Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 5, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:30

The Raw Deal (4 May 2022)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Raw Deal.
	The Wall Falls.
	History Is Made.
	Wisdom Circle Plus Raw Deal Equals.
	The Event.
	James Fenton.
	David Scorpio.
	Giuseppe Buffangco.
	History Is Made.
	And Now.
	Well, it's a delight to be here on Wednesday, but I dearly miss my colleagues Giuseppe Gaffangulo and David Scorpio, who have transferred to Speak Free platform.
	I wish them well.
	I think they're marvelous guys, and would they were with us here today.
	We'll need to update the intro because the event is no more sad to say.
	I have a report about the death of Norman Mineta that's actually of greater than ordinary interest for reasons I shall now explain.
	Mineta served in Clinton and Bush cabinets.
	He's now dead at 90 years of age.
	He died at his Edgewater, Maryland home, apparently of heart illness.
	I wonder if he took the vax that could certainly promote heart illness.
	Meanwhile, the former Commerce and Transportation Secretary served with former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
	He was the first Japanese-American to serve in the presidential cabinet.
	He was even interned during World War II as a Japanese-American, which was very, very unfortunate, but a practice that was implemented during World War II.
	Japanese Americans were rounded up.
	Here's an observation from Senator Dianne Feinstein of California about her friend, Norman Mineta, who was a mayor, a congressman, and served in the cabinets of both Democrat and Republican presidents 11 terms.
	He was the mayor of San Jose, California.
	A first-generation Japanese-American Mineta was held in an internment camp as a child during World War II.
	He went on to become the first Asian-American elected mayor of a major city, his hometown of San Jose, before serving 11 terms in Congress.
	He was a champion of civil rights and led efforts to obtain an official apology for Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps, among other notable accomplishments.
	Mineta was well respected on both sides of the aisle, leading to his appointment to the cabinets of both President Clinton and Bush on September 11th, 2001.
	Then Transportation Secretary Mineta made the courageous decision to ground all flights during the chaos following the terrorist attack on the country.
	He would go on to oversee the creation of the TSA to guard against similar attacks.
	That's of course a transportation safety agency.
	California, our country, lost a true statesman today.
	My heart goes out to his family and loved ones during this difficult time.
	Let me observe that grounding all flights occurred except that special flights were allowed to transport the Bin Laden family back to Saudi Arabia from the United States, which was one of many peculiarities involving here.
	Now, my dear colleague shared today a modification of a photograph during which Norman Mineta was being given, you know, a Congressional Medal or the Medal of Freedom by W. And while W is putting it on, we see a quote from Mineta.
	He said, the plane is 10 miles out, Mr. Cheney.
	Did the orders still stand?
	And Cheney whipped his neck around and said, of course, they still stand.
	Or W is saying, want me to strangle you with this thing?
	Well, to understand the context, Norman Mineta was in an underground bunker beneath a White House with a vice president during 9-11, where Dick Cheney appears to have been the executive director.
	Michael Rupert, in his book Crossing the Rubicon, made the case very thoroughly based on all publicly accessible sources.
	Well, when Mineta was there, An aide came up to Cheney and said, sir, it's 50 miles out.
	Sir, it's 40 miles out.
	Sir, it's 30 miles out.
	Do the orders still stand?
	And Cheney turned up and whipped his neck around and said, of course the orders still stand.
	Have you heard anything to the contrary?
	Now, Mineta gave this testimony to the 9-11 Commission, but they didn't really understand what he was telling them.
	The aide was reporting a plane in flight approaching the Pentagon and asking the Vice President of the Order to not shoot down the plane still stood.
	At that point in time, of course, it was well known that the planes were being used as weapons to destroy targets on the ground.
	Subsequent research I have done and others has established that all four of the crash sites were fake.
	A real plane was flown toward the Pentagon and then over the Pentagon at the same time as explosives occurred in front of the Pentagon, creating the impression that the plane had actually crashed into the Pentagon when it had not.
	Now, the reason Mineta's testimony is so telling is that the order, which he's asking, does it still stand, had to be to not shoot down the plane.
	Think about it.
	If you shoot down the plane, then you lose the passengers and the plane, but you do not also lose the personnel in the property at the target, which in this case was the Pentagon.
	Now, I was out in California in late June, and this was actually the interview I had on Hannity and Collins that occurred on the 22nd, where I was called by the producer, told that they wanted to interview me about the findings of my
	Of my Society of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, where Alex Jones had been inspired to use the name American Scholars Conference for the major event he was conducting there in Los Angeles that weekend, where I had been invited to be the keynote speaker.
	So it appears Hannity and Combs wanted to set me up to attack me as a representative of the 9-11 Truth Movement on the eve of this major conference, which would be completely successful, and where on Sunday C-SPAN would film a panel discussion moderated by Alex Jones.
	Where the four panelists were all members of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, the first being Steve Jones, who was a professor of physics from BYU, whom I'd invited to be my co-chairman, Bob Bauman, who was a World Korean War ace.
	He shot down, believe it or not, 101 MiGs during the Korean War, but he was really there and a member of Scholars because he'd earned a degree in nuclear engineering from Caltech.
	And then the scientific advisor to Presidents Reagan and Ford on the Star Wars project, Webster Tarpley, who is the author of a very substantial book on 9-11, Synthetic Terror Made in the USA, and then myself as a founder of Scholars, where I gave a talk about the top 10 reasons we know that the 9-11 hijackers are fake.
	Panel discussion, which ran an hour and 45 minutes, was played by C-SPAN seven or eight times.
	I'm confident you can find it online.
	That is well worth reviewing.
	I'll see if I can't dig it up and get it reposted on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
	So, the actual interview began with Combs talking about, you know, Asking me about a course he introduced by saying it was my suspicion by the way.
	That they might have been misleading me about what would be the subject of the conversation the interview.
	So I asked that they bring a TV screen into the waiting room.
	In preparation, and when I saw Alan Combs saying, you won't believe what your students are being taught by their professors about 9-11.
	I knew they had misled me, but also that they did not know enough about what I was or wasn't doing on the campus, the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota to get it right.
	So here is how it played out.
	You'll be able to hear.
	And there will be video versions where you'll be able to see it as well.
	Well, get this.
	Taking the way onto the campuses of some major American universities, joining us now the co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota at Duluth, James Fetzer.
	Professor, thank you so much for being with us.
	First of all, is this a required course?
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Is it a required course?
	Well, you got your facts, Foxed, I'm sorry to say.
	In fact, I created an organization of faculty and experts to study 9-11, not to teach in courses, but I must tell you what we have discovered would certainly qualify as material for an important course.
	So you're saying you're not teaching this?
	I want to be clear here.
	You're not teaching a course in this?
	No, you're confused and I hope that Fox usually does a better job on their research than this.
	I did create, I created an organization of faculty and scholars to study 9-11 and we discovered that practically everything the government has told us about it is false.
	I want to get into that in a moment, I just want to be clear.
	So as far as you know, there is no course on 9-11 conspiracy theories being taught at your university or any place else that you know of?
	That's right, but it's a great idea.
	I would certainly support having such a course because there's a lot of material to work with.
	All right, and what evidence do you have that the government was involved, that Cheney knew, that anybody in the chain of command knew ahead of time that this was going to happen on 9-11?
	Can you give us any piece of evidence that would substantiate that argument?
	Absolutely.
	For example, Norman Mineta testified to the 9-11 Commission that he observed Dick Cheney in an underground bunker when a young aide came up to him and repeatedly told him, Sir, it's 50 miles out.
	Sir, it's 30 miles out.
	Sir, it's 10 miles out.
	Sir, do the orders still stand?
	Cheney turned around, jumped on him nearly bit off his head and said, of course the orders still stand.
	Have you heard anything different?
	The order had to be to not shoot down the plane that was approaching the Pentagon.
	After all, the order should have been to shoot it down.
	Shooting it down would be the obvious thing to do when you consider that you're going to lose the passengers in the plane if you shoot it down, but if you don't, you're going to use the passengers in the plane and also, of course, all the personnel and property at the target.
	I want to go back to something in the exchange that you and Alan just had a moment ago.
	In fairness to our producers, when they talked to you earlier, you said that courses are being taught in which these conspiracy theories are advanced to the students.
	Am I correct?
	No, you're not correct.
	What I said to him was, in courses on critical thinking, sometimes issues related to, for example, tax cuts or global warming or reasons for going to war in Iraq might be discussed as examples, but I know of no courses as such that are being taught that way.
	So let me ask, how big is this group of professors that you've put together, this organization you've formed, that gives credence, if you will, to the theory you just advanced about 9-11?
	Well, there are over 300 members, Colonel North, including about 200 with advanced research skills, and about 85 that have affiliations, including physicists, mechanical engineers, pilots, aeronautical engineers.
	We've discovered that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
	We've discovered that the Osama bin Laden appears to have had nothing to do with it.
	Help me out here.
	Having been involved in a couple of controversial undertakings over my years in government service, How many people in the government were part of this conspiracy, do you envision?
	Hundreds?
	Thousands?
	No, no, Ollie.
	I think it's a small number.
	You know about classified, controlled operations where everything's compartmentalized.
	Do you know, Ollie, that the FBI has confirmed that they have no hard evidence relating Osama bin Laden to the events of 9-11?
	Are you aware of that?
	Well, Osama bin Laden himself claims that.
	I mean, they didn't manufacture those tapes.
	This is the FBI, Ollie.
	This is the FBI that has affirmed in the last couple of weeks they have no hard evidence tying Osama bin Laden to 9-11.
	And so all of these people that died on 9-11, you're articulating, died as a consequence of what our government did.
	We're trying to find out exactly what happened.
	Our government has a considerable reputation for telling things that are not true.
	Thank you very much for coming on tonight.
	Coming up, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
	Fascinating.
	Yes, I was followed by Bibi Netanyahu, believe it or not, being interviewed by Sean Hannity when Bibi, along with Ehud Umar, both of whom are former PMs of Israel, and Bibi would return again and again, were the brain trust behind 9-11.
	They appear to have conspired the plan to take down the Twin Towers, to create a rationale for American forces to enter the Middle East, to take out the modern Arab state that served as a counterbalance to Israel's domination of the entire region.
	So, for example, in my book, America Nuked on 9-11, Complements of the CIA, the Neocons and the Department of Defense of the Mossad.
	I bring together a group of experts to explain exactly what happened.
	And while I was suggesting there the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, I would prefer to say today by a demolition under control, a classic controlled demolition such as occurred with Building 7.
	When we see it come down, all the floors coming down at the same time at roughly the speed of freefall, where even Dan Rather on the air that day described this as just like the demolition of casinos and hotels we see in Las Vegas, and he had it exactly right.
	Building 7 was a classic controlled demolition.
	Well, we know that when you bring down a building that leaves a residue equal to about 12% of the original height, which in the case of Building 7 was 47 floors, which left about five and a half floors of debris.
	That's exactly what happened with Building 7.
	But if you turn to Building 1 and 2, the North and the South Tower, there was no massive pile of debris.
	In fact, I had Father Frank Morales from St.
	Mark's Episcopal Church, who was a first responder on my earlier radio shows twice, both times he affirmed That those buildings were destroyed to or even below ground level, which is exactly what the photographs and videos demonstrate.
	Now, what you're seeing in what we were told were collapses was anything but.
	The buildings are blowing apart in every direction from the top down that required enormous source of energy.
	All the floors are remaining stationary until their turn to be blown to kingdom come in the memorable phrase of Morgan Reynolds.
	The buildings are being converted into millions, even billions of cubic yards of very fine dust, which, by the way, is a signature of the use of nuclear devices.
	And when it was over, it was at 12% of 110 floors, which would have been about 13 and a half apiece.
	We don't have a massive stack of debris.
	Instead, we have nothing, which, of course, is because it's been converted.
	In a very fine dust by means of nuclear devices where in fact it appears to be the case that many nukes were put in the sub basement level and because the design of the twin towers was a tube within a tube.
	Yeah, the inner tube, but the 47 massive core columns and then surrounded by the outer tube so that the floors were built on steel trusses filled with concrete that extended from the inner tube to the outer to the outer tube to create all this open space.
	That was the architectural innovative design that won the building such So many accolades and awards.
	In fact, they were robust as structures of engineering.
	It would have been impossible, impossible, physically impossible for planes to have brought the buildings down, nor for that matter for nanothermite to have done the job.
	Among my acute disappointment with architects and engineers and even Steve Jones,
	Whom I invited to be my co-chair was that he championed the nanothermite theory where T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, and I published three articles in 2011 debunking the idea that nanothermite had been responsible, pointing out that in order to convert concrete into dust, it requires an explosive with a detonation velocity equal to 3200 meters per second.
	That in order to convert steel into dust, it required a detonation velocity of 6100 meters per second, but that the highest detonation velocity attributed to nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 meters per second, meaning you can't get there from there.
	Richard Gage persisted in defending the nanothermite theory.
	During that conference, by the way, on Saturday, after I had this interview on Hannity and Combs, I met with Steve Jones in the lobby and I asked him specifically, Steve, You still believe nanothermite could have had all the effects of blowing the buildings apart and converting, you know, the concrete into dust and the steel?
	And he said, oh, yes, oh, yes, emphatically, oh, yes.
	Well, Steve Jones is no idiot.
	He's got a background in nuclear devices, I believe.
	Steve Jones actually knew the score.
	But he was in a position there by virtue of my making him co-chair that he could support a theory which by the end of the year, by the end of 2006, when I first would interview Judy Wood on my radio show on 11 November 2006, where I would interview her 14 more times while pioneering interaction between the computer and the radio, I'd have our listeners go to the
	Judy Wood's website, and then we go through the website and look at various photographs, drawings, mini videos and all that, which Judy would describe.
	By virtue of wandering off the nanothermite reservation, where I'd never been convinced that nanothermite could have done the job, Steve Jones and others marshaled a coup against me while I was in Athens, Greece,
	Appearing on an internationally broadcast television program that would be extended from three to three and a half hours that was hosted by the leading muckraker in Greece, where going in they had, they told me they had a panel at 12, but usually only one or two would ask questions.
	I explained, not tonight.
	And I was right.
	Every single one asked a question.
	The show was sensational.
	They had these wonderful video clips from 9-11.
	I mean, I hadn't prepared them.
	They had prepared them.
	They did a brilliant job.
	So that this show, which was probably the high watermark for the 9-11 truth movement because it was broadcast worldwide by satellite, And one fellow who saw it in in Boston where he was working at a pizzeria was saying how the owner was just transfixed by the show being broadcast, his owner having been from Greece himself originally, and how spectacular it had been.
	And while they've been concerned, because I was interviewing Judy that had gone in the direction of dues, which I do not believe were the mechanism responsible, but I certainly believe Judy Wood was doing a better job of accounting for the data.
	Then we're architects and engineers or those who are advocating nano theory, such as Steve Jones and Kevin Ryan and others who are parts of the organization.
	They were undertaking a revolt to try to steal the organization from me, even while I was in Greece for three and a half hours, broadcast internationally by satellite.
	It was outrageous.
	They feigned a memo from the membership secretary, which he had not in fact authorized, as to whether I should continue in leadership by virtue of having interviewed Judy Wood.
	I mean, how absurd is this?
	Scientific reasoning requires you compare alternative hypotheses to assess which, if it were true, could confer the highest probability on the available evidence and without any question.
	Judy Wood's dew theory would confer a higher probability on the available evidence than where the nanothermite theory, which we now know, cannot possibly have done the job.
	If you want to see a most interesting piece I published after Richard Gage was on C-SPAN, it's entitled, On C-SPAN, Richard Gage Leaves 9-11 Truth in a Time Warp.
	You can find it on my blog at jamesfetcher.org.
	I go through a whole lot of the points I'm making here.
	Now, just so happened Ollie North was sitting in for Sean Hannity on this occasion, leading me to call my wife and say, honey, look, this is just going to be a casual conversation between two former Marine Corps officers.
	And she said, don't bet on it.
	They're going to try to take you apart nonetheless.
	And she was, of course, completely right.
	After this unsuccess on the part of Only North, Sean Hannity would try it again, and months later, he would invite me back and try to accomplish the job, but he was no more successful than it had been Only North.
	Later that year, Bill O'Reilly decided to drop the ax, the hammer, on me, so I was sitting for like 30 or 40 minutes with a very bright light in my face before he came on my earpiece and said, I'm going to tell the world you hate your country and that you're a nut.
	Boom!
	I was on the air with Bill O'Reilly, and he was just savaging me.
	He would barely let me get a word in edgewise.
	You can find all three of these are still available online on YouTube, and I dare say in retrospect, they're worth watching.
	I had thought it had been quite a disaster.
	But a year or two later, after I gave a talk at the Great Hall of Cooper Union, a 9-11 conference, my wife and I and a friend wandered over to a theater where Alex Jones was conducting a program, and they gave me the red carpet treatment.
	They brought me right in they welcome me they put me up on a platform with first responders and as i was sitting down the fellow next to me leaned over and said it was watching you on o'reilly that convinced me nine eleven had been an inside job leading me to believe well maybe it had been worth it after all.
	This is really pretty fascinating stuff.
	And as I say, Norman Mineta's testimony.
	Which the 9-11 Commission really did not understand at the time was making a huge difference, just a huge difference, if you understood it correctly, so that I was able to answer when Alan Combs asked me.
	Do you have any evidence that anyone in the administration such as Dick Cheney was involved in this and I could lay on him?
	Absolutely!
	And recite the Norman Mineta testimony.
	So on this occasion of Norman Mineta's death, it just seems a perfect opportunity to review the bidding here.
	And I tell you, there's so many resources.
	But of course, 9-11 is another taboo subject.
	We're going to turn to the now the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade based upon the leaked version, the draft version of the decision, which, in my opinion, raises very serious legal, moral and political issues where the ramification may be well stretched to the midterm election, as I'm going to explain, and upset the apple cart For the Republican Party.
	We'll see when we return from our break, which is upon us.
	I'm just so delighted to be here today with you all.
	music
	You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.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, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, 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.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at 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 already done to Canada—take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	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.
	Oh, oh. oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSledge.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 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, as the whole world is now aware, the Supreme Court has decided to overturn Roe v. Wade according to a leaked draft, not yet final, but apparently authentic, has shown which Politico was able has shown which Politico was able to access and publish.
	Pretty fascinating development and extraordinary.
	A document Politico describes as an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito suggests, really declares, the Supreme Court has decided to strike down Roe v. Wade.
	The seminal precedent in 1973 rested the regulation of abortion from the states and made the procedure lawful throughout the entire 50.
	The leaking of the document, assuming it's genuine, which has been confirmed, constitutes an unprecedented breach of Supreme Court protocol.
	In a 2,400-word article, timestamped 8.32 p.m.
	on May 2nd, Politico described the draft opinion as, a full-throated, unpledging repudiation of the 1973 decision Which guaranteed federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood versus Casey, that largely maintained the right.
	The opinion is 67 pages long with a 31 page appendix.
	The political article doesn't state how the outlight came to have the document and their speculation about the source.
	We now know.
	The source, as I shall explain, Harvard Law professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who said he opposes Roe being reversed, told Fox News he could not recall a Supreme Court opinion ever being leaked.
	I have a theory, and it's only a theory.
	I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who was trying to change the outcome of the case, either by putting pressure on some of the justices to change their mind, or by getting Congress to pack the court even before June, which is very unlikely.
	I agree, it's not going to happen.
	Or to get Congress to pass a national right to abortion law, which would apply to all the states.
	Well, he turns out to have it right on all counts.
	It was a liberal law professor for Justice Sotomayor, who is an Indian-American who leaked the document.
	It's now the case.
	I have been informed.
	This is pretty fascinating.
	The influential SCOTUS blog website weighed in.
	Writing, it's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court in terms of the destruction of trust among justices and staff.
	This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
	The document basis the article is based upon is a photocopy of an original Mark I draft circulated on February 10th of 2022.
	It's unclear if the draft might have changed since that date.
	Justices often change their minds in deliberation as they seek to win over other members of the court.
	Roe was egregiously wrong from the start, Eliotto states in the document.
	We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.
	It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.
	The draft begins.
	Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.
	Some believe fervently that a human person, and mark that word person, that is crucial to a proper understanding of the circumstances here, both morally, legally, and politically, comes into being at conception, and that abortion ends an innocent life.
	Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality.
	Still others in a third group think abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.
	Some, for example, would allow only in the case of a pregnancy resulting from incest or rape.
	The purported draft opinion on the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a challenge to the only state-licensed abortion clinic in Mississippi, which allows abortions after 15 weeks gestation only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality, citing Roe, lower courts held the state statute was unconstitutional.
	The Mississippi Solicitor General who participated in argument described Roe v. Wade as an egregiously wrong decision.
	He made the claim.
	They have no basis in the Constitution, speaking of Roe and Casey.
	They have no home in our history or traditions.
	They've damaged the Democrat process.
	We've poisoned the law.
	We've choked off compromise for 50 years.
	They kept this court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve.
	And 50 years on, they stand alone.
	Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life.
	The Dobbs case is the first direct challenge to Roe in the High Court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett's appointment on October 26 of 2020.
	Given the court's nominally conservative 6-3 majority, some conservative court observers argue the conservative to liberal split is more like 5-4, because the Chief Justice they regard as a moderate or even a liberal, since he frequently sides with the liberal justices.
	And what we seem to have here, by the way, Is a decision that is actually five to three, where the Chief Justice has not declared his stance.
	And if he were to go with the minority, that would mean five to four.
	And if only one of those five, which includes Justice Thomas, were to change their mind, then Roe could, in fact, be upheld.
	So I think it's not quite all over but for the shouting.
	If it moves forward, however, then access to abortion will be left up to the states, where state legislatures would be the last defense to protect access to abortion, including 26.
	That could ban it entirely.
	In fact, there's a group of states, it may be about half that number, 13, that appear to have trigger mechanisms.
	So that if Roe is overruled and automatically abortion is banned in those states, there may be, I would expect, some exceptions, such as to save the life or health of the mother, but that nevertheless, there'd be a virtual complete ban on abortion.
	Meanwhile, the chief justice has been very upset.
	He confirmed the authenticity of a leaked draft opinion Tuesday that would be yesterday, suggesting the court may be posed to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion nationwide, ordering an investigation of what he called an egregious breach of trust.
	In the High Court's first public comment since the draft was published, Robert said, Although the document described in yesterday's reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in this case.
	He added, to the extent this betrayal of the confidence of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed.
	I have directed the marshal of the court to launch an investigation into the source of this leak.
	Where I was informed during a show just before coming on here with you by David Zublik that in fact they have identified the source and just as Alan Dershowitz had conjectured it was a law clerk for the progressive justice Sonia Sotomayor, who I infer
	Wanted to bring pressure onto the justices aroused public concern on this very, very major issue that affects national politics on a rather profound scale.
	Wikipedia actually has a perfectly reasonable accounting about Roe.
	I'll share parts of it with you here and now.
	Roe v. Wade.
	10 U.S.
	113 1973 was a landmark decision of the U.S.
	Supreme Court where the court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
	The decision struck down many U.S.
	federal and state abortion laws, fueling an ongoing debate in the United States about whether or to what extent abortion should be legal, who should decide its legality, and the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere.
	It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
	In January of 1973, The court issued a 7-2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, that's an equal access under the law, equal application of the law, provides a right to privacy that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion.
	It also ruled this right is not absolute and must be balanced to get government interest in protecting women's health and prenatal lives.
	The court reached this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy.
	During the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all.
	During the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulation.
	During the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as they contain exceptions for Cases necessary to save the life or the health of the mother.
	The court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as fundamental, which requires courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the strict scrutiny standard, the highest level of judicial review.
	The court's ruling was criticized by some in the legal community, calling the decision an example of judicial activism where the court is making up laws, I add.
	But in fact, the court's assigned to interpret the Constitution and its provision to the current situation in America, which can include, of course, many developments that were not of current significance at the time the Constitution was adopted.
	So those who argue that the word abortion is a mention in the Constitution are making a frivolous argument.
	That does not matter.
	What matters is do the principles of the Constitution, such as the 14th Amendment, protect a woman's right to an abortion, which the court in 1973 ruled it did.
	The Supreme Court revisited and modified Roe in its 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood versus Casey.
	In Casey, the court reaffirmed Roe's holding that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is constitutionally protected, but abandoned Roe's trimester framework in favor of a standard based on fetal viability and overruled a strict scrutiny standard for reviewing abortion restrictions.
	Will that be mentioned?
	The Supreme Court, in essence, had ruled that at the end of the second trimester that the developing fetus acquires its first status as a person under the law.
	Now, personhood is extremely important because it attaches Social legal and moral standing to entities that are properly qualified as persons as opposed to those who are not for example.
	Murder is a deliberate killing of a person that is illegal the deliberate killing of a person that is illegal.
	If you were to kill a cat or a dog for example or a raccoon or a rat.
	Raccoons, rats, cats and dogs aren't persons.
	So the killing, even deliberate, of a cat, a dog, a rat or raccoon cannot qualify as murder.
	We know there are circumstances under which deliberate killing of a person is not wrongful, but is legal and similarly does not qualify as murder, including soldiers in combat, Police and their performance of their duty and citizens in self-defense against grievous harm or threats to their person.
	So the question then becomes, is abortion murder?
	Well, there are two aspects to that.
	According to the law, Roe v. Wade, abortion during the first two trimesters, according as long as during the second trimester, it's in accordance with state prescribed procedures designed to protect the health of the woman.
	It is not murder because it's legal.
	But there's an additional reason, namely that.
	The developing fetus does not appear to have the status of a person.
	As I interpret, since viability occurs at the same time, the end of the second trimester, as Rowe decided and Casey decided, they actually coincide at the point at which personhood is first attached to the developing entity.
	And I think from the point of view of fetal development.
	That's because this is the point at which the developing fetus can survive, can live external to the interuterine environment.
	It is not, let me emphasize, a function of heart or brain activity, which are well established prior to the end of the second trimester, but The development of the lungs, the capability of the lungs to provide oxygen to the fetus, that is a late stage, occurs only at the end of the second trimester.
	So as I interpret it, what we have here is a coincidence that both decisions, both Casey and Rowe, attribute a primitive right to life to End of second trimester viable fetus, as at that point attaining the status of personhood.
	Prior to that point, the developing fetus is a special kind of property of the pregnant woman, and she is entitled to make choices based upon her own personal circumstance and preference or not to carry a fetus to term.
	If she does not want to carry the fetus to term, which could be for any number of reasons, such as she's already too many members of her family.
	She's already got too many children.
	She's a single mom.
	She's a working mom.
	If she has a child, she's not going to be able to continue her life as a working mom and stay at home and take care or even hire a babysitter.
	It's just not feasible or for innumerable other reasons.
	And every woman who's had to make this decision could articulate what caused her to move in that direction because it was an unwanted fetus.
	They didn't want to become pregnant.
	It may very well have been accidental or inadvertent.
	During 35 years of offering courses and Logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, especially in courses in critical thinking, we would debate abortion, the pros or the cons.
	I was simply astonished by how many techniques of birth control my students were aware of.
	They could enumerate a dozen where I might have had four or five.
	But, you know, it was fascinating to me and the enumeration of the circumstances under which a woman might prefer not to carry a fetus to term because it's going to have a major adverse impact on her life.
	So my personal opinion is Roe v. Wade was perhaps certainly among the wisest decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court.
	And let me explain why.
	Roe and Casey, let's call that the pro-choice position, allow a woman to decide under her own special circumstances, given her own moral convictions, her own practical necessities of life, with the advice of her physician or whomever, spiritual counselors, to decide for herself whether or not to carry a fetus to term.
	That's a decision she is entitled to make, in my judgment, My body, my choice.
	I've been very dismayed how the Democrats have been so emphatic about my body, my choice in relation to reproduction, but have not even once, to my knowledge, raised my body, my choice in relation to the mass vaccination of the public, which is causing immense harm to society.
	If the Democrats had stood up as vehemently against Vaccination and mandates and the like, as they have against restrictions on abortion.
	We might be in a different place politically, but they have gone along with it.
	So What we have here is, I believe, a conflict between a woman's right to choose, to decide for herself, where that right, by the way, does not obligate any woman to have an abortion.
	The pro-choice position neither obligates a person to have an abortion nor obligates a person to not have an abortion.
	So if a woman wants to carry a fetus to term, they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law given Roe and Casey.
	with, however, abortion restrictions being put in place, where, for example, in some 13 states now, if this should be the case, and Roe and Casey are reversed, then each state is going to decide for itself.
	As many as 26 could impose very severe restraints that are going to limit a woman's choice.
	And while some will argue, well, there are going to be other states where it's permissible, which would leave what, 24 of 26, man, they're 24.
	But that involves making arrangements in another state, a different locale.
	It involves transportation arrangement expenses that would not be imposed upon the woman.
	It's a form of penalty.
	That under the reasoning of the 14th Amendment by the original court decision authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, a woman should not be forced to undertake, she shouldn't be penalized for a pregnancy simply because she does not desire to carry the fetus to term.
	But look, under these restraints, under, call it the pro-life position, the situation is the opposite.
	It doesn't give you a choice.
	It doesn't allow you to make the decision based on your own personal circumstances.
	It requires a woman to carry a fetus, the term, even if it's unwanted, even if she has too many children, even if she can't financially afford it, even if it would mean giving up her job and becoming destitute and dependent upon the state, which in my judgment is completely wrong.
	The pro-life position in essence turns women into reproductive slaves.
	In my opinion, that is completely wrong.
	We know that from the study of morality on which I've offered courses to assess what is the most offensible conception of morality.
	It boils down to the principle of always treating other persons with respect in particular.
	I'm never using another person merely as a means, merely as a means.
	There are all kinds of situations where employers and employees, doctors, patients, students, teachers, and so forth, use one another as means.
	The lawyer uses his client as a means to make a livelihood.
	The client uses the lawyer as a means to protect his legal rights.
	Businesses, they use their employees to produce their products and to make profits.
	Employees use the employers as a way to earn money and make a life for themselves.
	So, obvious examples of immoral attitude, immoral actions, therefore, include cases where persons are using other persons merely as means, and that would include murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping.
	Murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping.
	Think about it.
	You're using other people for your own benefit.
	You're not respecting them.
	So Aretha had it right.
	The principle of morality is R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
	And in my judgment, the pro-life position is not respectful.
	It's based upon a false conception that doesn't take into account the notion of personhood and the point at which primitive writes a tribute to the developing fetus, which yes, we all agree is going to become a living person at birth.
	And by the way, there's much misuse of the word baby because in terms of ordinary usage, proper usage, you're only talking about a baby after a fetus is born live.
	So we're not talking about baby killing except for this weirdo former governor of Virginia was advocating infanticide of killing babies after they were born, which is repulsive and every decent human being rejects.
	We're talking about having respect for women and the right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term, which is now at stake here, given the direction of the United States Supreme Court at present.
	We'll be right back.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	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 bull hordes 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. - Come on.
	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!
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	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.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at 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 already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	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.
	Hey, everybody.
	Welcome back.
	It is the Raw Deal.
	There's Jim.
	All right.
	Mitchell, thank you.
	Thank you.
	I was trying to get a cup of coffee, but I misjudged the time, so I knew I could count on you to fill in.
	Let's continue our discussion.
	Abortion has in the past been non-controversial.
	Here's a bit of history.
	It was only in 1821 that Connecticut passed the first state statute banning abortion in the United States.
	In 1868, abortion by itself was not legal before quickening in 27 of the then 37 states.
	Altogether, 30 of the 37 and 6 of the 10 U.S.
	territories had codified laws restricting abortion, along with the Kingdom of Hawaii, Well, abortion had once been common.
	Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.
	In the US itself, abortion was sometimes considered a common law offense before specific statutes were passed against it.
	In all states throughout the 19th and early 20th century, pre-quickening, quickening is a stage at which a fetus is Active in the uterus starts kicking and so forth, where you say the woman is so much aware of the fetus is developing and active.
	Abortions were always considered to be actions without lawful purpose.
	This meant if the mother died, the individual performing the abortion was guilty of murder.
	This aspect of common law regarded pre-quickening abortions as a type of inchoate felony.
	Negative liberty rights from common law do not apply in situations caused by consensual or voluntary behavior, which allowed for abortion of fetuses conceived in a consensual manner to be common law offenses.
	The majority opinion for Roe, authored in Blackmun's name, would later claim that criminalization of abortion did not have roots in the English common law tradition.
	One purpose of banning abortion was to preserve the life of the fetus.
	Another, to protect the life of the mother.
	Another, to create deterrence against future abortions.
	Another, to avoid injuring a mother's ability to have more children.
	Judges did not always distinguish between which purpose was more important.
	Rather than arresting the women, having abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate them To obtain evidence against the party doing the abortion, and this is an issue you're going to hear a lot about, that the anti-abortion laws are really forms of restriction on the practice of medicine by physicians.
	And these are laws that criminalize activities a physician may feel are medically appropriate to their patient.
	In other words, it could be said That the court is practicing medicine without a license.
	The members of our Supreme Court are not medical doctors, and even if some were, that would not mean they were entitled to preempt the judgment of actual physicians who are treating their own patients.
	And where I believe it's a really profoundly legally and morally wrong to restrict a woman's right, Where Roe, of course, maintains that in the first trimester, restrictions on abortion are not permissible.
	In the second, only restrictions on how abortions are performed.
	But in the third, abortions are precluded.
	They're illegal except to save the life or the health of the mother.
	So that an abortion in the third trimester, even under Roe and Casey, would be murder Because we now have a person, as of the end of the second trimester, at the attainment of viability, and therefore that person has this primitive right to life, absent conflicting with the overriding rights of the mother, if it's going to adversely affect her health or her life.
	Now, the vast majority of abortions, by the way, Are done early on, very few extend to the third trimester.
	That's the exception rather than the rule.
	And of course, a very gruesome idea of killing a baby after it's born, advocated by this lunatic former governor of Virginia as a form of infanticide ought to be universally condemned.
	That would be, in my judgment, murder under any sense.
	Any proper sense.
	You not only have a person who's being deliberately killed, but it is wrongful, it's illegal in most places that he advocated as a matter of freedom of speech.
	But in my judgment, that would be a horrific law.
	By 1971, incidentally, elective abortion on demand was effectively available in Alaska, California, Washington, D.C., the state of Washington, Hawaii, and New York.
	Some women traveled to jurisdictions where it was legal, though not all could afford to, a point I've made already.
	When you look at the stage of embryogenesis, in other words, how we go through the stage of the merging of the sperm and the ovum to create the zygote, then you have these early stages of the embryo.
	We're really just talking about masses of cells.
	Some entertain the fantasy that from conception you have what looks like a little tiny person, but that's just absurd.
	That's not scientific.
	That's fantasy.
	And indeed, you have various stages, including, by the way, on days 36, 37, 38, 39, six times seven is 42, six weeks.
	It doesn't even look like a person.
	It looks maybe more like a shrimp.
	And there are those who believe, I mean, I'm talking about experts in biology and evolution, Who believe that the various stages of the development of the fetus replicate or represent the stages in the evolution of the human species, that each individual organism goes through stages that were actually counterparts of stages in evolution of the human species.
	So what then are we to say about the consequences?
	The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a publication for Faculty at colleges and universities and those who are interested in developments in higher education has a very mixed track record.
	For example, after I spoke in Chicago in early 2006, even prior to Alex Jones American Scholars Conference that would occur in June, I was being attacked as a professor of doom with a big photograph talking about 9-11 as having been an inside job.
	The Chronicle was not interested in assessing the facts any more than the court was here in Wisconsin about assessing the facts about my claim and whether it was well substantiated that Sandy Hook had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, even though I had the FEMA manual.
	I mean, it's just stunning.
	And here, if you look into 9-11, you can find already from facts I've been elaborating here in relation to my conversation about Norman Mineta.
	We have the Twin Towers being blown apart in every direction, destroyed from the top down, being converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
	This could not have been done by 19 Islamic hijackers or by Osama bin Laden.
	Who in fact was our man in Afghanistan.
	He was instrumental in getting stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujahideen that they used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes.
	And if I did not already observe earlier.
	He was an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman, visited in a hospital in Dubai by an official from the agency shortly before his death in Afghanistan from his medical maladies.
	It's tough to get those dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
	Reported locally and obituaries and then Fox News and CNN picked up on it and it published articles still available online online last time I looked 26 December 2001 Osama bin Laden is dead.
	Barack Obama, however, found it politically expedient to resuscitate the body and have him die a second time a decade later in a completely contrived phony raid on a compound in Pakistan in order to position himself for a triumphal re-election as the president who got the most wanted man in the world.
	But it was all bullshit.
	In fact, American politics is dominated by bullshit.
	That's why I'm such an unpopular guy, because I'm calling it out.
	I'm bringing together groups of experts to sort out what really happened, and we've discovered that in relation to 9-11, JFK, the moon landing, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando, Dallas, Parkland, Charlottesville, even Las Vegas, the official stories we've been told are bullshit.
	Almost 100% lies.
	They may have the locations right, but what they're telling us transpired is all nonsense, rubbish.
	It's a fantasy, which is why they've banned six of my books.
	Meanwhile, a daily briefing from the Chronicle.
	What an end to Roe could mean for colleges.
	Now, this is just for colleges.
	Monday, Politico published a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that reveals the court will very likely vote to overturn Roe v. Casey, landmark decisions that may abortion legal nationwide.
	An end to Roe—here are three potential effects it could have on colleges or faculty, staff, and students.
	One, an end to Roe could make staying in college harder.
	Lori Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Yellow Hammer Fund, a reproductive justice group serving Alabama, Mississippi, and other southern states, told the Chronicle she's worried about everyone who will not be able to get abortions when many states outlaw them.
	Not everybody is going to drop out of school because they're pregnant, she said, but I know it's very hard to go to school while you are pregnant.
	Second, it could affect abortion training in medical schools.
	Pamela Merritt, who leads Medical Students for Choice, is worried about doctors in training who want to learn how to provide safe abortions for their patients, but don't know whether their medical schools will teach abortion care at all.
	She said her organization will be pressing medical schools to be clear on whether they provide abortion training so students can make informed decisions.
	Let me add, safe abortions was another key issue motivating Nationwide legalization of abortion.
	Too many women in the past died in agony from back alley abortions, many of which were performed using coat hangers.
	Yes, it was that crude.
	Women in a desperate plight of having an unwanted pregnancy in their own personal circumstances are going to exert every effort to obtain an abortion, even though rather large numbers of women died in agony from having a perforated uterus by a clumsy abortion performed using a coat hanger or other object.
	That is So grossly disrespectful of women not respecting their rights.
	And I regard this as a very good reason for retaining Roe and Casey and keeping abortion legal.
	Remember, when abortion is legal, no one, no one is required to have an abortion.
	If you don't want to terminate your pregnancy, my God, there's no law in the world that's going to force you to terminate your pregnancy.
	So it's symmetrical.
	It allows everyone to act in accordance with their own personal beliefs and their personal circumstances in consultation with their own family members and physician.
	The woman has that right to choose.
	If abortion is illegal, however, then women are turned into, as I would put it, reproductive slaves.
	They're forced to carry determined, unwanted fetus.
	And if I haven't mentioned already, Unwanted fetuses who grow up unwanted in families without a warm, nurturing environment tend to turn into juvenile delinquents and criminals on the street at great cost to society, which is well known to sociologists and criminologists and demographers.
	Meanwhile, number three from The Chronicle.
	It could heighten the red state disadvantage.
	Several states have trigger laws that will automatically ban most abortions if and when Roe is overturned.
	Such bans could discourage faculty members, staff, or out-of-state students from either staying at colleges in Republican-dominated states or choosing them.
	I think that's all absolutely right.
	So what is the most likely move, in my opinion?
	The Democrats, but also, in my opinion, responsible Republicans, because I regard this as a moral issue, not a political one.
	This is a moral issue.
	Should a woman who does not want to carry a fetus to term be nevertheless required to do so and thereby turned into a reproductive slave?
	In my opinion, the answer is emphatically no.
	So what can be done if the Supreme Court Now finds, in my opinion, wrongly that there is no constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose, which a past court found in the 14th Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, pass laws, pass laws.
	There are nationwide laws to permit abortion in all 50 states.
	Democrats called to eliminate the filibuster and codify Roe v. Wade into law.
	But they've got a problem with members of their own party mentioned from West Virginia and Sinema from Arizona over the filibuster.
	In fact, I do not believe this ought to require overriding the filibuster.
	I believe the filibuster is very, very important to the proper conduct of Uh, the legislative process in the Congress, but I most certainly also believe that a woman should have the right to choose.
	So here we seem to have a conflict between two principles, both of which I regard as extremely important.
	How will this be resolved?
	Democrat politicians are calling to eliminate the filibuster so the Senate can pass legislation to codify Roe v. Wade.
	The call comes following the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion indicating the court is prepared to overrule the landmark decision legalizing abortion.
	The filibuster is designed to prolong debate, delay or prevent a vote on a bill.
	Ending debate requires the agreement of three-fifths.
	Sixty, by number, senators are in today's congressional makeup.
	Ten Republicans would have to join the majority.
	Eliminate the filibuster and suddenly a bill to codify abortion rights into law requires 50 votes in a Senate divided 50-50, where Vice President Kamala Harris would then be given the opportunity to cast a tie-breaking vote and legalize abortion.
	CNN is reporting several Democrat candidates for Senate are calling for an end to the filibuster in response to the decision which has yet to be handed down.
	Democrats across the board are calling for the Senate to eliminate its filibuster so it can codify abortion rights in the federal law they write.
	Representative Tim Ryan vying for a Senate seat in Ohio, for example, said it's time to end the filibuster and fight like hell to make sure all Ohio families are free to make these critical decisions without interference from politicians in Columbus or Washington, D.C.
	President Biden has responded to the leaked draft by stating that the federal level We need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.
	House Speaker Pelosi concurred, pointing out Democrats in the House had already voted to codify Roe.
	The radical right-wing Supreme Court plan to uphold draconian abortion bans and overturn Roe v. Wade strikes at the heart of our freedom, health, and safety, she tweeted.
	House Democrats have already voted to codify Roe and will continue to defend its protections against Republican sabotage.
	Odd how this article from the Political Insider writes, the Supreme Court was never described as radical or right-wing when they were making other decisions on health during the pandemic.
	And where I am stunned how inconsistent the Democrats have been in protecting
	A woman's right to choose on the basis of my body, my choice, and yet have gone along with all the mandates and efforts to inoculate the country, never once affirming my body, my choice, even though, because this is an emergency medical procedure under international law, the Nuremberg Code, for example, no
	Experimental medical procedure may apply to any person without their informed consent, meaning they must know all the benefits but all the disadvantages, as well as the available alternatives.
	In this case, that means everyone who has offered the vaccine should have been informed that, for example, Pfizer has a list of some 1,245 adverse effects from their vaccination.
	The public was never informed about that.
	It's only emerged under FOIA requests, demands under the law that this is the case.
	Moreover, most of those who were proposed to take the VAX are mandated by their own companies or employers.
	We're not told that Ivermectin and HEQ as well as the monocolonial antibody treatment were available alternatives that actually have proven to be overwhelmingly more effective.
	Less invasive, more effective with virtually no side effects, virtually no side effects.
	So what would you prefer?
	To take a vax that has over 1,200 side effects or take some pills that are not known to have any?
	I mean, this is just stunning.
	So the question now becomes, who leaked Samuel Alito's draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade and why? - Right.
	Monday Politico reported five members of the court had privately voted to strike down Roe and Casey and end the constitutional right to an abortion.
	The five maintain their votes to strike down Roe.
	What's the opinion, if they maintain their vote, what's the opinion is announced likely in June, the immediate consequences of abortion will become illegal in about half of the U.S. states, an earthquake in American social and political life.
	The most consequential piece of news from Monday's leak.
	There's another monumental story, however, that was leaked to begin with from one of the most secretive bodies in the country.
	A draft, Supreme Court opinion, has never been leaked in full in history.
	There hasn't even been an advanced leak of an outcome since 1986.
	Only the justices themselves and a small clique of law clerks would have had access to the draft.
	So, shocking, because there are reasons why the court is normally able to maintain strict secrecy.
	Meanwhile, so who leaked Scenario 1?
	A progressive clerk leaked the opinion on their own.
	The Occam's Razor answer, meaning the simplest, that seems to be consistent with the evidence, once spreading quickly in conservative media, is that an angry clerk of one of the progressive justices leaked the opinion to prepare the public for the end of Roe, hoping to galvanize opposition against the decision, take a last desperate attempt to change one of the five votes to overturn Roe.
	This is a theory that has animated conservative media in the hours after the news practically described the leaker as a traitor to the country.
	Here's one from best-selling biologist Matt Walsh's tweet.
	January 6th was a stroll in the park compared to this.
	attempt to completely unbend and legitimize the rule of law and cite violence and chaos, and potentially plunge the nation into civil war.
	January 6th was a stroll in the park compared to this.
	It's not even close.
	Bar Ingram described the leak in apocalyptic terms, called it the end of the court.
	Argued Chief Justice Robert needed to enlist the FBI to unmask the leaker.
	Here's a tweet.
	Laura Ingraham says it's incumbent for Justice Roberts to drag every law court before him and say, give me your phone.
	Or the FBI, give me your phones.
	We want all your accounts.
	We have to look at every device.
	According to this thinking, a progressive clerk would have been so desperate to try to prevent they would risk their entire professional career on a frantic gambit with virtually no chance of success.
	And that appears to be exactly what happened here.
	According to the report I've been given, Sonia Sotomayor has an Indian-American, not Native American, from India, who is a law clerk who appears to be the source of the leak.
	If a clerk was really trying to convince a facehitter, however, it seems this kind of attack might well have the opposite effect.
	If this was calculated as a gambit by a clerk, it seems like a poor one, but that appears to be exactly what happened.
	I'm going to open the lines to callers now afterwards.
	We can hardly have a more controversial subject.
	So do your best to keep your emotions intact and give us your reasoning.
	the number 540-352-4452, 540-352-4452.
	I'm going to try to make it a cup of coffee and be back now before the break is over, but Mitchell is here.
	I'm so glad I have such a terrific producer, who having his own show is indeed articulated on top of the issues, so I'm just as pleased as punched to have him here.
	We'll be right back and take your calls.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	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.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSedge.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.
	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 in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read America 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.
	Well, I remember it.
	We're glad to take your calls.
	The number 540-352-4452.
	Mitchell is standing by to get you on the air.
	I've been talking about the legal and moral aspects of abortion and why it appears to me the pro-choice position is the most defensible on legal and moral grounds.
	But I must say, this is a bombshell.
	I must talk about the politics now of what's happening.
	I have been confidently predicting that if we have anything resembling a fair election at the midterm, and mind you, I'm also predicting the Democrats are going to try to steal it, I think most likely by Discovering a new variant that's so serious.
	In fact, one theory I have is that in the mRNA injections is something that has a potential of being activated by 5G frequencies at a certain duration that causes blood vessels or blood corpuscles to burst and has all the symptoms of Marburg, where you're bleeding from every orifice, that they have this on their agenda that they can trigger it off, which of course would be completely horrific.
	In moving the country to be horrified, to be played again because it's manufactured, it's not natural, but this is all with people bleeding from every orifice.
	The idea of locking down the country, you know, might not receive a lot of opposition.
	And with locking down the country, reverting to drop boxes, mail-in ballots so they can seal the election all over again.
	We have the 2,000 mule hauls.
	The documentary is now playing in some 250 states.
	I've already spoken with some who have seen the documentary, though I myself have not as yet.
	But they say it's overwhelming.
	It's jaw dropping.
	That there was a vast number of individuals hired, and it appears by Zuckbox, by Mark Zuckerberg, putting up some $400 million to hire them to stuff the Dropboxes with fake ballots.
	And they were doing it in vast numbers.
	There were 1,100 of these activists stuffing Dropboxes in Philadelphia alone.
	But where none of this was legal, none of this was authorized, but they have because to be paid, they had to take selfies of themselves performing these acts.
	There's a vast digital record of this happening and a whole lot of it is shown there.
	The actual number of mules was overwhelmingly greater than 2000.
	When you have 1,100 in Philadelphia alone, there may have been 100,000.
	I mean, how many mules can you get when you got 400 million blocks coming from Mark Zuckerberg?
	I mean, this is just disgusting.
	If you want a nice example of someone who's a traitor to the United States, Mark Zuckerberg is a great candidate.
	Now, Mitchell is commenting, of course, here about this decision that since assuming it goes forward, that it would revert more power to the states.
	And that's most certainly true.
	But I myself believe on a basic issue like this.
	And remember, the Blackmun court described this as as a fundamental right.
	This is so basic as a fundamental right.
	That it would even require, you know, a higher legal standard to even challenge it.
	I think that decision was rightly made and that it ought to be maintained.
	But clearly now we're going to have a patchwork quilt where those who reside in some states, blue states, are going to have this right.
	Those who reside in other states, presumably red states, will not have this right.
	If they want to exercise, obtain an abortion, they may have to travel to another state.
	That's not going to be a tremendous inconvenience disrupting their life.
	It requires a lot of planning, coordination.
	You may have to find someone to look after your kids, maintain your family, get time off from work.
	It's going to cost you to get transported.
	You've got to make the arrangements for the doctor.
	You've got to pay for the abortion.
	In my opinion, that's an imposition that's unfair, grossly unfair, and that under the Constitution, that should not be the case.
	So I do not support the idea of restricting abortion in the red states.
	I think it's wrong.
	And I'll tell you right now, the political consequences are likely to be enormous.
	I believe that even though I have been here before anticipating a complete bloodbath for the Democrats during the midterm election, assuming the election is fair, and there's no guarantee that's going to be the case, that it would make a powerful impact, that a whole lot of women might vote Democrat who otherwise would have voted Republican just because of this specific issue.
	And I could not blame them.
	This is going to be a tough call, even for me, because I believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose.
	But the Democrat Party has gone totally corrupt, totally ideological.
	They're actually involved in the process of destroying America.
	So if there is no America, we won't even be in a position to change the law or determine who should or should not be allowed to have an abortion.
	I expect I'm going to stick with the Republicans and do my best to get these Democrats out of power because transforming the Congress where I've been predicting the Republicans taking 100 seats away from the Democrats in the House and three or four seats in the Senate.
	I will now adjust my prediction, assuming this goes forward and Roe is overturned.
	And it could be a massively impactful.
	It might mean that the Republicans only take 50 seats instead of 100, or it might mean they only take a few dozen.
	I do believe this will not be sufficient to allow the Democrats to retain control of Congress.
	And therefore, I believe the whole, you know, contrivance about Marburg, this bleeding for Mary Orpheus and all that is A highly probable scenario to go back to the drop boxes, but the public's going to be enraged because all this 2000 mules as a tip of the iceberg just shows that the theft of the election was on a gargantuan scale.
	Even in the trailer, you see some parties who were skeptical before they saw the video and then are completely convinced that it's jaw dropping, that it's just mind bending.
	The extent to which the election was stolen.
	And remember, the Democrats were telling us this was the safest, most secure election in American history.
	Total bullshit.
	Just as they're claiming January 6 was some kind of insurrection.
	Total bullshit.
	Just as they're still promoting the VAX is to protect the country.
	Total bullshit.
	We've got to get these liars, phonies, and fakes out of Washington, D.C.
	They are ruining the country, not least of all by the massive influx of migrants over the border.
	And let me add, if you haven't thought it through, many have observed how many of those who are pouring over our border are young, physically fit, military-age men.
	I understand they're already being given military training.
	They're already being brought into the U.S.
	military.
	They're already being promised with citizenship.
	Because if you can transform the military, and the VAX has had the effect of driving out everyone who had a functioning brain who understood the threat represented by the VAX, that they couldn't serve their country if they were dead or incapacitated.
	So they're leaving the military instead of taking the VAX, which would be the right thing to do.
	Being replaced by these migrants who have no history of the United States and they've not been American citizens.
	They're going to be perfectly willing to fire on Americans.
	That's what's going on.
	They want to reconstruct the American military, not to preserve and protect the American people, but to kill us in vast numbers for protesting against a tyranny that is now dominating the entirety of the United States.
	This is as disgusting as it comes.
	Mitchell, if I read it right, is giving me some additional notes that each of these mules was making like around $4,000.
	They were being paid for every fake ballot they dropped, and I believe it was on the order of $20 for every fake ballot, and they were very energetic.
	You have the same mule going to dozens of different counties.
	You have the same mules just dumping massive, massive, massive numbers of ballots into these boxes, and it's all documented.
	I'm not talking about a theory.
	I'm talking about a fact, the fact of the theft of the 2020 election.
	It was egregious.
	It was wholesale.
	It was the equivalent of an insurrection because it was really reversing, changing the democratically elected government of the United States.
	And the Democrats are simply accusing the Republicans of the very same foul crimes of which they themselves are guilty, have no doubt about it.
	Just as January 6th was completely contrived to create a fabricated pretext they could use against Donald Trump and any other Democrat who spoke out in support of protesting against the theft of the election.
	This was a very clever scheme.
	And Nancy Pelosi was a big dog in operating this, so I'm certain Barack Obama was instrumental, not to mention George Soros and the Rothschild family who control Obama.
	Obama controls Biden, and Nancy Pelosi controls the Capitol Police.
	So we know there were vast numbers of FBI agents involved in this, Ray Apps being an especially egregious example.
	That we have James, a brother of John Sullivan, explained how John had led 226 Antifa members dressed as Trump supporters into the Capitol to stir up the pot.
	Donald Trump, speaking at the Ellipse, was a mile and a half away.
	How he didn't complete his speech until 1-11.
	That he didn't incite his followers.
	He told them to be peaceful in their protest.
	Anyhow, there was no insurrection.
	No one who entered the Capitol, and many were just strolling through to see what it was like inside, which one would presume is a right of every American citizen, had any expectation of changing the government.
	But what happened during the election of 2020 was actually the equivalent of an insurrection.
	It was the theft of democracy by the Democrats.
	By the Democrats.
	Have no doubt about it.
	By the way, abortion was not an issue for the founding fathers.
	Mitchell's making that point as well.
	He's absolutely right.
	Abortion was simply considered routine, a woman's right.
	You know, you had an unwanted pregnancy, a family decision.
	Women had fewer rights in the old days, but the families would make these decisions as families, and there was no legal aspect to it.
	None at all.
	Mitchell, I'd be very pleased in the absence of other callers for you to join the conversation.
	Give me your thoughts about the legality, the morality and the politics of what's going on here.
	Well, Jim, it's it's it's not a how should I say it's not directed in the Constitution.
	I believe for the simple fact that The founding fathers would have never even considered the, how should I say it, the public wholesale abortion industry.
	Maybe it's a good way to put it.
	Of course, a lot of this is coming from Margaret Sanger and her eugenics roots.
	I don't see abortion myself.
	Um, as being in the constitution, I believe it should be deferred to the states.
	And, you know, this is one of the things that has been a trend really since, um, since the civil war, when the states rebelled against the federal government, the federal government, um, uh, was a large war and, uh, many, many, many people died.
	And the state side lost and the federalist side won.
	And, you know, we've we saw this evolution of federalism within our United States government.
	Federalism meant for for patriotic United States, the United States.
	Today, federalism In its form is more of an arm of the New World Order.
	And, you know, I see the Federalist Society judges that are trying to strip out the the socialism that was instituted by activist courts in the past.
	You know, this is a state's rights issue to me.
	Personally, you know, I believe in the heartbeat bill.
	And, you know, it's always cheaper to have a condom.
	It's always cheaper to have birth control.
	But that can fail.
	And, you know, it's, you know, it's like risk assessment, you know, is she hot enough?
	Do I want her enough?
	Is this thing broke or not?
	You know, who knows what goes through guys minds when they're half drunk, too.
	But, you know.
	In the end, you know what the abortion abortionists have come to.
	Is to have a literally have an abortion.
	This was part of the debate.
	I had played part of a debate this morning on my show where somebody was asking a sponsor of a bill and I believe it was California at what point in the third trimester would an abortion be?
	Um, a legal, uh, a legal option.
	If a doctor signed off on said, well, it's the, the mental health of the, of the, um, mother.
	And, um, the, in the end, the woman really, she didn't want to say because it was literally, he had to narrow it down and it's like asking Dr. Fauci a question.
	And the guy actually said, look, the woman's about to give birth.
	Her cervix is dilated and all of a sudden she decides to wants to have an abortion and kill the baby.
	And that was OK.
	Well, I certainly don't think that was OK, Mitchell.
	I mean, I'm just saying it was OK in the minds of the of the people that push abortion today.
	You know, we we have to understand that
	Things have changed and you know there's been a lot of changes you know in the medical and health industries and many of the the reasons you know babies are not viable you know is because we can we can treat those things now I guess is what I'm trying to say and most adults that I know over the age of 65 and 70
	If they didn't have their daily medicine, their daily drugs, well, that might be half of adults today, that were prescribed to them, you know, they would die.
	You know, if a diabetic doesn't get an insulin, he's not viable outside the womb.
	So, you know, the medical discussions, you know, is off the table for me.
	That doesn't matter.
	The only thing that really matters to me is it's not the government's business.
	It's not the government's choice.
	It's your choice.
	And whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, it doesn't matter what your religion is.
	You could worship Timbuktu as far as I care.
	It's your decision and the government and all the nannies and all the politicians and everybody else needs to stay out of your life.
	And that's what it all boils down to me.
	I'm I'm wholly against abortion.
	But we're supposed to live in a free nation, and that's the most important thing.
	If we can if if we are.
	Divided so much.
	That we don't believe in the laws of the country and the Constitution and the legal laws that are passed.
	Not a lot of this other mumbo-jumbo stuff government agencies do.
	But if we believe in the political parties instead.
	You know, if we put them as the defenders of our rights and our civil liberties and not the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, not the law of the land, we have misplaced trust into a political body and taken it from what we should trust is a piece of paper, you know, an idea, founding fathers, the documents that this nation is founded on.
	And, you know, I think that's the biggest Overall, in politics, that's the biggest failure that's going on, you know.
	And this debate about abortion is like Operation Outrage for the liberal left.
	The only thing they have is outrage.
	They've already had riots on the West Coast where police officers' windows and stuff were broke.
	Autonomous zones being set up in Portland or Seattle.
	I'm not sure which.
	Across from the federal courthouse again.
	It really is.
	It's.
	It seems to be a combined outrage exercise by a. Machine.
	Not grass roots.
	Not a bunch of people getting together because they're upset, but because people are on a list and all of a sudden everybody makes a phone call and then they all get together.
	And, you know, and there are sometimes, you know, paychecks happen.
	But, you know, I really see this as just another level of threat to our country, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah, that's very good.
	Very good, Mitchell.
	I'm so grateful that you are my producer, that you are here and that you can comment on these issues with a great deal of knowledge and perception.
	I tremendously appreciate it.
	Give me your assessment of the politics.
	Assuming the court goes forward with this decision, what is your assessment of its impact?
	Riots all summer.
	It's going to be the summer of 2020, right?
	Or is it 2019?
	The 2019 riots all over.
	I think it was.
	And 2020.
	Yeah.
	With George Floyd and all that.
	Except this, it's going to be this outrage machine is going to push abortion.
	Because to energize the left base, you know, they have to have these Here's one for you.
	A straw fetus argument instead of a straw man.
	But now, you know, you hear Elizabeth Warren saying, oh, they're going to go for a racial marriage ban and then they're going to go for, you know, another ban on interstate travel, I think was another one they mentioned.
	And it was just this this ludicrous extension of unrealistic and out of this world ideas that liberals are essentially planting into the minds of their followers.
	Because, you know, well, when you're a butthurt liberal and you're outraged, you know, you're you're somewhat like a dangerous animal that's lost its mind.
	You can't be too rational if you're a college student and it says Trump on the sidewalk in chalk and, you know, you're having a fit.
	You know, if a person is that unstable, you know, it's so easy to get them whipped up.
	And don't forget, you know, we still live under this, you know, this mask Uh, Milgram Stanford prison project, this mass psychosis, and then the meme mimetic, um, theology thing or whatever it is that follows that people just follow the crowd and they follow these groups that they've been following.
	So it, it really is.
	Um, you can have, uh, essentially a small army of, um, 20,000 people nationwide.
	And, you know, you can have essentially riots in 10 different states, and it'll appear that there's a half a million people there.
	It's just the way the chaos erupts today.
	It's, it's coming.
	You aren't going to be able to stop it.
	The only thing that will slow it down is the price of diesel fuel, because a lot of the trucks and a lot of the buses that the protesters will ride around on It will require diesel fuel, which is getting ready to spike again.
	It's somebody posted on Twitter, a guy in West Virginia.
	He was $6 and something for diesel fuel in Pittsburgh.
	Not on the left, not on the left coast, not in California, in Pittsburgh.
	Wow.
	In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
	That's just shocking, Mitchell.
	That's just shocking.
	Well, I think that this is going to cause an earthquake across the country.
	I cannot see how riots in the streets during another summer is going to be beneficial politically to the Democrats.
	Absolutely.
	It will energize the base.
	Think about it as a weapon.
	And if you point it the right direction, it works effectively.
	Now, you could shoot yourself in the foot, but then you can blame the mom and you can claim deniability.
	That's how I look at it.
	God bless you.
	Well, Mitchell, thanks so much.
	I honestly think that the country is sick and tired of all the rioting, the looting, the arson.
	And if it were to happen again, there'd be tremendous outpouring of outrage.
	That would reverse political benefits that the Democrats are going to derive from the court making such an irresponsible decision.
	The methods they're using to reverse it being completely unacceptable and undemocratic, it's a form of extortion.
	And if you don't change the law to our liking, even though I agree that the change would be a desirable change, you can't extort the nation by conducting riots and looting and arson.
	That is totally unacceptable.
	Let me thank you all for being here today, where we've devoted ourselves to this rather extraordinary development.
	The consequences have yet to be seen.
	Thanks for being here.

▲