Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 17, 2021 - Jim Fetzer

01:52:47

The Raw Deal (17 December 2021) with Danny Cirrus

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	How many shots?
	And what other qualifications can they have?
	I don't know if you heard the audio, Jim, but Dr. Fauci was saying that they should change the word mandate to requirement, which would change the entire legal definition of The words as they stand according to law.
	Hey, Jim, welcome.
	Glad you made it.
	Oh, Mitchell, you're talking about such an important story here.
	Yes, Fauci has no respect for law, for the Nuremberg Code, for proper administration of medicine.
	I think they're getting panicked that the VAX isn't working out quite the way they wanted because of so much Resistance.
	And it's simply shocking to me that Fauci is being so open about it, but I think he's got no choice.
	Bear in mind, Fauci is under the control of the Rothschild.
	This entire enterprise is a Rothschild attempt to take control of the entirety of planet Earth.
	That they have control of, of course, the media.
	Rothschild owns Reuters and the AP.
	We know The overwhelming majority of the media are dual U.S.-Israeli citizens.
	The Rothschilds take credit for founding Israel, so they have really a lock.
	They control the NIH, the CDC.
	I even worry they might control the American Medical Association, but Mitchell, I'm so pleased you're making those points.
	If Pausch is trying to go all out, For, you know, getting everybody vaxxed and where this is consistent with the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, who recently said the supply problems would not be resolved until every American was vaxxed.
	Well, what does supply have to do with vaccination?
	Obviously, this is extortion, intimidation, coercion.
	Mitchell, further thoughts of yours about this?
	Well, As Rand Paul has so aptly pointed out, Dr. Fauci is this unelected bureaucrat.
	He has no responsibility or nothing really to answer to the American people in any kind of legal fashion.
	He's just out there, you know, doing what he's doing.
	He's not an elected official and, you know, that's the difference that Fauci Just doesn't understand the inherent freedoms and the limitations of government within the Constitution.
	And, you know, Rand Paul, you know, particularly with his father, you know, he has a special appreciation for the Constitution.
	Fauci is a political scientist more than anything.
	He's a politician, really, to put it down in baldest terms.
	He's not a physician.
	He's never actually had any patients.
	He's been in this position administratively where he's been doling out grants for three or four decades, Mitchell.
	And that means that all the recipients of those grants feel beholden to Fauci, that they may get their funding cut off if they make him unhappy.
	So listen, if I were going to be late today, as I have been, I can't imagine a better story for you to have been covering in my absence, Mitchell.
	I'm really glad.
	And you just did a great job with this.
	Oh, you're welcome, Jim.
	No problem.
	I'm joined today by Danny Siras.
	But first, we're going to begin with covering some of the other stories.
	Gavin Newsom plans to mirror the Texas anti-abortion law to ban assault weapons.
	Yeah, surprise, surprise.
	California leadership could soon be thanking Texas.
	The Supreme Court allowed the Lone Star State's abortion ban to stay in effect, which bothers me tremendously.
	I believe in a woman's right to choose.
	In my opinion, it's the only democratic solution.
	Where the developing entity doesn't become a person and entitled to those rights, a right to life until the end of the second trimester when viability occurs.
	I think that the court's decision was a wise one.
	But here, look at this now.
	Newsom said if Texas can endanger lives through its abortion ban, that California should be allowed to ban deadly weapons of war and save lives, ignoring the fact that the defensive use of guns saves hundreds of thousands of lives every year.
	There are over two million Assaults on Americans where the use of guns has fended off those who are attacking and preserved the life or well-being of the defenders with the estimates of as many as 200,000 lives saved.
	The gun ban is a totally different matter.
	That's indispensable under the Second Amendment.
	There's no right to abortion in the Constitution, but there sure as hell is a right to keep and bear arms.
	So Newsom writes, SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion.
	If that's a precedent, then we'll let California sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our street.
	It's just wrong.
	But then what would you expect from Newsom?
	He's a nitwit.
	He's totally incompetent.
	Danny, I want to bring in on this already, because we're talking about gun control, and that's an issue we're going to be addressing.
	Certain Texas conservatives shot back at Newsom in a tweet.
	Republican Tyler State Representative Michael Schaefer poked fun at California whose lost residents that have moved to Texas.
	Texas Realtor of the Year Award goes to California Governor Gavin Newsom, Schaefer wrote.
	But this is completely absurd.
	Greg Abbott used Newsom's announcement to remind everyone he's up for re-election and that those who are running against him, Beto O'Rourke, would similarly ban assault weapons.
	Mind you, that's a misuse of the word.
	Assault weapons, weapons of war, are fully automatic.
	These weapons are only semi-automatic.
	This is exactly what Beto would do if elected governor of Texas.
	I won't let it happen.
	Texas is a pro-Second Amendment state and will stay that way.
	Meanwhile, the New York Times explained that the court also appears ready to uphold an abortion law in Mississippi after 15 weeks.
	I'm troubled by all this.
	It will be interesting to see the response of Newsom's proposed law.
	Danny, I want to bring you in right now.
	Give us your thoughts about this business of Newsom thinking he can adapt.
	I don't see it.
	Your thoughts.
	Yes, sir.
	Good to be with you today.
	Can you hear me okay?
	Very well.
	Yeah, you know, this thing with Newsom, he's just, as usual, he's been out of control.
	He's out of control with coronavirus.
	But this new thing with guns is ridiculous.
	You know, he was told already that he can't get rid of the AR-15s.
	He's just taken another swipe at it.
	I'm not sure exactly what he's doing.
	You know, for the people that don't know, sir, they've been slowly dismantling the AR-15 in California piece by piece.
	And what I mean by that is they're making small pieces of the gun that make the gun operate illegal.
	So, for instance, they've made certain stocks on the gun illegal.
	They've made the stock adjusting it illegal.
	They've made the the pistol grip illegal.
	The flash hider on the end of the barrel they've made illegal in certain circumstances.
	They've made it illegal to remove the magazine from the firearm so you can't reload it.
	It's very hard to keep up with all of the rules that they're putting on the AR-15.
	It's very difficult to get them.
	They're just really, really hard.
	And they're obviously afraid of people That have these weapons and my personal beliefs are in the end of this thing jumping forward is, you know, they don't want militias coming after them.
	They don't want militias forming.
	They know that the number one gun in the United States is going to be the AR-15 and wherever they can, they're attacking this weapon.
	Because they think that people, in my opinion, are going to show up someday with butter knives, slingshots, and, you know, spit wads, and they don't want them showing up with the AR-15.
	The whole thing is ridiculous, it has been, but yet we keep seeing them attacking the AR-15 in any way that they can.
	Yes, well, I can see why there are strongly held views on both sides of the abortion issue.
	It seems to me it's only by virtue of propaganda that there are two sides on the Second Amendment issue.
	I mean, Democrats, however, have gone A whole hog into the world of insanity.
	When they were defunding the police, did they not anticipate it would lead to an uptake in crime, including all these smash and grabs we're seeing?
	When they supported all of these prosecutors, these DAs, with money from George Soros, who don't want to enforce the law, Who want to let criminals out on bail, even though they acknowledge that innocent people are going to die as a consequence?
	I mean, this is a Democrat agenda.
	We are reaping the effects of what they have sown.
	When we had a whole summer of rioting, looting, and arson, and the Democrats were cheering them on, they disgraced themselves.
	And they undermine the rule of law.
	And now we're seeing, you know, a massive uptake.
	I mean, not just in murders, but in a whole host of other issues like shoplifting and robbery, assaults.
	I mean, it's inevitable when you start to defund the police.
	And my concern, Danny, is once this has begun, once the underclass, the criminal elements recognize they can perform these offenses with impunity, It seems to me there's no stopping it.
	I mean, trying to roll it back becomes almost impossible.
	You'd need like 10 times the law enforcement capability you had in the beginning, because they've developed new habits that are going to be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to contain.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, sir, I'd like to point out a recent happening in Los Angeles, down in Southern California.
	There's a police sergeant that did a public service announcement, if you would, and he actually made a video.
	I think I sent it to you this last week, and in the video, I'm just kind of paraphrasing it, but he made a video warning people from all over the United States to stay out of Los Angeles.
	Now, I've never seen a video like this before.
	You know, maybe a private briefing?
	But nothing like this.
	In this particular video, he actually compared the city of Los Angeles to the movie, the Hollywood movie, The Purge, in his PSA.
	And he said that the crime was so bad in Southern California, and that the DA was allowing people to get out of jail with no bail.
	Okay, so in other words, criminals would be arrested, they'd be immediately released, and they wouldn't be held.
	And they're warning the police department actually said in this PSA that they have lost control of the city and they can no longer protect the citizens.
	And they're warning people to stay out of Los Angeles and don't come to Los Angeles.
	Now, sir, that is very, very significant.
	I've never heard anything like that before.
	It was very, very interesting that they went to that degree.
	We are seeing the follow, they're called follow-me-home robberies, is very popular in Southern California, where gangs, particularly black gangs, judging by the videos that they're showing, are following people to their homes, from restaurants, from shopping, or whatever, And then they robbed them at their house as they're going in and some of them are turning into home invasions.
	We have many of these on video that are being posted online where you can actually see them taking place.
	And we also see none of these criminals are being arrested or very few.
	Many of them, when they do get arrested, are let go.
	So it is quite something to see what's taking place in the City of Los Angeles, but I think it's very significant people should understand that when the Police Department make a PSA video warning the public to stay out, that they cannot protect you, and calling the crimes And comparing them to the movie, the Hollywood movie, The Purge, we're in very serious trouble, sir, with these Soros-backed district attorneys that are simply signaling the criminal element that they can do whatever they want with impunity and nothing will happen to them.
	Danny, don't you agree that once criminals recognize they can perform these acts, these illegal acts with impunity, that it's just going to mushroom, it's just going to grow, and it's going to be incredibly difficult to restrain because the whole rule of law depends upon the expectation that lawbreakers are going to be arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, And the Democrats have managed single-handedly to destroy that very basic, the most fundamental element of the fabric of a civil society.
	Well, the other thing is, sir, it's very important to point out that gun control in Los Angeles is very strict.
	And the fact that this is taking place, the criminals know that most people do not have firearms in their home.
	Some do, but most do not in the city of Los Angeles, and they also know that people walking around aren't carrying a firearm on them because of the concealed carry rules.
	For instance, they don't do these sort of things in certain parts of Texas, Florida, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah.
	Criminals know that the law-abiding citizens carry firearms.
	They get up in the morning, they put their wallet on, you know, they'll They grab their wallet, they grab their cell phone before they leave the house and they simply grab their firearm and put it on their pocket or put it on their holster and their belt and that's their normal carry every single day.
	A lot of people don't understand that if you're from a liberal state
	and you're listening to this and you can't even imagine the thought
	of actually carrying a firearm.
	If you, you know, I feel sorry for people, sir, that live in those liberal states like that,
	that, you know, they just think, well, only police and criminals carry guns
	and I'm kind of in the middle.
	That's really not the way it is and that's not the way the Second Amendment is.
	You'd be surprised on how many states that daily carry of a firearm is normal
	for, you know, anybody above 18 years old in some cases in some states and even women.
	I mean, women have multiple styles of purses with that hold their guns or different styles of carry
	where they take their guns with them every single day.
	You never know who's carrying a firearm.
	It could be somebody standing behind you at the grocery store.
	You're never going to know it, and you're never going to know when you go to these states that these people have been carrying guns for years, since they turned 18 years old.
	But in California, that is not the case, sir, because you're so ingrained with guns are bad, and only criminals carry guns, and police are the only ones that can have guns.
	You can't do anything to protect yourself on the street.
	You know, just stay away from criminal element is what they're telling you and they're just creating a situation in Los Angeles search where it almost looks like a test bed to me.
	It looks like a test project for the globalist to see how far out of control they can get a city and to see what people will do when they let the criminals run wild like that committing violent crimes as they're doing.
	We've never seen anything like it.
	I know an attorney that lives down there that keeps me posted pretty much on a daily basis on what is going on.
	And it's absolutely insane when you think about a criminal getting arrested for a violent crime or a robbery, and they're immediately released on no bail, especially if they're black.
	And using an excuse that they're poor, they can't afford bail.
	And then they're simply on the streets are committing crimes again the same day.
	They have some people being arrested multiple times a day because of this no bail situation.
	And the cases stack up and the D.A.
	just drops the charges on these felonies.
	So when you're when you have a situation like that, sir, you have complete lawlessness.
	And that's exactly what what what we have.
	And this is all part of the globalist plan.
	And Danny, I think that it's going to spread.
	I mean, the Democrats have begun a conflagration here that they cannot possibly control.
	And when you have the mayor of San Francisco coming out and saying, we're going to put an end to this bullshit, when she's allowed it to happen, when San Francisco has become a cesspool, where the homeless living in camps there are dumping their excrement on the street.
	San Francisco has the highest pile of excrement in the world.
	More feces per capita than ever known to any nation in history to come out now.
	It's simply too little, too late.
	And while the Democrats think they're good-hearted because they believe there's a disproportionate punishment of blacks for crimes, They are oblivious of the fact that blacks commit most of the crimes in the United States in overwhelming disproportion to their numbers.
	I'm looking right now at criminal offenses in the U.S.
	by race per capita divided into Asian, Native American, black, and white.
	Blacks overwhelmingly prevail in every criminal category with the exception of those related to alcohol, where Native Americans have a genetic incapacity to absorb it and therefore wind up committing more offenses through intoxication.
	But every other category—motor vehicle theft, prostitution, curfew and loitering, stolen property, buying, receiving, robbery, fraud, weapons carrying, vandalism, burglary, aggravated assault, Violent crime, disorderly conduct, larceny, theft, drug abuse violation, property crime, in every one of those categories, apart from those liquor law cases, drunkenness, liquor laws, and driving under the influence where Native Americans take a precedent,
	The Blacks are overwhelmingly in the lead.
	I mean, I've reported before and I'll report again.
	Look at crime statistics in New York City in 2014.
	Arrests for violent crime, murder, 62% Black, 32% Latino.
	Shooting, 75% Black, 22% Latino.
	22% Latino shooting, 75% Black, 22% Latino rate, 46% Latino, 43% Black.
	If New York City were all wide exploiting or expanding these statistics, rape would be down 83%, murder 91, shooting 96.
	And Danny, we know it's because of the Democrat policies.
	My brilliant colleague, Dr. Eel, when a retired professor like myself superimposed a 2016 electoral map over the 2014 murder distribution map, and the overwhelming number of murders are committed in areas where the Democrats have imposed these strict gun control laws so that they know no ordinary citizen will have a concealed carry and could do anything about it.
	They've created free fire zones and they're being exploited And now with their defunding the police, they've only made matters overwhelmingly worse.
	Your thoughts, Danny?
	Well, sir, this is a subject I'm pretty close to.
	And unfortunately, I wish I wasn't.
	But you know what?
	That's what's happening.
	I see who's getting arrested.
	And you know what?
	For whatever reason, you can argue multiple reasons on why it is what it is.
	Blacks are the number one being arrested, but they are the ones that are primarily committing the violent crimes.
	One of the things that's very nerve-wracking is how many felons are walking around on the street that belong in prison.
	You think about this, sir, when a felon, when they release a felon from, you know, one of the major jails or prisons, you know, they don't have any way of earning income.
	They don't have a job.
	Many times they don't even have a high school diploma, and they don't go out and get a job because they have a felony record.
	And employers are not going to hire a violent felon out of jail.
	They're just not gonna do it.
	Now, the thing is, you can't really reason with somebody like this.
	Believe it or not, I've talked to several of them in the past.
	When you try to reason with them, it's almost like talking to a drunk person.
	They don't want help.
	They don't want to go to school, even if you gave them free school.
	And most of them don't even want a job.
	Okay, the first thing they do when they get out of jail is they go to an inner city.
	Danny, hold that thought.
	We'll be right back after this break with Danny Sears.
	Don't go away.
	Thank you.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	I just would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support
	that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing
	dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	FreedomSubs.com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio.
	Hey everyone!
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	Come on.
	Oh, Lord, I am a sinner.
	Oh, Lord, I am a sinner.
	Hallelujah.
	Oh, oh.
	Bye.
	you Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomstep.com, the
	people station.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs and its website by the hosts,
	guests and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio,
	and now we return you to your host.
	Well, Danny, I think that the Second Amendment is absolutely indispensable to the health of
	the nation and that those who are seeking to constrain our access to weapons are
	Not just on the wrong side of an argument, but doing the nation tremendous harm.
	I'm rather astonished that that extends to some parties one would not expect, including, for example, a professor at the College of Law right here in Madison at the University of Wisconsin.
	Well, he's using a Kyle Rittenhouse case as a basis for an argument that weapons should be taken away from the American people.
	I want to do him justice and go through it with you sentence by sentence, line by line, paragraph by paragraph.
	But let me remind everyone what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse.
	This was a case where you had a young man, 17 years of age, who actually had a father who lived in Kenosha, who had worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard himself, who was asked to participate in defending a a used automobile dealership where it was Indians, Asian Indians, who had built up the business car by car, lot by lot.
	One of their lots had been destroyed, so they'd invited some to help to defend, and Kyle volunteered to do it.
	He came to Kenosha.
	He helped wipe graffiti off of schools.
	He was viciously attacked when he was performing his efforts.
	They ate in a bed.
	He had a medical kit.
	He had his AR-15 with him just in case.
	And the fact is that there were three individuals who might have reason to believe were actually acting in concert, conspiring to harm Kyle.
	In fact, there was even a fourth.
	And while the three who were conspiring to harm him, one of whom hit him in the neck with a skateboard, trying to break his neck, actually assaulted him twice before Kyle shot him, where another approached him and pointed a gun at him, actually approached him and pointed a gun at him before he shot him, And then while he was seeking to get away, the third party, who had previously threatened to kill him, boxed him in the car dealership lot, boxed him in where he couldn't get away.
	He'd been retreating, trying to get away, and lunged at him with his bare hands.
	Now, some may think That bear hands means he was unarmed.
	But the fact is, Danny, as you well know, most murders in the United States are committed with bare hands, either by beating to death or strangulation.
	And in these cases, Where in addition, by the way, someone Kyle did not shoot, sought to kick him in the face when he was down, where he'd been hit in the back of the head with a solid object, probably a rock, that put him on the ground.
	And I'm just in awe of how he handled himself, Danny.
	When this guy lunged at him after having him boxed in and sought to take his weapon, Kyle shot him a couple of times.
	Ironically, he had a rap sheet for He'd actually been convicted of raping young boys, and one of the shots hit him in the groin, how ironic and appropriate.
	But when he lunged for him, trying to take his gun, he wound up being shot in the back at a downward angle, which a medical examiner testified was consistent with that having happened when he lunged, and where there was a witness there to confirm it.
	Now, Danny, I even have footage here I want to review for you and for those who see the video version of today's show, which will be posted on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer, later today.
	Here's an instant recap, Danny, for you and me and everyone else who then later watches the show.
	There's Kyle knocked down.
	Tries to kick, smash him with a skateboard.
	The other guy approaches him and he gets shot.
	Kyle actually did an interview with Tucker Carlson.
	I watched the interview in which he explained that race had nothing to do with the case but with the right to self-defense.
	He even said during the interview that he supports Black Lives Matter, that he's not a racist, even though the media and activists claim otherwise.
	He was completely appropriately exonerated of all charges where the six of the charges brought against him was dismissed.
	It was an illegal possession of a weapons charge.
	That depended on having a weapon with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, which was not the case for his AR-15.
	A brilliant attorney by the name of Andrew Brocka went through the whole case in detail and showed how all the elements I mean, I'm telling you, go through this.
	that he had sought to avoid the threat, that the threat was imminent, that the threat was lethal.
	I mean, if he really had his life in danger or had reason to believe his life was in danger,
	that the action he took was appropriate and proportional.
	I mean, I'm telling you, go through this.
	There's just no doubt about it.
	Rittenhouse explained to Tucker how he was physically ill over what had taken place on the streets of Kenosha.
	told. But.
	I told everybody there I had to do it.
	I was just attacked.
	I was dizzy, vomiting, I couldn't breathe.
	This case has nothing to do with race.
	It never had anything to do with race.
	It had to do with the right to the south of hands, where the three who attacked him, interestingly, Danny, were all Jewish.
	So if anyone draws a distinction between being white and being Jewish, then I suppose you could claim they were not white, but they were Jewish.
	And it's very troubling because the police did not download the third of the three who approached with a gun, who later told a friend in the hospital when he was recovering after Kyle had blown off his bicep that his only regret was he hadn't unloaded his weapon on Kyle at the time and taken him out.
	Rittenhouse acquittal, of course, was widely panned on social media.
	Many saying that his race let him get off scot-free.
	That's not the case at all whatsoever.
	However, civil rights attorney Shaver Jeffries told The Hill the verdict speaks to the dramatic differences in perspective people have based on racial background about justice in our country.
	For many people of color, The idea they could show up with an assault rifle, notice a mistake there, at the site of a rally, kill people, and find themselves exonerated is beyond comprehension.
	But if they'd acted in self-defense, it wouldn't be beyond exoneration.
	And here you have, once again, the Democrats, you know, captured by this mean look, son.
	Rioters, arsonists and looters are here to teach us about peace and equality.
	Danny, your thoughts about this brief review of Kenosha before we turn to what this professor of law has to say about the Rittenhouse case?
	Well, sir, I mean, there's so many things to start with this particular case, but to me, you know, as we fly over, From the aerial view.
	This is a complete thing about self-defense, but it's also a mess.
	It's a message.
	The globalists are trying to send a message with the Rittenhouse trial to me that you are not allowed the right of self-defense.
	That's what it comes down to.
	They also do not want people getting involved with their weapons.
	you know, they're sending a message to militias or people, you know, a militia could be two, three people
	that wanna go defend their neighborhood in a riot situation.
	And they're telling them basically, look, if you get engaged in any kind of a shooting,
	even if you're being attacked, we're gonna prosecute you.
	The prosecutor lied about so many things in this case that came out in court,
	that literally he belongs in jail himself for perjury.
	He put on a prosecution that was false.
	He, you know, he put up witnesses on the stand that he knew that would lie.
	I mean, he really, there has been many prosecutors that have gone to jail for a prosecutor misconduct, and this is definitely one of them.
	They're just, again, sending the message to the public that, you know what, if you get involved in anything on the street using a firearm, particularly this rifle that they cannot stand, We're gonna prosecute you.
	And that's what this was about, sir.
	It was about getting a prosecution for the AR-15.
	It was about getting a prosecution of a white person on the street defending themselves, trying to keep law and order during a riot situation that they in fact paid to set up.
	There were many paid rioters out there that were doing their thing.
	And if you notice, guys in masks that show up with AR-15s always quelch these immediately.
	You know, the crowd understands That when there's you know white guys standing around with firearms, especially the ones that are wearing body armor,
	They have a sidearm on them.
	They're wearing body armor.
	And I realize that's not the case here with Kyle, but there were many out that night that did fit that bill.
	They don't want those people on the street defending property.
	They want chaos.
	They want the damage.
	That's why we see so many felons running around in these crowds committing these crimes that are part of this.
	There were recently released felons from prison.
	You know, they have violent crimes, but yet they're a part of this Black Lives Matter movement.
	and they're out creating this violence.
	And I believe that they've all been paid in one way or another to be out there
	because they all congregate around these groups and these events.
	So that's what this is about, sir.
	It's the globalists trying to remove the guns so they can create more chaos, keep people in fear,
	and they don't want us defending ourselves.
	That's the bottom line.
	They don't want us defending our property.
	They don't want us defending our businesses.
	And they don't want us defending our personal lives.
	They want us to be 100% dependent on government help.
	That would be the police or any other agency that they control.
	And they want to take the right out of our hands to protect our lives and our property.
	And that's what it comes down to, sir.
	Let me add before we turn to what this professor of law published in the Wisconsin State Journal, where I wrote to him with the following invitation to join us today, to join me specifically, Invitation to the Raw Deal, Friday, 17 December 2021.
	His name is Ron.
	Mine, M-E-Y-N, Ron.
	I'm a retired professor of philosophy with a show on Revolution Radio, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and having read your op-ed on Kyle Rittenhouse, a case I have followed closely, I would like to feature you on my show this coming Friday, 11 a.m.
	to 1 p.m.
	Central, where I use the first 30 minutes to update on the latest news, then the next 60 to converse with my guests and take calls the final 30.
	Since I take exception to your position as you lay it out, I would like to engage in a cordial discussion of the issues of the Second Amendment, the laws regarding self-defense, Antifa, BLM, and the movement to defund the police, which I suspect you support.
	Since I'm a strong proponent of the First Amendment as well as the Second, I think this would make for an excellent exchange.
	I have copied my producer.
	Let me know.
	Thanks, Jim.
	James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth, with a link to my curriculum vitae and to my blog.
	Now, I wanted him to know that I myself am a retired professor.
	I certainly have no bias against professors per se.
	I have a colleague who is a retired professor of law, whom I admired greatly and whom I joined in an amicus brief in both Massachusetts and now before the U.S.
	Supreme Court on behalf of Zucker.
	Serenoff, so I certainly have nothing against professors of law.
	I also don't have anything against Democrats per se or those of a liberal persuasion.
	In the past, I myself typically voted Democrat.
	I voted twice for Bill Clinton.
	I voted twice for Barack Obama.
	I was basing my votes on whom I judged to be the best candidate for the office.
	But when it came to Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, I was aghast.
	Hillary has such a record of corruption.
	And Danny, ironically, the Democrats have such a weak match.
	They're even contemplating running Hillary again for a rematch against Trump in 2024.
	Imagine how that would play out.
	So that I have no bias.
	I'm interested in exposing both sides in here.
	What we have from him in the Wisconsin State Journal, which, by the way, when my wife and I moved here near Madison in Oregon, a village 10 miles south, the Wisconsin State Journal was still a reasonably objective paper.
	They would publish letters to the editor I submitted.
	They might have published, I don't know, over the years, Four, maybe six, maybe a half a dozen.
	Of late, however, when I've taken exception on the vax business and pointed out all the massive evidence that it's causing tremendous damage, that the pandemic has been grossly exaggerated.
	They've declined.
	When I wrote about the Kyle Rittenhouse and how this was clearly a case of self-defense and the publicity he was getting, they would not publish that either.
	And now I want to share with you what this fellow wrote.
	And as I said, I actually sent him a follow-up, giving him the call-in number, and that if he wanted to call in, I'd be glad to take his call.
	So here we go.
	We got a photograph.
	Of two, you see it Danny, two in camouflage standing in front of the, I believe that would be, I'm not sure that's the Capitol building in Washington.
	Here's the title.
	Verdict emboldens jumpy trigger fingers.
	Rittenhouse case give those who openly carry guns a license to kill.
	Danny, I would say that's already inflammatory.
	The Rittenhouse case gives those who openly carry guns a license to kill?
	I mean, just react to what he said there.
	That's the lead.
	And of course, the paper picked the title, I'm sure, but that's the lead line, which embodies what they've got here.
	Your thoughts already.
	Sir, that's just a globalist, a globalist deep state agent.
	He's hired to do a job and it's just a hit piece against the Second Amendment and self-defense.
	Like I said in there, you know, before, this is nothing more than going after normal citizens and trying to send a clear message to them that they don't have a right to self-defense.
	They can't, they can't defend their property or their lives no matter where they are.
	They don't care if it gets armed criminal or who it's against.
	They don't want to.
	They're doing their best, sir, to demonize all firearms in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.
	and to deny the public the right of self-defense, whether they're in their home now, whether they're
	out on the street shopping, no matter where they are, they don't want citizens banning together
	and doing this. They want the chaos that's going on behind the scenes to stop. And if militias hit
	the streets, sir, and we see that, and I can tell, I'd like to cite a few cases quickly, sir, where
	I've seen militias get together in mass, in body armor, wearing sights, side arms, and carrying
	long arms, and carrying, you know, multiple rounds of ammunition. One,
	One of them was in South Dakota during a Black Lives Matter protest where they had multiple hundreds and hundreds of militias standing around waiting for the George Soros buses.
	Danny, I'm sorry to say you're making such excellent points, but according to Mitchell, they cannot hear your voice.
	So I need for you to call in to the station, and we'll take it from there.
	The number, of course, 540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452. 540-352-4452. Danny, please make the call and we'll continue our conversation.
	540-352-4452.
	I need for you to be able to see the screen, however, Danny, though I'm going to read every sentence here and what he's
	written.
	Are we good?
	Mitchell, let me know when Danny's there on the line.
	I'm glad you called me to let me know what's going on here.
	Can you hear me okay, sir?
	I can hear you, yeah, but this station isn't broadcasting, so you need to call them, Danny.
	Can you just leave the visual on, but call on the phone to them so you can see what I present?
	Can you do that, or is that impossible?
	No, I'll try to do that, but I remember the last time we had this problem, you had some kind of a volume control there on the screen.
	I'm just wondering if you could make that quick adjustment and fix the problem.
	Because I can't, I can't, I can't hear the show.
	And normally I can hear the show pretty clearly.
	And I know that last time that was some sort of a volume adjustment.
	Now, there you go.
	Now the sound went up, but you just fixed it, sir.
	Okay.
	Mitchell, can you hear Mitchell?
	Just tell me, can you hear Danny now?
	How about now with the volume, sir?
	Whatever that adjustment was that you just made, if you could turn it back up again.
	Cause I started to hear the show for a minute.
	Yeah, no.
	I did.
	I've got it.
	I've got it.
	I've got it up.
	I just need to know if Mitchell can hear because I've got the sound quite a bit higher now and I can let, let, let, let me see.
	I'll try to call him while you speak, Danny.
	Let's see if this all work because what you have to say is so very, very important.
	Okay.
	Sure.
	No problem.
	No problem, sir.
	Go ahead, talk about what I've said so far about, you know, the title there, the Rittenhouse case gives those who openly carry a license to kill.
	Yeah, the thing is, sir, like I said, is they're demonizing the public's right of self-defense.
	And that's what this whole movement is.
	This is backed by the globalists, by Soros.
	And they're basically, you know, felons have been weaponized.
	Let's put it that way.
	They let them out of prison for a reason.
	They're doing this no bail for a reason, because they've been weaponized to commit these crimes against the American people.
	It's the bottom line.
	It's almost like a military force.
	That we've been invaded by, that we're being attacked by.
	And that's exactly what's going on in these cities.
	And they're sending a clear message to the public that they do not want Americans to use any sort of weapons, particularly the AR-15 or handguns or anything like that, to protect their lives or their property.
	And that's what this is coming down to.
	So they're going to twist all the facts.
	They're going to lie to the nth degree possible about every single case to try and remove firearms from the public.
	That's their big hurdle in the United States is the Second Amendment.
	They can't burn the place down.
	They can't depopulate the way they want as long as the American people have their weapons.
	You know, look what's going on in Australia.
	They don't have their weapons and the people are really in a bad way there.
	They're being attached constantly by their own police department, if it is even their own police department.
	I'm not sure because they're certainly not acting like police, but they're constantly being attacked.
	And you know what?
	We just wouldn't see that here in the United States.
	Our police wouldn't act like that.
	And one of the reasons they wouldn't act like that is because the citizens are highly, highly carry weapons and many of them are veterans and they're trained.
	And they would never stand for police attacking the public like that.
	So the globalists need to remove the weapons by any means necessary.
	So they keep chipping away and chipping away and trying to remove weapons.
	And that's what I believe all this stuff is about, sir.
	It's about getting the weapons out of the hand so they can continue their globalist movement and they can do whatever they want to do, including destroying the United States.
	That's what it's about.
	Danny, let me read a couple of paragraphs here.
	We're heading up to the break and then we'll go through the rest.
	The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict has deadly implications for states such as Wisconsin that allow the open carrying of firearms.
	One might be excused for thinking that the right to carry a gun does not give someone more discretion to kill others.
	After all, the Second Amendment's language only confers a right to carry.
	A gun can easily be lethal, but this easy lethality should neither expand the gun owner's privilege to use deadly force nor diminish the safety of others at the other end of the barrel.
	Unfortunately, With written house acquittal, the open carry community now has an additional license to kill.
	Danny.
	Yeah, it's just again, sir, they don't have a license to kill.
	So his whole rhetoric there is just not true, sir.
	That's not has nothing to do with the case.
	Nobody has a license to kill.
	Even the police don't have a license to kill.
	You know, the police are shooting people every single day.
	The biggest thing I see in law enforcement now is this suicide by cop situation that's been around for many years.
	And it's where these repeat felons are out on the street.
	They know this is their last hurrah.
	And I say this every day.
	These felons are going to continue to commit crime until they're put back in their cell or until they're put down forever.
	And many of them just don't want to go back to the prison life.
	So they'll approach the police when they get caught.
	They don't want to give it up.
	And you can see them on video constantly saying, just kill me.
	Just kill me.
	That's their favorite phrase now, why they're holding a knife as four, five, six officers have their weapons on them.
	Now, obviously a person doing that has no intentions of giving up and they have intentions of nothing more than ending their life.
	And that's what we see is going on in these riot situations as well, sir.
	You know, that kind of statement might make sense if he hadn't even been tried, if he'd just been excused.
	But, well, I believe it was obvious he was acting in self-defense.
	He went through a grueling trial.
	He was incarcerated.
	It cost him a tremendous amount of money.
	So how can you say, with the open house acquittal, the open carry community now has an additional license to kill?
	I mean, that's just insulting, Danny.
	That's insulting.
	I totally agree, sir.
	That's the point.
	That's the Global's agenda.
	You know, there's a very interesting interview I sent you a few weeks ago.
	That is a, an interview between a, uh, I don't know what you want to call him.
	He's, he's like a firearms trainer.
	Uh, he's former military and he, he did a podcast where he interviewed the security, the head security team that guarded the Kyle Rittenhouse, the lawyers and everybody during the whole, uh, trial.
	They were around him at his house where he was staying.
	They were around him in the courtroom.
	They were around him.
	Uh, behind chambers or in the waiting rooms.
	And, you know, he spent months around Kyle Rittenhouse and his family, uh, you know, being around them and being part of the conversations because he was closed security.
	Now it's a very interesting choice of security.
	I looked him up and the guy is part of a, uh, of a corporation that does private security.
	But the two gentlemen that were on the interview happened to be black, sir.
	It was very interesting to listen to their take as they got to know Kyle.
	And in the podcast... Eddie, Danny, we're up against it.
	We'll continue after the break.
	We'll be right back with Danny Sharif.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, This is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the
	marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself.
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do, and we must fight back!
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	Pretty.
	Are you awake yet?
	It's wide open.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	The time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal to decimate your entire existence than the hands of the bankers and the elite.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy
	But did you know that it was an inside job that Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes.
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Newt on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Well, this is Jim Tetzer, your host, where we're talking about
	out of our.
	Article entitled Verdict emboldens jumpy trigger fingers by an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law named Ron Mine, M-E-Y-N, where he claims the Rittenhouse case gives those who open carry guns a license to kill.
	I think that's ridiculous on its face.
	If anyone went out to be killed, they'd be guilty of whatever offense they committed.
	They could be prosecuted, arrested, prosecuted, indicted, tried, just as what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse.
	So where does he come up with this?
	Let's listen to what else he has to say.
	A person is privileged to use deadly force if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
	Reasonable belief is a community standard.
	We determine how much restraint is necessary before one is privileged to kill another, and in doing so, we place a value on the lives of others.
	And of ourselves, of course.
	The Rittenhouse outcome in Kenosha suggests the value we give a victim's life can depend on whether or not the defendant was armed.
	I don't get that, Danny.
	Let's see what else he says here, and we'll come back to this point.
	Defense lawyers were permitted to give significance to Rittenhouse's rifle in arguing that deadly force was reasonable.
	They argued that Rittenhouse could consider the possibility of another person taking his gun and using it against him.
	An encounter between an armed person and an unarmed person suddenly became an encounter between two armed persons.
	Danny, I'll just say, I think that's fundamentally misdescribing the situation.
	Of those he shot, the one was trying to break his neck with a skateboard.
	He was armed with a skateboard and engaged in a deadly action.
	A second was approaching him with a gun and later said his only regret was he hadn't unloaded on Kyle.
	And the third had boxed him in and threatened to kill him.
	And as I've reported, while he did not have a weapon, he had his hands and fists.
	And most murders in the United States are committed with hands and fists.
	So, I don't get where this guy is coming from.
	I mean, this argument seems to me to be totally specious.
	It has no virtue whatsoever.
	It's an invalid argument.
	Your thoughts?
	Sir, can you hear my voice okay?
	You might want to turn your volume up.
	I noticed this segment we're on right now, your volume has dropped way off.
	I can even barely hear you out of my speakers, so I don't know what's going on with your voice.
	That's because I turned the microphone to the sound box to pick you up better, but now can you hear?
	Yeah, now you're back.
	Okay, that's much better, sir.
	Yeah, I, you know, sir, I hear what you're saying.
	And, you know, this again, I'm going to say this is a, his argument is not valid, sir.
	It makes absolutely no sense.
	But if you think about it, if your goal, if you work for a group of people that your goal is to remove the right of self-defense, If your goal is to remove the people's rights to protect their property or their lives, then it does make sense.
	Think about it.
	Their agenda, sir, is to remove guns from the public by any means necessary.
	They're going to lie, make up stories, make up false flags, and do whatever they need to do to do it, sir, so they can carry out their agenda.
	Okay.
	And the reason why is a group of American citizens that are well trained with their firearms is a force multiplier.
	They're not going to allow their property, their city to be destroyed.
	They're going to come out and they're going to stop it.
	Now, before the break, I was going to give you a few examples.
	One of them was in South Dakota when they got off the buses and the paid protesters showed up to cause harm.
	And to cause their riots when they saw all of the militia standing around with their long arms and their body armor, they simply got on the buses and they left.
	They didn't even want to engage in their protest.
	I would say, not a shot was fired, sir, but the job was done in that circumstance.
	And they're like, okay, there's not going to be any problems today.
	And that was the end of it.
	The more famous one, sir, and I would encourage people to look this up online, happened in Northern Idaho, in the city of Coeur d'Alene.
	Where Black Lives Matter, it's a very beautiful city there, mostly white, and Black Lives Matter put out over Facebook that we're going to go to the city of Coraline and burn that white town to the ground for George Floyd.
	They put out much violent rhetoric over Facebook.
	Why Facebook ever allowed this when they're banning people for tying their shoes wrong?
	They were allowing them to broadcast these violent threats over Facebook and they were coming in mass in bus loads to Coeur d'Alene.
	They announced it.
	They actually, Coeur d'Alene gave them a permit to protest, which I think was a major, major problem.
	But they said that they were going to be coming and they were going to burn the town down and cause chaos.
	They were actually bragging, sir, about their intent.
	So this is all well documented.
	Well, you know, they have a very small police department there.
	Okay.
	And they do have a sheriff's department.
	But the word got around very quickly when this happened, and guess what?
	In Idaho, they have the militia.
	And for people that don't understand that, this is a well-established group of men that are, you know, ex-military, ex-police.
	They're well trained, and they suit it up.
	They put on their body armor.
	They came out with their long weapons, they came out with their sidearms, and hundreds of them lined the streets of Coeur d'Alene, and it looked like a militia or like a pseudo-military group.
	They had radios on them, many of them, they had assignments, and there's actually video of them meeting with the police in a huddle in a shopping center parking lot, giving out assignments before this actually started.
	So they actually worked with the police.
	Danny, Danny, Danny, those other cases are great, but right now we're talking about this guy's all bad.
	I've got to get through it, or I'm not giving him a fair break.
	I want to present his views.
	In the incident between Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum, this is the guy who boxed him in at the Carlotte, who'd actually threatened to kill him before, the plastic bag in Rittenhouse's hand effectively became an AR-15.
	Under this view of self-defense, Rittenhouse's choice to put a gun in his hand puts a gun in our hand, too.
	Danny, I gotta say, this is just absurd.
	He had powder burns on his hand.
	The medical examiner said it was consistent with trying to take the weapon from Rittenhouse.
	We know that if someone's trying to take a weapon away from you, there's the expectation they're going to use it on you, and you're entitled to use it.
	So this seems to me to be a gross distortion.
	Continuing.
	This view of self-defense means that by carrying a gun, Rittenhouse was authorized to use deadly force that, if unarmed, he was not privileged to use.
	Rittenhouse, use-of-force expert, maintained this twisted reality.
	Asked if deadly force against Rosenbaum had been unarmed, the expert opined, no.
	Thus, the defense's own expert confirmed it was only reasonable for Rittenhouse to kill Rosenbaum because Rittenhouse carried a firearm.
	Put another way, the defense lawyers asked a jury to assume an unarmed person was armed.
	This is, frankly, just dishonest in the extreme.
	I'm very upset about this.
	And look, Danny, I spent 35 years offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	This is rubbish.
	Meanwhile, and I want to go forward to make sure I get all of his op-ed here, obviously being chased by a person welding a plastic bag does not privilege you to kill that person.
	What was not obvious, at least until the Rittenhouse acquittal, is that if you carry a gun you actually can kill a person running at you with a plastic bag.
	Rittenhouse was correct when he told Fox News host Dr. Carlson that his case was a win for the Second Amendment.
	The Second Amendment now apparently privileges the use of deadly force for an armed person that an unarmed person cannot use in the exact same circumstance.
	But look at the...
	This is blatantly false.
	He knows it's false.
	That means he's actually lying here.
	To lie means you make an assertion that is false that you know to be false, but you assert nevertheless in order to mislead your audience.
	That's clearly going on here.
	Rittenhouse tried to evade.
	The guy had threatened to kill him already.
	He had boxed him in.
	He was deliberately attacking Rittenhouse.
	There was even a second witness who testified to all the actions here.
	The medical examiner's evidence confirmed it.
	He was trying to take Rittenhouse's gun after threatening to kill him.
	Rittenhouse clearly was justified.
	And what's being published here by the Wisconsin State Journal is utterly irresponsible and contemptible.
	Listen to this as it goes on.
	A civilian with a gun can no longer truthfully claim it's for self-defense.
	Under the law, his decision to carry a gun increases your vulnerability as it reduces the value of your life.
	A person with a gun can reasonably assume that aggressive movements toward them signal your intent to use a gun against them.
	Which is increased in protest.
	Confrontations between unarmed protesters and armed civilians are common.
	If an unarmed protester fails to submit to an armed civilian's order to halt, can he shoot?
	It seems so.
	This is displaying such ignorance of the law.
	It has to be willful.
	There must be a threat.
	It must be an imminent threat.
	It must be a lethal threat, or perceived to be a lethal threat.
	The response must be proportional, and it must be the action a reasonable man would have done, which is all satisfied in the Rittenhouse case.
	It's as though this guy were oblivious to it all.
	I mean, this is ridiculous and insulting.
	What changes to Wisconsin law, he continues, might help restore sanity?
	The state should add a provision to its self-defense statute so that carrying a firearm could not justify an offender's reasonable belief of imminent harm.
	In the courtroom, a defendant could not argue his fear of harm was informed by the possibility the victim might use the defendant's gun against him.
	The jury could consider the relevance of the defendant's gun if, during the encounter, the victim gained control of the defendant's firearm.
	Oh, well, he's describing Rosenbaum, who threatened him repeatedly, who has a rap sheet including five cases of conviction for child rape, who clearly was a malintent, wanted to kill him.
	He threatened to kill him twice.
	I mean, Danny, this is so irresponsible, it has me furious.
	He concludes with the following.
	Under this approach, any increased danger caused by the carrying of a gun would be borne by the person who chose to carry it, so a jumpy trigger finger would not be awarded any special privilege, and the lives of those who are unarmed would not be stripped of value.
	That's just insulting!
	He was put in- He was prosecuted, for God's sake!
	I think it was a wrongful prosecution, but he was exonerated by a jury!
	This guy's a professor of law!
	Danny, I'm just incensed about this.
	I notice he's an assistant professor of law.
	I notice he looks much older than I would expect an assistant professor of law.
	I'm very suspicious about this, but I'll tell you, what he's published here is garbage.
	And I feel obligated to write to the Dean of the Law School at the University of Wisconsin about this case, because this is insulting.
	This is an abuse of the Wisconsin State Journal.
	This is an abuse of his position as a faculty member of the Faculty at the School of Law at the University of Wisconsin.
	He's shoveling bullshit here, Danny.
	This is just embarrassingly bad.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, sir, he seems to have also ran up against the immovable force, Dr. James Fetzer, calling him out on his BS, as you say.
	To me, sir, his whole article is nothing more than a hit piece, or it's sort of written like a fictional story, because he is completely fabricating The evidence, okay?
	It's obviously they're trying to spin what really came out in the trial.
	They're trying to spin all the laws.
	They don't want the actual public to see that didn't watch the trial.
	Like the security guard brought out all the facts in his interview about things that he found out that happened that he didn't even know.
	They're just trying to spin it, sir, any way they can.
	They're fabricating evidence and his piece, sir, is basically like writing a false flag.
	He's writing a story that did not happen to try and somehow control the public to think a narrative on something that did not happen.
	It's very simple.
	Blame you for getting upset.
	I'm upset, too.
	I certainly would encourage you to write a letter to them and call them out.
	I hope a lot of people listen to this broadcast and send letters to him.
	He's lying, sir, to carry out an agenda to demonize the Second Amendment.
	Somehow he was either paid to do this.
	His job depends on it.
	Somebody tapped.
	I don't know what his motive is to lie.
	What his motive is to come out like that.
	But he put out a complete fabrication sir and we're simply calling him out and I'm glad we're doing so.
	It's just shocking to me, absolutely shocking to me.
	And I'll tell you, I expect others are going to have opinions about this.
	I'm going to open the call lines early.
	Anyone who'd like to call in and share their opinion about this guy, this professor of law, assistant professor, I certainly hope he never makes associate at the University of Wisconsin School of Law.
	Is welcome to call in.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	We're opening the lines early.
	Danny, I'm so glad to get your reports about what's happened, you know, here.
	Because of your vast background in law enforcement, I think your words carry a special weight.
	And I want everyone to understand that is the case, that Danny Siras, And I, approaching from two completely different perspectives.
	I'm a professor of philosophy who offered courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years.
	Danny is in law enforcement for about the same period of time.
	And from those two different points of view, which you might call theoretical and practical, we've arrived at the same conclusion about this op-ed piece.
	It is pure propaganda.
	Pure propaganda.
	Danny, I could write an essay about the fallacies that are committed here.
	Special pleading, citing only the evidence favorable, suppression of evidence massively here, ignoring the facts about self-defense and the laws, and implying this guy, just because he was carrying a rifle, got away with some special privilege, which is obviously blatantly not the case.
	Danny, I mean, this is insulting.
	Insulting beyond belief.
	Well, sir, I'm glad you're doing a fine job calling him out.
	I mean, you know, there's hypocrisy all around the country.
	You know, for instance, I saw a crime the other day on video where a black criminal had an AR-15.
	He got into the shootout with police.
	I believe it was in Michigan.
	He lost the shootout as soon as he pulled out the weapon.
	But yet, I noticed what was really interesting about this case, sir, is there was not one peep in the media About the AR-15 being used by the criminal.
	As a matter of fact, there wasn't even one peep in the media about the whole incident because as soon as they saw it was a black man, they simply didn't want to cover it.
	And it was a prime opportunity for them to jump all over the AR-15 and a criminal element using the AR-15, of which he was a ex-felon.
	In and out of prison.
	He wasn't allowed to have any firearm, much less an AR-15.
	He was caught using it in a crime.
	And there was a subsequent shootout when they caught him in the parking lot in his vehicle.
	And of course, again, the color of his skin kept it from the media and the public doesn't get to hear about it, even though it was all on video.
	And we got to see the whole thing blow by blow.
	This is just an agenda, sir, to depopulate.
	The American people and it's also an agenda to keep up a to keep up the pressure that American people can't use weapons to defend themselves when they're out in public.
	They can't use the weapons to defend their personal property.
	Or their lives or their family.
	And this is a complete fabrication hit piece and I certainly do hope that you do write to him and he hears it.
	He's going to blow it off.
	He doesn't care.
	He knows he's lying, sir.
	He knows he's fabricating.
	Okay, just like a false flag.
	It'd be like you writing a letter to the people that put on a false flag and we've covered many of them.
	Where you say, how dare you?
	And here's the reasons why we know that you're lying, sir.
	They're going to look at that and throw the letter in the trash.
	They don't care that we caught them.
	They don't care that we're pointing it out.
	Okay.
	They're going to continue with their bullshit and keep it going by all means, because they have an agenda, sir.
	And the agenda is to disarm the American people to take away the right of self-defense.
	And I will quote Sheriff Mack, who's quite famous on this.
	And Sheriff Mack says, this type of gun control, sir, is nothing more than people control.
	It's nothing more than depopulation.
	If they can get rid of the weapons, sir, they can carry out any agenda they want, and the people will never be able to stand in their way.
	I invited this guy to call in.
	I'm quite certain he's not going to do that, but he has a right to respond.
	And if he calls in, I'll be glad to give him five uninterrupted minutes.
	He can have five uninterrupted minutes without any comment from me or from you, and then we'll pick it up from there.
	So if you're listening, You've got the invitation.
	I gave you the number.
	Here's the number again.
	540-352-4452.
	But Danny, I'm telling you, persons of this low intellectual caliber who are willing to abuse their position, they're not going to be eager to be confronted in a live debate where they could run the risk of being shown off.
	And this isn't It's true of faculty in general that they most fear being embarrassed by a student who asks a question they can't answer, being drawn into an issue where they're not competent, receiving publicity they don't want.
	This guy, however, went out of his way to publish his op-ed in Wisconsin State Journal.
	That made him a public person in relation to this issue, and I'm very appropriately taking him to task, and I'm asserting Not only is he false in the facts,
	where he has to know better, or he's utterly unqualified for his position,
	because what I'm talking about is something any graduate of any law school in the United States ought to know,
	that he's been hired on the faculty of the University of Wisconsin School of Law,
	and that he is grossly distorting, not only the facts about the Kyle Rittenhouse case,
	but the law, which is even more substantial.
	And when you put it together, you come out with a result that is pure propaganda,
	that has no foundation in the evidence or in the law.
	Frankly, this is very embarrassing, not only to the law school of the University of Wisconsin,
	but to the Wisconsin State Journal for publishing such complete and utter rubbish, Danny,
	and I reaffirm that, this is rubbish.
	Thank you.
	Well, he's no longer going to he's no going to call into your show, sir.
	Then, you know, Dr. Fauci, fake Fauci, Tony the Rat, is going to call into the show and have a debate with you.
	On, uh, you know, Corona, uh, Corona virus and what's going on, you know, he's just a hired hit man to put out propaganda.
	And that's what we're seeing, sir.
	And I don't blame you for a minute for being upset.
	He just completely skewed the facts.
	Well, he fabricated the facts skewed.
	Isn't even a strong enough word.
	But what he's doing when you read through that, it seems like he's basically trying to demonize the trial and he's trying to twist the actual facts that came out during the trial.
	It's like a spin control on their gun agenda is what it is.
	And he's just fabricating and trying to get a story out to the public about the trial.
	And that's not even how the trial went down.
	So good, you know, good luck to him.
	He wants to do that, but there's people like you out there calling him out like you're doing brilliantly.
	And I hope you continue to do this, sir.
	And that's what I admire about you.
	I hope you continue to do it on every subject as you see it.
	And I say, I wish we had more Dr. Fetzers out there in the world doing the same thing day by day, because we need it, sir.
	Well, I appreciate that, Danny, but the egregiousness of this case is so blatant.
	So I wrote to him.
	I told him I wanted to discuss it.
	I invited him to come on to join with me in a conversation about it.
	He chose not to do it.
	I'm just fairly shocked by the whole business.
	Let me reiterate the letter I sent to him, which was very cordial.
	Here it is.
	Ron, invitation to the Raw Deal Friday, 17 December, 2021.
	I said it on Sunday, December 12th, which was the date this article appeared.
	I'm a retired professor of philosophy with a show on Revolution Radio Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and having read your op-ed on Kyle Rittenhouse, a case I have followed closely, I would like to feature you on my show this coming Friday, 11 a.m.
	to 1 p.m.
	Central.
	Where I use the first 30 minutes to update on the latest news, then the next 60 to converse with my guests and take calls the final 30.
	Since I take exception to your position as you lay it out, I would like to engage in a cordial discussion of the issues of the Second Amendment, the laws regarding self-defense, Antifa, BLM, and the movement to defund the police, which I suspect you support.
	Since I'm a strong proponent of the First Amendment as well as the Second, I think this would make for an excellent exchange.
	I've copied my producer, let me know, where you can find out more about me as McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth.
	Send him not only a link to my curriculum vitae, but to my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
	And then I sent a follow-up, Danny, since I hadn't heard from him, I believe I sent it Wednesday, saying, if you would like to call in, since I'm going to proceed and discuss your article, whether you're here or not, you're welcome to call in.
	And I gave him the number, 540-352-4452.
	number 5403524452. Now, have I given him a fair shake, Danny?
	I don't think you could have done any better, sir.
	I mean, you know, he's not going to call in anywhere.
	He's not no longer going to call in as the same as somebody like Fauci's not going to call in.
	All right?
	Fauci only appears on scripted radio shows, CNN, whatever.
	He's not going to appear anywhere in public where people are going to ask him tough questions.
	This guy is never going to appear anywhere.
	Okay, hold on, Danny.
	Hold on, Danny.
	We're standing by for callers right after this break.
	Freedom Slips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made
	Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing
	dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	FreedomSubs.com.
	The number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution.
	Radio, radio, radio, radio.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomsledge.com,
	The People Station.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	A U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your
	host.
	Having opened the call-in line early, 540-352-4452, 540-352-4452, I'd especially welcome anyone who wants to defend this
	professor of law at the University of Wisconsin.
	Wisconsin if you think there's any merit in what he has to say.
	Please speak up, because I most certainly do not want to commit the special pleading fallacy of only presenting one side of the story.
	We have to look at all the evidence to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not what he has to say here is well-founded and true.
	Where it appears to me not only to be false, but grossly ill-founded, where so far as I can discern, the only possible way he could have justified writing these statements would be dereliction of duty, ignorance of the facts, unawareness of the laws of self-defense.
	And if he knows so little about the laws of self-defense, That he can't understand what happened here from a legal point of view, then in my judgment he's incompetent to be an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law.
	Utterly incompetent and unqualified.
	He's abusing his position He's using it as a platform to disseminate propaganda against the best interests of the American people and even seeking to discredit the Second Amendment of the Constitution by a grossly distorted caricature of what actually happened in Kenosha.
	Danny, I welcome your further thoughts.
	Well, you just, you know, you just highlighted perfectly, sir.
	It's just a propaganda platform that he's using.
	He's paid to do what he's going to do, and he's carrying out an agenda, and we're just calling him out on it.
	Simple as that.
	I mean, we could go through the trial and all the facts that happened in the trial, and, you know, you can see a lot of it on video still online, and, you know, everything he wrote is basically pure propaganda.
	It's based on nothing, and he's simply fabricating A point of view to try and change the narrative to what actually happened.
	And he's demonizing the Second Amendment.
	And again, the point of that is because he doesn't want the public to be carrying weapons to defend themselves.
	You know, I could point out what's going on in Los Angeles.
	I mean, the D.A.
	there is threatening to prosecute law abiding citizens that get caught with guns, yet their houses are burning down.
	They're being robbed by criminals with guns.
	He doesn't care about that.
	He's letting them go and he's not prosecuting them while threatening to prosecute law-abiding citizens that are being terrorized by these criminals.
	So what do you call that?
	I mean, you know what?
	They're coming to your house.
	They're following your home.
	They have guns.
	They're robbing you.
	They're breaking into your house.
	But yet you don't have a right to use a firearm to defend yourself against that.
	He's threatening that he'll prosecute you.
	But again, he's not prosecuting the known felon, the repeat felon for doing the same.
	So this is a globalist agenda, sir.
	It's just the way that it is.
	We are under attack and we're under attack under many different cities where these particular crimes
	are taking place.
	It's horrendous, sir.
	I never thought I'd see anything like this happen in the United States.
	The police are just sitting back and they just can't believe what goes on.
	But they're being threatened with their paychecks and their pension.
	It's all about the pension.
	And if they haven't been on the department very long, they're just sitting back
	and they just can't believe what's going on.
	But they don't wanna be in the unemployment line or go out and seek another job.
	So they have to sit along and go along with this nonsense.
	I mean, what a terrible time in this country for law enforcement to be experiencing something like this, to have a district attorney in your county doing this, sir.
	I couldn't imagine working under a district attorney like this.
	I've talked to many that are doing it and they're simply just biding their time until their retirement, trying to get through any way they can.
	Or they're contemplating moving and going to a different state or a different county where they actually can do their job properly, even if they have to take a pay cut.
	We're seeing law enforcement quit in these liberal cities like crazy.
	We're seeing officers quit out of Seattle.
	In mass because of what's going on there.
	It's just complete lawlessness and they just don't want to work under those conditions.
	I know a Seattle officer.
	He just can't take it anymore.
	He told me he thinks he's thinking about going into real estate or going into finance or something else because it's just such a clown show what's going on.
	You can't arrest criminals.
	You can't.
	They let them go right away.
	They're not prosecuting criminals.
	It's like, what is the point of the police?
	He doesn't really even have a job other than to just stand around.
	He just can't take it anymore, sir.
	It's absolutely ridiculous.
	And again, I'm so glad that you picked this subject and we're calling this guy out like we are.
	He's never gonna respond, sir.
	He's a globalist minion.
	He's an unelected bureaucrat, like you called out Fauci.
	And this guy is nothing more but a paid propagandist putting out complete garbage for the American people.
	Well, just to reinforce that, here I found an interview with Andrew Branca
	It's published on the Daily Signal.
	You can find it.
	Legal expert in self-defense breaks down Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
	Now I mentioned, you know, Andrew Branca goes through the whole case, each exact charge, piece by piece, and explains the five elements of self-defense.
	And anyone interested in this case would have to review, because this is our leading expert on self-defense.
	So here, this is while the trial was still going on.
	He had done that in advance, but here, while the trial is going on, he's being interviewed.
	Let me share parts of this with you.
	Doug Blair, the host.
	Our guest today is Andrew Branca, an attorney and author of The Law of Self-Defense, who has been closely tracking and writing on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
	Andrew, welcome to the show.
	Andrew, very happy to be here.
	Thanks for having me.
	Blair, at the time of this recording, the jury has not yet made a decision in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, but as somebody who's been watching the trial, what do you think the jury should decide?
	Branca, Well, I don't even think it's close.
	It should be an acquittal on all these criminal charges.
	I'm sure what we're experiencing here is a holdout of one or perhaps two jurors.
	The evidence is not close on any of these issues.
	And in self-defense, the state has to disprove self-defense, not by a little bit, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
	And they never presented evidence that was inconsistent with self-defense at any point in this trial.
	Now they're trying to do kind of a backdoor attack on self-defense by claiming that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks on himself.
	Provocation loses you self-defense.
	So if they can convince a jury he provoked the fight, then they don't have to worry about the self-defense element.
	They don't have to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, because a provocateur is not qualified to claim self-defense.
	But the only evidence they ever had of this supposed provocation is this really ridiculous drone video that was delivered by the evidence fairly on the prosecution's doorstep in the middle of the trial.
	You can't make anything out of it.
	And then, not only that, but they didn't provide the defense the same resolution video that they had.
	The version provided the defense is 116th the resolution of what the prosecution had in their hands.
	So the defense wasn't able to properly prepare the defense, properly prepare their client, when he took the very high-risk step of the witness stand to testify on his own behalf.
	The defense never even knew that a higher resolution version of the video existed until after the evidence had closed.
	They didn't know until this past Monday when the jury was just about to start deliberation.
	So it's really a reprehensible set of circumstances.
	Now, Danny, I'll take a break from the interview here.
	Just a comment.
	The jurors acknowledged afterwards that they were all in agreement that he was innocent.
	They simply took more time to review the evidence once more to make sure they hadn't missed anything, which is why the deliberation stretched out over several days instead of a couple of hours max.
	I think they were an exceptionally responsible jury.
	I think the prosecutor was exceptionally derelict.
	I put him on a par with his professor of law from the University of Wisconsin School of Law.
	He raised an unconstitutional issue by questioning Kyle about why he hadn't spoken about the case when he'd been Mirandized and the judge had already reprimanded him about not doing that.
	He suborned perjury by doing the Indian car lot owners on who claimed they'd never had any contact or knew anything about Carl Rittenhouse, which he knew already to be false.
	He picked up the AR-15 and actually pointed it around the jury room with his finger in the trigger housing group, which is a blatant violation of elementary gun safety.
	I mean, this guy overcharged and even the judge had to throw out, you know, the sixth charge for the illegal weapons position because that was simply piling on.
	It had no basis whatsoever.
	Your comments, Danny, on what I've covered so far.
	Well, yeah, I mean, you know, sir, you're just you're pouring more fuel on the fire there for the propaganda for the whole case of what what the guy's trying to do.
	I mean, you know, we can take it apart one by one if we're going to go through the case.
	And, you know, the thing was completely a self-defense case.
	And when you put out propaganda like that, you're trying to create an agenda, if you will,
	to try to make the public think that something happened that didn't happen,
	much like how they carry out a false flag, right?
	They put out, they present a bunch of actions or a play or a fact to put out,
	to make the public think something happened that did not happen.
	Well, the trial happened, the truth came out, okay?
	And here's really what I believe is behind this, sir.
	You know, there was so much propaganda on Kyle Rittenhouse before the trial, skewing who he was, lying about all the facts.
	All of the mainstream Mockingbird media was piling on, talking about demonizing the AR-15, demonizing Kyle Rittenhouse, lying about the different people that he shot and the circumstances, right?
	All of them, sir, during the trial, one by one, got a big slap in the face as the evidence came out.
	I mean, one by one, the media again got showed by the public, got shown The public, excuse me, got shown by looking at the evidence that came out in the trial how the media completely used propaganda to create an agenda during the whole thing.
	It was one of the most embarrassing events that we've ever had for the media that I can remember in quite a while where they got caught in blatant propaganda about a trial or making up stuff and one by one they came out.
	And after this embarrassment, sir, this hit piece seems to be like some kind of a piece to cover up all the embarrassment that the media took over all the lies in the first place.
	They got caught, the lies came out, and now they're trying to smooth over the lies with more propaganda.
	Smooth over the embarrassment that they took for this trial.
	And that's exactly what I think is going on.
	They're just trying to the unaware public that didn't see what happened on the trial.
	Excuse me, didn't watch what we watched and didn't get all the facts.
	Just watched a few minutes of a soundbite.
	You know, if they were to read an article like this, they would say, hmm, that's interesting, you know, but I think most people, sir, especially your listeners are quite informed and they're not going to fall for something like this, sir.
	I mean, they can see right through it.
	Well, it's embarrassingly bad.
	Let me continue.
	There are a couple other points here worth covering.
	Blair, I think you're really hitting on something here.
	This is a very complicated trial.
	There's a lot of stuff that's been going on.
	There's a lot of evidence that gets entered at certain points.
	It's very hard to keep track of things.
	One of the things that's happening right now is the defense is asking for a mistrial due in part much to what you've explained recently.
	Can you explain specifically what grounds the defense is using to claim that there should be a mistrial?
	And then, in your opinion, should they get that mistrial?
	Bronco.
	Yeah.
	There's actually two motions for the mistrial, and it's important for people to understand it's not just a mistrial.
	It's a mistrial with prejudice.
	With prejudice part is important because it means they can't bring Cobb back for a retrial otherwise they're free to bring him back and frankly in a normal criminal defense I would say a mistrial is a win for the defendant because at least he didn't get convicted but in this case When you're dealing with a defendant who's so obviously innocent of these charges against him, or should I say not guilty of these charges against him, a mistrial here, if it doesn't include the prejudice factor, is basically stealing an acquittal from this defender.
	And they'll just go in and put him through the process again and again and again until they grind this kid into dust.
	So the defense doesn't want merely a mistrial.
	They want a mistrial with prejudice, so it's gone.
	The grounds for it are frankly for the first motion, really rather egregious conduct by the prosecutors, intentional egregious conduct.
	One of the prosecutors, Thomas Binger, spoke in front of the jury about the fact that the defendant had asserted his right to silence.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	Your right to silence cannot be held against you in court.
	It should never have been mentioned.
	And he referenced some evidence that the judge had ruled excluded from the trial in front of the jury.
	And he knew he was not allowed to do so, either of these things, because it had been discussed that morning before the jury was brought in.
	So these were intentional acts by him, intentional acts of misconduct.
	The theory of the defense is he knows he's not allowed to mention the defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment right.
	This is an experienced prosecutor.
	This is not some odd facet of law.
	It's core criminal defense law.
	So he must have done it intentionally.
	And he did it for the purpose of throwing the trial, of getting a mistrial, so he could come back again in a second trial, maybe with a more amenable jury, maybe with a more amenable judge, and take a second bite at the apple.
	And there's Wisconsin case law, court law, where this has happened before for this reason.
	And the courts have ruled, look, if that's why the prosecutor is doing it, intentionally throwing the case so he can get a second bite of the apple, We will dismiss with prejudice so that he's not able to do that.
	Now they've added to that motion for mistrial with prejudice this whole drone video footage fiasco where they failed to provide the defense with the same resolution video that they had.
	In effect, they didn't provide the defense with a video, right?
	The one that was actually presented in evidence.
	And that's what they call a Brady violation.
	That's a failure of the prosecutor's obligation under the Constitution to provide the defense with the evidence that's going to be used against them in court.
	It might have been by accident.
	They might have uploaded it to a Dropbox, and the Dropbox compressed the video somehow without them knowing, so it may have been unintentional.
	If it was intentional, this is a malicious prosecution and there should be charges brought against these prosecutors and that should pierce their normal prosecutorial immunity.
	We don't know if it was intentional, but frankly, even if it was unintentional in combination with the other intentional misconduct, the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, The excluded evidence references, honestly, the only justice I can see in this case moving forward would be that mistrial with prejudice.
	There's more he has to say, Danny, but I want to invite your comments on those.
	Well, I like what he had to say, sir.
	You know, withholding exculpatory evidence is what I would call that, you know, that you have in possession that shows the crime wasn't committed is highly illegal.
	And we saw many of these violations during the trial.
	So again, how he was throwing it or the thoughts that were in his head.
	But you know what?
	He should be prosecuted.
	I think there should be an investigation into the district attorney, what he knew and when he knew it.
	As they say, so we can get to the bottom of why this case was even brought.
	Now, what I'd like to point out, sir, other than those facts, I'd like to go back and say I'm disappointed in the preliminary judge that and I'm not sure that was probably not the trial judge that we saw.
	That didn't throw this case out right away.
	It is so important when a case comes to court in the first place that during the prelim, the judge can look at the facts of the case.
	Particularly, there was enough video, there was enough evidence at that time that he could have just said, you know, this is clearly a case of self-defense and I'm dismissing this case.
	I'm not even going to let it go to trial.
	And this could have been taking care of right away and we wouldn't have had to go
	through this whole debacle in the first place.
	But obviously for whatever reason the preliminary judge allowed this this whole farce to continue in the first
	place and let it get to the point and I think he is just as guilty as these prosecutors that were trying to withhold
	evidence.
	You know, they wanted a conviction on trial against Kyle to set a narrative that
	not only to go after guns, to go after people that would use guns in self-defense,
	but they just set this whole propaganda scheme up to go after the American public.
	So they cannot use firearms.
	They wanted to send a message that said, see, you use a gun in public to protect yourselves or come out and try to protect somebody's property.
	We're going to throw you in jail, no matter if it's a felon that attacks you.
	We don't care who it is.
	You're going to go to prison and your life is going to be destroyed.
	That was the narrative, sir, that they were trying to send out.
	And you know what?
	We can also talk about the interview from Kyle, one of Kyle's lead counsels after the trial.
	Where he talked about the disappointment of the prosecutor and how he had known this guy for several years, and he could not believe that he created the violations that he did.
	He basically was a nice guy, he held back, but he said, you know, he was very disappointed in him bringing witnesses forward that he knew that were fabricating and lying.
	And he said he could not understand why he did that as a seasoned prosecutor when he
	knows that you cannot do that.
	He also brought up that evidence that you brought up on why he withheld the quality
	tape that exonerated their client.
	He knows that that's a no-no, and he just kind of shrugged his shoulders.
	And when they asked him, why do you think he did that?
	He didn't really come out and body slam him as I would have or as you would have, I'm sure.
	But he just kind of said, I don't know.
	You'd have to ask him why he did it.
	And it was it was quite, quite the interview, sir, and quite revealing.
	Well, let me just draw a parallel between the performance of this assistant professor of law and this prosecutor who brought unwarranted charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, just as this assistant professor has been unwarranted charges against the Second Amendment and what the conclusion of the case means.
	Just as the prosecutor withheld relevant evidence in the form of the higher quality tape, this assistant professor has withheld well-known, familiar principles of the law of self-defense, which is especially egregious when Andrew Branca, our nation's leading expert on self-defense, has gone through the Rittenhouse case element by element.
	Showing how all five of the conditions for self-defense are satisfied, and where this guy, this assistant professor like the prosecutor, has simply omitted all of the exonerating evidence that's indispensable to make a reasoned, balanced judgment what happened.
	And just as a prosecutor was abusing his position as a public prosecutor to defend the indefensible, we got an assistant professor abusing his position on the faculty of the law school at the University of Wisconsin, from which my daughter and son-in-law graduated, by the way.
	So I'm an enthusiast for the University of Wisconsin.
	In a manner that tarnishes the reputation, not only of the law school, but of the University of Wisconsin, which in my mind is an inexplicable, inexcusable offense.
	I hold this man in contempt, and I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that the faculty in the law school, and if necessary, the University of Wisconsin, are aware of what he has done here, because in my opinion, it's outrageous and contemptible.
	Danny.
	Well, sir, I, you know what, I have to agree with what you said, and I would write him a nasty letter, like I know you can do, and I would call him out for, you know, each one of these particular things, you know, and maybe even consider publishing that letter on your blog.
	So the public can read it.
	And, you know, he deserves it.
	And I would, you know, maybe send a copy to some of his colleagues as well to make sure that they're seeing this and that he's being called out for, you know, a propagandist is what he's doing.
	Again, we cannot have this, sir, in this country to where the American people are not allowed to defend themselves.
	You know, if we ever come to that, we're going to end up like Australia.
	We're going to end up like some of these other countries where we're overwhelmed by crime and there's nothing we can do about it.
	You know, they're basically, you know, I'd also like to tell those business owners, if you're in these particular cities that you're experiencing this kind of violence, you know, I just don't understand.
	I would just sell, get out, move.
	Don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
	I mean, you know what?
	Once these DAs get in your area and you're witnessing this violent crime like this, sir, It's really a bad position to be in.
	I've talked to people, many of them around the country that are in this position that are contemplating, you know, completely moving their families, pulling their business because they just don't want to live under these circumstances with these district attorneys, sir, that are allowing these atrocities to take care, to take place in their own town.
	It's just no way to live life.
	There's no quality of life when you're lending, when you're living under this kind of tyranny.
	And I'm glad that you're calling him out, sir.
	I'm glad you're calling out the propaganda.
	That's what I admire about you.
	You know, you always write wrongs wherever you see them, and you do it based on the evidence.
	You don't make it based on your opinion.
	You're doing it based on the evidence.
	And I hope that there's any other hosts out there that are like you that will, you know, get ahold of this piece and do something about it and do the exact same thing.
	We need to call this out, not only this particular time, sir, with this particular event, But, you know, each and every time we see these sort of things, we need to continue to fight and call it up and raise awareness and bring it to the public so they understand that this is propaganda.
	We are being propagandized to carry out an agenda, sir.
	And I think we're doing about as good a job as we can do in this particular case.
	Danny, I'm just thrilled to have you back on the air with me again, and when I write to the dean of the law school and perhaps to the chancellor of the university, I am going to make the point that if I am mistaken in any of my criticism here, I will be glad to make a public retraction and clarify so they know that my position is Not set in stone that I believe in rationality and reason, which requires that when you gain access to new evidence and new alternative hypotheses, you reject hypotheses you previously accepted, accept hypotheses you previously rejected, and leave others in suspense, should that be appropriate, in accordance with the objective rules for reason and rationality, which I taught in courses for 35 years.
	So, Danny, I can't thank you enough for joining me today.
	This is exceptional.
	Would that he had shown up to defend himself, but he will no doubt have other opportunities for that within the framework of the College of Law and the University of Wisconsin, which, in my opinion, he has tarnished unbelievably irresponsibly with his irresponsible publication of this op-ed in the Wisconsin State Journal, which they should never have published.
	Thank you, Danny.
	Thank you everyone out there.

▲