bought food then, boy, were you smart.
And it's only going to go up anyway.
So even if you waited or didn't do it, now is the time to stop procrastinating.
PrepareToday.com and be smart.
Separately, we Hold back items for people to sign up for auto-ship with the additional 10% off.
And they overheld some stuff.
It's coming back in late July, they think.
Vitamin Mineral Fusion, one of our best-selling products.
High-quality vitamins, minerals, amino acids.
So tasty, so great for children, adults, you name it.
Put a scoop of it in water, some ice.
Tastes amazing.
That's so many great things.
Because it's liquid, you absorb a lot more with the pills, even though they're high quality.
We found 1,100 bottles of that, that because of a miscalculation with AutoShip we had, it'll sell out probably today.
It's available at infowarestore.com as well, or by calling toll-free, 888-253-3139.
And despite the fact that it'll sell out today, it's still 25% off.
And I'm going to stop right there now, and I'm going to move back to your phone calls.
Other than saying this, I talked to the National Students four weeks ago, five weeks ago, with I think the most important documentary ever, proving that they stole the election.
And I said, I bet I'll buy 100,000 DVDs from you because people want to have it in their archive.
And it's such a historic film.
And we bought 20,000.
I said, I think we'll be reordering it every few weeks.
We've only sold out half of these.
And I'm not mad at the audience.
I just think you're crazy.
With all the censorship online, what's happening?
You need this historic film on your shelf to show friends, family, neighbors, your office, your boss, your employees, your church, whoever.
And so we have it.
We have Covid Land 3, the shot, getting at how deadly the shot is.
Both those are just coming together.
Everybody needs them.
Infowarstore.com.
And I'll be quite frank, I'm surprised more people haven't got it.
I think you're crazy when you're ever on the site getting other products to not get this, and it keeps the show on the air.
