All Episodes
Previous Next
March 11, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
57:24
Michael Decon "End of Days" Show (10 March 2022) w Jim Fetzer
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, Michael, good, good, good.
The United States is effing up massively, but then we had to expect that.
Remember, Barack Obama observed, never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to eff things up.
And even though I don't think this is the real Joe, he's effing things up pretty well.
Oh, yes.
They are definitely destroying this nation here.
And you know, To be honest with you, I don't like to go with either side of the coin here, but it's pretty evident that Joe Biden's administration really has ruined the country in a way, in a large way.
Michael, I think if you assume that the acting President of the United States is George Soros, everything makes sense.
The open borders, the supply chain problems, defunding the police, releasing criminals out, not prosecuting crimes.
All these things, including now, of course, is skyrocketing cost of gasoline.
These are going to devastate the Democratic Party in the midterms, and I don't think there's any way to escape.
Biden is trying to ship blame onto Putin, of course, but the gas prices were already skyrocketing.
After all, it was he Who canceled the XL pipeline as his first act upon taking office and then restricted the use of public lands for drilling.
Trump, among his accomplishments, perhaps one of the most significance was to make us energy independent.
He also, of course, got the economy going clamped down on the border.
He was doing a whole lot of good for the United States and because Biden is allowing Endless streams of illegal immigrants across the border and promising them citizenship and a host of other benefits.
Hispanics who are here, who work years to attain citizenship and to earn benefits from the United States are simply outraged and they're shifting to the Republican Party by the droves.
Sorry about that.
I was dropping out.
The internet connection was, but now I'm back.
Sorry about that, Jim.
Not a problem.
Not a problem.
And of course, right now, gasoline is at the highest price ever recorded.
The average cost of a gallon of unleaded hit $4.17, according to the AAA.
Many are seeing $5 a gallon gasoline.
Biden has announced that his administration is banning the importation of oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal, but we don't actually import liquefied natural gas or coal.
But the fact is, by banning gasoline, the price is going to go even higher.
It's rather stunning what's taking place here.
The European Union by contrast cannot cut itself off from Russian oil and gas because it relies on imports for 90% of its gas and 97% of its oil products where Russia supplies 40% of Europe's gas and 25% of its oil.
So it will make China and the European Union the largest purchasers of Russian energy I think this is really a remarkable development.
Even Germany is sticking with Putin for its oil and gas.
This is very significant.
Bear in mind,
One of the principal motives for wanting Ukraine to provoke Russia into an invasion so they could assail Russia and move to cut off gas and energy between Russia and Germany, particularly the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, was to exacerbate tensions, to reawaken a Cold War, to retain the viability of NATO, because Michael,
This growing close business commercial association between Russia and Germany is going to lead to a reduction in anxieties about any Russian invasion of Europe.
It's going to mean NATO is obviously antiquated and no longer necessary for the defense of Europe.
And that these European nations no longer need to expend this sums of money by buying expensive U.S.
military hardware.
So the military industrial complex had been very much in the background here.
Very busy.
Yeah, go ahead.
I was just going to say they've been very busy, indeed, starting up this new war.
I guess they want more money now. - To wit, who wants the money, Michael?
The military-industrial complex.
Oh yeah, of course.
You see, they've been responsible.
They've been responsible for expanding NATO from 16 to 30 nations.
This was in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in spite of the fact that the United States had issued solemn declarations Including by the then Secretary of State James Baker, that the West would not encroach one inch to the East.
And instead, we have sought to militarize all these nations, as I say, 14, since this began, all of which is in violation of the solemn agreements for which, therefore, Vladimir Putin, who understands the history, Can no longer trust or believe in the United States.
If you go back and read his statement of February 23rd, he made a masterful explanation of why Russia had to intervene with a special military operation into Ukraine, not only because there had been eight years of nonstop shelling of eastern Ukraine by the Ukrainian government,
Which came into office because of a coup characterized by, executed by Victoria Nuland using five billion of taxpayer money to get out a pro-Russian president and install a Western puppet, and Donbass and Lucantz.
What's your Russian speaking have been under constant bombardment ever since thousands of people have been killed, but the world hasn't paid any attention whatsoever.
So having discovered that a lot of very nasty business was going on in Ukraine, among the most important aspects of which is bio Weapon warfare laboratories there that the United States has denied even existed.
Putin, understanding history and his responsibility to protect the national security of Russia, felt the necessity to intervene, especially when there was ongoing talk of trying to convert Ukraine into a NATO nation, which would have put all these forces right on Russia's border.
In fact, there's too much of that already.
What the West seems not to understand, Michael, is that Russia has far superior military equipment.
They have the best anti-missile missiles.
They have the best anti-submarine torpedoes.
They have the best anti-ship missiles.
They fly in kind of a corkscrew pattern.
They're virtually impossible to defeat.
Not only that, But Russia has a prevalence in electronic warfare where they can neutralize the computerized components on our warships and planes.
There was an incident a few years back, you may or may not recall, where the USS Donald Duck, Donald Cole, was in the Black Sea or the Crimean.
And when a Russian plane approached, they found all their fire direction systems and communication had been frozen.
My electronic warfare equipment on the Russian planes such that the ship became known as the Donald Duck, a sitting dog, and hundreds of sailors got out of the Navy because they could see they would have no chance whatsoever in dealing with Russia.
Now, we've been subjected to a veritable barrage of propaganda from the United States claiming White House, here's just a day or two ago.
White House warns Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine.
That's actually from the 9th.
Today is the 10th.
Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Wednesday, yesterday, warned of the potential for Russia to use chemical weapons in Ukraine after Moscow alleged the U.S.
was housing biological weapons on Ukrainian territory.
Psaki called the claim from Russia false and preposterous and warned it could serve as a pretext for the Russians to deploy chemical weapons in their assault on Ukraine.
It's a kind of disinformation operation we've seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked and an example of the types of false pretexts we've been warning the Russians would invent.
Also, Psaki continued, Russia has a track record of accusing the West of the very violations that Russia itself is perpetrating.
In December, Russia falsely accused US of deploying contractors with chemical weapons in Ukraine, she continued.
This is all an obvious ploy by Russia to try to justify its further premeditated, unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.
Now that Russia has made these false claims and China has seemingly endorsed them, we should all be on the outlook for Russia to use biological or chemical weapons in Ukraine or to create a false flag operation using them.
It's a very clear pattern.
Well, guess what?
Victoria Nuland went into Congress and testified.
Listen to what Tucker has to say.
He's been all over this, Michael.
Check this out.
Welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight.
If you had told us just four days ago that the Biden administration was funding secret biolabs in Ukraine of all places, we would not have believed you.
Yeah, I don't think we're going to put that on TV.
No thanks.
Then if you told us that not only did the administration fund these secret biolabs in Ukraine, But that they then failed to secure the deadly contents of those labs before the Russian invasion, an invasion they knew was coming, an invasion they helped encourage.
If you had told us that four days ago, we would have dismissed you as a nut.
It was just too preposterous.
We would not want anything to do with a story like that.
There was no way it could be true.
Too far out.
In any case, we already knew for a fact that that story was false.
How do we know that?
Because we read USA Today, America's newspaper.
Within hours of the Russian invasion, USA Today published a rebuttal to all those crazies who are yammering on about secret Ukrainian biolabs.
Here was the headline.
Fact check!
False claim of U.S.
biolabs in Ukraine tied to Russian disinformation campaign.
So if you look carefully at the story, and we did because we were interested, you notice that this fact check was sourced to Ukrainian government unnamed officials and then Biden State Department officials.
So these were not exactly objective sources on this subject, but still, the story seemed definitive.
It was totally emphatic.
Quote, Russia has teamed up with China to further amplify the false claim of U.S.
labs in Ukraine.
Okay.
USA Today says it's Russian disinformation.
Maybe it is.
On to the next story.
But the fact checks didn't stop.
That was weird.
We kept seeing the same fact check again and again.
It was almost like, despite endless official clarification, some people refused to believe the Biden administration.
They preferred Russian propaganda instead.
And we assume they must be QAnon members.
We assume that because Foreign Policy Magazine told us that.
According to foreign policy, QAnon, whatever that is, was frantically disseminating, quote, false claims of U.S.
biowarfare labs in Ukraine.
Those labs obviously didn't exist.
It was all just another lie from the Russians, who lie for a living.
Then the European Union weighed in, throwing its credibility behind the same claim.
These are conspiracy theories, the EU told us.
They're lies spread by Putin.
An EU spokesman then reminded us that, quote, the credibility of information provided by the Kremlin is in general very doubtful and low.
That was good to know.
Quote, Russian disinformation has a track record of promoting manipulative narratives about biological weapons and alleged secret labs.
Yeah, we're not going to do a segment about secret labs in Ukraine.
Last thing we want to do on this show is traffic in Russian disinformation spread by QAnon.
So we took a pass on that story.
And that's where things stood until yesterday, when we happened to tune in to a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Toria Nuland was testifying, so we were interested.
Nuland's one of the people who brought us the Iraq War, never apologized for that, and kept getting promoted, because that's how D.C.
works.
Toria Nuland is now Joe Biden's Undersecretary of State in charge of Ukraine, and she knows a lot about Ukraine.
In 2014, Toria Nuland engineered a coup in Ukraine, in the name of democracy, of course.
So she is a highly informed source about Ukraine.
So, she was having this colloquy with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida during her testimony.
And at one point, Rubio took a tack that we were not expecting at all.
He asked Nuland if Ukraine had biological weapons.
We never imagined Ukraine would have biological weapons.
Why would Ukraine have bioweapons?
So it seemed like a pretty strange question.
But it wasn't half as shocking as the answer he got.
Watch what Toria Nuland said.
Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?
Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of.
So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Does Ukraine have biological weapons?
Ukraine has biological research facilities.
What?
You mean secret biolabs?
Like the secret biolabs Ukraine definitely doesn't have?
Ukraine has those?
Yes, it does.
And not only does Ukraine have secret biolabs, Toria Nuland said, Whatever they're doing in those labs is so dangerous and so scary that she is, quote, quite concerned that the so-called research material inside those biolabs might fall into the hands of Russian forces.
Trying to use profanity on the air to describe our reaction, our jaws drop.
Let's leave it there.
Under oath in an open committee hearing, Toria Nuland just confirmed that the Russian disinformation they've been telling us for days is a lie and a conspiracy theory and crazy and immoral to believe.
Is, in fact, totally and completely true.
Whoa.
You don't hear things like that every day in Washington.
Talk about a showstopper.
And a dozen questions instantly jumped to mind.
What exactly are they doing in these secret Ukrainian biolabs?
Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe.
It's hardly a hotbed of biomedical research.
We're assuming these weren't pharmaceutical labs.
Probably not developing new leukemia drugs.
From your answer, Toria Nuland, we would assume, because you all but said it, that there's a military application to this research, that they're working on bioweapons.
Again, your answer suggests that.
Why would we fund something like that in Ukraine?
And why didn't you secure the contents of these biolabs before the Russians arrived, as you knew they would?
And then why did you go out of your way to lie to the American public about all of this?
If the, quote, research materials in these labs were to escape somehow, and you seem very concerned about that, what would be the effect on Ukraine and on the rest of the world?
How can we prepare for the consequences of that, this thing that you're worried about?
Shouldn't we be preparing?
Because as it turns out, we've just spent the last two years living with a pathogen that began in another foreign biolab funded by the United States government secretly.
So this question is on our mind.
It seems fair.
Now that's some of what we would have asked if we were U.S.
senators, which we're not.
Yes, there's a time limit.
Time limit be damned, because this is kind of important.
But Rubio did not ask those questions.
Instead, he changed the subject and told us once again that Vladimir Putin is bad.
Watch.
If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves.
In other words, caught with our pants down in a blatant lie that's been massively propagandized with the full force of the American government, extensive statements denying the fact of the matter from the press secretary for the President of the United States, They continue to try to salvage the situation by claiming that, in your opinion, if anything were to come of this, would you have any doubt it was Russia's fault?
This is just insulting beyond belief, Michael, and exposes the mainstream media and the government as lying baldly to the American people about an issue of enormous significance.
They're talking about a biological development of pathogens in a foreign lab where we've just lived through a couple of years of the consequences of biological pathogens developed in a foreign lab.
I mean, this is stunning.
First of all, I got to say, Jim, I'm quite surprised that Tucker would be talking about this, where they would give him the green light to discuss this sort of thing.
And of course, yeah, with the pandemic and COVID-19, just remember how long ago that was already out there, that this was created in a bio lab, mostly here in America.
And of course, back in China, you know, these sort of this was a lab experiment going back and forth.
And we said that a long time ago, And now we have this mess and given the fact that Ukraine is is a corrupt country, basically, we've known this for a long time.
Even a few years ago, the media was covering Ukraine and not the best light, even saying themselves in the media that Ukraine was so corrupt.
Now we are cheering for them so much.
It's quite repulsive what's going on.
Well, mind you, I have a blog about this with a map showing the location of these biolabs on my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
Ron Unz, Ukraine and Biowarfare Conspiracy Theories at jamesfetzer.org, where you can listen to Tucker.
His whole presentation ran 16 minutes.
We only heard about five and a half here, Michael, but I wanted to share it because Tucker's been doing completely brilliant work on some of these issues.
He's been exposing January 6th as a sham.
Here is another, how the, you know, the whole gas situation is manufactured by the Biden administration and they're trying to shift blame.
Tucker has been doing a brilliant job.
Yeah, usually I don't put over Tucker, to be honest, but I'm kind of shocked and quite surprised and respect him now after that one.
And yes, this came out a while back, Jim, about the whole the whole map of the strikes going on on these bio labs in the Ukraine that were funded by the US.
And of course, everyone thought that was, you know, too, too hokey.
It was bullshit, they thought.
And now we are starting to realize it was not bullshit at all, Jim.
No, you're absolutely right, and I tell you, I recommend one hour of television, namely Tucker Carlson's show here, Central Time Zone comes on at 7, Eastern Time Zone at 8, one hour on Fox.
That I recommend.
He's doing a terrific job on a whole host of issues.
You may or may not have missed it when he brought up Tony Bilelinsky during the first debate, when Bilelinsky had been the financial manager for the Biden operation involving his brother Jim and his son Hunter, and when during the first debate Biden was claiming he had nothing to do with any of this, Bobulinski virtually jumped out of his seat.
Tucker did a brilliant interview with him.
He did both a long and a short.
He put the short on the regular show, but he had the longer.
He's doing a whole series of lengthy interviews about very important figures that no one else is doing, Michael.
I'm very glad to see you reconsidering your opinion about Tucker.
In my opinion, he is the one worthy journalist on mainstream or cable today, and he's got the largest cable audience of anyone.
They have just added Jesse Watters, by the way, with his show preceding Tucker, and Jesse's been very well received as well.
But I regard Tucker as doing the young man work on this and many other issues.
Oh, yes.
After that, I would have to say he's doing quite well.
Now, Michael, the ramifications are going to be enormous.
For example, here's a brand new report today.
Russia accuses U.S.
of covering up violations of the 1972 biological weapons conviction, calls to strengthen the bioweapons treaty.
Russia declared that the U.S.
and Ukraine have covered up violations of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
This comes after Russia discovered biolaboratories in Ukraine, and after State Department official Victoria Nuland confirmed in her testimony on Tuesday that the U.S.
has biolabs in Ukraine.
The Biological Weapons Convention, or Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, is a disarmament treaty that effectively bans Biological and toxic weapons by prohibiting their development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use.
The convention banning the use of biological weapons was ratified by 143 nations, but lacked means of insurance compliance, and the U.S.
rejected biological weapons convention protocol, according to a report posted on the NIH website dated 2001.
Here's what we get from RT.
An international treaty banning bioweapons needs to be strengthened with a compliance verification mechanism, contrary to the U.S.
position on the issue, Moscow said on Wednesday.
The call comes in the wake of the reported discovery of evidence there were lethal pathogens at Pentagon-backed labs in Ukraine.
The Russian military reported this week that Ukrainian authorities had ordered the destruction of highly pathogenic samples that were stored at U.S.-backed biological labs throughout the country.
The reported documents indicate that both Ukraine and the U.S.
breached the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which both nations signed and ratified, the Russian foreign minister alleged on Wednesday.
The order to destroy the samples was an attempt to cover up the violations of the treaty.
We stand for the resumption of the work on a legally binding protocol to the convention for an effective verification mechanism, which the U.S.
has been stonewalling since 2001, the ministry said.
This is really literally being caught with your pants down, Michael, and this is shameful for the United States.
This is a complete disgrace.
I mean, if you thought that our standing in the international community could not fall further, I have to tell you, obviously it's falling further and falling fast.
It's falling face flat, Jim.
And of course, I got to ask you, Jim, do you think we possibly will see a potential false flag if they do report Russia's using chemical weapons?
Well, but nobody's going to believe it now, Michael, because the cat's out of the bag now.
The toothpaste is out of the tube.
You can't go back.
I think now that the American government has been discredited.
It's a liar, liar, pants on fire situation.
This is embarrassingly bad.
This is shameful.
It's despicable.
And it's going to be condemned by every nation in the world that has any integrity whatsoever.
Only U.S.
stooges are going to try to resist the obvious implications of the deceit and deception by the United States.
I hate to say it, Jim, but I think our country is going to get involved.
Somehow.
It might be some false flag, of course, Jim.
Just to get us back into war.
Yet again.
Well, here's the deal, Michael.
Wargaming show that NATO could only withstand an engagement with Russia for five days.
Now, the U.S.
has already declared it's not going to become involved in Ukraine.
There has been talk of bringing in planes, Polish MiG fighters, old Soviet-era fighter planes that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly.
In that the US would replenish what Poland would be giving up with F-16s, the problem being that supply production on the F-16 is behind schedule and the next set of F-16s is designated to be sent to Formosa, to Taiwan.
Which I think Congress would be reluctant to alter.
Not only that, but the planes were supposed to be flown to an airfield in Germany in order to be brought into Ukraine.
Well, Vladimir Putin has made it clear that any intervention by any foreign power would be regarded as an act of war.
And frankly, I think the allies are peeing in their pants over that prospect, because as I've observed, Russian military equipment is far superior.
Frankly, I think Russia could take out virtually all NATO forces, ships, planes, airports in about 30 minutes.
So this would set a new record for a short war.
Remember the Six day war in relation between Israel and Egypt or the seven day war.
That was a mini, but this would be even more abbreviated.
And of course, Russia's report to have 6,000 nuclear warheads, by the way.
Yeah, well, I mean, look, those are very, they have very accurate missiles and they could deliver them with exact precision.
So.
It's futile for us to think we could put up a fight against Russia here over Ukraine, which would be stupidity to the max in the first place, because we brought this about.
I mean, you heard Victoria Nuland's testimony.
Remember, it was she who engineered that coup in 2014 using $5 billion in taxpayer money.
There's a parallel here with Iran.
Many Americans think when the popular uprising took place in Iran in 1979, and seizing the American embassy and our employees there, that it was an act of aggression by Iran.
They're unaware that in 1953, which was what, 26 years earlier, the CIA had engineered a coup in Iran and deposed their popularly elected government to install the Shah, who was a tyrant, who ran a vicious secret police and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iranians.
We struck the first blow against Iran.
Kermit Roosevelt, who was a cousin of Teddy, ran the operation for the CIA.
The Iranians were merely retaking control of their government, but we never hear about that.
Victoria Nuland engineered a coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Russia is simply resetting the balance and cleaning things up, which I believe is a necessity And if you read Vladimir Putin's magisterial statement of 23 February, also published on my blog, Michael, you'll see that Putin has a very broad and deep understanding of the history and the politics of the region.
Remember, the West is resorting to such trivia as renaming the capital, which was Kiev, in calling it by something like Kiva, when Kiev was in fact the first capital of Russia.
Check it out.
They don't want to remind people by referring to Kiev by its proper name, and if they do any research, they'll discover it was the first capital of Russia, so that the historic roots and relations between Ukraine and Russia go back hundreds of years.
Yes, you hear reporters saying Kiev and others saying Kiev.
and it's just dumb It's just dumb, Michael.
It's Kiev.
K-I-E-F.
Right.
And, of course, the CIA has assisted on so many governments being overthrown since the beginning.
And, of course, this goes all the way back to, like, 79, when they got rid of their premier, Mohammad Mossadegh.
Yeah, that's right.
Exactly right.
That was 1953 in Iran.
Yes, exactly right.
That was the first coup.
Oh, yes, the CIA loves to overthrow governments, and it seems like we might be a part of another one going on right now, Jim.
Michael, right here in the USA, I think that's correct.
I think the CIA has gone completely out of control.
The whole agency is a rogue agency that John Brennan Was a particularly despicable director of the CIA and that he was involved in many covert activities that were contrary to the best interests of the United States.
A lot of them in complicity with then President Barack Obama, who appears to have been a creature of the CIA and where Michael I mentioned, by the way, he nullified the Smith-Munn Act of 1948, which precluded the use of the same techniques of disinformation and propaganda.
Which include staged events like shootings and paid riots, other duplicitous events to affect public opinion, by means of the Smith Modernization Act of 2012, just in time to bring us Sandy Hook.
Sandy Hook, and of course they tore down the school in record time.
They did.
They couldn't have the evidence standing there.
Someone might actually take a look and figure out that this is very peculiar.
This is not a normal school.
It didn't appear to have the capacity to hold the number of students that were supposed to have been there.
According to Steven Sedinsky III, who wrote the final report, there were 289 students there that day.
If you subtract 20, that would have meant there were 489 students there.
If you subtract any, that would have meant there were 469, plus around 70 cafeteria workers, custodians, secretaries, and so forth who needed evacuation.
But no evacuation took place.
So what happened to those people?
In fact, Dickinson Drive was so jam-packed with vehicles, you could not have got A bus, for example, in or out of the Sandy Hook parking lot, which interestingly was bereft of handicapped parking and of the blue and white signage that's required under law for Americans with disabilities.
It had entrances and exits that were not wheelchair accessible.
I verified the law in both Connecticut and the federal law at the time.
That school, by virtue of its lack of handicap accessibility in designated parking areas, could not have been legally operating as a public school in Connecticut in 2012.
And this is just one of dozens upon dozens of proofs that Sandy Hook was an elaborate charade.
Yes, and I'm starting to really come to terms with that.
It took me sort of a while to fully believe that this might not have happened at all, especially with all the accounts of the kids at the school saying that the shooter does not match Adam Lanza's description at all.
Well, the whole thing was a fantasy and they fabricated the families, the whole events, it was all heavily scripted.
And of course, this is part and parcel of why you had Paul Vance, a lieutenant state police, who was in charge on the scene, threatening to punish anyone who offered an opinion of what had taken place that differed from the official narrative, where they went so far as to when Wolfgang Helbig is a former Florida state trooper, a former U.S.
Customs agent, a school principal, and a nationally recognized school safety expert.
Began to make inquiries about Sandy Hook and discovered that his FOIA requests were being unanswered.
His phone calls weren't being returned.
And before he knew it, there were two homicide detectives from the local precinct on his porch in a gated community where he resides in Florida, telling him they were there on behalf of the Connecticut State Police.
And if he didn't stop making inquiries about Sandy Hook, he would be prosecuted.
Now, Michael, the irony of all this is that because he's a school safety expert, he just wanted to find out what happened so he could advise other school systems how to make sure it didn't happen to them.
So he overplayed their hand, and Wolfgang has become a very tenacious student of Sandy Hook, very, very unrelenting, and even reached the point how, in spite of all the legal obstacles and how the town attorney Monty Frank told witnesses who had been properly subpoenaed to appear before a hearing he was conducting there in Connecticut that they didn't need to come.
He secured testimony from Patricia LaLorda, who is a first select man in Newtown, a position equivalent to mayor, that the sign, the very curious sign, everyone must check in.
Have been put there by Homeland Security when Homeland Security wasn't supposed to have any role whatsoever but where FEMA is a branch of Homeland Security and it was in fact as I reported in my book nobody died at Sandy Hook it was a FEMA drill.
To promote gun control.
They pretended this two day FEMA drill had actually been mass murder to promote Barack Obama's gun control agenda.
And then two days to a month and two days later, on the 16th of January 2013, Obama signed no less than 23 executive orders to constrain our access to weapons under the Second Amendment.
Eric Holder, I believe they have played a key role, Eric Holder was a fanatic against guns.
He actually, we have him on tape addressing a National Democratic Women's Convention in Washington in 1995, saying that the American people have to be brainwashed in order to change their attitude toward guns.
And it was he who traveled to Connecticut and met with the governor on the 27th of November, just weeks before the event.
To inform him what was going on, such that when the governor held a press conference with a lieutenant governor at his side, he explained that he and the lieutenant governor had been warned that something like this might happen.
It caused me to ponder, warned by whom?
And something like this, what could he possibly mean?
There are really only two alternatives, namely that someone was going to go berserk and shoot up a bunch of kids in a public school, in which case he obviously had the obligation to warn school systems to take additional security precautions to ensure it did not happen.
Or alternatively, He'd been informed that they were going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, and present it as mass murder to promote gun control, which is exactly what happened.
And I assure you, all the events in the ground confirmed to the FEMA exercise scenario, including, Michael, that we even discovered the drill manual for a mass casualty exercise at Sandy Hook that day, which I included in the book and published as Appendix A. Yes.
And Jim, what's going on currently?
With your sort of affiliation with the whole Sandy Hook shooting in court case, rather.
Well, there's some rather interesting developments, Michael, actually.
What you need to understand is I was convicted of defamation during a summary judgment.
But the judge took evidence during the summary judgment that was a disputed fact in the case, the central issue over the authenticity of the death certificate, where I, as the defendant and the plaintiffs, representing the one Leonard Posner, who I believe was in fact an imposter and not the real guy, Uh, over the authenticity of the death certificate, which meant he could not apply a summary judgment.
But what he did was just to resolve the issue, even though I'd introduced the reports of two forensic document experts who both had concluded that the document in question was fake.
He just set them aside as someone else's opinion, claimed he found the plaintiff's explanation of what had happened plausible, went ahead and ruled.
What that means is, He was a summary judgment where it's inappropriate to render a verdict unless or even apply a summary judgment unless there is no disputed fact.
Get this.
This is from the Legal Information Institute run by Cornell University.
Summary judgment definition.
Summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party without a full trial.
In civil cases, either party may make a pre-trial motion for summary judgment.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment for federal courts.
Under Rule 56, in order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, a movement, that's a person bringing the case, in this instance Posner, must show, one, that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and two, that the movement is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Where material facts refer to any that would allow a fact finder to decide against the movement.
In relation to Wisconsin, we have a similar observation.
Findings of fact are determinations by a court from the evidence of a case concerning the facts asserted by one party and denied by another.
Summary judgment is only granted When there is no genuine issue as to any material facts where facts are not being asserted by one party and denied by the other.
That's from 802.08 of the Wisconsin legislature.
You can find it online.
Now, in this case, there was a Absolute irrevocable, irresolvable dispute over the fact of the matter, where my side was maintaining it was not authentic, their side was maintaining it was authentic, the judge had the obligation to send it to a jury for trial.
He did not do that, but improperly rendered a summary judgment.
What's stunning about this, Michael, is this is so blatant that any first-year law student would understand by the most cursory review of the facts, just knowing that I'd submitted the reports of two document forensic experts that supported my side and contradicted the plaintiff, that this had to be sent to a jury.
So if first-year law students recognize it, how could the Court of Appeals for District 4 in Wisconsin stand with a judge here?
It had to be rejected and sent back for trial.
And given that the Court of Appeals simply reiterated the official narrative of Sandy Hook as though it were somehow engraved in stone, when there has been no judicial determination of what happened at Sandy Hook in terms of whether anyone died at Sandy Hook, and all the cases that have occurred so far have been resolved on procedural grounds, such as against Alex Jones,
For failing to disclose documents, he was obligated to provide a discovery.
Mine was the only case that actually approached the issue of whether anyone died at Sandy Hook.
And would you believe it, the original scheduling conference, The judge ruled that he understood, you know, that I had a view about this not having happened, but he was not going to allow me to introduce the evidence on the ground that it was, get this Michael, not relevant to the truthfulness or accuracy of the death certificate, even though the death certificate declares that the decedent
Died at Sandy Oak Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
I mean, how grotesque and abuse is this?
So I submitted an appeal, a petition for review to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and they held it for 90 days, maybe more.
They held it for, I think actually it was nine months, not just 90 days, it was nine months.
And when the Remington settlement for $73 million was announced, then they released their decline to review my petition.
But Michael, they were just using that as cover, as camouflage.
In fact, I sought to intervene in that case, Soto versus Remington, because they never address the question of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
And get this, not only was I opposed by the plaintiffs, Sandy Hook parents, which is unsurprising, but I was also opposed by Remington.
So Remington was willing to give away $73 million without determining whether anyone had actually died at Sandy Hook.
That's about as egregious as it gets.
So now, Michael, I'm going to the United States Supreme Court of certiorari.
I'm doing crowdfunding.
Here's a one minute characterization or explanation of what this is about.
one minute.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened to Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up.
And the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've done to Canada.
Take guns, impose tyranny, and it's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
Give Cengo.com funding, Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
Now, Michael, let me emphasize, if this were allowed to stand as a precedent, then any judge in any court could make up his own facts and convict anyone of any crime the judge might prefer.
This is a fundamental violation of the fifth amendment which guarantees that no american citizen can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process i was denied my right to present a defense the summary judgment process was abused here the attorneys were manufacturing evidence it was outrageous now i've scoped it out with my attorneys here and for me to to carry this to the supreme court
it's going to run around a hundred grand so that's my target i've raised about 3500 or three and a half percent of the goal and if anyone out there is open to supporting me i would be so welcome go go to give send go.com slash funding I have a layout of the whole case.
I give you a review of the book by Brian Wright, who said it was, to an epistemological certainty, nobody died at Sandy Hook.
I have Mike Adams' response when the book was banned, where he referred to me as the most dangerous mind in America.
I have Kevin Barrett's recounting of what happened at the trial for damages, Jim Fetzer's legal lynching by a Stalinist style show trial, wonderful piece.
Ron Avery's masterpiece about dissecting the Court of Appeals here in Wisconsin.
And of course, it's unconscionable, in my opinion, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court should allow such a grotesque abuse of summary judgment, which any first year law school would recognize was completely wrong to stand.
So I'm moving to the Supreme Court to protect all of our rights regarding the first and the second, the fifth and the 14th.
Yes.
You know, I hate the fact that Alex Jones was also really hit the hardest, along with I already have the attorneys to represent me, so it's not a matter of finding attorneys.
with Alex Jones, it's gonna really sort of put a bad taste in any lawyer's mouth wanting to represent you now.
That's gonna make it even more difficult, Jim.
It's a bad thing, all because of how the media works.
Well, I already have the attorneys to represent me, so it's not a matter of finding attorneys.
I already have the attorneys.
And I have the evidence and I have the law.
What I need is the money to fund it, and that's why this is a matter of urgency.
I only have 90 days from the decision by the Wisconsin court to file my what's called a writ of certiorari, and the attorneys are already on it.
They're already working on the writ, and I'm just tremendously grateful to those who have extended their support.
A small amount from a large number of people will do it.
I mean, you know, 1,000 people contributing 1,000, of course, but, you know, 2,000 people contributing 500 would do it.
4,000 contributing 250.
I mean, just work it down.
$10.
If enough people contributed $10 or $20, I could make it.
I mean, just work it down.
$10.
If enough people contributed $10 or $20, I could make it.
I have a friend who suggests every gun owner should just contribute $1 to my defense here because they're using Sandy Hook to take away our rights under the Second Amendment.
If gun owners would just contribute one dollar, I mean, surely that wouldn't be an excessive imposition on anyone.
Go to givesandgo.com slash fundingfetzer and check it out and decide for yourself.
Whether a modest investment from you might not have a big payoff.
I'm in a unique position here, Michael.
It's very rare anyone's in a position to do anything like this, but I'm positioned to take this to the US Supreme Court and call their bluff.
Oh yes.
I was going to say, I know you have a lawyer, but I meant, you know, someone that is, is huge.
Like, you know, like an Alan Dorshowitz, you know, that's of course a joke, but you know what I mean?
Well, here's the thing.
Here's the thing, Michael, any attorney who looks at this case and even just reads or a new piece by a woman who's a stringer for the New York Times by name of Elizabeth Williamson.
Just read what she writes.
She's got an article out in a book about Sandy Hook where she's explaining the ingenious novel legal techniques that were used to go after Alex Jones on the one hand and me on the other.
Now there's a blog about it on my website at jamesfetzer.org.
And a critique by Ron Avery.
But the point he makes is she spells out how Genevieve and Jake Zimmerman use a creative legal approach to avoid my being able to air my conspiracy theories in court, meaning they blocked out a way to keep me from presenting all the evidence I had that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
By suing over only four sentences, which I'm not allowed by the court to reaffirm, but obviously where I was denying the authenticity.
And then when I had evidence to substantiate my side from these two document examiners, the court just set it aside.
Obviously there was a disputed fact.
You cannot apply summary judgment if there's a disputed fact.
So even what Elizabeth Williamson was outlining in her article about this, extolling the virtues of the approach used against me on the one hand and Alex Jones on the other, contradicted her position because anyone who understands that summary judgment is only applicable where no evidence is to be presented because there's no disagreement Recognizes this was a judicial fraud.
This was a charade.
This is a gross abuse to suppress the truth.
And that's what they do by even calling us conspiracy theorists, Michael.
Conspiracy theorists are investigating crimes, typically crimes that lead back to the government.
No wonder they want to suppress us.
Yes, they want to stonewall you and that's what's going on with you now, Jim, and it's quite ugly what they're doing.
And of course, they're trying to drain you of any financial resource you've got.
That's why they are continuously stretching this out.
You're absolutely right, Michael.
And, you know, I have a unique opportunity here to fight this at our highest court in the land.
And let me mention.
Yes.
The Supreme Court only accepts about 5% of the writs that are submitted.
Now, mine happens to be of special importance because of its centrality to the Constitution in our form of government.
But even if the court were to decline, Rits of certiorari are studied by the law schools all across the country, and I believe this is one for the law books, that there has never been such an egregious abuse of summary judgment in the history of the United States.
Ron Avery, who has a good deal of experience and knowledge about summary judgments, agrees with that point.
And I say, just go to my blog at jamesfetzer.org and take a look at the on Elizabeth Williamson's attack, verbal attack on Sandy Hook's scab digs and evaluate the evidence for yourself.
And then if you're intrigued, go further to givesendgo.com slash funding Fetzer and you you can read it all.
I've got the whole story laid out there with links to all the relevant.
And we're now let me add yesterday.
I did an interview, Ron Avery and I did an interview with David Zublik on his Dark Outpost show, and that interview is now up on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
There in one hour you'll get a very comprehensive understanding, maybe the most thorough exploration of why this case is a complete sham and an insult.
and gross violation of the laws of the United States regarding judicial procedure, check it out.
That's BitChute Channel, Jim Fetzer, or my blog, jamesfetzer.org, Michael.
And I'm so grateful to you for having the opportunity to address these issues.
Absolutely.
And Jim, we are sort of coming to a close here and I do want to thank you for being a part of the program.
But Jim, I'm just outraged that they did not let you present any evidence in the court.
And I already knew they wouldn't.
Of course, it's just it's sad to see that that's what's really happening here in your case.
It was absolutely stunning.
And by the way, there is another book.
Let me mention Mary Maxwell.
has a book now about Sandy Hook.
It's entitled, Uh, unreality, uh, Sandy Hook messes minds.
If you go to gumshoenews.com.
Now this is a free download.
Just as I release my book, nobody died at Sandy Hook for free as a PDF.
When Amazon banned it back in 2015, Mary Maxwell has released her book on reality.
Sandy Hook messes minds.
Go to gumshoenews.com.
Gumshoenews.com.
And you'll see on the menu bar books.
And when you go there, this book is there.
She has a wonderful writing style.
It's all about 224 very easy to read pages, and she lays it out in a very clear way and why I think this book will also make an impression in the legal community.
Mary Maxwell has a law degree as well as a PhD.
So this is a wonderful book, Unreality Sandy Hook Misses Minds.
Go to gumshoenews.com, just click on the books and you can download the PDF for free.
Very nice.
And of course, jamesfetzer.org, another place where you can go and find more information and more on the stories developing around the world.
Jim, once again, thank you so much for being a part of the program.
I'll talk to you soon again.
You got it, Michael.
Thanks so much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection