All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:01:25
Truth vs. NEW$ PART 2 (14 November 2021) with Don Grahn, Scott Bennett, and Holly Seelinger
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks, to Truth Vs. News Incorporated here on November 14th.
It's hour two, and literally, what did Biden get himself into here?
I don't know.
It's really a mess in the world, so take it on.
Scott, you're going to rock and roll on Cradle Race Theory and more.
Yeah, you know, the critical race theory essentially is parents tell your children to hate themselves, to be critical of themselves, to deconstruct themselves, you know, pursuant to whatever their ancestors did.
So the same explanation can be applied to the Egyptians.
Apply the critical race theory.
If you're Egyptian in any way, shape, or form, you're guilty of slavering of the Hebrews.
In fact, if you're Hebrew, you should apply the same guilt trip because you have had slaves in the book of 2 Kings.
Right?
And Philistines and whatever it is.
It's ridiculous on its face.
The white people in America did not invent slavery.
It, in fact, started with the Arabs doing slavery and then the Portuguese and the Spanish and stuff.
So this whole nonsense is an attempt to desperately arrest political power using fraud.
And the people who want to arrest and take over political power are the most incompetent, stupid, delusional people ever.
So it's bound to fail, but it's causing harmful damage to children, and that damage is fueling the political rejection of this.
Now, let me put on this hat, too.
Two can play at that game.
You want to play critical race theory?
Well, let's play critical race theory.
If you're going to blame white kids based on things that happened in the past, let's do critical race theory about blacks and black kids and black culture and black music and black behavior.
Let's talk about pulling one's pants down below their buttocks and calling it a fashion statement.
Let's call the language of ebonics and the bastardization of the English language into a guttural animalistic expression that doesn't resemble English at all.
Let's call that black culture, black critical theory.
Let's talk about the homelessness and the fatherless social science data That shows that 70% of the black kids and black families don't have a father in the home?
What, are they a bunch of rabid horndogs that can't keep their penis in their pocket and they have to go out and rape and pillage and foster all sorts of kids without fathers?
You want to go down the road of critical race theory?
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about who caused all of that.
The Democrats and the welfare reform laws in 1950 when they said a woman doesn't have to be married to have welfare.
That was Truman.
That was the Democrats.
That was the end of the black family.
That's what Senator Daniel Patrick Boynihan described in his book, The Death of the Negro Family.
All of the afflictions of the blacks We're self-executed.
They caused a social-cultural suicide on themselves, amplified by the opiate addiction of welfare.
But it is the blacks responsible for their own disintegration, their own delusion, their own destruction.
Yes, the CIA helped with drug infestation in the South Central Compton Los Angeles area.
Yes, deep black is a very good syllabus.
In fact, deep black, which I have in my book, is what Obama and Biden and Eric Holder used for recruitment for that policy.
But if you want to talk about critical race theory and the dysfunction of a person, dysfunction of a race, dysfunction of a societal element, you look at the blacks and look at their criminology, look at their family dysfunction, look at the problems, look at the incarceration rate, look at the hopelessness, look at the drug addiction.
Now that's not to say all blacks are like that.
Some of the most conservative, evangelical, God-fearing people I've ever met have been blacks both in the military and when I was in the federal government.
I worked with them.
I trained with them in the military.
I worked with them in the Bush administration.
Very wholesome, family-loving people.
But the Democrats have exploited the scum of the black population and the black society, and used them to amplify their discontent, their rage, their dysfunctionality.
They're not reflective of blacks.
And in fact, Jesse Jackson and the other guy who gets up there, Al Sharpton, and all these other parasites, Only contribute to the destruction of the black race and critical race theory is another way and and safe spaces and black only graduations and black only national anthems.
That is the fastest way to put the black people as a whole on a on a on a iceberg and push them out to sea to melt into oblivion because society and the people that run the the you know the businesses and the jobs and and and all of the rest of the society those are smart people and they're not going to entertain or allow themselves to be destroyed or be in any way legally or financially harmed
By this fantasy of, you know, black reparations.
And I'll end it by saying there was a professor, a black woman, calling herself a professor from Rutgers, saying essentially all white people are bad and all white people need to be destroyed.
Well, right there again, you're making declarations that essentially will destroy the black population in America.
It won't have any effect really on the white population of America because they're simply going to shun and turn away from everyone and everything that is black if you bring a fight where you threaten their resources and their family.
And that applies to the Asians, that applies to the Hispanics, that applies to the white people.
So the Asians, the Hispanics, and the white people are essentially being pushed away from black population, and then you have a people, and a culture, and a segment of society that is going to totally implode on itself.
So the critical race theory, two can play at that game, and they will always lose when they play against us.
Jim?
A lot of excellent points, I think, especially the world history of slavery, going back to ancient civilizations.
The Jews have exploited slavery.
In fact, the Jews today want to use all the other races as slaves to the Jews.
These are the Talmudic Jews.
This is not the ordinary conventional Orthodox Jew.
I'm talking about the Zionist Talmudic Jews who believe in the superiority of the Jews and all the other races only exist to serve them.
Holly, your thoughts?
Well I think the history of slavery in the United States is pretty fascinating as Scott connects it to world history as well from the research that I've done on on the trade triangle and going back to the 15 and 1600s how different groups of people were purposefully moved and brought together the slave triangle if you're talking about people from Africa and the Tejanos or the indigenous people of the Caribbean and and Jamaica and these countries that were brought in and then they could pit the different races against each other and then there were Scottish indentured servants that were brought down there and the Scotch-Irish that were brought down there and all these different groups of people were meant to create this strata and this is traditionally the founding of America through this trade triangle
Utilized in the United States and then utilized against the native populations in America as well.
So the history of pitting these different races against each other in order to create a stratosphere, a strata society, or a caste system as we've seen in ancient India.
Ancient India has a long history of different slave stratus, different groups of people being enslaved in one another
and creating these different groups within society based on skin color.
So it's something that goes on time and memorial.
And the main theme here is that if these groups can be fighting amongst each other,
they cannot be looking at the controllers above them to see who's actually running and operating,
who can actually afford the slave ships, who can actually afford the slave industry
in the first place and maintaining this critical race theory.
Interestingly enough, as I discussed last week, a lot of this goes back to Harvard, which is the same slave owners that we had seen from the slave triangle days.
So it's the same groups of families, the same, they're called Boston Brahmin within some circles.
It's kind of interesting the history of these people, which are still pushing critical race
theory, thinking that we're just as dumb as we were, you know, thousands of years ago,
using the same tried and true tactic to break apart the people all around the world.
Excellent. Just excellent.
Meanwhile, a former Clinton advisor has warned Biden he needs to get out of bed with his own party or be doomed in the midterm.
We're talking about a devastatingly bad midterm.
Mark Penn states the Biden administration is seen as being too far left, the Democrat Party too far left.
He believes Democrats should change course and move closer to the center.
Penn believes that New Jersey and Virginia are a sign of things to come if Biden doesn't distance himself from their policies.
Pence stated even though there were signs over the past few months the left was gaining too much influence, the Biden administration has maintained course, not changed a thing.
His push for infrastructure and social spending programs to the finish line saw intra-party fighting reach a fever pitch.
The infrastructure package was passed with the support of more than a dozen House Republicans, but his social spending package is in much greater danger.
His leadership is trying to balance the act of making progressives happy while keeping moderates from being excluded from the process.
Both Senator Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have hindered the progressive agenda.
Penn State Clinton needs to be pushed more toward the center, meaning Biden needs to be pushed more toward the center by a midterm vote.
He doesn't believe Biden will make the change unless the voters send a strong message.
Well, mark my words, they're going to send a strong message.
He stated he worked alongside of President Clinton, took the 1994 congressional election to serve as a wake-up.
He moved from kind of working for the left to working for the center.
He doesn't think he's going to see that from Biden right away.
It may take a strong message in the midterm to make it happen.
Well, the midterms are going to be calamitous for the Biden administration, deservedly so.
So, short take, Scott, yours.
Well, I think that's right because the Biden administration are going to be incapable of shifting directions.
They are delusional to the point of mad, frantic, what's wrong with you?
Aren't you?
You people are so stupid.
Can't you see that we're right?
Can't you see that you have to?
We have to make life so difficult for you so that you have to get vaccinated and you have to give up everything and you have to, have to, have to.
That's the maniacy that's animating them.
And we should really be thankful That they're entering this phase of maniacy and madness and delusion and hysteria because they're like a mad dog and everybody's going... a conservative should go, hey, you see that mad dog?
You see that frothing mad chasing its tail dog?
And the average, you know, new immigrant goes, oh my God, what's wrong with those people?
Well, you just have to vote Republican.
Don't vote that way.
Oh no, I won't.
So it's very simple.
Uh, how we need to evangelize in this country to say, don't vote the way of the political mad dogs, vote another way.
Independent, Republican, conservative, green, most likely Republican, so that we balance things out.
But that's the, that's the, the slogan we need to pursue.
It's not vote Republican because we're so good.
As much as I'm a Republican and as much as I have faith in the Republicans to an extent, I also am very suspicious about the rhinos and the fake Republicans.
So I think we have to amplify a message of Do not vote for tyranny and vaccines and all this perversion.
Vote against it by voting Republican.
That's why McAuliffe won, and I think the same thing will apply to the rest of the races and society over the next year.
Vote against tyranny is different, but it wins more than vote Republican, because there are a lot of people that are genetically disposed to never vote Republican, but they will vote against tyranny, Jim.
Well, I voted Democrat virtually my whole life until Trump came on the scene, and it was obvious that the alternative candidate was a monster.
I could never have supported Hillary.
And what's going on here with Biden and Harris is just absurd beyond belief.
Holly, your thoughts.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to make this my last comment of this hour for you guys.
I gotta head off to work, but I have seen in my home state of Maine that we are seeing a massive tide shift here as Governor Janet Mills, the Democrat here, who I believe was not put in democratically elected in the first place, but people kind of went along with it.
People are very upset with her in office, even The first district, which is even the Democrat district, is completely sick of her, her mandates.
She's been threatening to put in another mask mandate and people are not going to have it.
The political pushback is tremendous.
Before we had Republican Paula Page was the governor and The mainstream media just lambasted him the four years that he was in office.
They made him out to be a buffoon, but he is actually going to run for office again.
He was always pro free choice and pro America.
And even before Trump, he was talking about, he was the only governor that fought the Real ID program,
which as you know, is about the driver's license, federalizing basically the driver's license
with facial recognition technology.
He fought that tooth and nail.
So Maine was the last state to hold out on that.
And he's promising no mass mandates, no jabs.
And it'll be pretty interesting to see a bunch of Democrats get behind him.
I've actually talked to Democrats and Greens here in Maine who are saying that they're gonna volunteer or try to work for the Paula Page campaign, so I thought that was a definitely huge turn.
I thought I'd never see or hear anything like that, so thanks guys.
Well, thanks for wonderful contributions today, Holly.
And we're going to begin next Sunday, a half an hour earlier to have more of you on the show.
Thank you so much.
Just sensational.
Meanwhile, we turn to what's happening in Wisconsin.
Gage Roskrutz, whose bicep was vaporized by Kyle Rittenhouse, testified he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before the defendant fired at him.
This is the man Kyle wounded without killing.
He actually shot three different parties, killed two, wounded the third.
His defense attorney got him to admit several statements he made to police after the shooting were incorrect in their details or omitted other facts.
The biggest omission was he had pointed a gun at Rittenhouse, at Kyle, before Kyle fired on him, something he not mentioned before.
Rose Scott was carrying a concealed Glock but also said his concealed carry permit was expired.
He told prosecutors he attended the protests as a medic, wasn't trying to be an active participant.
But he admitted upon further questioning that he spoke at a rally hoisted by the People's Revolution, a Milwaukee-based group that has protested against police violence and made statements such as, long live the revolution.
He said he's not a member of the group, but it has an affiliation.
He said his failure to tell cops he pointed his gun wasn't intentional.
Joke, joke, joke.
Noting the police interviewed him after surgery while he was still on pain medication.
Right, he would forget that he pointed a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse, who was simply defending himself.
He also testified he put his hands in the air after Rittenhouse shot Anthony Huber and then saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle, after which he figured Rittenhouse wouldn't accept his surrender and then move toward him.
He wasn't intentionally pointing his gun in Rittenhouse, which is just ridiculous.
How could he not be?
I was never trying to kill the defendant.
That wasn't something I was trying to do.
By the way, he's reported to have told a friend in the hospital his only regret was not killing him, that he'd wanted to empty his entire mag into Rittenhouse, according to a former roommate.
Town Hall senior writer Julia Rosas tweeted, the former roommate Jacob Marshall was in the courtroom but has been served a subpoena.
No doubt because he'll testify, be called upon to testify himself.
Meanwhile, Kyle took the stand himself.
Wasn't expected to happen.
Tucker's been brilliant on this, talking about a rapist called Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived trying to touch an unwilling minor.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson weighed in on the latest developments during his show Wednesday, discussing one of those involved.
In a move that surprised lawyers, Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense.
That's unusual in criminal cases, especially in murder trials.
The reason is simple.
The stakes are too high.
One wrong answer, you could wind up spending your life in prison.
But this case was different.
By the time he testified today, Carl Rittenhouse had already won.
There was no remaining doubt that Kyle had acted in self-defense.
Every shot he fired was captured on video from multiple angles.
Every witness who testified confirmed what happened.
Here are the facts of it.
A convicted child rapist called Joseph Rosenbaum was released from a mental hospital and then went directly to join the mob that was burning downtown Kenosha.
Once he got to the riot, Rosenbaum saw Rittenhouse and immediately threatened to kill him.
Rosenbaum then chased Rittenhouse, trying to pull the gun from his hands.
When he did that, Rittenhouse shot him.
So Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor.
Meanwhile, he broke down on the witness stand, now 18 years old, on trial, I didn't notice Mr. Rosenbaum until he came out from behind the car and ambushed me, he said, whom Rittenhouse fatally shot.
During the testimony, the judge lashed out at the assistant district attorney Thomas Binger.
Rittenhouse attorney Richards objected when Binger questioned why the 18-year-old decided to remain silent after the Kenosha shooting.
Before he lashed out, the judge, Bruce Schroeder, who's excellent in my opinion, paused the trial and set the jury out of the room.
I was astonished that you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence.
That's basic law.
That's been basic law for 40 or 50 years.
I don't know what you're up to, he admonished him.
You're an experienced trial lawyer.
This should not have been gone into.
He also chastised him for discussing a piece of evidence Schroeder had previously banned.
He was questioning him about a video recording weeks before in which Rittenhouse could be heard saying he wished he had his zapping AR.
The video was filmed from inside a car across the street from a CVS pharmacy, where hooded persons were rushing out, clutching items, cleaning it out.
Holy effing SHI, the judge just completely snapped at the Rittenhouse prosecutor.
I was astonished when you began his examination by commenting on the defendant's past arrest silence.
That's basic law.
It's been basic law in this country for 40, 50 years.
A voice that sounded like Rittenhouse on that earlier video could be heard talking about it, saying, bro, I wish I had my effing A.R.
I'd start shooting rounds at them.
Binger had previously argued the video showed Rittenhouse was ready and willing to use deadly force in a situation where it was completely unjustified.
But Schroeder ruled against him and barred it from being discussed at the trial.
On Wednesday, Richard calls the situation ridiculous.
The prosecutor was ignoring the judge's rulings.
When bringers had written house testimony, opened the door to the questions, Schroeder again raised his voice.
Don't get brazen with me.
I don't want to have another issue as long as this case continues.
Is that clear?
Here we have a segment of what was going on here.
Listen up.
I'm aware that the court's aware that normally a defense motion for a mistrial does not preclude a retrial.
I understand that.
There are exceptions to that, however.
And the case that I am drawing this from is Day v. State.
It's 76 Whist Second 588.
And what it says is, an exception to this rule exists where a defendant's motion is necessitated by prosecutorial impropriety designed to avoid an acquittal.
Now, what has happened in this morning was Two times, the state had commented on Mr. Rittenhouse's right to remain silent.
The first time, he was admonished by the court.
The second time, the court had the jury leave and re-admonished him on that.
Prior to Mr. Rittenhouse testifying, this court addressed various things with not only Mr. Rittenhouse, but with the lawyers.
You had cited various statutes, and then you had asked if anything would be coming up on, for example, I think 90608.
One of the other things you addressed was 90404.
And you had said that, based on the information that had come out at the trial, nothing had changed as it relates to your ruling.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Binger Stated and we looked it up.
Previously, he said to Mr Rittenhouse previously indicated that you wish to have your AR-15 to protect someone's property.
Clearly in violation, not only only of the prior ruling that you had made, but the ruling that very day that very morning.
It appears to be that there are two really elements the court must consider when making a determination on a mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreaching.
And the first one is the prosecutor's actions must be intentional in the sense of a culpable state of mind in the nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defendant.
I would argue to you that that's clearly aware of that.
You had warned him.
You had told him prior to Mr. Rittenhouse testifying that these things, certainly the 90404 was off limits.
You had warned him about the infringement on his constitutional right to remain silent.
He did it again.
The second one, I think, requires some action by the court in terms of a finding.
The second one says the prosecutor's actions was designed to allow Another chance to convict.
That is, to provoke a mistrial in order to get another kick at the cat, because the first trial is going badly, or to prejudice the defendant's rights to successfully complete the criminal confrontation at the first trial.
Now, the case that I had cited is a Kenosha case.
State versus Coping?
Copening?
Yep.
100 Whisk Second, 700.
C-O-P-E-N-I-N-G?
with second 700 COPE and I and G. Yes, sir. In that case, the court didn't make findings regarding the prosecutor's
actions.
So I don't know that it's my role to sit here and say, who's winning?
I don't think that's necessarily what I'm supposed to do.
But I think the court has to make some findings as it relates to the bad faith on the part of the prosecution.
And if the court makes a finding that The actions that I had talked about.
I'm with let me just say how.
The defense has asked for.
The judge to consider a motion for dismissal with prejudice, which would mean they could not refile.
And frankly, I think it's totally justified.
The case had no basis.
There's pure self-defense.
They were stretching the law for political purposes from the beginning, Scott.
And then when you have these repeated violations of the court's own prior rulings, The assertion of bad faith by the Defense Against the Prosecution is absolutely well-founded.
So the judge, I believe, tomorrow might actually rule to dismiss with prejudice.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I would agree with that, Jim.
That was a very compelling And excellently stated argument by the defense attorney who essentially is saying, Judge, the laws and the system of justice in America is designed and has been ruled so that when a prosecutor recognizes that the case has gone bad because of
For whatever explanation, whether the prosecutor's been drunk, or he's not got the right evidence, or witnesses have turned against him, maybe all three in this case, then the prosecutor is going to try and pull the ejection seat by consciously violating the judge's orders and the rules of the court, which are all established in order to trigger a retrial.
And that is impermissible.
That is a violation of the Constitution.
It is a violation of the ethics of prosecutors.
And in a sense, the government does not get to pull that kind of shenanigan.
It has to win a case on the merits, on the evidence, on the testimony, or it does not win.
Because the courts and the justice system is supposed to be inclined to the individual.
You are innocent until proven guilty.
You are healthy until proven unhealthy after due process of law and application of this vaccine mandate.
You are healthy.
You are innocent.
You are free until proven otherwise.
And I think you're right, Jim.
The judge is going to stand up at the right time and say, I am dismissing this with prejudice because of your abominable behavior, your unethical behavior.
I'm referring you to the Bar Administration.
The court needs to do that.
The judge needs to do that so it doesn't become an issue with the judge.
It then is handed off to the Bar Association.
And he needs to be sanctioned as a prosecutor for this sort of activity.
That is the way to deflect, you know, away from the judge, but also to put it squarely on this woke prosecutor who I wouldn't be surprised if he's got ties to George Soros.
Just like the prosecutor here in Martinez, California has got ties to George Soros.
Just like the prosecutor who went against the McCloskeys has ties to George Soros.
Just like the Chicago, Kimberly Fox, who went and freed the black guy who pretended like he was lynched and bleached.
She has ties to George Soros.
Why?
Because George Soros knows if he controls the bottlenecks, the prosecutors, the courts, then he can control and shape the culture and turn people into slaves for fear of being prosecuted.
So this is a very, very important paradigm shift.
And here's an ending here.
If the black population, if the Black Lives Matter, if Antifa, all these lunatics, threaten to have another racial unrest, Isn't it ironically stupid?
Because they have nothing to be unrestful about.
This is a white guy, white victims, white prosecutor, white judge, white jury, essentially.
It's got nothing to do with black people, ever, except trying to stop the destruction of property and the slaughter of innocents and the killing of people that these blacks and Antifa and these others were doing in Kenosha and Seattle and elsewhere.
So you're either on the side of the fire-breathing, murdering, savage, rapist mob, or you're on the side of those who are defending against it.
And I think that's where this is going to come down to.
And more and more people are not only on the side of Rittenhouse, but if they do react with hostility in another march, Then again, that's going to prove once more that the vast majority of Americans are going to side with the conservative side, side with Rittenhouse, side against this mob, and the Democrats are just going to lose more support and validation.
Jim?
Don, your thoughts?
Oh, I'll just pass.
You guys are right on.
I can't You have a background as a paralegal, Don, so I'm very glad to get your comments as we proceed.
Meanwhile, this could have been Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kenosha rioters viciously beat an elderly man trying to put out fires.
Get this.
Robert Cobb, 71, was minding his own business when civil unrest enveloped the area near his home in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, who, by the way, had a knife and appeared to be kidnapping his own kids, where the mother was hysterical.
Kenosha reported Cobb did what he could to save the 100-year-old Danish Brotherhood Lodge after it was sacked by rioters.
The night before Rittenhouse had run-ins with Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenberg, and Grzegorz Gershkoff, Cobb had attempted to protect the historic building with a fire extinguisher.
At one point, he began spraying the rioters in the face with a fire extinguisher so they might take off their masks and be filmed.
He hoped he might identify them.
He was hit in the head with concrete, suffered a broken jaw, and needed stitches on his head.
There's a video about looters assaulting an older business owner trying to defend his business in Kenosha on August 24th.
Cobb's story is one we saw play out throughout the summer of 2020 in cities from Dallas to Portland.
Good Samaritans who wanted to protect their community were overwhelmed by mobs and attacks.
Rittenhouse could easily have suffered the same fate, or much worse.
He could have been killed during either of his two deadly interactions the following night.
One could argue rioters were incensed by the teen's rifle, but seeing another person in possession of a rifle is not a justification to attack or kill them.
A rifle in a riot is also not the only deadly weapon.
In the team's first deadly encounter, he shot Rosenbaum, who he said was pursuing him and who was not deterred by the presence of his gun.
Rittenhouse.
Rosenhouse was chasing me.
He said he was going to kill me if he got me alone.
I was alone.
I was running from him.
I pointed at him and it didn't stop him from continuing to chase me.
Did you hear my question?
Yes.
You chose not to answer?
He could have run away instead of trying to take my gun from me, but it didn't stop him.
Mr. Rittenhouse, you're telling us you felt you were about to die, right?
Yes.
But when you point the gun, that's not going to make them feel like they're going to die.
Rosenbaum, in every video shown, possessed two hands and two feet.
Both are potentially deadly weapons.
Rittenhouse made a decision to fire as Rosenbaum closed in on him.
The man died while trying to take possession of the teen's gun.
Even had powder burns on his hands to prove it.
That brings us to the second deadly encounter when he was surrounded by people, including Huber and Rosenkreutz.
Huber struck Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard.
Rittenhouse shot him once.
Huber died from a chest wound.
A skateboard is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands.
Run a Google search on deadly skateboard attack.
Look at all the coverage of people who've been beaten to death with what Rittenhouse prosecutor Thomas Bringer would probably call a benign piece of plywood sports equipment with plastic wheels.
As Bringer made abundantly clear, guns can be deadly.
Rosenkranz himself has admitted he was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot through the right bicep.
We'll never know if Rosenkranz might have ended up firing him.
Rittenhouse can wait to find out.
If you wait, you're dead.
In under three minutes, Rittenhouse went from walking toward a gas station and putting out a fire to reporting he just used deadly force to a line of police officers.
When looking at all the evidence presented, Rittenhouse chose to live.
He used his rifle when the mob came for him.
Or valid arguments, none of this would have happened if the teen had stayed home, had refrained from carrying a firearm, but Cobb was only armed with a fire extinguisher and was attacked without mercy.
Imagine what might have become of Rittenhouse if the mob had got its ugly hands on him after the first shot was fired.
Imagine the beating or worse had he not kept his gun in his own hands.
I think that's a very fair assessment of the situation.
Scott, your thoughts?
Yeah, they would have killed him.
They would have killed him within seconds if they had gotten the gun against him.
And again, the argument needs to simply be put up to the jury as from the defense counsel.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if this was your father, your brother, your son, what would you want done?
What would you want them to do?
Surrender their gun or defend their life?
This is a young man who's a police cadet, so he's trained in firearms, he's trained in basic law, he's already civically minded, he's not a drug dealer, he's not somebody who's been in trouble with school, he's not committed any crimes ever before, so he's an impeachable character.
He goes to Wisconsin with a group of other people, not as a lone wolf, not as a sociopath, but goes to Wisconsin To clean off graffiti and to stop burning buildings and stop what happened to this 71-year-old man from happening to other 71-year-old men.
So they go there as a what Americans do.
Every American would do this too.
If it was your family or your neighbor who has his building about to be burned down and beaten up and killed, you'd go to his rescue.
You'd go to his defense with whatever you have.
And if you're smart, you have a gun.
That's the equilibrium that's provided.
So an 80-year-old man is equal with a 20-year-old man because he has a gun.
So this young man went to NOSHA Wisconsin to protect and serve and help because that was his ambition In a professional way too, to join the police force.
So he's being trained in that.
His instincts are that way.
And he goes and he's attacked by savages, by child rapists, by lunatic revolutionary far leftists that say things like, the revolution must continue.
And leftist revolutions kill a lot of people, as we've seen in Stalin's day, and Mao's day, and on and on and on.
So these revolutionaries don't mind killing and maiming, as we've seen elsewhere.
In Seattle, the Trump supporter guy was killed and shot.
We've seen this in the burning down of police stations.
This is what the left wing has been doing, and this is what they would have done to him.
They chased him, they tried to hurt him, he shot to defend himself from the first guy.
He was then running away to seek refuge, away and go to the police.
And while he was running to the police, he was chased down more.
He wasn't standing behind a wall and shooting like he's a machine gunner in World War II Gallipoli.
He's not shooting like a sniper.
He's not taking pot shots and killing people and changing his position.
He's running away after he had to shoot or die the first individual and he was attacked while he was running to the police and he was knocked down and almost killed with a skateboard wielding thug and he had to shoot to defend himself and live and he did and he made it to police and now they're trying to engineer this ridiculous uh trial and and uh of this woke mob political correct correct fascism so that they try and scare everybody including you ladies and gentlemen the jury including you and your children and grandchildren to never ever dare stand against a mob that's burning down your
Your town, your buildings, and killing and abusing your 71-year-old father or grandfather.
That's what this is about, is control and threatening you.
And your answer has to be, say, we will never be threatened by the mob.
We as individual citizens will always rise up and use the Second Amendment to defend our lives, defend our family, defend our property from those destructive agents.
And a 17-year-old Can have a weapon.
It is not a violation of law, because any law that says a 17-year-old can't have a gun is a violation of the Constitution, because the Constitution, Second Amendment, was written when 17-year-olds had guns.
And you can't change a state law that says now that it's 19 or 2022, 2021, now you can't have that gun, 17-year-old.
No, that's a violation of the Constitution.
So this case will overthrow a lot of things if they pursue it, and I anticipate Kyle Rittenhouse being completely exonerated, and it shows every American this is the precedent.
Stand your ground, defend your town, defend your family, and kill anybody that tries to kill you.
That's what America was always, that's what America needs to return to, and that's how you defeat this far leftist revolutionary mob Don, any comments?
No, I'll pass.
to burn down the entire infrastructure of America in order to create this sandcastle ash heap of a
communist new world order that has no hope of standing as we've seen history proves. Jim?
Don, any comments?
No, I'll pass. You guys say it so much better than I can.
Carl Rittenhouse, trial judge, allows the jury to consider the teen provoke the attack.
I think it's not the case he did, but he's allowing it to be open to the possibility.
He's made some findings from the bench, indicated how he's going to incline to rule.
At one point, he told Rittenhouse, with lesser charges, what the prosecution wants, knowing they don't have a case on the charges alleged.
You're raising the risk of conviction but avoiding the possibility the jury will end up compromising on a more serious crime.
You're also decreasing the risk you'll wind up with a second trial because the jury is unable to agree.
Rittenhouse confirmed he understood.
He's charged, of course, with the killings, as we know.
Prosecutors said they plan to ask the judge to allow the jury to consider lesser versions of two of the charges, including those related to the shootings of Grosskreutz and Huber.
A lesser could include reckless homicide or second-degree, rather than first-degree murder.
Unlike the higher charges, second-degree reckless homicide does not require proof that he exhibited utter disregard for life.
According to video footage, both Huber and Gross and Criss ran after Rittenhouse as he was trying to run toward police after shooting Rosenbaum.
Several videos and photos also show Huber hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
While Rosencrantz himself was armed with a handgun, testified he thought Huber was attempting to attack Rittenhouse.
Richie McGinnis, a Daily Caller cameraman who was present at the time, testified Rosenbaum was reaching to grab Rittenhouse's gun when he was shot.
Another journalist, Drew Hernandez, said Rosenbaum charged Rittenhouse from behind before the shooting occurred.
The first thing I did identify was that Rosenbaum was charging Kyle Rittenhouse from behind, and as he's charging him into the car's parking lot, a firearm goes off, said Hernandez.
The judge said he would not allow the jury to consider a lesser charge in the shooting of Rosenbaum, the other person he's charged with killing.
Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder stated that closing arguments would begin Monday, each given about two and a half hours.
I think the request for lesser included reflection and acknowledgement that their case might not be as strong with regard to the original charges and that at this point they're willing to give up the prospect of life imprisonment for the defendant in exchange for obtaining convictions on something, said Julius Kim, a Wisconsin-based defense attorney not involved in the case.
Meanwhile, and this is rather fascinating, a search warrant was not carried out by the Kenosha Police Department.
As a Rittenhouse case unfolds, it was shockingly revealed that detectives in Kenosha didn't execute a search warrant for the cell phone of the armed left-winger rioter Gage Krosenkrutz, who recently admitted in court that he was armed and that Rittenhouse only shot after people pointed weapons at him.
Detective Howard revealed officers were granted a search warrant to search Gross and Croup's phone.
For some reason, no one did it.
Howard said the only time in three years working as a detective a warrant that had been issued had not been executed.
Howard was cross-examined by Mark Richard, the defense attorney, Proving a pivotal part of the case, confirming that Rittenhouse fired at Groskrutz and two others when it appeared as though his own life were in danger.
Groskrutz also turned out to be the only person of interest in the entire case whose phone was not accessed and downloaded onto police computers.
Not only that, but the Groskrutz interview with officers was also not recorded.
Why?
Grosskreutz was shot in the bicep by Rittenhouse after he raised a handgun and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head.
He has a long history of breaking the law, a criminal record for burglary.
He's also allegedly a member of the far-left People's Revolution Movement in Milwaukee.
He's long claimed to be a victim of Rittenhouse, but was caught out online when he said his only regret was not emptying the entire mag into him.
Hopefully the vicious extremism of these left-wing arsonists and rioters will be exposed by the court case, but we still don't have answers on why police officers inadvertently or advertently buried evidence.
Meanwhile, here's a meme that captures it all.
The media has no choice but to hate Kyle.
He defended himself against the monster they created and showed the world why someone would need an AR-15 with 30 rounds.
Excellent, excellent meme.
Scott, your thoughts?
Well, it's coming to the conclusion where you're, you know, here's how the jury, the court system works.
The prosecution has to make its case in closing case.
So the prosecution is going to go up first and make a statement to the jury.
Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, this is a white supremacist who was looking to do bad things and we can't allow him and anybody else to do what he did.
And the jury's going to go, you're out of your mind.
Nothing's going to stick.
And then the defense counsel comes up and he says, ladies and gentlemen, everything that that prosecutor said, he is going to do to you.
Everything that he's asking you to do to him, he's asking you to do to yourself and your children and your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren.
Don't ever have a gun, don't ever defend yourself, don't ever defend your property, don't ever make a stand, and if that's what you do, you're submitting yourself to the tyranny of the mob and slavery, to vicious murdering thugs like these people who say, long live the revolution, burn down the police departments, defund the police, and destroy the Republic of America and erect a communist state.
Now that is obviously going to have a resonance with the jury, and they're going to say, no, I'm not going to do that.
And the jury is going to also say, he has a right to a gun.
And essentially, Jim, here's what's going to happen too.
The defense is going to say, and the judge will say, a person affirming their right cannot be charged with a crime, because your right cannot be a crime.
Exercising the right is not a crime.
So did he have a right to have a gun?
Yes.
The Constitution says it.
I don't care what a state law or any other thing says.
You know, well you can't have a gun if you're 17.
Bullshit!
You had guns when you were 17 in 1776, you have them now.
That's in the Constitution.
So did he have a right to have a gun?
Yes.
Did he have that gun to protect his life?
Yes.
Did he have the gun, and was he met, and did he use the gun to defend his life?
Yes.
Here's two dead guys who attacked him, and it's been corroborated that they attacked him, and one admitted that he attacked him, So, did he have a gun?
Did he exercise it to defend his right?
And that's really all there is to say.
So, the Supreme Court and the Appeals Court will say, nah, you can't charge him with anything.
He had a right to have a gun, it's constitutional, it's established that he used that gun to defend his life and his property, but his life, and therefore exercising that right is not a crime, and you can't charge a person a crime.
So that's how this is going to go.
There'll be no charges against Rittenhouse.
Everything is going to be won on his side, on the American people's side, and the Democrats and these fanatics are going to suffer a humiliating and lethal blow.
And if they try and have an unrest, if they try and have some sort of a silly protest and burn down another building and stuff, you know what?
Part of me says, let them do it.
But I think, you know, they've already mobilized the guard and stuff.
They're not going to tolerate any more of this.
They're not going to tolerate more mobs, more burning down buildings, more beating up of 71-year-old men.
Those days are over because Americans are locked and loaded and ready to go to war.
And Rittenhouse's acquittal is going to be the precedent that gives license to everybody to do the same.
Stand your ground, defend your life, defend your family, defend your property, And if you dare come at me, I am going to shoot and kill you based on the Rittenhouse action.
And that doesn't mean looking for trouble, but that also means not backing down and not backing away.
So this is a pivotal point in the Second Amendment, right to self-defense, and the courts are going to rule it that way, Jim.
Don.
Yeah, real quickly, Jim, you're right there in Wisconsin.
What's your feeling on the ground there?
Do you think that if Rittenhouse is acquitted, there will be some reaction?
Any idea?
Well, the governor, who's the weakling, has authorized 500 National Guard troops to put it down.
I think that the Democrats are going to be hung out to dry by the public if they continue to tolerate this rioting, looting, arson.
I think it's reached a breaking point with public opinion.
That's my take.
Meanwhile, From Facebook.
Five-year-old Vax Chad lies in hospital bed after suffering a mini heart attack.
From Facebook.
His first meal in four days, it's coming out of a coma as a result of his many heart attacks.
So thankful he's vaccinated with all of the sick people in his place, not realizing it's the vaccination that causes heart attack.
Pfizer secretly added heart attack drug to children's COVID vaccine, but why did they do it?
The FDA Advisory Committee that voted 17-0 to approve jabs for children as young as 5 was notified that children's formula the drug contains thromethanine, a chemical that reduces blood acidity and stabilizes people who have suffered a heart attack.
Each dose of this formulation contains 10 micrograms of a nucleoside-modified messenger mRNA encoding the virus by glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 that's formulated in lipid particles and supplied as a frozen suspension in multiple dose vials.
To provide a vaccine and improve stability profile, Tris has been added as a buffer.
The new formulation must be stored at a different temperature than the adult version.
Without so much as a second thought, the FDA granted emergency use authorization for kids as young as 5.
The FDA briefing document was entitled, EUA Amendment Request for Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine for Use in Children 5-11 Years of Age.
Now, many want to know why Pfizer felt the need to replace PBS with Trist and the children's version of its Fauci flu jab.
Does the company know that without it, fully vaccinated children will likely experience visible heart attacks?
Is Trist being added to the children's vials to cover up the cardiovascular events that they cause or at least minimize?
Why is none of this being reported by the mainstream media?
There are many questions without answers, since so few are asking in the first place.
There may never be any answers unless people start to demand them.
The FDA claims it conducts a thorough and transparent evaluation of the data.
But how can this be the case when the entire JAB formula was changed under cover of darkness?
According to the expose, there's overwhelming evidence for the safety of the vaccine, and how a change in the formula used in the clinical trials should never have been granted.
Among the many side effects caused by TRIS were respiratory depression, local irritation, tissue inflammation, injection site infection, Febrile response, chemical phlebitis, venospasm, vein spasm, hypovolemia, IV thrombosis, extravasion with possible necrosis and slowing of tissues, transient decreases in blood glucose concentrations, hypoglycemia, and hepatic necrosis with infusion via low-lying umbilical venous catheters.
These adverse effects are far worse than a few COVID sniffles, assuming a child develops symptoms at all.
Spoiler alert, most children don't.
They are changing the jab recipe all the time, experimenting for all age groups.
If no one can take legal action against a pharma, then what's going to stop them?
The answer is Us?
One person pointed out Tris is a synthetic scarecam additive, considered to be an irritant.
Sounds delightful, that person joked.
Just what you want flowing around in your body through your heart, lungs, and so on.
Very bad.
And look at this, a promo for child vaccines.
getting ready to fight COVID.
All of us want to be superheroes.
And the most important heroes are those that help others.
This year, thousands of kids like us around the world joined the COVID-19 vaccine trial.
Kid power!
And when they did, they became all superheroes.
To all the kids who volunteered, we'd like to say... Thank you!
Thank you!
Thank you for sharing your superpowers of... Courage.
Trying new things.
The ability to save people.
The power to help people.
Helping not just yourself, but many other kids.
To not be scared.
Be strong.
Super brave.
Bravery and courage.
A superhero shine.
Helping everybody.
Fight coronavirus and help others.
You're helping the whole entire world.
Thank you.
You are all superheroes.
Thank you!
Thank you superheroes!
Thank you!
You're awesome.
You're welcome.
Using kids to promote a vaccine that's going to kill many of them and harm them in serious ways is so disgusting it
makes me want to vomit.
Pfizer seeking to use kids and even kill them to fatten its own profit margin and promote the Great Reset is beyond the pale of conscience.
It's outrageous, Scott.
Your thoughts?
Well, Jim, they use it for information war, psychological warfare purposes.
They use children to appeal, like they use puppies and kittens to appeal to people.
Look at these little kids.
Aww, they're so cute.
They're so nice.
Yes, we must do it for the children.
Greta Thornburg, that... Oh, yeah.
Half-wit, mongoloid-looking thing up there trying to preach about climate control.
That's an attempt to manipulate adults using child-like illusions, delusions, and really perversion on its deepest psychological level.
So using of children is nothing more than a manipulative mechanism And it should be violently opposed, rhetorically, in every way, and exposed and criticized as that.
Because, in this case, you're right.
Pfizer using children to try and manipulate people into giving themselves and their children a shot that will cause them to be infertile, cause them to have myocarditis, their heart enlarged, blood clots, death, mental fog, all of that stuff happening.
That's what these shots do.
That's what they're trying to manipulate people into doing using speech impediment stricken children, who are I, I would argue semi mentally delusional and problematic in the first place.
So this whole nonsense.
There's no tolerance for this, and that people really need to get tough.
They need to get tough and smart and say, do you want to survive?
Do you want to live?
Do you want your children to live?
Do you want your family to live?
Do you want to have property?
Do you want to live in a republic of freedom?
Then you better damn well get off your ass and stop being lazy, stop being simple, and stop being stupid, and get ready to go to war against these people.
And these retard children that they try to throw up at you as distractions, as human shields.
That's what they're doing.
They're lifting up children to use as human shields, emotional human shields, as emotional bromides, as a sort of carbon monoxide that they're trying to fill your head with To cause you to become delusional, to cause you to get tiry and sleepy, and cause you to become, oh, we have to do it.
They need to be slapped awake, fresh air put into their mind to say, no, we're not accepting the delusional children or Pfizer or their retard liberal Democrat parents who are putting them up there.
We're rejecting all of that.
We're rejecting all of the children, all of the parents, all of the Pfizer employees, all of the Democrats, all of these fascist authoritarian thugs trying to forcibly inject people with a lethal shot, a bioweapon.
We're not having it.
And you all will die who get it, so don't think we're going that way.
I don't care if you put up children and little kittens and Sesame Street with Big Bird and all that nonsense, because we know the facts.
Your kids are going to die of heart attacks.
Five-year-olds are already getting it.
Big Bird's going to lose all his feathers and turn into a sick-looking vulture.
And all the Democrats and all the sports figures and everybody else who gets this is going to be stricken and crumple into a, you know, a puddle of death in a matter of months, if not a few years, but I think a matter of months.
So people really need to get tough.
And stand up and be ready to stand their ground against these sort of bullies, these sort of fanatics and psychopaths, and have no tolerance or mercy for them or their arguments or their children or their Big Bird.
Because as Balthazar Gratian said, a great philosopher, don't let your sympathy for the unfortunate make you one of them.
Don't let your sympathy for the idiots who have injected themselves with their shot force you to inject yourself with the same suicide shot, Jim.
Oh.
Don, take us out.
One question I have is that what is the ingredients in these shots?
They haven't listed them, like they're supposed to list ingredients and food and stuff.
What are the ingredients?
We don't know that.
They're getting a shot in the dark and it's very dark for sure.
Well, that's why it's emergency use authorization for whatever reason doesn't require them to list the ingredients, which is why they've arranged it this way.
Your closing thoughts, Don, take us out.
Oh yeah, I gotta take us out alright.
I'm gonna take us back down to Tahiti where it's just so wonderful.
I'm so glad to be down here.
And this has been Truth vs. News Incorporated.
Actually with Truth vs. Official Facts too.
There's quite a difference here, folks.
And thank you for watching here on November 14th.
Hopefully we'll have a good report for next week.
Hopefully things will turn around this week.
▲
Export Selection