Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 19, 2020 - Jim Fetzer

01:58:30

Jim The Conspiracy Guy, The 2nd Amendment and the Politics of Gun Control (14 June 2020)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, I'm very glad those of you who are here are here.
	It was a humbling experience for the conspiracy guy to find a glitch, encounter a glitch as I did last week when I was discussing the New Zealand shootings that I did not know how to fix.
	So I'm very pleased to report That I have finally been able to merge what were actually three different parts of a fairly complex presentation into one, and they're now available on the site.
	And I encourage everyone to check it out because there are issues discussed there, such as Orlando, the Pulse Club shooting.
	Which became relevant because this shooting in New Zealand was said to be the most mass shooting, biggest mass shooting in history, comparable only to the Orlando nightclub shooting.
	And like the Orlando nightclub shooting, it was completely staged and fake.
	So that's a good idea for those who may be unfamiliar.
	I'll get back and forth to each of these, you know, in greater detail now and then, incidentally.
	But this evening, I'm turning to issues related to the Second Amendment and the politics of gun control.
	This is an extremely topical subject for a multiplicity of reasons. - Yes.
	Most of you know by now who I am, a former Marine Corps officer, a retired university professor.
	I've published lots of books, but probably most relevantly, In terms of conspiracy research, Sean, beginning with JFK, a trilogy that shattered the cover-up of the assassination and exposed the players who were, of course, precisely the opposite of the lone, demented gunmen.
	In fact, it was a multiplicity of major groups who were sponsoring, and there turned out to have been no less than eight shooters, eight shooters in Dealey Plaza.
	All of this is something to which I shall return.
	I have been specializing since my retirement in 2006 in bringing together groups of experts to sort out what really happened in the case of these complex and complicated events, beginning with Sandy Hook.
	Where I brought together 13 experts, including six current or retired PhD professors, and we established that the school had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, and that it was a two-day FEMA exercise presented as mass murder.
	Where we even had the manual for the event, which led Amazon to ban it less than a month after it had gone on sale, even though it had sold over 500 copies.
	So I move from there to the Boston bombing, actually with an intervention of the moon landing, where Mike Palachuk, my series editor, suggested as a title, a sequence to someone encountering Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	They might well say, and I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
	Well, as we know from last Two weeks ago presentation, we did not go to the moon.
	We could not have gone to the moon.
	And there are a vast number of reasons explored there, where I shall, from time to time, add more.
	The Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland.
	I mean, it's all very, very embarrassing.
	I think it could be said that my objective is somewhat the opposite of that asserted by William Casey, who was Ronald Reagan's campaign manager, and who negotiated the Iran-Contra deal, where he promised Iranians to provide them weapons.
	In return for their not releasing the hostages until after the inauguration of the new president, because he knew that were they to do so in advance, Jimmy Carter would have won a landslide re-election.
	And where Ronald Reagan rewarded him by appointing him as director of the CIA, where during his first briefing, and I have confirmation he actually said these words from one of those who was present at the time, Our disinformation program will be a success when everything the American people believe is false.
	My variation is, my information campaign will be a success when everything the American people believe is true, or to put it in a different way,
	When everyone is a conspiracy theorist, read that, a conspiracy realist, because what I do is to take conspiracy theories from theories in the weak sense of conjectures, rumors, or guesses, to conspiracies in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses, as in the case of
	Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's theory of relativity, or Darwin's theory of evolution.
	Now, a great place for us to begin tonight is noting there are two kinds of rationality.
	Actually, there turn out to be three, but for our purpose, two will do.
	Namely, rationality of belief Which involves accepting and rejecting beliefs based on the available evidence in accordance with the principles of scientific reasoning encompassing observation, measurement, experiment and so forth to acquire data.
	Where I have been elaborating the principles of rationality of belief in my three previous presentations.
	Because the application of scientific reasoning involves those four stages of puzzlement, speculation, adaptation, and explanation.
	But we're, tonight, to change the pace, we're going to be talking about rationality of action, which entails adopting the course of action that makes the attainment of your aims, goals, and objectives most likely Taking into consideration issues of legality, morality, and propriety.
	In other words, this has to do with you becoming a more effective actor in a complex world based upon your beliefs.
	Whereas this fundamental relationship obtains that if your beliefs about the world are not true, Then the probability of you taking actions that are likely to attain your goals, aims, and objectives drops dramatically because, roughly speaking, then you're only going to succeed if you happen to be lucky when you're acting on the basis of false beliefs.
	One of the subjects I offered courses in had to do with ethics in society, and I actually got hooked.
	I have a very keen interest in these areas, recognizing that among the most important distinctions that require understanding are those between whether an action is legal or illegal, or it turns out an action is illegal in a specific jurisdiction.
	When it violates the laws of that jurisdiction, which can be violated and can be changed, which of course is why they require enforcement.
	I mean, take speed limits.
	Periodically they're changed, right?
	So, might have been 60 miles an hour, now it's 70.
	They obviously can be violated, just step on the accelerator.
	Easy to test, unlike laws of nature, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed, and therefore, unlike laws of society, require no enforcement.
	In addition, we distinguish between morality and immorality, where an action is immoral, and this is universally, without exception, this is a standard that applies to all human interactions.
	When it involves treating a person, other persons, merely as a means rather than as an end.
	What I am implying thereby is that actions are immoral when you treat other persons merely as means, say, to gratify your own desires, ambitions.
	Classic examples of which would include murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, Think about how murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape involve treating other persons merely as means.
	You're not showing them any respect as persons, as human beings who are entitled to pursue their own aims, goals, and objectives free from coercion and constraint.
	Now, it's very important we focus on that word merely.
	Because human beings use other human beings as means all the time.
	Think of employers and employees.
	Employers are using their employees as a means to conduct a business, to sell products, to make a profit.
	While employees are using their employers For similar objectives to earn an income, to make a living, to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
	Now, provided that employers and employees are treating one another with respect, such that the employer is not subjecting his workers to unsafe work conditions, or to excessive hours of employment, or
	to unfair, unjust, inadequate wages, then the employer can be treating his employees respectfully in a moral fashion.
	Similarly for employees, they are treating their employer in a moral manner with respect when they, for example, don't log in for hours they weren't actually working, don't steal from the business, Don't sign in for somebody else to defraud the employer.
	I mean, you stop and ponder and it's pretty obvious how employers and employees can treat one another as means but do so respectfully, which is perfectly moral.
	Similar considerations apply to lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, teachers and students.
	They're all suitable standards for conducting their relationship in a moral fashion, and it becomes fairly obvious when cases of immorality occur.
	Finally, impropriety, impropriety, impropriety.
	This is the domain of Ann Landers, Miss Manners, and so forth.
	Or an action is improper as a matter of convention when it violates the standards of decorum, manners, and taste.
	This can be highly subjective, though, of course.
	You see, if you're a student of propriety, you know, for example, how the tableware should be laid out, which fork you should use.
	I mean, you know, this is an area where, you know, how you dress on a certain occasion, dressing inappropriately or appropriately, there are all kinds of issues involving propriety that generate controversies between parents and children.
	Because the children, you know, have a different sense of decorum, have a different taste than the parents, so conflicts are generated.
	They tend not to rise to the level of issues of morality, however, because they really just matter as a convention.
	As long as they're not actually harming anyone, I mean, this is an area of considerable Difference of opinion and so forth.
	What's crucial is to understand the difference between propriety, morality, and legality.
	Because it's possible for actions to be legal and yet to be immoral.
	Just to offer an illustration, slavery is immoral, if any action is immoral, because slavery involves treating a person merely as a means And yet, there was a time in American history when slavery was legal.
	Slavery is no longer legal, but at that time it was legal to commit actions that are bona fide and clearly immoral.
	Prohibition.
	It was not illegal to consume alcoholic beverages in a place of a restaurant or a bar prior to prohibition, and yet during prohibition that activity was rendered illegal.
	Now, unless you're drinking to excess, or your behavior is vastly altered by drinking, which of course is one of the reasons why, given your reaction times are altered when you get behind the wheel, drinking and driving is a bad idea, We have laws against driving while intoxicated and so forth.
	Here you had an activity that most would judge to be moral that was made illegal and of course it had the adverse effect of generating a whole industry.
	Namely, organized crime was created during Prohibition because the public wanted to drink and the law had made it illegal, so we had speakeasies, bootleggers, a host of other activities.
	It even appears that Jack Kennedy's father, Joe, made a bundle when he learned that Prohibition was going to be Repealed and got a contract for importing scotch into the United States and became a millionaire.
	Well, that's a wise business practice, though it may have had aspects of insider trading, which of course is generally regarded as illegal.
	But if Joe Kennedy simply learned that as a matter of public policy, the law was going to change in the United States and acted in an astute fashion, you'd accredit him with having good business acumen.
	When you act or don't act, you have to make a decision of what to do.
	I'm going to offer you a couple of illustrations, but when it comes to gun control, this is particularly important, because you're trying to decide whether it's a good idea to own guns, learn to shoot, ban guns, not allow law-abiding citizens to carry them, concealed carry, public carry, all that.
	Well, here are three among many different decision-making policies that we can use to illustrate where this is a whole area, a whole discipline unto itself, decision-making.
	Maximax gain.
	Choose the alternative that allows the largest possible gain.
	In other words, typically situations represent a risk where, you know, you have the prospect of a gain but also the prospect of a loss.
	Think of gambling as an example, investing in the stock market.
	I always say about gambling, you know, never invest more than you're willing to spend for its entertainment value.
	In other words, don't gamble because you expect you're going to win.
	The odds are you won't.
	If you're lucky, you may.
	Sometimes you will.
	Most you won't.
	Anyway, the largest possible gain might be, as an optimistic policy, I'll illustrate it further, minimax loss.
	Choose the alternative that allows the smallest maximum possible loss.
	Maximax gain, assume things are going to work out well and act on that basis.
	In the case of minimax loss, assume things aren't going to work out well, but avoid disaster.
	Minimax regret is interesting.
	It involves choosing the alternative that avoids outcomes that you would most regret.
	In retrospect, Here I call it a prudent policy.
	That's a name I'm giving to it.
	Others might give a different name to it.
	But we're talking about an optimistic, a pessimistic, and a prudency policy, roughly speaking.
	Now, here's a typical decision-making matrix.
	You have a state of nature.
	That means how things are going to turn out.
	And we're talking here about a hypothetical case of going on a blind date.
	So you have to decide to go on the date or not to go on the date.
	Now, if you do the intersection of the actions you could make with the state of nature, if the date is great or the date is not, then if the date is great and you go on the date, you enjoy happiness, you know, a good time, you have a great time, blah, blah, blah.
	If you don't go, however, then you've missed out on a good time.
	Now, if the date was not great, you know, you have missed misery, which is, you're probably glad to miss misery if you've gone on the date when the date is a disaster.
	And if you don't go when the date is a disaster, then you've avoided a bad time.
	Now, it's important in decision-making that you be able to rank the alternatives.
	Here I've used stars to represent what I take to be from best to worst.
	Best, go on the date, it's great, you have a great time.
	Next, best, avoid the bad time.
	The date was bad, but you didn't go, so you avoided a bad time.
	The third, you're going to regret you missed a good time.
	On the other hand, the worst outcome is misery when the date is, you know, not good and you have a terrible time.
	Now, just think about this in terms of those three decision principles.
	Maxi Max game.
	Obviously, the only way to max out, to have the four star happiness, is to go on the date.
	Now, interestingly, if you want to minimize maximum loss, And since if you go on the date and the date is not so great, you're going to be miserable, the minimax loss principle says don't go on the date.
	Don't go on the date.
	Miss the misery.
	Right?
	That's a pessimistic policy.
	We've all known friends who were optimistic or pessimistic.
	And it's reflected in their actions.
	Now with regard to the regret function here, You would miss a good time.
	Now, there's not a specific number of stars to represent that, I suppose, except that you're gonna miss the happiness if the date's great and you don't go.
	And I would suggest what someone who's worrying about, you know, not having regrets over not having gone, is you go!
	Now, you run the risk, of course, of having a bad time, but you also run the risk of having a great time, on the other hand.
	You may well, you know, regret having not gone.
	Now, here's a decision-making matrix with regard to gun control and whether or not you are yourself armed or capable of defending yourself.
	This could be in a home environment or a concealed carrier, what have you.
	And consider the alternative states of nature that you're assaulted versus you're never assaulted.
	Now, if you're assaulted when you're armed, you can defend yourself.
	If you are assaulted and you're unarmed, you're going to suffer the consequences, which could be, you know, serious, even entailing death.
	Now, if you're armed but never assaulted, then you were prepared to deal with a situation, but you never had to deal with it, so it was unnecessary.
	You were armed, you could have defended yourself, but it was unnecessary.
	On the other hand, if you're unarmed and you're never assaulted, we just say that's a matter of pure luck.
	Now, all of these matters are subject to quantification, you know, relative frequency of assaults and so forth in different contexts and so forth.
	It gets very, very sophisticated and a lot of statisticians and social sciences have looked into this.
	Now, presumably, on the maximax gain, you're going to want to defend yourself.
	On minimax loss, interestingly, you're going to want to avoid harm or death, so you're also going to want to arm yourself.
	On the prudential policy of avoid what you would regret, it seems to me, again, actually, you'd arm yourself.
	Now, most Americans don't think this through.
	They just sort of accept what they hear in the air, and if everyone's talking about how bad it is to have guns, they sort of take for granted that that must be true, which is to commit a fallacy known as popular sentiments, which is to assume that because most people believe something is true, therefore it must be true.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	There was a time, for example, when most people believe Earth was flat.
	Now, as a student of the history of science and the philosophy of science, which focuses heavily on the history of astronomy and physics, I can assure you One of the great accomplishments of the study of astronomy and physics is to establish that virtually all celestial objects in space are spherical.
	It has to do with the laws of gravity and mass attracting each other with a force that's directly proportional to the mass.
	So the more mass, the more objects are attracted toward one another and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
	Meaning the farther away they are, the lesser the gravitational attraction.
	We saw some manifestations of this in discussing the moon landing.
	What turned out that the, you know, when you looked at the conspiracy theory movie, for example, you'd see actually the astronauts were just in slow motion to make it look like they were on the moon.
	And that when you just speeded it up, it was obvious they were doing normal things.
	Well, what I want you to do is ponder all this against the background I'm now going to provide about the Second Amendment, which states that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
	That's quite a wonderful statement, and we are among the only nations in the world that have a Second Amendment.
	Most citizens of other countries, particularly in Europe, wish they had a Second Amendment.
	There's been much debate about the idea, the meaning of militia here, and whether that only means As it were, the National Guard is entitled.
	But really, this is derivative of the role of American citizen-soldiers, the colonists who fought a war against the British and succeeded.
	And having citizen-soldiers, our Founding Fathers envisioned, was indispensable to maintaining a free state.
	Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Well, there are many forces at work seeking to infringe that very right.
	So, here are some of the key points, then, for our contemplation.
	A well-regulated militia be necessary to the security of a free state.
	The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as I have observed.
	The concept is that of citizen-soldiers prepared to defend liberty, but that right has been subjected to an unprecedented attack.
	You can read a lot about this Second Amendment.
	This is from Wikipedia.
	Wikipedia is actually a Zionist political operation, but on a lot of basic stuff, where it would be easy to expose that it was fraudulent.
	Pretty reliable.
	Here I'm simply talking about the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
	Adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the First Ten Amendments, which of course are known as the Bill of Rights.
	The Supreme Court has ruled the right belongs to individuals, while also ruling the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.
	Now, this next sentence is important.
	State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing on this right per its incorporation in the Bill of Rights.
	Now, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military who haven't.
	It's very peculiar how Condoleezza Rice I think it's time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world.
	Joe Biden list as a possible vice presidential candidate.
	You may want to ponder this should her name resurface again.
	I think it's time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world.
	I don't understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons.
	We wouldn't say you could go out and buy a tank. - No.
	Now, what she's talking about are actually semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 that the Parkland shooter, Nicholas Kruger, allegedly used to kill 17 students and teachers in Parkland, Florida, on February 14th of 2018, to which we shall return.
	So it's quite remarkable how frequently we have these shooting events being cited as justification for depriving us of our right to keep and bear arms.
	In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4.
	The Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms pertains to individuals, not, as some insist, to militias.
	The Second Amendment's preparatory clause The right of well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state may include citizens' right to bear military weapons because today's military has sophisticated weapons that governments didn't have in the 18th century.
	In other words, what we're talking about here is having a militia that could actually stand up to a governmental force that was well-supplied with weapons.
	Who really uses guns to commit violence?
	Here's a typical scenario from historical circumstances, the true history of democites, which are the slaughters of societies by governments.
	Here you have, you notice, government officers following orders, even when they're popular, and citizens who went along with gun control being slaughtered.
	We'll return to this.
	Hence, we know the majority opinion, this was an extremely important decision, written by Justice Scalia, considered an example of constitutional originalism, meaning interpreting the meaning of the Constitution in accordance with the original intent of our founders.
	The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to possess a firearm.
	Unconnected with service in a militia, to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
	Now that's very important to notice.
	The people to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same people who enjoy the First and Fourth Amendment protection, meaning ordinary American citizens.
	Meanwhile, as I was observing, we have the frequent declaration or assertion that shootings that have occurred under various circumstances, including most popularly of late, school shootings, mean the Second Amendment needs to be abridged.
	So, we're going to take a look.
	Now, Deerfield, Illinois, which is a community not far outside of Chicago, has gone whole hog Residents were given 60 days to surrender their assault weapons, which isn't, you know, that's supposed to apply to automatic weapons, which are universally illegal for citizens to possess, where an automatic weapon is one that continues to fire, reload and fire, continuously with a single depression of the trigger until all the ammunition is expended.
	Semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 operate differently.
	They only reload and re-fire with each press, depression of the trigger.
	So most handguns, like a .45, are semi-automatic handguns.
	And the idea of using assault weapons actually is a spin, and that's the use of loaded language.
	Try to, you know, set up a predetermined attitude toward whether or not one ought to be entitled to own an AR-15, which turns out to be an extremely popular weapon here in the USA.
	Otherwise, in Deerfield, you could be subjected to a fine of up to $1,000 a day.
	This was based upon the Parkland, Texas and Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, oblivious of the fact that these were politically staged events.
	So, we have the residents, 60 days to surrender their guns or face a $1,000 fine a day.
	Earlier this week, the Village Board of Trustees passed an ordinance banning certain types of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, including the Ruger 10-22, which can accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
	Semi-automatic pistols that can hold more than 10 rounds have also been banned.
	Residents have to either sell their weapon transfer ownership to someone living outside the town, turn in to the police, or pay the exorbitant fines, which range from $250 to $1,000 per day.
	Authorities justified the ban by pointing to the recent spate of mass shootings, including last year's Sutherland Springs shootings, stopped by a man who used one of the very guns Deerfield has now banned.
	This is not only held constitutional by the Seventh Circuit, but similar laws have been ruled by constitutional, according to a representative for Deerfield.
	It's really quite fascinating that this should have happened.
	They mentioned four recent shootings that claimed a total of 150 lives, according to the Official narratives.
	Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, 17 dead.
	A massacre at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs that killed 26.
	The Las Vegas festival shooting leaving 58.
	The Bulls nightclub shooting killing 49.
	Although the trustees had virtually no debate, more than 70 people attended.
	Of the 20 who spoke, 14 were opposed to the ordinance and six supported it.
	Meanwhile, a point I've made in publishing a blog about it was that the Deerfield Board of Trustees had both the law and their facts wrong.
	There are many reasons why I suggested they committed a blunder.
	This was an open letter to the trustees.
	A law abiding citizens are not the problem.
	How will your community defend itself if riots break out in Chicago and spill over into your community?
	What if a motorcycle gang came to town and began looting your stores and raping your women?
	European nations run with immigrants, wish they had a second amendment so they could defend themselves against assaults.
	So, I mean, those are a few of the examples and we're going to talk more about them.
	Meanwhile, I want to suggest they've been played by false narratives.
	For example, the permit for the Pulse Club had expired three years earlier.
	In other words, it was actually closed at the time of the mass shooting.
	The Parkland school shooting was staged using simulated ammunition.
	It's actually Made out of beeswax and laundry detergent.
	Las Vegas was a movie with special visual effects.
	They were staged and others, too, to promote gun control, including, of course, Sandy Hook.
	Now, here's the Pulse Club prior to its closing.
	When it was still painted white, it was repainted black after the event.
	And I just note here, which I discussed in the Last week, though most of you would not have seen it because you didn't have access to it until now, there are all kinds of problems here.
	It only had an official legal occupancy of 150.
	They claimed over 300 were crammed in, just as with the New Zealand shooting.
	There were all kinds of exits.
	No one used the exits.
	Only 11 parking spaces.
	Notice how limited the parking is.
	If there had been 300 packed in there, It would have been there would have been abandoned vehicles all over the place.
	They were not there.
	They made major efforts to try to conceal that Orlando was a fraud.
	Check out at Marjorie Stoneman.
	It's even fascinating that we have inside a classroom.
	Well, you can actually see that on the ground.
	This is supposed to be a body.
	It's a training dummy with no arms and no head lying on a pool of fake blood.
	They use fake blood in Boston too and elsewhere on many different occasions.
	Some, of course, showed up at the Al-Noor Mosque when the gunman went back for his second round.
	We had a little bit of fake blood there.
	And then we shot the woman lying in the gutter.
	There appears to have been a little fake blood packet there.
	But just notice how blatant this is.
	Now, what we have is about a 57-second clip of students in the classroom who are doing their best to simulate that they're in fear.
	Someone's worried about her iPod, another about her bottle blotters.
	That kid is pulling his pot.
	The camera will swing around to give you a glimpse of the body.
	About which the girls are ostensibly screaming.
	Now, you see lots of persons in police uniforms you see lots of persons in police uniforms and you might think, wow, those Parkland cops are really Johnny on the spot.
	If you didn't know that Parkland gave up its police force in 2004 to save money, so those were actors in police uniforms.
	Here's Kelsey Friend, who had a very interesting observation.
	She said, it looks so real, but it felt so fake.
	I thought that was unbelievably perceptive by Kelsey to remark about the circumstances she was in.
	This figure on the right, of course, David Hogg, the son of an FBI agent who's an expert in the area of simulations and may have even been a consultant on the Parkland shooting.
	Here's a sane progressive talking about what she observed by watching video after video after video of the Parkland shooting from aerial footage and what she discovered.
	You go watch the footage of what they showed you happen.
	Because if you go to the WPLG Local 10 news clip, they have four hours, near four hours of raw footage from the drone helicopter.
	It does not show a single person.
	Who had a gunshot wound being carried out.
	It does show empty gurneys being loaded in as rescues.
	It does show individuals who have absolutely no sign of injury with any medical equipment whatsoever.
	It shows that.
	It shows police officers riding around on golf carts with duffel bags the right size for carrying rescue dummies in.
	It does show that.
	It doesn't show 3,500 students.
	There's probably only about I don't know, three to four dozen students that were shown during the rescue at a school with 3,500 people.
	This is an empty stretcher that they had just put under a tent.
	He's smiling.
	He's smiling.
	I've watched the entire four hours of this video.
	Over a period of days.
	The news media has reported to you that there are 3,500 students that attend this high school.
	I have not seen more than 60 students in the entire 3 hours and 50 minutes of footage.
	I don't know where all those kids are.
	Debbie's really smart, and she put together that, in fact, this date, which was Valentine's Day, was because it was a holiday.
	Students were released early.
	They all went home at 1 p.m.
	Notice that?
	Early release day, students go home at 1 p.m., but the shooting was later in the afternoon.
	So the students, most of the students, weren't even there.
	Actually, David Hogg, after the March for Our Lives, did an interview with CBS, Or he admitted.
	I don't think he realized how much he was conceding.
	That he had gone home that day and then he realized he had to get back to school and got on his bike to rush back so he could participate in the staged shooting event.
	He didn't want to miss out on his claim, what would become his claim to fame.
	So this is all just ridiculous.
	Debbie's wonderful.
	In relation to Las Vegas, when I still had my Facebook page, one of my Facebook Friends, Dolores Dryden, Poston.
	I contacted these three hospitals, all of which are the closest emergency facilities from the alleged shooting.
	Spring Valley Hospital, AMG Specialty Hospital, North Vista Hospital.
	I asked if they could check their registry for a gunshot victim taken there from the mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel.
	I received the same reply from each facility.
	There were no gunshot victims admitted to this facility.
	You may want to check with the local police.
	One woman said, if you're referring to the crisis drill that everyone keeps calling about, then I'm sorry, there were no real gunshot victims.
	That was just a drill.
	If you don't believe me, call them yourself.
	Gave the number.
	So I did.
	I called myself.
	And the first two said exactly the same, no gunshot victims admitted, and the third, who had been so cheerful to acknowledge that it was just a drill, said she could make no comment.
	They'd reined her in.
	Well, you got the sheriff saying that there were no indication of any shots fired anywhere from the 32nd floor of the wing of the Mandalay, but here's video evidence contradicting it.
	If you look, you'll see on the fourth floor, You see a flashing light there, flashing light there.
	This is actually coordinated with a pre-recorded soundtrack being played over the PA system.
	But how could the sheriff, how could the sheriff of Clark County claim there's no evidence of shots fired from any other location when we have videos like this?
	And as I may have mentioned before, incidentally every now and then, you hear three light flashes from higher up simulating American military equipment which fires in three shots and blasts.
	Here's another video that surfaced where we looked through a very large number.
	This is a guy who steps out in the crowd, turns and fires on the crowd.
	You can see the muzzle flash, but there's no impact of any bullets because he was using blanks.
	Here's another video that surfaced.
	You got a crisis actor actually stepping out in front of a couple here, crisis acting, to tell them they had to redo it.
	They had to redo it.
	I mean, this is so embarrassingly bad that anyone takes this stuff seriously is unbelievable.
	Here you see a transfer from a funeral home into an ambulance of bodies that are going to be presented as though they were deaths that had occurred at the shooting in Las Vegas at the concert, all completely manufactured.
	This is one of my favorite.
	Intellihub had a report of what they thought was a mini massacre within the massacre at Hooters because there were 17 ambulances stacked up in front of Hooters.
	But here was footage from inside Hooters.
	We had 17 crisis actors, each with their own sheep, waiting to be carried out on a stretcher as another victim of the mass shooting.
	I mean, it's embarrassingly bad.
	And the beat goes on in Santa Fe, Texas.
	Too many tweets were showing up too early to be authentic.
	A trench coat worn by the alleged shooter was fabricated with Nazi and Antifa insignia.
	As in Las Vegas, a crisis actor was again caught in the act.
	They won't let the media talk to the kids about what happened because the kids would probably tell them we had a drill.
	So there's supposed to be at least 10 people dead after a high school shooting in Santa Fe, but it's just one more of these fake events.
	You never see any bodies.
	You see they have equipment sitting around there.
	One of the tells is there's no sense of urgency.
	No sense of urgency.
	That's because nothing real is taking place.
	It's not a bona fide medical emergency.
	Jim Stone is pretty good at picking out points that are highly illustrative about staged shootings.
	He's been very good.
	He says this morning's shooting had trolls on all forums, even major, I mean all forums, minutes after the shooting saying they witnessed it, done to keep people from saying it was not real.
	However, All they did was prove they were set and staged to take action the moment the shooting was published, which means it either never happened or was government-sponsored.
	When trolls are blowing out forums with fewer than 150 users within the first few comments on threads, it's impossible.
	It amounts to a case closed.
	That was fake.
	Meanwhile, you have this stage equipment of Antifa.
	And again, Jim Stone's pretty good looking at the shirt.
	They say he had on his Facebook page, you know, he found it was actually taken from an old Facebook account.
	They just found it convenient to jazz it up.
	Here you had, does any of this look rushed?
	It looks as though anyone's panicked, strucken, as though they're worried because friends or classmates have been shot?
	No!
	This is not an emergency.
	This is another state shooting, and notice the bottled water.
	Bottled water is ubiquitous at these drills.
	We had it at Sandy Hook.
	We had the firehouse providing pizza and bottled water to the participants.
	We had in Parkland, we had bottled water.
	Here in Santa Fe, we have bottled water.
	So that's another tell.
	Here was a note from a research colleague about Santa Fe.
	I'm sure you're suspecting now this is another deep state operation.
	It has all the qualities.
	This is in my neck of the woods down here in Houston.
	There was a beta test back in February.
	Someone called 911, said shots had been fired at the school.
	Then the lawyers for the so-called gunman said, we didn't see this coming.
	Oh, really?
	Then what was that back in February?
	Here's a link to the story, how convenient it happens during the NBA finals.
	Houston Rockets happen to be playing.
	A big deal's made about it before their game with the Golden State Warriors.
	In other words, this is like the kids singing at the Super Bowl after Sandy Hook.
	I mean, they had some of the kids that were supposed to be dead were actually singing at the Super Bowl, but they weren't identified.
	And then you have these miraculous events at Parkland.
	You had girls who were shot with an AI-15 that would have made them dead, and they're covering their wounds with Band-Aids.
	We'll go into that in great detail.
	Here we got another miracle in Texas.
	Star High School baseball player survives a gunshot to the head.
	Bullet pierced Rome Schubert's head at Santa Fe High School Friday morning.
	By afternoon, he was home.
	Right, right.
	That's right.
	Unbelievable.
	Now, this is really important.
	This has to do with the statistics related to the usage of guns and why it's so important you should understand.
	Gun bans are inversely related to homicides.
	In other words, crime rates tend to rise when popular activities are criminalized.
	It happened with prohibition, continues with the war on drugs.
	Gun homicides and violence have actually steadily dropped since 1993.
	The nations with the highest gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates.
	May seem surprising, but true.
	Here are a couple of graphs.
	Look how gun violence has declined.
	You had a total of homicides in 1993 of 7.0 per 100,000.
	But by 2014, it had dropped by more than half to 3.4 per 100,000.
	Similarly, non-fatal violent firearm crime.
	2014 it had dropped by more than half to 3.4 per 100,000.
	Similarly non-fatal violent firearm crime.
	These are like people who are injured by gunshots.
	1993, 725.3 per 100,000.
	Look at that dramatic drop!
	Dramatic drop!
	Here's another.
	Now this shows how homicides and gun crimes vary with events like Prohibition, okay?
	You had the old Wild West days, and see, when everyone was armed, Everyone was able to protect themselves.
	Then you have gun control laws enacted.
	And look at the surge in gun crimes.
	Look at the surge in gun crimes.
	And you have prohibition beginning.
	Crimes include prohibition hands.
	Then we have post-JFK assassination gun laws enacted.
	The war on drugs.
	You gotta climb.
	You gotta climb.
	Then the states moved to issue concealed carry permits.
	And the rate has been dropping.
	Now this was the 2008.
	But it actually continues where gun laws are weak, where gun laws are strong.
	It's just the opposite.
	Look at this!
	Look at this!
	This is absolutely stunning!
	The nations where they have the highest gun ownership have the lowest homicide rate.
	Look at North America, U.S.
	and Canada, highest gun ownership, lowest homicide rate.
	Look at Brazil, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	I mean, there are lots of ways to kill people besides guns.
	Look at Africa, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	Russia, low gun ownership, high homicide rate.
	You really want to absorb the meaning of this graph because it contradicts virtually everything you're told, particularly by the political left in the United States that have been aggressively promoting gun control.
	And have yet to cease in their efforts.
	Meanwhile, we had a gun ban in the UK and what happened?
	An increase in homicides.
	UK banned guns and the UK homicide rate went up.
	It's now experiencing a skyrocketing increase in knife attacks.
	So, the London mayor wants to ban all of those killer knives?
	I said, what will they ban next?
	Potato peelers?
	Screwdrivers?
	Sure enough, the next they ban potato peelers!
	I mean, it was as though they'd been listening to me!
	So, the UK disarmed its citizens, murders now skyrocketing as police fail to protect the defenseless population.
	It's really shocking.
	In the early 20th century, British citizens were entrusted by their government to own firearms.
	In fact, then Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne Cecil, the Marcus of Salisbury, once said he would laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England.
	However, beginning with the law requiring a permit for handguns, Britain would embark down the slippery slope of a total citizen disarmament.
	And by 1996, all guns, including handguns, were banned in the USA.
	In fact, so scared of its citizens having guns as the UK that in 2006, the government even banned toy guns.
	Under the guise of reducing violence with a Violent Crime Reduction Act.
	Fast forward to 2018 and as gun right activists have consistently warned, only criminals and the government have guns.
	Scotland Yard has since called an emergency meeting as London is now gripped by unprecedented violent crime.
	It comes as a spike as an ex-senior officer says police have lost control of the streets.
	Following a massive spike in murders, one that has now passed out of New York City, police chiefs are scrambling to try and tackle knife and gun violence.
	London is currently experiencing an exceptionally high level of gun and knife crimes.
	Responding to an emergency meeting, it's important that we fully inform the community concerns, community tensions are identified and responded to.
	Meanwhile, here's an example.
	According to The Guardian, among those attending the meeting were the Labor MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, and Nikola Kalesya Mayil, an activist against knife crime whose own son was stabbed 37 times when he was just 17, but he survived.
	The problem is so out of hand that six teenagers were stabbed this week in the space of 90 minutes.
	Police have lost control.
	Signs from senior officers is embarrassing.
	The need for police would be drastically diminished if citizens of London could simply defend themselves.
	However, that's not an option unless they use sticks or knives under three inches.
	A futile choice, considering that criminals have illegal guns and knives at their disposal.
	Remember, it's the law-abiding citizens who are going to give up their guns Not the criminals.
	The criminals because they don't obey the law.
	I mean, after all, what could be more obvious?
	So you have the Mayor of London, who happens to be a Muslim, enacting the knife control policies to crack down on the stabbing epidemic.
	Last week, The Blaze reported the number of murders in London, a traditionally safe city, surpassed the number of murders in New York City for the first time in modern history.
	The murders were mostly carried out in stabbing attacks with knives.
	These items were found during a weapon sweep near McInworth House on Augustus Street.
	Look, it involved screwdrivers, pliers, you know, I think that's one's a file, scissors, UK has now criminalized carrying acid and other corrosive substances because attacks are being taken out with acid.
	Look at this poor woman who had acid thrown in her face.
	I mean, this is just ridiculous.
	The streets in London have gotten completely out of control.
	We know gun control is not the solution.
	There are Over 5 million AR-15s, but only 5 have been implicated in mass shootings.
	The number may have gone up to 6 or 7.
	But there are millions, in fact now today probably 6, 7 million AR-15s.
	Orlando, Las Vegas and Parkland were staged for gun control.
	Chicago demonstrates that gun control fails with its soaring gun violence.
	The CDC has been suppressing proof that defensive gun usage far exceeds offensive gun usage.
	In other words, The press never talks about how American citizens defend themselves from criminals by having guns, the defensive use of guns, which far exceeds the offensive use of guns.
	I mean, look at some of the stories.
	This from government slaves.
	It's just fascinating what you will find on this site, Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Google Analytics, Google AdSense, blah, blah, blah.
	If you have the means, please consider making a small donation to donate us, because actually we're bringing you the truth, and they are not.
	Cook County Commissioner asks the U.N.
	to send troops in to quell Chicago's gun violence.
	How bad is that back in 2017?
	Dr. Iwan, who like myself is a retired college professor, has a wonderful website called Fellowship of the Minds.
	The situation in Chicago Which has the strictest gun laws in the United States, has gotten so out of hand, so out of hand, that they've even debated asking the UN to send in troops.
	I mean, frankly, that's an absurd solution to the problem.
	Illinois has its own National Guard.
	Bringing in UN troops would be a violation of United States sovereignty.
	They can't simply leapfrog into the Chicago area.
	I think they would be met with a violent resistance.
	Every time I hear about the idea of UN troops being brought into the United States, that's one certain way to guarantee there'd be a massive response by the hundred million plus Americans who are armed To what would be perceived as an invasion by foreigners.
	The point I'm making is Chicago is an exemplar of gun control laws that do not work.
	In fact, there's just a massive evidence about it.
	Chicago's in Cook County in the state of Illinois.
	If a city's police are overwhelmed by and unable to contain its epidemic of homicides, the mayor should declare martial law.
	If that doesn't work, the state can send in its National Guard.
	If Illinois' National Guard is unable to deal with Chicago's homicides, Illinois' governor, then Bruce Rauner, can ask for help from the federal government.
	But this Cook County Commissioner, I hate to refer to him as a numbskull, but this Cook County Commissioner is bypassing the chain of command and appropriate responses to situations like this.
	Calling Chicago's homicides a genocide?
	He wants the U.N.
	to intervene directly by sending peacekeeping troops to the city.
	Wow!
	Good question here.
	Is it a genocide?
	Is it a genocide when the people blacks doing the genocide are the same people blacks who are being genocided?
	Which reflects the fact that the overwhelming number of victims of shootings in the U.S.
	are blacks killing other blacks.
	You've been propagandized to think differently, but that is the fact of the matter.
	Blacks killing other blacks is a preponderant murder in the United States.
	Meanwhile, gun control.
	The CDC suppresses its own findings on the defensive use of guns.
	Guns for defensive self-defense is defensive gun use.
	Guns used not for self-defense, but to attack another is offensive gun use.
	In 2008, in the landmark ruling 5-4, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, even unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
	That's pretty significant.
	Instead of supporting and upholding the Second Amendment, a federal government agency, the Center for Disease Control, just does the opposite.
	The CDC has often been criticized by gun owner organizations like the NRA as being anti-gun for awarding research grants on firearms and violence only to researchers with strong anti-gun or pro-gun control publication records.
	This is the case and it is a disgrace!
	Now, a professor of criminology, Gary Kleck, is discovered in 1996, 1997, and 1998, during the Bill Clinton administration.
	The CDC conducted its own research on defensive gun use, but never released the findings, or even admitted they had studied the topic.
	Not only did they find a high incidence of defensive gun use, 2.46 million a year.
	The annual number of defensive gun use is 3.6 times that of offensive gun use, which reinforces the correctness of the Supreme Court's ruling.
	Here's a report about a study which I regard as particularly significant.
	This is numbers of defensive gun uses, a study ordered by the CDC, conducted by the National Academies Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported.
	It's a common occurrence.
	Almost all national survey estimates indicate defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
	Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere, excluding, setting to the side, military service, police work, or work as a security guard, yielding an estimate, get this,
	Of 162,000 cases a year where someone almost certainly would have been killed if they had not used a gun for protection.
	So if you take away our right to keep and bear arms, if you take away our right to defend ourselves, you're going to add a minimum, a minimum of 162,000 more victims who are going to be unable to protect themselves and die as a consequence.
	Think about it.
	Even Esquire's editor has been plagued, David Holmes.
	We really do want to take your guns.
	School shootings have steadily dropped since the 1960s.
	Anti-gun advocates don't want you to know the score.
	They never even mention the defensive use of guns.
	Here's an article by Dr. Eo in Esquire magazine.
	We really do want to take your guns.
	Here's a guy, David Holmes, editor-at-large of Esquire.
	Very smart, but does not appear to be aware these school shootings are being staged to promote the DNC political agenda.
	He has no idea.
	Sandy Hook.
	Las Vegas and Parkland, for example, were orchestrated events.
	I'm going to reach out to him and let him know that his advocacy is fine if it's based on true beliefs, but as it said, appears to be based on false.
	That was an editor's note I added when I republished.
	This very fine blog by Dr. Ewing.
	Meanwhile, school shootings have decreased since the 90s, but Democrats would like for you to believe the opposite.
	This was in Telehub, the same outfit that was taken in by what they thought was a mass murder within a mass murder in Las Vegas at Hooters.
	Because 17 ambulances were pulled up, but they were just waiting for crisis actors, each having their own sheet to be taken out in a stretcher as another victim.
	In early 2018, MICE's Wire editor, Ryan McMaken, pointed Pointedly articulates the fact that U.S.
	government documents indicate a decline nationally in homicides and school shootings since the 90s, which means that schools are actually far safer today than they were two decades ago.
	However, Democrats and certain left-leaning media shills would like you to believe quite the opposite, mostly because it suits their gun control agenda.
	And when it comes to things like homicide, there's no evidence things are getting worse.
	The editors make clear there were far more homicides in the U.S.
	during the 80s and 90s than there are today.
	Things were even worse than that during the 70s.
	In fact, the homicide rate in the U.S.
	was cut in half between 1991 and 2014.
	We've actually shown you already statistics to support it.
	So, murders rising still below 1990s level.
	This is right per 100,000.
	This was in 2015.
	Additionally, his piece linked to a Northern University report titled, Schools are safer than they were in the 90s and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, which is very different than what we're told.
	Although most school shootings ended homicide, the number of homicides from school shootings is far less today than it was decades ago.
	This is showing out events that took place.
	Notice it includes, of course, the Stoneman Douglas, the Parkland High School shooting as a major event.
	But get this.
	Here's a very telling graph where a report from the U.S.
	Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs titled School Safety by the Numbers concludes school crime rates have in fact decreased, not increased over time.
	This is school shootings and mass shootings 1992-93 through 2014-2015.
	to 93 through 2014-2015.
	Notice that's even after Sandy Hook in 2012, which they no doubt assumed to be legit.
	Now, it's fascinating that there was a very interesting event in Maryland.
	Unlike the Stage Parkland event, this one appears to have been real.
	A young man, depressed by breaking up with his girlfriend, shoots her.
	An armed security officer arrives, takes him out in less than a minute.
	Which warning will reduce the problem?
	Gun-free or armed security?
	Think about it.
	This is really a fascinating case because Maryland has massive laws to control guns.
	Massive.
	I mean, probably the most massive in the history.
	Here we have a teenager used his father's legally owned handgun in an attack inside his high school in Maryland.
	Austin Rollins, 17, was killed Tuesday morning at Great Mills High School when a school resource officer fired off a shot at the attacker.
	It was not yet clear whether Rollins took his own life with his father's semi-automatic Glock handgun or was killed by the officer's bullet.
	Investigators with the St.
	Mary's County Sheriff's Office said Rollins shot a 16-year-old girl in the hallway within minutes of entering the high school.
	Rollins and the girl had recently ended a relationship.
	All indications suggest the shooting was not a random act of violence, police said.
	But look at this!
	What did not stop today's school shooting?
	Maryland's assault weapon ban?
	No.
	Maryland's 10-round magazine limit?
	No.
	Maryland's universal background check requirement?
	No.
	Maryland's law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun?
	No.
	Maryland's law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month?
	No.
	Maryland's law requiring handgun registration?
	No.
	Maryland's law requiring licensing of handgun owners?
	No.
	Maryland's extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits?
	No.
	Maryland's refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state?
	No.
	Federal law prohibiting handgun possession for people under 21?
	No.
	Laws against carrying without a permit?
	No.
	Gun-free zone laws?
	No.
	Laws against discharging a firearm in public?
	No.
	Laws against attempted murder?
	No.
	What did stop today's school shooting?
	An armed person on the scene who engaged a shooter in less than a minute.
	Any questions?
	Which of these signs do you think will prevent another tragedy?
	All weapons are prohibited on these premises, or staff heavily armed and trained in any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force.
	I mean, this is a no-brainer.
	But the Democrats would tell you we should have taken all the weapons away and have gun-free zones so anyone can come in and shoot up the place without fear of any response being taken.
	Threats to the Second Amendment continue.
	Former Justice John Paul Stevens, this just dumbfounds me, has recommended its abolition.
	Parkland students feel safer in Israel because it's an armed camp.
	Judge Napolitano got it right.
	It's to shoot tyrants, not to shoot deer.
	The ongoing process of the stalinization of America must be defeated.
	Here at a stunning, in the New York Times, John Paul Season writes to argue for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
	This is stunning!
	This is stupefying!
	My God, I can't believe this!
	Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civil engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrate in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday.
	Now this is in reaction to the Parkland shooting.
	These demonstrations demand our respect.
	They reveal a broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killing of schoolchildren and others in our society.
	The support is a clear sign to lawmakers To enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons, increase the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchases of firearms.
	But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform.
	Shades should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment!
	My God!
	Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate state led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that a well-regulated militia be necessary to the security of a free state.
	The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	Today, that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
	Well, I would say no, John Paul Stevens.
	You're the relic, because you're obviously out of touch with the situation in America today.
	Here's a fascinating report.
	Parkland students rally in Israel and Dubai to demand gun control in Israel.
	Parkland students are rallying in Israel and demand to stricter gun control laws in America.
	If we can get the international body on our side, that will make it so much easier to make change back in America.
	I mean, this is ludicrous!
	The fact is that all Israelis go through Israeli defense training.
	They all have two years of military service and training.
	They're frequently seen hanging around Israeli streets, publicly carrying not just semi-automatic, but automatic weapons.
	So, I mean, you know, this is a case of the Parkland students being played.
	Judge Napolitano has it right.
	We're talking about the right to issue tyrants, not deer, where the Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom.
	Analysis Opinion.
	The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government.
	If the colonists had been limited at crossbows that they had registered with the King's government in London, while the British troop used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
	We also defeated the King's soldiers because they didn't know who among us was armed.
	Because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense.
	Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.
	Well, it's almost got that bad today with all the social media censorship and attempts to impose a social merit system modeled after China.
	It's a disgrace in its own right.
	Today, The limitation on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignty, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
	The limitations!
	The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer.
	It protects the right to shoot tyrants.
	It protects the right to shoot at them effectively with the same instruments they would use upon us.
	If the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
	Here's a perfect example.
	Taking guns away.
	This is what governments, tyrannical governments do.
	The first thing they do, take guns away.
	Here we have Eric Swalwell, who was an insignificant candidate for president until he dropped out early on, on the Democratic side, of course, talking about taking guns away from the American people and ignoring the history of the problem, where democites have occurred again and again.
	This is the wiping out of whole societies by an armed force.
	The Parkland, Florida, school shooting was one more in a seemingly endless string of fabricated events that appear to be designed to instill fear into the public to make it more amenable to manipulation to promote a political agenda, which, as Dave Hodges of the Common Sense Show has observed, has three stages.
	First, A massive assault on the First Amendment, covered by the use of private companies, namely the social media giants Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, to remove critics of official accounts from publicizing and sharing their research.
	Second, a correlated attack on the Second Amendment, where the University of Hawaii's Democide Project has shown there were 19 democides during the 20th century.
	Each of which was preceded by gun confiscation, leaving the population helpless to resist.
	And third, the extraction of dissidents, the critics, those who speak out against fake news, propaganda and censorship, who must be removed because they pose a threat to the deep state.
	It can inspire others to stand up for their rights and transfer to American gulags, which we know as FEMA camps.
	That the removal of guns from law-abiding citizens is not in the interest of the American people follows from studies that have shown that gun ownership and homicide rates are inversely related, which means the greater gun ownership, the lower the homicide rate, as multiple studies have shown.
	John Law, The War on Guns, 2016, makes a very good read about what's really going on.
	Our gun laws will change.
	We just witnessed last week the stage Christ shirting were used for confiscation.
	The Prime Minister declared our gun laws will change.
	The cabinet confirmed a massive gun ban within 10 days.
	Donald Trump was said to be a symbol of white identity.
	Here we got the New Zealand Prime Minister saying our gun laws will change after the completely phony change fabricated Moss shooting.
	Just outrageous as egregious a case as there has ever been.
	Speaking about how the cabinet backs gun laws within 10 days.
	They do it fast, so you can stop and not stop and think about the consequences of what's going on.
	Speaking at a news conference, she said the cabinet's backing ultimately means within 10 days of this horrific act of terrorism, we will have announced reforms which will, I believe, make our communities safer.
	In fact, the opposite is the case.
	Meanwhile, the New Zealand shooter called Donald Trump a symbol of white identity as he murdered 49 people, except we know it didn't happen.
	We know it was all fake.
	In the alleged manifesto from the New Zealand shooting, the terrorist, the fake terrorist, the crisis actor, stated he deliberately chose to use firearms in order to gain extra media coverage and ultimately fracture the U.S.
	along cultural and racial lines.
	Is the media helping him to achieve this goal?
	I chose firearms for the effect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage, and the effect it would have on the politics of the U.S.
	and thereby the political situation of the world.
	The U.S.
	is torn into many factions by the Second Amendment along state, social, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.
	With enough pressure, the left wing of the United States will seek to abolish the Second Amendment, and the right wing within the U.S.
	will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty.
	This attempt at abolition of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people of the United States and eventually a fracturing of the U.S.
	along cultural and racial lines.
	Well, he certainly got that right.
	Meanwhile, it was interesting that Mossad's firing was on Earth because of the collapse of a building from an earthquake, crushed a car in which one of the agents of a team was crushed to death.
	He was found to have multiple passports, where the others, his allies in the cell, returned to Israel.
	Meanwhile, New Zealand's experiment has not gone well.
	Only 530 of 300,000 New Zealanders surrendered their firearms.
	Unsurprisingly, New Zealand experienced the highest level of crime in decades.
	Justin Trudeau has now banned 1,500 kinds of rifles after a Canadian event, which I am certain is a fake stage event as well, though I acknowledge I haven't taken a close look, but it fits the pattern.
	We should anticipate a similar increase in crimes across Canada.
	So, citizens disobey.
	Only 530 turn in their guns.
	Government officials are attributing the lack of gun turn-ins to citizens wanting to be properly compensated.
	However, the situation is far more complex.
	Obviously, the people don't want to disarm themselves, as it's their only defense against terrorists.
	Surely, people don't want to be robbed of their property without compensation.
	However, no amount of money can compensate someone into being defenseless and vulnerable to being raped, robbed, or killed.
	Meanwhile, despite confiscation, New Zealand sees the most gun crime in a decade.
	Surprise, surprise!
	Given the abundant research on Australia's similar gun confiscation effort, New Zealand officials can expect that their gun control measures will do little more than trample the natural right of gun owners and indeed it has.
	Last year there were 3,540 occasions when an offender was found with a gun.
	In both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009.
	2009!
	And the number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50% from five years.
	I mean, it's stunning.
	Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau, described as a beta totalitarian, was to follow in the way where history is replete with examples of totalitarians confiscating firearms to disarm the civilian population.
	Just try to name a totalitarian regime that did not.
	History is full of examples of totalitarian regimes surviving longer than they would have otherwise since an unarmed domestic resistance is largely neutered when confronted by armed enforcers.
	So Canada has banned these assault weapons and we can anticipate that in fact you're going to have an increase in the Canadian Homicides, just as that national pattern shows, will no longer be the pace that the US and Canada, being the most highly armed, have the lowest homicide rates.
	The US will continue to have a low homicide rate, but Canada's will grow.
	Meanwhile, gun-free or free-fire zones are better known as free-fire zones.
	Areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest rates of gun violence.
	Chicago should be the exemplar for every U.S.
	citizen where 18 residents were killed in a single day.
	Overlay a political map for elections on a gun violence map across the nation.
	Crime has well-known socioeconomic causes and established racial correlations.
	So here's Tucker.
	Only 10 unarmed blacks were killed in all of 2019, and yet 18 were killed in Chicago in a single day.
	Here is the number of murders of blacks by whites in the U.S.
	This was in 2013.
	Notice the figure on the right.
	Blacks killed by blacks.
	Second, whites killed by whites.
	Far left, whites killed by blacks.
	Look at the second.
	That's what we're hearing all the protests about.
	Blacks killed by whites.
	Trivial!
	I mean, every death, every murder, of course, is unfortunate, but look at the statistics.
	This is completely absurd.
	This is what Black Lives Matter is protesting.
	The statistics don't support it whatsoever.
	And look at this.
	Crime, criminal offenses in the U.S.
	by race per capita.
	Comparing four groups, Asian, Native American, Black, and White.
	The Blacks are overwhelmingly more involved in criminal activity than any other of these four racial groups.
	Overwhelmingly!
	Interestingly, on a per capita basis, Native Americans are second.
	I think that's because they also come from impoverished situations, low socioeconomic status, and suffer many inequities.
	Asians are by far the most law-abiding, but whites are generally conforming to the law.
	And look, blacks exceed in virtually every category of crime, forgery, counterfeiting, motor vehicle theft, offenses against the family.
	Commercial, prostitution and commercialized vice, robbery, fraud, vandalism, burglary, aggravated assault, liquor, liquor laws, actually there, the Native Americans, it's often said, you know, that Indians can't hold their liquor.
	They do seem to have a genetic incapacity, drunkenness, again, driving under the influence, all true, more high of American Indians than any other.
	But other assaults, larceny, theft, drug abuse, property crime, Blacks are way out in the league.
	Here are New York City crime statistics for 2014, for example.
	The murders, 62% of murders in New York City were committed by blacks, 32% by Hispanics.
	Add them together, 94% of murders in New York City were committed by blacks and Hispanics.
	Shooting, 75% in New York City by blacks, 22% by Hispanics.
	97% of shootings in New York City by blacks or Hispanics.
	Rape, Here's a case of one category where Hispanics exceed Blacks.
	46% Blacks.
	43.
	89% committed by Blacks or Latinos.
	If New York City were all white, rate would go down by 83%.
	Murder by 91.
	Shooting by 96.
	Here's a fascinating report of the 2016 electoral college map over the 2000 voter distribution.
	Notice, the areas where murders prevail are areas where Democrats are in control.
	It's becoming increasingly obvious that Democrats are incompetent at governance.
	All these gun control laws are backfiring.
	They just create free-fire zones that make more citizens vulnerable to being shot and killed.
	To be shot and killed.
	I don't know what could be more powerful proof that gun control laws do not work than this brilliant superposition of the 2016 electoral map over the 2014 murder map By Dr. Eowyn.
	By Dr. Eowyn.
	Brilliant.
	Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter is creating chaos, riots, and looting.
	Beginning in Minneapolis, it's spread across the nation.
	Democratic mayors and politicians want to defund the police.
	The patterns of protests and uprisings turn out to be the same as gun violence.
	These events accentuate the need for law enforcement.
	Here's a very nice summary introduction.
	Let him down, man.
	Let him breathe, please, man.
	Let him breathe.
	police custody in Minneapolis.
	A disturbing video shows the man pleading that he can't breathe as a white officer was kneeling on his neck during the arrest and kept it there for several minutes even after the man stopped moving.
	Police say the man matched the description of a suspect in a forgery case and resisted arrest.
	He's His death is drawing comparison to the case of Eric Garner, an unarmed black man who died in New York after being placed in a chokehold by police.
	He's been in a forgery case.
	Garner also told police he couldn't breathe.
	And all I keep coming back to is that he should not have died.
	What we saw was horrible.
	Completely and utterly messed up.
	This man's life matters.
	He matters.
	He was someone's son.
	The mayor of Minneapolis apologized to the black community in a Facebook post.
	He says, being black in America should not be a death sentence.
	Hello, I'm Mark Brown.
	Click the ABC7 logo to subscribe to our eyewitnesses.
	Let me just say, it resulted in massive rioting and looting.
	I'm sure you're familiar with many of the images.
	A looter was shot dead by a pawn shop owner.
	Stores were ransacked and torched as a George Floyd protest erupted in violence with armed vigilantes.
	Here are some of the scenes from what was going on there.
	I resided in Minnesota for 19 years, spent a lot of time in Minneapolis.
	I was on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota.
	The suspect was shot dead outside of a pawn shop, the police chief confirmed.
	He responded to reports of a possible stabbing.
	The stores looted included Wendy's, Target, Walmart, AutoZone were looted, ransacked, some set alight before rioters tried to bust open an ATM as many ignored pleas from the Floyd family lawyer and Minnesota Governor Walz to protest peacefully.
	This was very violent.
	Here's an image that seems to me to capture just what was going on.
	Meanwhile, it turns out that the pattern here, if you look at past patterns of protests, this was after Charlottesville, Virginia, on the left.
	You see where a protest took place.
	This is after the Women's March, after the Parkland shooting on the right.
	They're very similar.
	It turns out that the areas where you have the most protests have a pattern, California leading, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, a bit even here in my own home state of Wisconsin.
	But it follows a pattern.
	Meanwhile, think of this.
	New York politician calls for rioters to loot in communities that aren't their own.
	Bobo City Councilman Rasheed N.C.
	Wyatt livestreamed a call for rioters to loot and destroy communities that aren't their own.
	He also said, How's this for an absurdity?
	Dr. Martin Luther King was anti-violence because black people didn't have enough guns.
	Why it appeared to be not so subtly implying that violent mobs ought to go to white neighborhoods.
	Meanwhile, gun ban threatens security at three levels, personally and family security.
	Cops take as long as 20 minutes to show up, but all the mayhem tends to take place in the first five or six.
	So if you do not have guns, and you're waiting for the cops to show up because they do, your daughter may have been raped, your wife murdered, you may have been mugged before they arrive on the scene.
	Community and social security.
	Riots and gangs looting in Bellevue.
	Think of Deerfield, Illinois.
	They're going to be hapless.
	National security.
	This is a particularly fascinating example.
	Emperor Hirohito decided not to invade the United States when he was advised by his highest ranking military officers that there'd be a sniper behind every blade of grass.
	So the fact that the United States has a Second Amendment, and we have now today over 100 million armed Americans, was sufficient to cause the Emperor of Japan not to invade the United States.
	Now, China has the world's largest standing army at present, but we, with our armed citizen soldiers, have far more.
	Notice how many have had to take to defending themselves with the police stepping down, vigilantes arming against Antifa, residents carrying AR-15s wearing bulletproof vests to defend their neighborhoods and businesses as well they should.
	We had armed white residents lining the Idaho streets amid an Antifa fear.
	There was an incursion coming.
	They were prepared.
	Meanwhile, in downtown Cleveland, the Carbo's Italian fakery told the rioters to mind their own business.
	Yet you have leftist lunatics like Tom Arnold demanding liberals enter armed confrontations with Trump supporters.
	This is idiotic.
	This is as bad as it gets.
	This shows that Hollywood has gone the way of an insane asylum.
	Second Amendment is for everyone, including black men with long guns.
	But it's effing time for us white liberal men to stand up for our brothers and sisters.
	Borrow our dad's hunting rifles and go nose to nose with Trump's gang of misfit tools.
	Let's do it.
	Very bad idea, frankly.
	And here we have, returning to Consolese, a Rice assertion I don't understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons.
	The largest official army, Communist Party, over 2.5 million.
	At that time, the largest unofficial army, over 70 million, but now it's well over 100 million.
	Meanwhile, various cities have begun defending police in the wake of the George Floyd protests.
	Those include New York, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis, where you have the protesters chanting, What do we want?
	Dead cops!
	When do we want it?
	Now!
	How bad is that?
	So here you have, you know, protesters.
	Justice for George Floyd.
	Right on.
	End police brutality.
	It's about time.
	Empty the jails.
	Defund the police.
	Wait then, who will protect us from the white supremacists you just let out of jail?
	This is showing how thoughtful they are.
	The effort to take out Donald Trump is not working.
	His approval among black likely voters has reached an historic 40%.
	The creation of more jobs has greatly enhanced their quality of life.
	Fewer than 20% of Americans support defunding or abolishing the police.
	Even AOC doesn't know what to say when informed that more police means less crime, just as more guns actually means fewer homicides.
	Here we have, this is a Rasmussen Poll of 5 June 2020.
	5 June 2020.
	Showing that black support among likely voters has reached 40%.
	Think about it.
	Donald Trump with a surging economy who truly has lifted all votes.
	The lowest earning wage earners have had their wages rising at the highest rate, and because Trump has been clamping down on illegal immigration, they've been able to keep their jobs from the illegal immigrants who would otherwise steal them away.
	Latinos are similarly benefiting from Trump's economic policies.
	I do not believe anything the Democrats are doing now, no matter how desperate, is going to change the equation.
	Meanwhile, there's been growing racial and ethnic diversity in Congress.
	You never hear about this.
	Look back in 2001 with 101st Congress, there were 36 black members of Congress.
	Today, there are 56.
	There were 19 Hispanic in 2001.
	Today, there are 43.
	There were seven Asian.
	Today, there are 17.
	One Native American, now four.
	Black representation in Congress is now at a higher percentage than black representation in the population at large.
	Meanwhile, AOC stumbles over her words when told, more police mean less crime.
	During an interview with George Stephanopoulos, the New York representative was asked, why take money from the police?
	Research shows that more police on the street means less crime, he added.
	In the following clip, she stumbled around, oh, I think there's a, well, one question in interesting ears that, oh, when it comes to fines, it's not always just about the number of officers on the street.
	She eventually talked about not having police forces buy tanks.
	Meanwhile, Democrat lawmakers and commentators are calling for defunding or abolishing America's police departments in the wake of Officer Derek Chauvin's killing of unarmed black man George Floyd.
	While the proposal is popular among the party's progressive activist wing and on Twitter, it faces a hard wall of resistance among the wider public.
	A recent YouGov poll showed that fewer than 20% of Americans of all parties supported any cutting of police funding, a finding consistent with decades of polling.
	And here you have, again, murder rates per 100,000.
	This is back in 1998, and it's been highly consistent ever since.
	African-American males commit by far the most murders.
	African-American females a second.
	Then we're way, way behind white males and white females.
	These are very consistent data across generations.
	Here's a very interesting little piece.
	I'm Ani Horowitz, and the protests that have convulsed our nation are based on the premise that the police are racist writ large, that they target black people for death.
	But the statistics don't support that conclusion.
	In fact, the data shows the exact opposite.
	According to the Washington Post, in a new joint study by Michigan State University and the University of Maryland, which tracked every police shooting in every precinct across the country, it found that more white people are killed by police Both armed and unarmed.
	And controlling for crime rates, white people are disproportionately killed by officers.
	In fact, when there is a police shooting, black citizens are more likely to have been shot by black officers.
	So I went to a Black Lives Matter protest to explain my findings.
	Spoiler alert, it didn't go well.
	It's not a race issue.
	More white people are killed by the police than black people.
	A lot more.
	Most of the black people who were shot and killed by the police were killed by black police officers.
	That can't be a race issue.
	What?
	Thank you.
	I'm going to get back. - Nice to see you. - Nice to see you.
	Do you think that black lives don't matter?
	Of course black lives matter.
	It's really sweet that you're trying this.
	You're not interested in the statistics?
	What's your take on this?
	in the statistics.
	I don't want to talk to you.
	What's your take on this?
	My take is, there's no question there is...
	Let's get to the point.
	There is no question that there's police brutality.
	But it's not based on race.
	I'm sorry, do you care about the data?
	Scott heard you, but I'm curious.
	Can we have some conversation?
	The data doesn't support that there's racial police brutality.
	More black people, more unarmed... All the way up.
	All the way up.
	So you don't care about the data?
	All the way up.
	Your data could go suck the same thing you're gonna go suck.
	People were killed by cops.
	What is your purpose here?
	Why are you here?
	For what?
	For what?
	Do you want an answer?
	I was asking your old stat and your old report is ripped up.
	What do you want to do when America puts out?
	To distort your mind so that you believe it.
	So that you can come out here and talk this bullshit.
	I'm gonna distort your mind.
	Because I don't think it's me for the right purpose.
	You're right.
	You're not here for no reason.
	I don't think it's me for the right purpose.
	You can lay it out.
	You can lay it out.
	There's a bunch of bitches over there you can go talk.
	Who the fuck you bothering me for?
	Shut up.
	Get out of here.
	You're not stuck on it.
	Shut the fuck up.
	No, there are good cops, and they're all... Particularly, there are good cops.
	Oh, no, absolutely not.
	There's no good cops?
	- No, there's no good cops.
	- There you go.
	- But what?
	- Okay, you can stop.
	- But don't you?
	- Don't.
	- Pretty impressive.
	Latest developments, the alleged death occurred on 25 May 2020.
	The Obama Foundation, however, tweeted about it on 17 May 2020.
	The COVID-19 pandemic had already been around for over two months.
	None of the cops or pedestrians, however, were wearing face masks.
	Here's a fascinating piece by Patrick J. McShay on my blog about the George Floyd PSYOP, who are the racists reviewing some of this statistical data and making other points.
	But look at this!
	The Obama, this is the Obama Foundation, had a placard memorializing George Floyd on the 17th when he didn't die until the 25th.
	That means it was organized and planned in advance.
	You want more proof?
	I mean, Hal Turner asked, how did the Obama Foundation tweet a George Floyd poster on May 17th when he wasn't killed until May 25th?
	You want further evidence?
	I keep telling you we're all being punked.
	If censor already am I the only one who can't see the content, get this.
	It just dawned on me the most glaring component of the Floyd sign-off.
	It was filmed before COVID-19.
	How do I know?
	Not a single person is wearing a mask.
	Not one of the cops.
	Not Floyd.
	Not his passenger.
	Not the market people.
	Not the bystanders.
	Don't you think a police department would have masks for... I mean, does this absolutely point on?
	It's staring us right in the face.
	They're not wearing masks.
	It was staged.
	And get this.
	Remember the dummy at Parkland?
	What turns out, when they put George Floyd on the gurney, he had no legs.
	George Floyd was himself another dummy.
	But we have been the saps.
	Meanwhile, Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned us attacks on the police is an old communist tactic to eliminate law enforcement.
	The Bolsheviks successfully unleashed widespread attacks on the police in a run-up to the October Revolution.
	Here's what Benjamin Franklin offering us a classroom lesson.
	Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.
	We founders call this one the theory of duh.
	And I, James Fetzer, say, when they come for our guns, the time has come to use them.
	I very much thank you.
	I very much thank you for being here, and I'd be very pleased to answer any questions you might have.
	Put them in caps in the chat box and let me see if I can field.
	We have 15 minutes.
	This is about how I rather anticipate it because the set of slides for this particular presentation was equal to those for the COVID to 133 slides.
	So I just want anyone to tell me any question they got about it, because I tell you, we're in a bad state.
	There are a group of demented leftists who want to take away our guns, just in the set of circumstances where there's rioting and looting going on in many major cities, and the police are standing down.
	And the pattern is just the same as we have seen in the past.
	It's these gun-free zones are allowing Americans to die needlessly.
	It's just as Dr. Anthony Tony the Rat Fauci knew that hydroxychloroquine is a miracle drug to cure the coronavirus, already in 2005, so nobody had to die.
	These Democratic governors and mayors and lawmakers have to know that taking guns away from people does not protect them.
	They are setting up Americans to be killed by criminals who aren't going to give up their guns in any case.
	When you give guns to the American people, crime comes down.
	There's no question about it.
	So what we have is a political party that has lost its way It has been trying repeatedly to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.
	Remember, we were told then that Hillary Clinton was such a lot for the election that Trump supporters might as well not turn out, not even bother to cast votes.
	But it didn't work out that way.
	And they have ever since been trying everything they can to take him out.
	We had the Russia hoax, which fell apart, completely fell apart, when Robert Mueller testified to Congress, didn't know the contents of his own report.
	It now turns out the initial warrants signed by the FISA Court were illegitimate based on fabricated data that was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign paid for it.
	And then they tried the Ukraine gate, where Donald Trump wasn't guilty of a quid pro quo, but Joe Biden, now who's supposed to be his opponent in this next election, was, by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in U.S.
	foreign aid unless the government of Ukraine fired the prosecutor, looking into the gas company where Joe Biden's own son had a cushy job, and gave him six hours, six hours, to fire him or he'd get on a plane and fly back home.
	And they did it.
	He boasted about it at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations.
	We have him on video boasting about it.
	Son of a bitch!
	They did it.
	They succumbed to his quid pro quo.
	Trump didn't commit it.
	Joe Biden did.
	Then we had the phony impeachment.
	We knew it wasn't going to go anywhere because the Republicans controlled the Senate.
	So how have they followed up?
	With the COVID.
	Look, Hillary Clinton had to be the mastermind.
	She knew the two strongest Elements of a re-election campaign by a sitting president are the strength of the economy and the soaring stock market.
	She elaborated with Bill Gates, Henry Kissinger, Ted Turner, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and a host of other miscreants and misfits To steal that away, take away, deprive Donald Trump of the vast economy.
	The problem is no one of right mind is blaming Donald Trump for the economy.
	No one is blaming Donald Trump.
	You need to have 40% of the black supporting him and believe me, that's going to stand.
	So what are they trying now?
	Rioting and looting?
	What does that do to their gun control agenda?
	Does anyone think in this environment that arguments for gun control are going to receive a warm reception?
	It's lunatic!
	I have said before and I say again, the Democrats are doing as brilliant a job, even better, at self-immolation than Buddhist monks in Vietnam.
	I see a couple of questions here, and of course they're talking about the Zionist-controlled press.
	No question about it.
	The CIA began infiltrating the mainstream media back in the 1950s with Operation Mockingbird.
	By 1975, then-director William Colby testified to Congress that the agency owned everyone of any significance in the media, and it's only become worse.
	Because of the close collusion between the Israeli government and the American government with regard to intelligence, the CIA and the Mossad, we now have Israel receiving raw intelligence data before it's even processed by the American government.
	The Israelis get it first.
	I have a panel, and I'll do a program on media censorship because this is so vital as these questions are properly reflecting.
	I have panels of a hundred executives with CNN, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	I have another panel of 100 executives from NBC, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	I have another panel of 100 executives from The New York Times, every one of whom is a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen.
	And what Americans do not know is that while we seem to regard Israel as our friend, Israel regards us as a sacrificial lamb to exploit.
	Bibi Netanyahu no less.
	Trump has said in a conversation, he stated it in Hebrew, but it was translated and got out, that we are going to suck America dry, drain it of resources before we destroy it, because that is what we do with nations we hate.
	The Zionist press, the mainstream media is a major problem where Trump has been completely brilliant in calling out the fake news media.
	The typical distribution for disinformation is 80% truth and 20% falsehood to deliver the payload.
	But I'm telling you, the newspapers today have become completely absurd.
	The New York Times has gone off the rails.
	I have, for many years now, referred to it as the Langley Newsletter.
	Would you believe the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin State Journal has yet to publish a word.
	The Wisconsin State Journal has yet to publish a word about Antifa's takeover of six blocks in Seattle.
	Yet to publish a word.
	And it's because they are making themselves look so idiotic.
	So idiotic.
	Trump is doing exactly the right thing.
	He's being standoff.
	He's giving themselves enough rope to commit themselves, to hang themselves.
	All kinds of bizarre events have occurred.
	The city has even had to come in to clean out their porta-potties.
	They had a fire in the dumpster.
	They had to call the Seattle Fire Department.
	The leader has said that the white members of CHAZ, the name they've given their self-designated autonomous zone, must give $10 to the black members of CHAZ.
	The chief of police, who happens to be a woman, has explained that they're unable to respond to 911 calls for rape and robbery in this region because of CHAZ.
	So finally, I think, The officials of Seattle and Washington realize their goose is cooked if they let this go on.
	It's so bizarre.
	They look so idiotic.
	Absolutely, completely ridiculous.
	And here we have an observation about the meaning of the phrase conspiracy theory.
	Where what I do is to bring together groups of experts on each of these complex, controversial, but politically significant events to sort out what really took place to transform Then from conspiracy theories in the weak sense of rumors, conjectures, or speculations into conspiracy theories in the strong sense of empirically testable explanatory hypotheses, as I explained in the beginning, doing so again here,
	Gun control has to be one of the most under-reported issues in terms of accurate information, particularly about the defensive use of guns.
	But just remember, it counts at four levels.
	Family security, societal or neighborhood community security, and national security.
	The fact that we have over 100 million armed citizen soldiers is the greatest source of national security this nation could possibly have.
	And that a former Supreme Court Justice like John Paul Stevens should call for the abolition of the Second Amendment shows he has lost his way.
	That could only come from someone who has lost his cognitive competence, just as Joe Biden has lost his cognitive competence.
	It's absurd.
	They're keeping the man in a basement because he commits a gaffe every time he speaks.
	He had two brain aneurysms.
	He suffered brain damage.
	He's cognitively incompetent.
	He can't perform for five minutes with a teleprompter without committing a major gaffe.
	Rince Priebus, who is the former head of the Republican National Party, has suggested the Trump campaign should encourage not just three, but actually six debates.
	The public needs to see that this man is totally unfit to serve as a president of the United States.
	Totally unfit!
	I say that with all the emphasis I can muster because the very idea that a major political party would nominate someone who is brain damaged And cognitively incompetent to be President of the United States is outrageous.
	It's actually a form of treason against the United States.
	He could not possibly have served to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States from all meanings foreign and domestic.
	We have here a report here about Justin Trudeau in Canada.
	It turns out to be a complete wimp.
	I don't think this guy is going to have a very long political lifespan.
	He seems to me to be a nobody.
	Describing as a beta male is a mild version of it.
	And he's just giving in.
	He's obviously a tool.
	Of the New World Order, which is doing its best to bring America to its knees so they can introduce mandatory vaccinations, electronic banking, and UN One World Government to benefit The mighty corporations of the world, it's awful!
	Just to illustrate about online banking, you may or may not have thought about it, though if you've ever watched the masterful film Enemy of the State with Gene Hackman and Will Smith, which if you haven't, you must, you understand how.
	If you have all electronic banking, they not only know every purchase you ever make, whether it's a candy bar, a shotgun, or going to the movies, But they can cut you off at any point.
	Cut you off!
	So you're high and dry, you have no financial resources, you're totally stranded.
	Enemy Estate illustrates that very well.
	Mandatory vaccines.
	I just did an interview last Friday about mimes and machines.
	I founded an international journal by that name, which I sole-edited for 10 years.
	What my own research in this area has shown is they cannot convert a digital machine into a mind.
	They can't convert one of these machines into a thinking thing.
	But what they can do is reverse.
	Take minds and turn them into machines by implanting microchips in our brain.
	And I frankly have no doubt the whole agenda for universal vaccination It's not because they're going to cure us.
	Actually, their vaccines are more likely to kill us, and I may have to do a whole show on vaccines.
	If you look at the data, it's overwhelming that the Bill Gates polio vaccine had the effect of paralyzing 500,000 children in India.
	That a Bill Gates vaccine against a very rare sexually transmitted disease killed scores of children in Africa.
	The N1H1 vaccine, that was a flu vaccine, caused brain damage.
	And the fact that these ordinary vaccines have mercury and aluminum bases Autism, there's a perfect statistical correlation.
	The more the vaccine is used, the greater the number of autistic children.
	They drop the use as the autistic children drop projections, have it at the rate we're going, half of our children will be autistic by 2050.
	Bill Gates is a monster.
	Anthony Tony the Rat Fauci is, in essence, his conciliary.
	He's been his front man, but he is himself a proponent of death.
	He has known since 2005 that HCQ will cure this thing, stop it dead in its tracks.
	It's both a preventive and a therapeutic, so it can cure it if you've got it and prevent it if you don't.
	Donald Trump was 100% in the right.
	Just look how he has been vilified by the American press for making true statements and how they have adored and praised Anthony Tony the Rat Fauci for giving you false information that could cause the death of friends, loved ones, and Americans across the nation.
	Nobody had to die.
	In my opinion, if anyone gives up their guns, if anyone votes to support a gun control agenda these days, they have totally missed the boat.
	They are doing no more than making themselves vulnerable to what the future may hold.
	Our greatest defense across the board is being well informed and well armed To defend ourselves when all others fail us.
	I mean, look what the Democrats are doing.
	They're telling the police to stand down in the face of rioters and looters.
	They are doing that!
	They are wanting to take away our guns so we cannot defend ourselves!
	It's lunacy!
	So I'm sympathetic to the statement that says liberalism is a mental illness, and Mike Barra is not the only to make that observation, but it's very telling.
	The liberalism of today, the progressive left, has lost its way.
	They are demented, and you don't want to let yourself be played.
	I can't tell you how much I appreciate all of you being here.
	Remember now, you can find the Christ Church video online right there, right at jimtheconspiracyguy.com.
	I want to thank you all for being here, and I hope I will see you again next week.

▲