All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
57:50
Truth vs. NEW$ (12 July 2021), Part 1, with Don Grahn, Scott Bennett and Holly Seeliger
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Three, two, one, and welcome folks to Truth vs. News here.
I'm Don LaGuardia, your producer, JD.Consultants.Lab.com, and it is July the 12th, middle of summer, hot times in the city and on the country and the world right now, and we have got a great show.
It's really hot stories, and of course we have, as always, we have the best people in the world.
We have Jim Fetzer, the most dangerous mind in America, and around the world with his books and his shows.
This is Dynamo, and you've got to keep up with him and try to keep up with Scott, who's got a great awakening.
He's a great military intelligence officer who knows what's really going on behind the scenes that we should know about.
And Holly Seliger, who's just an angel and just a sharp as an attack and knows more stuff than I can imagine and would want to imagine.
But let's just see.
Let's just check.
How's Biden doing?
He's our chief in charge here.
Is he really sharp as an attack?
Well, his cognitive decline continues to be swift and obvious.
More videos showed it taking place.
The author doesn't feel sorry for him because of his history of corruption, nastiness, racism, and pervert behavior.
But he's supposed to be the leader of the free world.
The latest evidence, when he appeared before the press to take questions about Afghanistan, was very disturbing.
We're not playing the video per se, but you don't have to visit leftist websites to know the defense Democrats are going to offer to his stumbling speech and long pauses.
That he stuttered as a child, but the fact that he's stuttering now shows his brain's controls and knowledge are regressing.
That's one of the tragedies of dementia.
All the skills and knowledge a person attains throughout his life vanishes.
A person with advanced dementia has, in many ways, returned to early childhood, even infancy.
Whether it's the loss of memory, speech, or bowel and bladder continence.
Did you notice when Biden, after an endless pause, finally remembered the Osama bin Laden?
He does two things.
First, he gives us his clown's death head grin, the one showing relief his memory actually worked.
And second, he seeks to take credit for bin Laden's death.
But the fact is that Biden staunchly appealed.
We're talking about the fake Assassination of bin Laden and the compound raid in Pakistan in 2011, when Osama bin Laden actually died in Afghanistan on 15 December 2001, a decade earlier, where Biden appears not to even know that Osama was our man in Afghanistan.
Here we're talking about he's going to claim we shouldn't do it, we shouldn't go in, but of course the idea of killing a man a second time is absurd on its face.
Meanwhile, here is the exchange.
Mr. President, you trusted Taliban, Biden.
Is that a serious question, reporter?
Absolutely is a serious question, Biden.
No, I do not trust a Taliban reporter.
Will you amplify your answer, Biden?
It's a silly question.
Do I trust the Taliban?
No.
As he's written before, those who are losing their cognitive ability tend to be aggressive in responding to questions they can't answer.
It's not a stupid question.
He's simply incapable of giving a cogent answer.
He's always been mean, so aggression is an easy fallback for him, his default response.
While it's tempting to enjoy the spectacle, of their man in the White House decomposing when the woman who stands behind him is a dim bulb and manifestly incompetent.
I find what's happening very frightening.
With Biden a mere puppet, Marxists are controlling the federal government, burning up money, inserting their toxic, racist ideas into every facet of American life, including the military.
Meanwhile, overseas, the Chinese, Russian, North Koreans, Cubans, and other nations hostile to liberty are chuckling with glee and making their plans.
Scott, your thoughts?
Well, it is a larger indictment on the entire American nation and particularly the Democrats and the media and this elite class of delusional retards that have voted for him or that have contributed to his coup d'etat, you know, quote, the greatest voter fraud mechanism in history.
You can't blame the retarded clown when you put him on stage and he's doing the dance that he thinks he's doing 20, 30 years ago.
Uh, and, and, uh, you know, all that jazz.
Of course, uh, we're seeing the decline, but to see America and the left be so adamantly, uh, obsessive and delusional and, and, uh, uh, really, uh, violent in defense of him all out of, A rejection of Trump, a rejection of the Trump supporters, a rejection of the Trump revolution, a rejection of the Trump overthrow of the establishment and the Republican Party, the RINOs.
That's what this is all about.
Are these old men over the age of 50, 55, who were in the Democrat and the RINO camps, that think that they can just bully Americans back into
this side of the ledger. And I don't think it'll happen. I think the old wine and in old wine
skins and the new wine and new wine skins is upon us. And people will not go this way. They won't get
the other things or they won't get the vaccines and they won't go into endless wars
anymore. We've.
We've suffered 20 years of a Ulysses Odyssey down the neoconservative canyons of ruin, and I think people have finally, slowly woken up and are departing from that.
Uh, so I think you are going to have a assassination of Biden.
I think it's very important to constantly repeat that.
It's my prediction that they will assassinate Biden in order to generate political capital, political momentum to try and further and expand and metastasize the police state.
They're overthrow of the intelligence circles and the infection of the intelligence industry, as we've seen with Tucker and all these things.
So I do anticipate they're going to assassinate him and possibly Kamala Harris at the same time.
So they have a clean slate that they can, again, these are delusion demoniac people thinking.
I'm just predicting the calculus of their chess match.
And I think they're going to try and rush someone into that.
But I think it'll backfire.
I think it'll be found out, like Trump is calling out the Capitol Hill assassination of, quote, Ashley Babbitt, allegedly.
So there's a lot of things changing.
But ultimately, I think you're going to witness Joe Biden just continually continue to descend and descend.
But as he descends their violence, Jim, that article was very well written.
It picked up on the violence and the anger in someone like that.
That is going to be also reflected the violence and anger among all of his supporters as he as he decomposes.
I like that word very much decomposes.
You will have a decomposition of the integrity of the American government like we've already seen.
It's a it's a it's a, you know, rat on your family, Facebook, big tech tyranny, you know, homosexual gays in the military and all this stuff.
And all of this, too, can always be stopped by men of integrity in the government of the military saying, No, I'm not implementing those orders, or I'm not responding to calls, or I'll advance it in my battalions, my brigades, my service, at my pace.
And that's what needs to happen.
But we've got a lot of traitors in the military that are advancing and celebrating this agenda of perversion.
So, it's a great separating of the sheep from the goats.
Jim?
Holly, your thing.
Yeah, thanks, Jim.
I definitely think we are seeing the mental decline of Biden and also we're seeing this within the U.S.
government.
It's just absolutely shameful what we have to see right now with Biden.
People have been saying, his staff, whistleblowers, people have come out in the White House saying that Biden is very aggressive, like you had mentioned before, as a sign or a side effect of dementia.
Part of that is a lot of cognitive As their function declines to have a lot of anger, you know, as they can't remember things and having struggling more and more.
So I think things are going to get worse.
And what's upsetting for me is really how the news just completely ignores.
Either they completely ignore everything that he says or they just continue to throw him softballs.
And I saw a great post that a friend of mine had put up thinking about Quote-unquote liberals and Democrats.
And when you think about Afghanistan, I was a child when the Afghanistan War started.
We're talking about, you know, coming up to 20 years of 9-11.
And Scott's been doing some great videos on his show, his other show, talking about 9-11.
And I think it's so important that we start to have a reflection on all of this on the 20th anniversary.
And to keep this in the news, because this is really the linchpin for what we are seeing in America.
Because what happened with 9-11 was never dealt with and how the Democrats and how both parties betrayed us, betrayed the American people, and just completely destroyed the Middle East and Afghanistan, everything that happened to those people over there.
But Democrats, when I was a kid growing up, they were the party of peace and anti-war and fighting the Afghanistan war and trying to stop the wars in Iraq and acting like they really cared.
And I saw when Obama came into office that they really didn't care.
They were completely quiet.
In fact, they were fine.
They were celebrating drone strikes and the destruction of Libya and so many other countries, Syria.
So my friend had posted online, In my lifetime, liberals have gone from anti-war, peace-loving hippies to hateful, rage-filled, war-loving, big government-loving, big pharma-loving, big tech-loving, anti-free speech fascists.
And so you really can't even question these people right now about their The people that they voted for.
I have people who said that they were sent six ballots this past election and they voted every single one of them for Biden.
So that's just disgusting to me that someone would brag to me about this, someone I know personally.
And yet if you ask them about Biden, so how is Biden doing?
They either respond with rage or they're completely oblivious at this point.
So they're in complete denial.
That's very interesting on multiple counts.
You'd think the Democrats could make hay after the whole 9-11 took place under Cheney and Bush, a Republican administration.
And I think the reason they don't is that both parties are controlled by Israel.
I mean, you know, this was an Israeli op with a complicity of Dick Cheney.
and Donald Rumsfeld, Ehud Ulmer, and Bibi Netanyahu were the brain trust that draw the
American military into the Middle East. I think the Democrats are just as beholden to Israel,
so they hold their fire about 9-11, lest it emerged that Israel really was the motivator,
the opportunist, and the benefitter.
And of course, assassinating Biden, the problem being that Harris is an airhead.
She's incapable of a serious thought.
This is about as flimsy a political figure as I've ever seen in American history, bar none.
Your thoughts, Scott, that they take them out together is an intriguing one.
They're not supposed to be together, of course, because of that threat.
Go ahead, your further thoughts, Scott.
One final thought.
It's essential to mock them.
And mock and laugh in psychological warfare against terrorists.
That's always how you disintegrate their strength, is you laugh at them, you mock them, you create humor.
That's why we released videos and reports of the terrorists in Iraq watching pornography.
You know, claiming virtue but compromise and hypocrisy.
So hypocrisy and mocking and laughter is a very acidic and effective way to hyper activate these liberal leftists into shame, which is what you want.
You can't let them be confident in their arrogance and violence or they will just get worse.
You have to mock them and it seems counterintuitive because we're very serious.
We're very upset about what's happening in the country.
We know the country's on fire and we're trying to kind of put it out but we have to step back and sometimes say, There's more effectiveness in a bowling ball hitting the pins when it's done with a smile and a joke and a laughter.
It still shatters them, but it shatters them even more deeply when you say, oh yeah, Biden, I bet you're proud.
You're proud in voting for the schizophrenic lunatic who sucks his thumbs and sniffs little girls.
What do you think about Biden?
What's his IQ test?
It's going down.
What about Kamala Harris?
Oh yes, letting the border open, bringing in all the immigrants, bringing illegal aliens.
Boy, she's a winner.
The more you sort of throw that at them, they can't disagree because it's actually truthful, but you are buckling They're deep, you know, metal eye beads, if you will, the steel girders that structure their whole arrogance.
Democrat, liberal, leftist, communists are extraordinarily arrogant, delusional, angry, fanatical, schizophrenic people.
So that's how you buckle them, is with a laughing, mocking humor, because if you notice, all they do They try and intimidate, they try and bully, they get it to Trump, you know, oh he's this, he's that, anybody who votes for him is an effing idiot.
You always notice that very cursing, attacking attitude.
Well now, the tables have changed, and mocking them is something that people really have to begin to do to erode their power and send them falling backwards.
Nice point, Scott.
Meanwhile, a statue of Lewis and Clark and Skakogawe has toppled in Charlottesville.
They did this within 20 minutes.
They called a meeting so the public wouldn't have an opportunity to react.
I find this outrageous.
In an emergency meeting called with 20 minutes notice, the Charlottesville City Council voted unanimously to cancel another piece of public art after having taken down the Confederate statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
I felt it should just be melted down, said Roseanne Abramson, a Skagogawa descendant.
I feel it's entirely offensive and should be obliterated.
This is ridiculous.
I don't think she has any idea what the statue actually represents.
Lewis, a famous American adventurer sent by Thomas Jefferson to explore the land west of the Mississippi, was a local hero born in Charlottesville, Albemarle County.
The bronze statue cast to honor the Lewis and Clark expedition includes the two men and their Shoshone Guide and Interpreter.
In recent years, its design has been criticized for its portrayal of Skagagawe, who appears in a crouching position behind the standing white men, which activists have seen as disparaging.
Apparently, this ancestor as well.
Some historians, however, contend her posture shows her in action as a tracker, not meant to place her in a subservient service.
Obviously, that's what the statue represents.
Meanwhile, a colleague has written the formula for Confederate statue takes down.
In a Virginia court reversal, Virginia communities can now take down Civil War memorials, resulting in the latest removal of two in Charlottesville.
But there's a pattern here involving steps that can be seen.
A virtual formula.
First, activists, individuals, and groups spearhead the takedown.
Second, False flag, a real horrific event to add to hysteria.
Complete lack of investigation by the media.
A push for gun control added to the mix.
Three, city council and mayor not paying attention to compromised schemes from the majority.
4.
Support from the current Congress and President to destroy our history.
5.
Lack of transparency where the valuable statues are going, hiding the damage from their removal.
6.
Historians fear some statues have already been melted down, which would be the ultimate goal for certain groups and politicians. 7.
Taking down fine equestrian statues negates the historic rule of horses in America.
Their statues are on the road to oblivion than they are, or were, some of the greatest statues ever produced in the country, as does Charlottesville.
No, the deadly death protest did not actually involve a death.
The death certificate, the only piece of evidence worth considering of Heather Heyer, says she was extremely overweight, died of a heart attack.
That's been confirmed by my colleague Mona Alexis Presley.
She died the following day of a heart attack, nowhere near the street protest, no bona fide video of her having been there.
Zianna Bryant petitioned that Yardsville spearheaded a takedown discussion.
The City Council established a Blue Ribbon Commission headed by Frank Goodes.
They made various recommendations that went unheeded by the Council and Mayor to the detriment of preservationist groups such as the Monument Font.
The Charlottesville City Council and Mayor heard many members of the public explain they never paid attention to the lease statue, that the council is stirring up trouble where it doesn't exist, black and white kids played together near the statue.
It's a problem when statements in action by the activists make news, but the anti-Mayor and the anti-City Council citizens don't have their voices made public.
I lifted hours of testimony.
No consensus to take down Lee and Jackson.
Putting up a serious new statue in Lee Park to counter the Confederate narrative didn't come to fruition on purpose from Patty.
This appears to me to be part and parcel of the Marxist agenda to destroy the history and identity of a nation to make it more amenable to their utopian reconstruction.
also of high artistic value, but will not accompany the statue's removal.
This appears to me to be part and parcel of the Marxist agenda to destroy the history
and identity of a nation, to make it more amenable to their utopian reconstruction.
Scott, your thoughts?
That's exactly right.
By removing the statues, removing the history, you are lobotomizing the society.
And that's what Democrats do to everyone because they've had it done to them.
They've done it to themselves.
They've lobotomized themselves.
They are frantic, hysterical, delusional, schizophrenic, violent, neurotic people.
Period.
I could go on and on with the historical analysis of their detriment descriptions, but that's what they do.
They are self-destructive, suicidal people.
And by taking down historical statues, it's a form of national suicide.
And shame on Charlottesville and shame on everyone that participated in it.
But it is again a sign of the violent moral superiority that these delusional people think.
And until they are shamed or worse, they will only get worse and worse and worse and advance more vile and destructive agendas and actions upon the people.
There's one way to treat a rabid dog.
Put it down.
I think the time is coming where Americans are going to do exactly that to a lot of these people who are hysterically kamikaze and attacking the historical foundations of this country.
Jim?
I'm affected by this in a personal way because I taught twice at the University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville, known as Mr. Jefferson University.
He would have been profoundly disturbed by all of this.
Very un-American, undemocratic, very Marxist-Communist-Socialist.
It's appalling.
Holly, your thoughts?
Well, there's a lot I could say about this because I've been doing videos about this on YouTube ever since they first started talking about, I think, probably like in 2018 or 17, when there was a big discussion about starting to remove a lot of the Civil War history.
And it reminds me of several things.
First, 1984, there's a quote that says, every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten.
Every picture has been re and street building has b date has been altered and day by day and minute by has stopped.
and the process is continuing day by day, and minute by minute, history is stopped.
So there really is no end to this, and I do think looking at the history
of many wars and many conflicts, there always seems to be a strong overlap
between destroying religious and ancient monuments and historical markers.
So, if you want to talk about World War II, basically all of Europe was bombed.
You know, just countries completely and cities completely obliterated.
And so many ancient and medieval relics and everything either disappeared or were destroyed.
If you want to talk about ISIS, you know, the gates of Palmyra, all these ancient cities, everything destroyed.
History completely scrubbed.
If you talk about Afghanistan, the massive Buddhist statues that were blown up, and the entire museum, the Baghdad Museum in Iraq, all of that just disappeared, supposedly blew up.
So I think we're seeing this in the United States now, where people are saying, oh, it's just a statue here, a statue there.
But we're going to see things completely scrubbed from history, and people are going to have no idea How the United States came to be, good or bad.
Even if you don't like the statue, or you don't agree with what you were taught about the Civil War, or what you think happened during the Civil War, to have it there is a memory.
And it's also interesting, I just want to point out, finally, a lot of these places, when they finally get rebuilt, if you will, they become UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which is run by, I believe, Julian Huxley.
So that's another issue in and of itself.
We have to figure out what is happening here in the United States because we are seeing this in many other countries right now.
It's just appalling that there's so much success in turning the country communist in just six months since Biden and Harris came into office.
Scott, a further thought?
Well, I just was going to say, it's important to, you know, get, in a sense, reach out to people like, who is it?
McCullough, who did John Adams, the author who did George Washington, Ken Burns, He's done the Lewis and Clark PBS special and many others.
These historians, filmmakers, and authors have a moral duty to step in and say, you cannot be destroying these statues because this is the substance of our work, but we're doing it for the nourishment of the American mind.
And it is astounding to me, and some of these people are liberals, too.
Ken Burns, you know, and all this.
But these people who've done the Lewis and Clark expedition, and David McCullough, I think it is, who did all of these books on the Jeffersonians and these times, there is an amazing hypocrisy of silence among these people that aren't standing up saying, wait a minute, this is way too far.
And Holly is exactly right.
This is going to get more No, I think you're 100% correct, Scott.
and delusional. That's why I am serious when I say these people are mad dogs. They are completely
losing their humanity. And it doesn't give me any joy to say it, but we have to recognize that
to defend against it, you know? No, I think you're 100 percent correct, Scott, 100 percent correct.
Meanwhile, this is from Mary Maxwell, whom I admire.
Mary and I are two of the three Americans who were cited in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S.
Supreme Court in relation to the case of Dzhokhar Taranov, explaining how Dzhokhar clearly didn't do it, that the backpacks don't match, that the ones he and his brother were wearing do not correspond to those that exploded, which exonerates him for the crime.
Well, the Biden administration is moving to impose a death penalty, which if it were carried out would be a form of judicial murder.
She and I and a physician are the three named Americans in the briefs authored by John Remington Graham, a retired professor of law.
Well, Mary's talking about Trump's lawsuit against Twitter as a masterpiece.
Where a key point is that the CDC acknowledges it's been participating with its social media partners to promote its agenda, which becomes a key part of the whole case.
Listen, this lawsuit is superb.
It is brilliant.
It will solve the problem of free speech.
Thank you, Twitter.
For making such an egregious error in shutting down the communication of a sitting President of the United States.
Thank you, Jack Dorsey, for buckling under pressure from then-Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Nancy What's-Her-Name, and the CDC, such as to make this searing plaint to the courts.
Thank you, CDC, for being your usual awful self, harming us citizens to the max.
Gotcha.
You are done.
The lot of you.
I am a conservative Republican.
You may be surprised to hear that I thought Donald Trump was a terrible president.
The Muslim ban floored me, simply floored me.
I never had the sense a president knew or cared what was in the Constitution.
I sued him, Maxwell v. Trump, in 2017 over his threat to nuke North Korea.
His moving of the U.S.
Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a sacrilege to people of all three Abrahamic religions.
It was jaw-dropping that he chose John Bolton for national security.
I am currently in appeal, Maxwell v. Secretary of Defense, against mandatory vaccination.
I ran against Trump in the 2020 New Hampshire primary for the Republican presidential nomination.
I was glad Trump didn't get a second term, though I find Biden's administration horrific and surreal.
I know for sure that the election was stolen and that the rioting in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was done by agents provocateur.
And by the way, I hate the partisanship that has become childish on both sides.
This Westminsterization of our Congress has been making representative government a joke.
That said, Trump v. Twitter is a genuine constitutional solution to many problems.
Even if it never flies, although I expect it will, the accomplishment is already there.
Below, I print the whole thing, almost all of its 9,000 words, skipping a few items that were repetitive.
I have bolded the many, many excellent points made by Trump's all-new legal team.
They should get—I dare say they will get—medals of honor.
I offer them the Maxwell litigation salute.
Here is a gist of the case in nine points.
Point one, as everybody knows, Twitter chopped off the communication between then President Donald J. Trump and his 88.9 million Twitter followers.
Point two, They did it by way of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996, which protects from liability the social media companies that may censor someone unconstitutionally.
Point three.
This is a new one on me.
Social media companies, for example, Twitter and Facebook, were furnished with this trick in Section 230.
In order to make political censorship happen, she means, in order to allow or make political censorship permissible, I faint.
Point number four.
Members of Congress, including Adam Schiff of impeachment fame, oh please, bullied Jack Dorsey to do the deplatforming against his better judgment.
They threatened him with all sorts of loss of business and personal embarrassment, as is their want.
Point five.
Legislators may know their desire to prevent publication of COVID-19 misinformation, including the lack of safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in the use of face masks and questioning the integrity and results of the 2020 presidential election.
Dear God.
Point number six.
The CDC I retch was no innocent bystander.
Paragraph 77, please find.
The CDC has publicly stated that it works with social media partners, including Twitter, to curb the spread of vaccine misinformation.
In a document dated October 11, 2019, the CDC expressly stated it was engaging partners to contain the spread of vaccine misinformation, and specifically states the CDC would work with social media companies to that end.
Point seven.
There is real constitutional content here, as in the making of culture.
For example, in paragraph 61, we read, By banning plaintiffs, defendants have made it more difficult to communicate directly with the American public.
Our national discourse is becoming immeasurably more altered and one-sided on race, medicine, and the election process, the economy, immigration, and more.
Bless release just from seeing that in print in a court of law.
Point number eight, and this precedential beauty at paragraph 114, in censoring the specific speed at issue in this lawsuit and in deplatforming plaintiff, Defendants were acting in concert with federal officials, including officials at the CDC and on the Biden transition team.
As such, defendant censorship activities amount to state action.
I've never seen that argument before.
Where have I been all my life?
Point nine.
You knew I'd save the best for last concerning Mr. Facemask himself.
I will try to see the rest.
My citizens, if necessary, follow.
Oh, you think you can get me for incitement?
Oh yeah?
Try it.
Deplatform me.
The corpus delicti to be is at paragraph 78.
Dorsey and Twitter acted to censor other medical opinions that did not uphold the narrative of Dr. Fauci and the CDC, which took on both a political and medical nature.
Given the interconnection between government policy and science.
Are we thinking of 18 U.S.C.
1983 prosecution?
Hugs and kisses for the U.S.
Constitution.
You rock, James Madison.
You shine, George Mason.
Love you all.
Oops, I forgot to say Trump is not the only plaintiff.
Also in the case are the American Conservative Union, a single litigant named Linda Kudros, and what is called the putative class, a potential huge number of people, maybe some from Australia.
I know at least one dual USO citizen whose accounts were suppressed for not meeting community standards.
Please, readers, rejoice with me.
This case is unanswerable.
It's filed at the District Court of Florida.
The judge has only to agree that an injunction is warranted, lucky him or her.
His or her honor will become famous for saving America and saving the world.
Our troubles are over.
Amen.
Here's a PDF.
It's available on my website.
I've read it all.
It is a masterful piece of legal briefing.
I like it tremendously.
Scott, your thoughts?
First off, should we join this Truth vs. News?
Because I've been knocked off YouTube four times.
I'm not allowed to get on Google, so I think maybe I should qualify to be a part of that.
I'm certain you do, Don.
I'm certain you do.
And you can go.
There's a website where you can add your case to the list of those who are complaining.
Scott, your thoughts?
Yeah, I would concur, Don.
We can be added to that.
I know that they took down our my Twitter and my YouTube page when I put up the video we did exposing the New Zealand shooting.
That's right.
False flag event.
Immediately upon that, I was attacked by the Zionist agent Jason Goodman, and my pages were taken down because we showed, beyond any doubt, that the New Zealand shooting was completely false, physically and scientifically impossible.
So that is a very obvious corruption of government working with these groups.
The lawsuit opens up the whole Pandora's box, The only thing they needed to correct that they are wrong about is the title of the law that they're citing.
It is 18 U.S.
Code 241 and 242, which is the federal criminal code that says anyone who uses law or color of law to deprive the constitutional rights of another individual can be imprisoned up to six months or a year, or if there's a physical injury or even death, they can get the death penalty.
They can go to jail for 10 years.
So there is a criminal side.
18 U.S.
Code 241 and 242 is conspiracy to deprive someone of their rights using color of law.
That's what this is.
The 42 U.S.
The 42 U.S. Code 1983 and 85 is the civil rights violation, civil case that can be filed
for damages and financial retribution and things like that.
So both of them work in tandem.
I know this from my days when they threw me in jail with the lawyers and they taught me
law in Pennsylvania, talking about going to Harvard on a big mountaintop.
So I learned all of this So it's a very well written article And it's a very well-written legal case, and I do think it's going to overthrow and, again, send all of these people falling backwards and exposing them.
Twitter in about June of 2018. And nevertheless, about six months ago, I was just taken off with
no notice, no warning. I had around 5,000 followers, 2,500 tweets. I'm there one day,
the next time not. Don, you wanted to throw in a comment?
Well, yeah. What I was going to say is that the law or a writ of Coro Warnful mean by what
authority. And so we just question that. And I have that all written out in a three page document.
It was 2.41.
It was 241 242 and other things in there that could be used to question anybody in government anybody in any authority the question by what law is they get their authority if they don't have it it's color of law and that is punishable by uh Imprisonment and fines heavy, folks, but it's not being enforced much by the courts, I'm afraid.
Polly, your thoughts?
Well, just quickly, I think it's important.
I was thinking when you were reading that piece as well, very, very fascinating and well-written
that there are millions and millions of people that should be joining this lawsuit right now.
And unfortunately, you know, only the rich can really afford to try to take these cases
all the way up to the Supreme Court.
For the most part, it's hard for the little person who, you know, thinks that no one is listening to them
online or they're getting harassed online when it's really a bunch of bots
or it's a bunch of censorship or shadow banning or threats online.
I mean, the psychological abuse just in and of itself that has been used against people trying to use their First Amendment rights is really atrocious.
The things that they've done to people and really tried to destroy people's lives, as we all know here.
And so many other people as well.
Like I said, millions.
I would be willing to bet at least half of the United States population has been shadow banned or censored at one point or another, even if they don't even know that this is what's happening.
So the mainstream news is saying that the Supreme Court is going to reject this because it's a First Amendment issue.
And also, I've heard people say that Trump doesn't have any sort of standing because these are private corporations and they can do what they want.
It's basically like a private club that can kick people out or something like that.
So I was just wondering if anyone wanted to comment on that, whether they think the Supreme Court will rule that this is their First Amendment right and Twitter is a private corporation.
But Holly, the case eviscerates that argument.
That's exactly what the case is all about.
That it's a government using the private entities to perform actions a government is proscribed from doing by the First Amendment.
So it's really a fascinating case, and I think the key arguments are ones that vitiate that very stance.
Which is being reaffirmed by the mainstream.
What else are they going to say?
I think it's a devastating case and destined to succeed if there is any, the least token of integrity remaining in our court.
Scott, you have a further thought.
Well, I would agree with you, Jim.
This is a civil rights case.
It's a secret, almost like a foreign agent registration failure, too.
These companies have been acting as secret informants and agent provocateurs and instruments of the federal government They falsely deceived their shareholders as well by not disclosing that they are an agent of the United States government.
There's a lot of different colors that could be added to this but the main swing of the log is This is a private company that has been engaging in government suppression, information suppression, deprivation of rights under color of law against Donald Trump and others with the false community standards when Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.
And I think that's going to be the real test.
Does he have a case?
And obviously he does.
But is the Supreme Court, are these courts Do they have any life in them whatsoever, or are they just walking dead zombie corpse courts?
At that point, we don't have a judiciary anymore.
We have a bunch of dead men in black robes.
Jim?
Yeah, well said, Scott.
I think you got it exactly right.
It's available on my blog.
Go to jamesfetzer.org.
You'll find the article and you can access the brief.
What this does too, I've said it before, this establishes your personal credibility as a scholar, as an author, as a writer, as a researcher, because if you line up both cases parallel to each other, all of the professional credentials and expertise assigned to you, justifying you as an expert witness or an expert subject matter, That same criteria can hop right over into the same lane and apply to these other cases of Sandy Hook, where you can say, over here they are recognizing Dr. Fetzer's excellence in these areas, and that same excellence applies to this subject matter.
So there is a dual track that can be applied in this situation.
Nice point.
Molly, you wanted to add?
Yeah, I just wanted to comment real quick.
I would think as well if the Supreme Court, which I think my point is that I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the Supreme Court right now, and the Democrats are really trying to push Justice Breyers to retire and all this, you know, even though he was appointed by Clinton.
Um, I'm, I don't know, I really don't know how the Supreme Court, I know how they should rule on this, obviously, but I don't really know how they will rule on this ultimately and I also think that's why Democrats want to sack the Supreme Court, why they're threatening to add more members recently.
And also, I would think that if the Supreme Court can rule in favor of this, people like you, Jim, myself, many others, pretty much everyone here, would be able to go after these platforms in a civil suit saying that they've caused us damage to our business, you know, they've censored your books, they've censored my videos, they've They've scrubbed Patreon or our ways of making an income and all of that further.
So I don't know.
I mean, this will be a huge can of worms and hopefully this will be for the good.
I am hopeful, but when it comes to Supreme Court judges, I think that's definitely why they want to stack the court now.
Well, it's right now in the federal district court in Florida, so we'll see how it proceeds.
But I would expect something to happen very, very fast.
Here's a piece from Above Top Secret about a previous Supreme Court ruling.
I believe there's a misinterpretation of the law involved here.
Some may find this a bit unnerving.
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, which of course is always possible, writes the author.
I believe they are reading it wrong, but there's still a point in discussing it.
In a court case in 2013, Pathology Myriad Genetics Incorporated in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled you cannot patent human DNA because it was a product of nature any more than you can patent the laws of nature, the laws of physics, chemistry, biology.
But at the end of the ruling, the Supreme Court said if you were to change a human's genome by mRNA vaccines, Which are currently in use, then the genome can be patented.
Now, my point is, they're talking about the genome, the pattern of chromosomes that can be patented.
The author infers this means anyone who's had the vaccine is now technically patented, and something that patented is zoned and will come under the definition of transhuman.
I believe that's wrong.
Whether it can patent is simply the new genetic combination created by the addition of the mRNA.
That is the genetic pattern, not the person whose morphology was derived from that genealogy.
Those who are legally identified as transhuman do not have access to human rights or any rights provided by the state because they're not classified as 100% organic or human.
Therefore, Theoretically, anyone having this vaccine could no longer have any access to human rights.
There have been a few legal papers discussing this recently, so clarification should be available soon.
Here's an explanation with a link.
So, this would, if interpreted properly, which I submit is not the case, would mean a good part of the population is now basically only considered not 100% human anymore?
Are they in a hurry to knock on doors now to get us all?
If this were true, which at least from the official ruling it does appear under the interpretation being imposed here, where does this leave us going forward with our families and friends more importantly?
Who becomes the hunted?
Meanwhile, the AMA has reversed itself in its earlier opposition to HCQ to treat coronavirus infections.
I think it's a good move they've reversed.
In a memorandum released October 30th, the AMA rescinds its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing HCQ and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to illustrate the harm outweighs the benefits Early in the disease course, and now reassures patients that the AMA supports physicians who prescribe HCQ and other combination therapies if it is in their best clinical judgment.
They previously had warned against it.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration had authorized HCQ for emergency use in late March, but revoked it in June as unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19.
Which is completely absurd.
We had an article in the NIH Journal of Virology in 2005 that HGQ was a wonder drug in relation to the coronavirus and it would cure it if you had it and stop it if you didn't, prevent it if you didn't.
Claiming side effects such as serious cardiac adverse effects, which actually attend the vaccines that are being used now, outweigh the potential benefits of HCQ.
Really embarrassing.
Trump himself espoused HCQ against COVID, tweeting, the drug combined with azithromycin had a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.
When he went to Walter Reed, however, he wasn't given HEQ, which I think would have been appropriate.
Instead, they gave him an antiviral drug, remensivir, and the steroid dexamethasone, alongside with a polyclonal antibody cocktail.
The FBA first granted remensivir emergency approval in May for severe cases, eventually expanded to include all cases.
A study by the World Health Organization, however, found that Remsevir did not lower COVID-19 mortality rates, meaning it's really not doing any good.
Originally used to cure malaria, HCQ gained attention as a COVID-19 treatment after the French physician Dr. Didier Rouault used it in combination with zithromycin to treat his patients.
He had hundreds of patients.
They were all cured, 100%.
His success spread like wildfire, eventually catching the attention of the company that manufactured Remensivir, which they lobbied France to severely restrict access to HCQ lest it undercut their profit margin.
How bad is that?
received anonymous death threats, prompting him to testify against Gilead in front of
French lawmakers. A subsequent investigation revealed a medical doctor,
handsomely paid by the pharmaceutical firm, sent the threats. How bad is that? Meanwhile,
Peter Navarro has tweeted, I had 60 million tablets of HEQ that Tony Fauci and the CDC
would allow the American public to use because of their hydroxy hysteria.
Blood on John Berman, CDC, and St.
Fauci's hands.
More than 50,000 Americans would be alive today.
Hydroxyquinine and zinc could increase some COVID survival by 200%.
I've been reporting on this over a year ago.
I mean, it's just ridiculous to claim they're just catching up.
Scott, your thoughts?
Well, I listened to Dr. Mikovits and Tenpenny.
I met with Mikovits and their constant slogan is hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, ivermectin are the key counter COVID-19 flu sickness medications that people can take that have been around for over 40-50 years and that will always yield a full recovery.
And I ran into an ambassador when I was in D.C.
in November 2020 doing the analytics of the election.
And he said, I took hydroxychloroquine and I was all better.
He had COVID-19.
So it is a tremendous crime against and should be prosecuted and civilly prosecuted in a sense.
Aside from the fact that the American Medical Association, as Holly is a more expert in was created by Rockefeller for the annihilation of all natural herbs and natural medical treatments of things.
Rockefeller, who's burning in hell no doubt right now, introduced this petroleum-based medical world that has led to all of these sicknesses and mutations and perversions.
uh so we you know we need to annihilate and overthrow and and get rid of the federal drug or federal food administration and and all of these federal boards and agencies they are absolutely worthless and it has led to the sickening of humanity and i'll finish with this jim the first point that you raised regarding the transhumanism experimentation uh it is transhumanism that's what this dna mrna vaccine does it's not even a vaccine it's a substance It does create transhumans.
However, there is no patent on the human DNA, the human substance.
So, if they inject a substance into human beings, they do not own that human being because of the Nuremberg Code implications.
And anything that is inserted into them, in a sense, could be interpreted as a gift or something that they've, you know, paid and bought, like a car or something.
They own that now.
They own that vaccine that's been put into their body.
No company has any ownership or claims on a substance that is put into the human body.
It becomes part of them.
It's almost like a pacemaker, right?
You can't take it out, you know, when you want.
It belongs to the person now until they die.
So, that's the only thing I would say.
The claims of people losing their human rights and all that, that's absolutely false.
You're right on that, Jim.
Go ahead.
Yeah, very good.
Very good, Scott.
Holly, your thoughts?
Yeah, so I'll make a couple of comments.
I'll try to keep it brief.
First, I've discussed this case before, but there was the mysterious murder of Barry and Honey Sherman in Toronto.
The billionaires who owned the Finney Apotex.
And they were the largest producers of generic hydroxychloroquine in the world.
And they were mysteriously, ritualistically murdered in their home.
And I believe this, like I said, I believe it was 2017 or 18 that they were murdered.
So we all know with Event 201 and all this, that this has been in the works for a while.
And I think now we know why Berry and Honey Sherman were murdered in their home, even though this case is still an unsolved crime.
So Apotex, their rival, they were in a lawsuit with another major generic drug company called Teva, and they're based in Israel.
So it was an interesting case between both Apotex and Teva.
And I think we know what happened ultimately with the control and the manipulation
of hydroxychloroquine and other drugs.
And I do remember Trump getting lambasted by mainstream media when he even talked
about UV light being a disinfectant and helping people.
And that's been a traditional, at least like Scott said until the allopathic model really took over,
UV light and even Tesla's violet wand and all kinds of interesting information
was used about a hundred years ago.
This was common sense health practices that have been slowly taken over and destroyed by the FDA
and this medical mafia that we see here in the United States.
And then finally, just to mention the Supreme Court article that you had mentioned, decision of the Supreme Court,
Clearance Justice Thomas, which Clearance Justice Thomas actually used to be a lawyer for Monsanto.
So it's kind of disturbing to see that he came up with the opinion to this case that you had mentioned.
And All members of the Supreme Court except for Justice Antoinette Scalia, which we remember was also ritualistically murdered,
Uh, who concurred in part and concurred in the judgment.
The majority opinion delivered by Thomas held a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and is not eligible merely because it has been isolated.
But cDNA, which is complementary DNA, which is synthesized DNA from a single strand RNA A template eukaryotic cell is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.
So I think Scott is absolutely right about us having our own control of our own bodies.
We have to voluntarily give that up to the establishment, to the medical mafia, to the government, but they will try to Don't get me wrong.
They will try to try to patent people.
They will try.
And they've already done so with great success.
Monsanto, for instance, with their seed patents and absolutely destroying farmers in the United States and in India.
And all around the world, by unintentional cross-pollination, if a Monsanto patented gene accidentally crosses with a natural strand, Monsanto claims to own the crops of these people.
So we could see some pretty strange cases coming forward, at least, and we will be fighting this in the future.
Great points, great points.
Dawn, I know you want to add something here.
Dawn, you're muted.
You're muted.
You're muted.
I thought you wanted to add a comment, Don.
I want to make a comment here.
Not only everything, all the above we've been addressing, but The presidents of Tanzania, of Madagascar, and Haiti have all been assassinated.
Those were the only countries in the world that wouldn't allow the COVID shots and had the lowest rates of COVID infection in the world.
This is very serious, very serious.
They really do want to take control of the world in this whole fake pandemic as they're camouflaged.
The vaccines are the mechanism and there's going to be death galore.
Don, take us out.
Oh, wow.
Well, yeah, it is getting very serious, very crazy.
This is a wild world we're in right now.
And this is the first hour of Truth vs. News here on July the 12th.
▲
Export Selection