Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:05

The Raw Deal (6 May 2022) featuring Mitchell Bupp

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm so sorry, Mitchell.
	I went to grab a cup of coffee and then I had things set up wrong.
	I'm glad to be here.
	We got so much to cover.
	It's pretty fascinating stuff, all in all.
	Discovered a video about Ruth Bader Ginsburg talking about why she would oppose Roe v. Wade.
	And it appears to be an outline for the conservative justices, Mitchell.
	I think that's rather stunning.
	Why don't why don't we go with that for openers?
	Oh, OK.
	You want me to play it on this end?
	Yeah, please play it.
	OK, here, hang on.
	I got a chair.
	OK, here we go.
	Always it was going to be argued as a privacy case, not as a women's rights case.
	Ginsburg has offered two critiques of Roe.
	One of them is that the court went too far.
	It should have been much more modest in what it invalidated.
	It should have validated the Texas statute and not gotten into all the other questions that the opinion got into about the first trimester and second trimester and when the state can regulate abortion and when it can't regulate abortion.
	It should have simply said it's unconstitutional for the state to prohibit abortion except to save the life of the mother and we don't decide anything else about what other restrictions might or might not be constitutional.
	Leave that for another day.
	Interestingly, given that it was seven Republican-appointed justices and three of the four Nixon justices, was extremely activist, right?
	This was a very activist opinion.
	And so that's one criticism.
	And the other criticism is that the court wrote an opinion that was less focused, indeed not at all focused, on what Justice Ginsburg believes should have been the core issue, which is the rights of women to control their own lives.
	And instead writes this opinion in much more ways that are removed from that as the core question.
	Because I know one of the things you've said many times and recently is that it mattered that Roe went as far as it did in a negative sense.
	It's not just that as a matter of taste, you would have rather seen the court be incremental rather than bold.
	We have paid a huge price because the court made the decision.
	To be that activist, that aggressive, that bold in taking on the entire issue of abortion as opposed to writing a much narrower opinion with a much more limited effect.
	I want you to talk a bit about how you see the effect of the Roe decision on the polity and on what's happened in this country over the last 40 years.
	This decision, this most undemocratic decision by nine justices who nobody elected, to make policy for the country that charge that what a great organizing tool it is you have a name you have a symbol where we weighed you can aim at that this decision was made not in the ordinary democratic process
	but by these nine unelected men so jim well you know mitchell i mean that's really pretty bizarre
	because in essence ruth madrid ginsburg is saying that the supreme court of the united states does not have the right to interpret how the constitution applies to contemporary society which is simply absurd in the first place So saying it's an undemocratic decision would imply that any ruling by the Supreme Court is undemocratic, but it's part of our
	Try camera organization, a government where we have a legislative branch that passes the law, the executive branch and enforces them in a judiciary that interprets it.
	So that argument is equally wrong.
	And in the third place, and this is affects all of the above, I believe that a decision That leaves is this this ride up to every individual woman to determine for herself in her own unique circumstances whether or not to bring the fetus to term.
	I was rightly decided because it creates the opportunity for choice.
	It does not require.
	Uh, a pregnant woman to have an abortion.
	If a pregnant woman wants to carry the term, that's of course you're right as it should be.
	But it also gives a right to a pregnant woman who does not want to carry the term.
	The option to terminate the pregnancy, which in my opinion is also right.
	If you have a laws that require women to care unwanted pregnancies to term.
	That is, in my opinion, a form of reproductive slavery.
	It is actually grossly immoral because it involves using the woman merely as a means to produce children, and that is fundamentally wrong.
	What I see as the great virtue of Roe v. Wade is that it emphasized the role of personhood.
	No student of biology would want to deny that from the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, the development into the zygote, then the embryo, then through the various fetal stages, that what we have going on here is the development of an entity that would become A human being would become typically, as the word would have it, a baby born live.
	And the word is often frequently misapplied because it only properly apply when a baby is born live.
	But I will add this qualification as I see it.
	Roe used the end of the second trimester as a dividing line where abortions were Unrestrictedly permissible during the first trimester.
	And may I add the overwhelming majority of abortions occur during the first trimester and then during the second that the states have the right to regulate how abortions are performed.
	But at the end of the second trimester, the developing entity acquires personhood, which entails certain legal and moral rights, most especially legal rights.
	Which in the wake of Roe meant a primitive right to life, to not have its life taken unless there were overriding rights by the mother to preserve her life or her health, but that for any other right, the termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester qualifies as murder.
	Now, we know murder is properly defined as a deliberate killing of a person that is illegal.
	And we know there are numerous circumstances under which the deliberate killing of another person is not illegal.
	Soldiers in the performance of combat, police in the performance of their duty, civilians in self-defense.
	The state has even institutionalized deliberate killing of persons by way of capital punishment.
	So it's it's the question of personhood that's at stake here.
	And if if, of course, if abortion is legal, then even in the third trimester, if it is to save the life or the health of the mother, it would not constitute murder.
	And during the first two trimesters, It doesn't constitute murder because it's not a person and it hasn't attained those rights.
	It's rather as it were a special kind of property of the pregnant mother and she's certainly entitled protection of that property, but she has the right under row to to terminate if that is her preference because of her circumstance in life and there are innumerable sets of circumstances under which.
	A woman might perfectly reasonably conclude that is the right thing to do.
	So to me, it's simply appalling that you have three nominees appointees by Donald Trump, who, by the way, did not used to be a pro-life guy.
	He was originally most of his career pro-choice.
	And of course, since I am also pro-choice, I thought his earlier view Was more defensible rationally than his later view, but when he appointed three justices to the court when they were very thoroughly interrogated, there was no indication that they favored undoing the Roe precedent, which, since it was passed in 1973, has now stood as the law of the land for 50 years.
	I regarded Roe as a great advance in women's rights.
	And that it enabled women to take control of their own bodies in ways they were not able before, and to circumvent back alley abortions, which led to miserable deaths for a whole lot of pregnant women who did not want to be in that condition.
	And because abortions were illegal in their states, resorted to coat hangers and the like, persons who were actually not medical experts to perform Which frequently, well often, perforated the uterus and led to an agonizing death.
	Why should anyone be subjected to that?
	It's just wrong, in my opinion.
	It's philosophically, intellectually, conceptually wrong to describe the developing fetus prior to the end of the six months.
	Termination is murder.
	That's just wrong.
	And moreover, Casey carried basically the same distinction over, but instead of talking about the end of the second trimester, talked about viability, which is a key notion here in my judgment as well.
	And I believe it was affecting Roe.
	Because viability is the capacity of the fetus to live in an extra uterine environment, to live outside the womb.
	I mean, if you have an entity, something of a woman's body that cannot exist outside of the womb, cannot live independent of the woman, then it would seem to me there's a strong argument to be made that not being independent cannot properly qualify as a person.
	And it seems to me that both Roe and Casey substantiate that the justices felt similarly about the status of personhood and there is in fact a convergence.
	Because the end of the second trimester is a stage at which viability occurs.
	So while they were formally different, the one talking about the end of the second trimester, the other about viability in terms of the stages of pregnancy, they coincide.
	And by the way, from the point of view of developmental biology, it's not a question of heart or brain function.
	It actually is a function of the development of the lungs to be able to process oxygen into the bloodstream to attain the state of viability.
	Although others have sought to champion a heart criterion or a brain criterion for when abortion should no longer be permissible, it seems to me the more appropriate standard is viability.
	That's saying a lot, Mitchell, and I know you have a different point of view, and I'm very, very pleased to have this opportunity for us to discuss it further.
	The floor is yours.
	OK, OK, well, let's first start that it's none of the federal government's business.
	The federal government is limited by the Constitution.
	If it's not basically expressly in the Constitution, it falls to the states.
	The federal government has spent 100 plus years.
	Stealing power from the states.
	I think we all can agree with that.
	And this is just another piece of judicial activism that has been stolen from the states.
	If we were to use the example of viability outside the womb, Jim, every diabetic would be dead.
	No diabetic can really manage their health without their medicine today.
	And, you know, withholding medicine is essentially what we're and medical treatment is what we're talking about to preemies and children that may survive an abortion.
	But, you know, to me, it's not even a question.
	It all falls back on the states.
	You know, this is an intrusion by the federal government where they really should not be sticking their nose at.
	That's how I view it.
	All of the other discussions and all of the other ideas and all other stuff, you know, we have to understand that, you know, there is one of the recent polls, it's 19 to 20% of people who believe in abortion, believe in absolutely unrestricted abortion up to the day of birth.
	And in fact, there's advocates that believe that children could be essentially euthanized up to the age of three, which is complete lunacy.
	This is another reason why I believe that it should be put back into the states You know, as the lawyers, they were at the Chicago Law School in Chicago and where they were talking with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	And, you know, because they came in and played the heavy, it essentially gives people this idea that the federal government is the king and queen maker of everything judicial.
	And it it is not and it can't be just because of the wording and the rights and everything the way the Constitution reads.
	You know, if we were to are to be a constitutional republic with basically 50 many nations that are bound together in basically a trade and security pact of the federal government, then.
	Once we move to where a federal government is essentially the controlling force of everything, you know, that's where we lose our constitutional republic, because it's really then no longer a constitutional republic.
	You know, we have to have these divisions of state powers and people won't like it because I can imagine, you know, how everybody felt as Jim Crow laws were getting thrown out by the Supreme Court.
	And there were probably people saying, I've had that law for 50 years where blacks couldn't marry whites.
	You know, I mean, these are the ideas of the old South.
	These are the same arguments that are being made today by people that believe that abortion is codified in the Constitution.
	And once again, it's the it's the ass backwards thinking.
	The Constitution restricts the government.
	The Constitution doesn't restrict the people, period.
	You know, and that's why California is already making plans to be the nation's abortion center on the West Coast, basically, and you can't stop interstate travel.
	And, you know, that's the whole thing about it.
	This is how a free constitutional republic should work.
	But we have so many, so much of the politics has taken the ideas That people have about government and where our laws come from and how they're how they're applied equally across the land.
	It seems that people believe that their faith and their laws and their ideas reside in their political parties and their ideologies tied to such not in the basis of law, not in the basis of the Constitution, where they should be.
	Where they can't be just willy-nilly to the political wind.
	And, you know, I just see this as a mass distraction.
	I mean, we have to talk about the abortion issue.
	Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is getting ready to be possibly indicted.
	It won't be long.
	Michael Sussman's trial starts next week.
	The Hunter Biden scandal is also heating up.
	You know, Ukraine is, you know, is also on the board.
	So, you know, with all the inflation and everything else, people need a local distraction to keep them focused.
	Or maybe it's just so the media can have a a something to obsess about and block out, you know, everything else.
	You know the Michael Sussman case that's getting ready to start here very soon.
	If he doesn't accept the plea deal.
	The judge has told the Clintons and the Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS and others, Mark Elias, that he will look at all of the emails.
	That they claim are Privileged.
	So, you know, they have to really have a massive distraction right now.
	That's one of the biggest things that's going on.
	And to energize the base for the midterms.
	I mean, this is a it's a really good strategy, but they're really.
	Gosh, they're really they're they're really screwing it up when they're going to riot in front of the Supreme Court justice houses.
	I don't know if you're aware of the marches that are planned that this group, Ruth, what's her name is, Ruth sent us.
	They have doxed the Supreme Court justices, their addresses, and are actually planning to have marches in front of their houses and in their neighborhoods this weekend.
	Um, so it's, yeah, it's a George Floyd intimidation fee, you know, all over again type.
	So it's a bad, it's a sad thing for politics and law, Jim, that's all.
	Well, Mitchell, you've made a very impassioned argument, and I agree with a whole lot of it.
	I am no more enthusiastic about a tyrannical Overreaching government, then we're the founding fathers.
	We can go all back to the Declaration of Independence about the right of the people to overthrow a government when it no longer serves the interests of the people.
	The question here, and I also agree with you, the Constitution primarily functions as a constraint on government.
	But in this case, the application of the law frequently goes through the state governments, and what they're doing is inhibiting the states from denying a woman a right that they regard, certainly the Blackmun Court in Roe, as a fundamental right of women, which they derived from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
	Now, while it's of course the case that the word abortion per se does not occur in the Constitution, The equal administration of the laws, it seems to me, and the court requires they be uniform with regard to fundamental rights.
	And the court ruled that in this instance, the laws of the various states were not uniform in relation to fundamental rights and that that needed to be corrected.
	I cannot find a single argument for Forcing a woman to carry a term in unwanted fetus that makes it out to be somehow democratic.
	I find it incredible that Ginsburg used that argument.
	And of course, I find it incredible that you have this conservative wing repudiating Roe on the basis of arguments parallel to those made by Ginsburg because they were not good arguments.
	And if anyone thinks that half the American population ought to be forced into carrying a fetus to term, it's well been said, Mitchell, that if men could become pregnant, abortion would be our number one right.
	It would have been in the First Amendment, for example.
	But men can become pregnant.
	Yeah, don't wait now.
	Come on Mitchell Mitchell.
	Let's not get into the lunatic stuff.
	OK, we can save that for later.
	The point is we're coming.
	We're coming up to a break and I want to make some points before we hit it, which is that.
	The court has a responsibility to interpret the Constitution in terms of how it applies to contemporary society.
	It is not a fossilized, but it is a living document.
	This is why you have all the history of cases in the application of the court.
	It would be impossible, even preposterous, to contemplate anticipating every variation and set of circumstances that may attend particular actions that take place under the law, which is why case law is so important.
	It yields results that, when properly administered or applying the law, To the distinctive set of circumstances represented by that case, and it seems to me of necessity, therefore, we're going to have lots of issues.
	I mean, there's nothing about automobiles, cars and all that in the Constitution either, but obviously it would be silly to say that the Constitution doesn't have application.
	To the lawful ownership and use of automobiles in society when it runs the risk of harming others.
	So I agree 100%.
	Primarily those laws are state laws.
	And I agree with that.
	Mitchell, I think some of your claims represented straw man's exaggerated positions that don't follow from Roe, but which are things to worry about.
	And I share those worries of an overarching government that we do not want that.
	But in my opinion, if we're talking about a fundamental right, which the court found derivative of the 14th Amendment, Then the ruling, it seems to me, is impeccable in terms of the role of the court with regard to the states.
	On a whole host of other issues, I would agree with you 100% about the preeminence of the states in application.
	And indeed, one of the issues we'll return to after the break is a new piece that the American people must reallocate power to the states.
	And it's very much Attuned to your concerns, but as I say, I would insist when it comes to fundamental rights that the court has a role to play here and that it has abdicated this role by repudiating Roe just as it abdicated its role in relation to the election of 2020 by refusing to take the Texas suit that represented gross abuses of the law by five key states and gave the election to Biden.
	We'll be right back with Mitchell after this break.
	We'll be right back.
	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.
	It 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.
	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.
	Give SanFo.com money.
	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, oh. oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.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, Zero Hedge has now published a piece that seems to me very much on the side of allocating or recognizing the powers of the states.
	It's even entitled, The American People Must Reallocate Power to the States.
	So let's take a look at what is said here and then invite your comments, Mitchell.
	It's authored by Richard N. Reinisch II via Real Clear Books.
	When American citizens look to Washington D.C., they find much to be disappointed in and even less to believe in.
	The fundamental problem is the federal government has, through its regulatory and spending powers, usurped much of the governing authority for the republic.
	However, for reasons both predictable and lamentable, it has failed to govern well for decades, with policy breakdowns occurring across the board.
	Peter Shuck observed in his book Why Government Fails So Often that most federal government policies cannot pass a transparent cost-benefit test.
	But this dysfunctional government results from size and scope.
	from the federal government vastly exceeding the competency scale that our Constitution attempted to establish.
	There is no manifest line in the Constitution that guides the distribution of power between the federal government and the states.
	In the Federalist Papers, Publius argues that the question will be decided by citizens about where to place power, essentially where to draw the line, and their judgment will turn on competency and administration.
	This process inevitably will be a deliberative one, influenced by elections, arguments, and results.
	So, if so, we should record that federal spending is now so large and so encompassing that it swallows the ability of the states to be self-governing and accountable to their citizens.
	This has occurred through ever-expanding federal grants in age.
	These programs should be called for the restoration of constitutional order and its commitment to a self-governing people.
	As Philip Hamburger argues in his new book, Purchasing Submission, the federal government can impose laws and rules on the states through the so-called spending power.
	The constitutional authority of the government to act in this capacity is suspect, and its consequences go beyond the mere size of the expenditures.
	And yet, On federal spending, we're also facing real limits on government power with negative consequences in the form of inflation, chronic indebtedness, and lost economic growth.
	Our country even faces potential catastrophic entitlement cuts since as a debtor nation.
	We continue to pay for present expenses with long-term debt instruments that we cannot afford to pay without drastic tax increases, spending cuts, or both.
	Of course, most of our state governments eagerly seek federal grants and funding.
	Even though such money comes with strings attached to Washington, most states can't leave well enough alone.
	What do they lose by taking the money?
	Funds that enable them to claim success for services to constituents whose real costs are not actually paid for by the state's taxpayers?
	The loss is that we as citizens no longer govern ourselves in an open and competitive fashion versus other states.
	This crucial discipline over state governments is circumvented.
	However, loss of self-government includes not only the states, Members of Congress no longer focus their undivided attention on what should be for them the more pressing objectives of national government.
	The federal government now gets wagged by the tail, turned on behalf of local concerns and interests that are served by grant programs.
	The failure here is to assume that federal spending in the form of grants to states and localities will produce better policy results than if local priorities have been decided by the actual authorities enacted by the state's voters.
	Thus, does a centralization of power and its enthronement of experts continue unabated as a prime mover in American government?
	What must happen for the proper liberation of the states to govern themselves in full That would entail ceasing federal grants through a constitutional amendment.
	This would save billions and crucially restore Congress to its proper function of deliberating national problems and issues.
	The American people must be able to locate authority and accountability of their state governments, which should be led by officials who are fully transparent with their citizens about the costs of programs that must be borne by actual citizens in the state.
	Not by federal taxpayers in an endless game of fiscal shape-shifting.
	In this way, the federal government would stick to its basic set of truly national issues.
	The state would become what they were meant to be, entities that govern close to the people, shaping the communities within their jurisdiction in ways that a national government cannot.
	Mitchell, I think you and I would, by and large, agree on that.
	Would you care to add your further thoughts?
	Well, yeah, Jim, absolutely we.
	I think I spoke earlier this week about this overreaching federalism and that that was seemed to be one of the things that was being pushed back on.
	What we have to remember is, you know, the House of Representatives isn't supposed to represent one out of 800,000 or people roughly OK.
	And it's so the dilution of the House of Representatives because, well, they didn't have room for more seats.
	So they just started, you know, expanding the pie, so to speak.
	We let me see.
	We live in a in a nation where the federal government, the federalists have taken so much power.
	That the money that is distributed is essentially, you know, quid pro quo state-style.
	The federal government doesn't give anything without an attachment of how it's supposed to be spent, what it's supposed to be spent on, and they want the results and everything else, okay?
	So, governments have to dance that game.
	It is essentially the same tactic used by Benito Mussolini, where he essentially gained control of the Italian government by first controlling the spending of the government and then essentially funded the ones he liked, eliminated the ones he didn't.
	And funded ones that were, how should we say it, loyal to him to eventually overthrow the government.
	I think that's one of the things that we have essentially seen here in the United States.
	That is, it's something that is right in front of our face, but we never realized it.
	That one of the ways we lost our country Was the states lost their power and the federal government became such an overreaching.
	A bunch of fascists, you know, because it's really the federal government is run by a conglomeration.
	Of corporate entities that have funded the Democrat and Republican parties.
	You know, and it's trickle down fascism, whatever you want to call it in your whatever you want to call it.
	We have seen the complete failure of our government and our political system in the last few years.
	Illegal immigration is one example.
	You know, it seems that states want to stand in the way of removing illegal immigrants.
	They don't want to give any help.
	However, at the same time, the Democrat Party is handicapping, handicapping, knee-capping, I guess you could call it, the effects of the border and trying to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
	You know, we have this, it's like a dual war.
	It's somewhat in the abortion issue.
	States can have very liberal abortion Um rules laws to almost border on the line of emphasized and some if they chose could have the you know, um, was it?
	Louisiana with outlaw abortion.
	Basically, if the Roe versus Wade remove reversal stands, immigration is just another place where Democrats and Federalists.
	They want all this power, but at the same time, they're using the power in the Constitution that the states have to undercut the federal government in that particular field.
	It really is, it can really get confusing.
	And because, you know, we have blurred these lines where the state's rights and where the federal rights are.
	Um, we we have serious problems.
	We have serious problems.
	You know, it's just it's a terrible thing.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, let me just ask.
	You've had a governor in your own state of Virginia who was a fanatic who was advocating infanticide.
	I thought he was morally repulsive.
	You're alluding to.
	Tremendous variation among the states which suggests that if this is a fundamental right and I'm emphasizing that because you may want to argue that it is not and therefore that the court was wrong.
	But if it were a fundamental right, do you not agree that the equal application of the law to all citizens would require uniformity across the states with respect to fundamental rights?
	That you couldn't have unrestricted abortion or even infanticide in some states and have no permissible abortion even to save the life or health of the mother and another?
	That that would be wrong if This is a fundamental right, which would suggest in turn the core of your argument.
	If you want this particular issue to devolve to the states, depends upon contending that it is not a fundamental right, and therefore the court did not have the authority to adjudicate for all the states.
	Your thoughts?
	I believe it's a fundamental state right.
	It's not a fundamental federal right.
	And I think that's the biggest difference here.
	And as you said, we can have, would they want Wisconsin, would Wisconsin want the federal government to institute the laws as they stand in California or some other, you know, real liberal state?
	You know, or vice versa as a conservative state.
	I don't believe that, you know, this isn't this is why states rights are so important that they they are the supreme rule law in that state.
	And the federal government is it's none of their right or business to essentially regulate abortion or Other things in those states.
	Liberals want the right to regulate illegal immigration in their own states.
	Don't they though, Jim?
	I mean, if you look at California, you look at liberal states, they want the right to regulate illegal immigration.
	They essentially tell the federal government, you can't even come into our state.
	You can't.
	We you can't.
	We won't report these people.
	We won't do that.
	Yet they'll stand there on they'll stand there in Washington, D.C.
	The states will demand that the federal government can't do anything for illegal immigration, yet the Democrat Party and the Federalist branch in the federal government, which has the responsibility to deal with illegal immigration, wherever an illegal immigrant is, as far as I'm concerned, But that's a state's rights issue that has gone back and forth.
	And if we're going to talk about all this stuff, we have to talk about it all in context.
	That's why I say it's a state's rights issue, you know, and a lot of this stuff has been such flipped around.
	Well, you're trading on an ambiguity when you talk about it being a fundamental states' right.
	That was not the question.
	The question is, is this a fundamental right that is embedded in the Constitution and derivatives thereof with regard Well, that's what I said.
	Of course it's not.
	It's not embedded in the Constitution.
	Well, you know, I could say to you, Mitchell, I could say to you, Mitchell, of course it is.
	In fact, it's far more obvious to me that that ought to be, that is properly viewed as a fundamental constitutional right, that it ought to be enjoyed by every citizen, just as the abolition of slavery is a fundamental right.
	Would you agree that states should not be permitted to reintroduce slavery or would you regard that as a fundamental right of the states too?
	No, I wouldn't regard that as a fundamental right of the states to reintroduce slavery.
	However, what I will say is that the person is free to have an abortion Anywhere in this country they choose, Jim.
	They can travel from Maine to California and there will be people who will gladly pay for people to do it.
	There will be anarchist recipes just as they have with the horse ulcer medicine that you can get at your local farm store that will introduce And abortion.
	You cannot stop.
	It's just like trying to stop someone from printing an illegal gun.
	You can't stop it.
	You know, abortion is as old as prostitution, as old as sex, as old as everything, Jim.
	And you're never going to stop it.
	But what we can do is we can take the ill-placed powers from the federalist government and give them to the states so the states and the citizens within those states can determine the laws regarding whatever it may be in their states and not
	have the federal government essentially come in as the king, as emperor, and as ruler. - Would you agree hypothetically that if the right to an abortion and as ruler. - Would you agree hypothetically that if the right to an abortion falls within the scope of the right to privacy, it is an
	That if that is a fundamental right to which all citizens are entitled under the Constitution, then on that premise, no state should be allowed to violate a woman's right to exercise that constitutional right.
	And that if it were limited in various states, it would impose an undue burden on a woman to exercise that fundamental right if she has to go to a whole different state Arrange for a time off from work if she's working or care for her children if she's a mother or finding the money to travel taking the time to travel making all the medical arrangements in a different state.
	That could be construed as an undue burden that ought not to be imposed upon a woman in the exercise of a fundamental right.
	Guaranteed by the constitution as both Casey and row held.
	If it is a fundamental right, which returns to the question of the interpretation of the Constitution and whether this, like a proscription against slavery, a proscription against abortion, would both be violations of fundamental rights.
	I think that is correct, completely correct.
	But I just want your agreement that the issue then does hinge on whether or not to prescribe abortion just as prescribing slavery is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, that that is the issue.
	No, I don't believe that is the hypothetically and whatever.
	I don't believe that is the issue.
	You know, the right to privacy.
	I believe wholeheartedly in that.
	And people's private affairs shouldn't be regulated, registered, whatever, by the federal government.
	And that's, you know, the state government is different than the federal government in that respect.
	I would say that in the past, you know, as you have said, and everybody knows, you know, abortion, you know, has been Somewhat common in the United States and in Europe and in the world.
	OK, and they're always used, you know, different types of well acts of.
	Herbal herbal medicine and maybe you know other physical acts or whoever whatever were used to induce abortions.
	And you know, we have to understand that.
	Those you know, I just keeps going back to this states rights thing, Jim.
	Just for the simple fact That our activist judges that have taken the Constitution and hope cat get off of there to to flip everything around and have convinced people that the federal government is like
	The King and the Queen and that they should have the final say when technically it's it's well, it's my belief that the the the states have the right to do this and.
	We don't have the right to interfere in interstate travel.
	If somebody would go get an abortion, I don't believe today that that would cause a.
	A conflict that would be a constitutional barrier because of cost, inconvenience and travel and such.
	I guess I don't look at at the abortion issue as I might a Jim Crow type issue.
	So you know, I just keep going back to this thing that.
	The truth is, in today's society, we can effectively learn to do anything we want, whether the government wants us to know it and to do it or not.
	We can.
	There are so many people out here doing drugs.
	There is so much crime.
	There is so much all this other stuff going on.
	To think that a woman couldn't get some pill or some kind of something that would induce an abortion.
	I don't believe that's honest.
	And the second really big thing, Jim, one more thing, one more question point.
	The same people that are out here protesting about about abortion.
	The same people that said that you should get your shot, the same people that said you should wear the mask and they keep forgetting to wear a condom or put in an IUD.
	I mean, it's the height of irresponsibility all around.
	And that's another reason why I don't want Nancy Pelosi, I don't want the federal government making blanket policy for 50 states that are different And have different ideas and different morals and standards in their communities.
	Well, Mitchell, I agree with a lot of that, but I certainly don't agree with all of it.
	And I think it's presumptuous.
	You make several arguments that I don't think hold up under critical inspection.
	Inadvertent pregnancies occur even when the greatest precautions have been taken.
	And everyone knows that.
	You know that.
	Absolutely.
	The point is, why should someone punish a woman for having sex?
	We are sexually reproducing species.
	If we didn't have enthusiasm for sex, we would have been extinguished long ago.
	It's certainly a right, except by extreme Moral puritans for human beings who enjoy sex without fear of reproduction as a consequence by employing appropriate birth control.
	But even the best laid plans, I have three women who became pregnant even though they were using an IUD.
	Certainly others, although they were using a condom, others even You know, there's no end to the case, and I believe it's a bizarrely punitive attitude that would have people punished for inadvertently becoming pregnant.
	When they ought to have the right to deal with it in a forthright way, I agree about the morning after pill.
	I agree about making abortion freely available, so it should be legal, safe, and rare.
	I agree with that.
	You know, public sex education is a good idea, but not the bizarre variants that are being promoted by the Democrats now teaching gay sex and gender ambiguity.
	We'll be right back after this break. .
	We'll be right back after this message.
	- We'll be right back after this message. - Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, "This is a drill, this is a drill," on Bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of a 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.
	Well Mitchell, we have a new article here that is pretty good, worth our talking about.
	No, abortion won't rescue Dems in November.
	I have been observing that it's such a volatile issue that it's going to make a difference.
	And I'm adjusting my estimate of how many seats in the House and in the Senate are going to change hands in November.
	And I believe based upon this development, which I consider to be very important, I've cut him roughly in half from believing that the Republicans would take a hundred seats in the House to cut it back to 50 and from believing they'd take three to four seats in the Senate to cutting it back to one or two.
	But I do not believe it will save them from losing control of Congress.
	I think that will still happen.
	And so does this author, Brian York.
	Listen to this.
	No abortion won't rescue Dems in November.
	There's a lot of speculation that a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, if that actually happens, would be a boost to Democrats in this November's midterm.
	There's no doubt the decision will motivate some part of the Democrat base.
	But the question becomes who, how many, how important would they be to the election results?
	Polling shows abortion is not at the highest level of voter concerns, even after the unprecedented leak of a draft decision that would end Roe.
	Politico conducted a rush poll after the leak and did not find an electorate obsessed with abortion.
	The question Politico asked was, thinking about your vote, what would you say is the top set of issues on your mind when you cast your vote for federal officers?
	Offices such as US Senate or Congress.
	The pollsters gave respondents seven choices.
	Economic issues such as tax wages and jobs.
	Security issues such as terrorism, foreign policy, and the border.
	Health issues such as Obamacare and Medicaid.
	Senior issues such as Medicare and Social Security.
	Women's issues such as birth control, abortion, and equal pay.
	Education issues such as school standards, class size, and school choice, and Energy issues such as carbon emissions, renewables, and the cost of electricity and gasoline.
	Women's issues, including abortion, ranked fifth out of seven.
	The most important, of course, was economic issues named by 41% of registered voters.
	Next was security with 16%.
	Then came seniors with 10%.
	Healthcare with 9%.
	Then came women's issues Including abortion at 8%.
	There was a gender gap, of course.
	Just 4% of men named women issues as most important, while 11% of women did.
	But remember, as far as abortion is concerned, that might include pro-lifers as well as pro-choicers.
	Among Democratic women, all pro-choice.
	The number rose to 18% or nearly 1 in 5.
	So perhaps a bit less than one-fifth of the female half of the Democratic electorate might be especially motivated by abortion rights come November.
	On the other hand, look at the dominance of economic issues.
	When 41% of voters given multiple choice chose one area as most important, that says it is really, really important.
	And the poll did not even mention the word inflation, which likely would have set the number even higher.
	Nevertheless, voters named the economy their top concern by a broad margin.
	Abortion just wasn't anywhere near that.
	It never has been, and it will most definitely not be this year.
	Everyone knows how bad inflation is.
	The Federal Reserve has not raised interest rates by a half point since 2000, and yet that is what it did yesterday in a belated effort to fight back inflation, now running at an 8.5 annual rate.
	Inflation is much too high, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said, as if anyone needed reminding.
	And we understand the hardship it is causing, and we're moving expeditiously to bring it back down.
	You know price increases in food, gasoline, clothing, everything are becoming increasingly burdensome.
	But right now, take a look at what it takes to buy a house.
	In March of 2021, the median price of existing houses nationwide was $326,300, according to figures from Freddie Mac and reported in the New York Times.
	Today, just one year later, the price has risen to $375,000, a jump of about $50,000.
	That's just the purchase price of a house.
	The price of financing has gone up significantly, too.
	The buyer of that median-priced house, if he put down 10% and financed the rest with a 30-year mortgage, would have to pay a 5.10% interest rate as opposed to 2.98% a year ago.
	That would mean the typical monthly mortgage payment, which was $1,235 a year ago, is now $1,834.
	That's nearly a 50% increase.
	To take a more specific example, the Houston Association of Realtors recently released a report saying that less than half of the households in Houston, 47%, earned enough to purchase a median price home Which in the area costs $330,800.
	This time last year, 58% of the households in Houston earned enough to buy a median-priced home.
	The median price home of a single family in Houston has now increased nearly $80,000 in the last two years, making it difficult for families to afford to buy a home, said Patrick Jankowski of the Greater Houston Partnership.
	As home prices and interest rates continue to increase, we can see more people stay in rentals and multifamily units because they cannot afford to move, and some are going to have to accept less house than they originally wanted to buy.
	By the way, rents are up too, 17% nationally in the last year.
	So if you are a renter hoping to buy, it will cost you more to stay and it will cost you more to go.
	With all that happening, The price of gas up 48% on an annual basis, used cars and trucks up 35.3%, new cars up 12.5%, meat, poultry, fish, and eggs up 13.7%, plus the cost of housing rising farther and farther out of reach.
	With all that going on, plus a Democrat president with a job approval rating mired in the low 40s.
	Does anyone really think the Supreme Court's Roe decision will make a difference in this year's midterm elections?
	Of course!
	Something entirely unforeseen could occur in consumer politics, but right now, bet on the economy to be the decisive factor in November.
	Mitchell, your thoughts?
	Oh, definitely.
	It's the economy, stupid.
	I think somebody said one time.
	But, oh my gosh, you know, the the disposable and discretionary income of the average American is gone.
	And, you know, people are cutting out the amount of times they're going out during the week.
	Inflation is rampant in all Areas of our economy.
	I don't really read too much into what the BLS, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, says.
	The Consumer Price Index and, you know, the official government numbers are so out of whack, they're really not even in reality of where we are today.
	You know, even at eight percent, which is usually, you know, they're saying, oh, well, it's two percent, it's two and a half percent.
	And, you know, that's the government's planned inflation rates, usually two to four percent.
	The problem is the currency is dying.
	It's worth less and less every day.
	So everything is going to cost more and more every day.
	You know, once you take so much of the equity out, and even though all the banks in the world and all the currencies are essentially depreciating along essentially the same rate, it doesn't seem like there's massive inflation.
	But, you know, people that are older, yourself and myself, I'm only 62.
	I'm a young pup yet.
	That we know what inflation is, we know what things cost when we were younger, what a steak costs, what a hamburger costs, what a dozen of eggs cost.
	And listen, the chicken still the same chicken, you know, the cows mostly still generically the same, you know, same beef.
	Yeah, we we have been.
	Our wealth has been replaced by money.
	You know, and I really call our financial or our currency system as a depreciating asset Ponzi.
	And it's really because of the the banking systems and the banking has this fractionalized lending system.
	Where the backers essentially create the money as a debt debit and put it in the system and somebody pays that debt off.
	It's supposed to be extinguished, but the house remains to the assets remain.
	So essentially nothing has been extinguished.
	So this malformation.
	In the economy continues to grow and grow, and they'll never fix the balance, particularly, you know, since they really want to have a worldwide government and a world one world currency.
	That's where it's trying to head towards.
	But international trade is still the same trade basically that we had in colonial times.
	And that will never create independent, strong nations.
	What it will do is it will create people and nations that are dependent upon supply chains.
	Supply chains that go from the world, new world slave factories, wherever they are, the cheapest place in the world, rather than be products be built in countries where they're destined to be.
	You know, to be in the retail market.
	And we're not going to be able to do everything.
	But certainly all the junk and everything we see coming out of China, we can produce locally.
	Instead of making other countries rich, we need to build countries economies.
	That's the only way you're going to help immigration from Africa and South America into North America and Europe.
	It's just there is no economic opportunity.
	And because of that, there really is lack of freedom.
	Well, I think I agree with almost everything you said there, Mitchell.
	Interesting.
	This article makes me think that maybe maybe the decision isn't going to make as much of a difference.
	I have been anticipating, of course, that The Democrats were going to go down massively, and maybe my estimate of the impact, it's going to actually be less, but it's pretty fascinating what's going on here.
	You've advanced a number of thoughts about the role of the court here.
	And I have, I got a comment on one of my shows here from Cal in Canada.
	Here's my thoughts on Roe v. Wade.
	I predicted this at the start of this scamdemic.
	I said, you watch.
	They're going to be mutant babies born to the jabbed women forevermore.
	And it's by design because If every time a woman pops out a gargoyle, pretty soon she ain't going to want to get pregnant again.
	I say it's deliberate ploy to force women who are now going to be full up with gargoyle babies to deliver them to see what they've produced.
	A mutant baby?
	It's all part of the hideous mockery of humanity, I think.
	Like you, I think Roe v. Wade should remain, but I had no idea of the level of depravity that had worked its way there.
	And I disagree 100% with it being a form of contraception as an alternative, and I disagree 100% with light abortions.
	You've got to get it done as soon as possible.
	I also think a woman has to carry the baby, and it's remained her body, her choice.
	And in rape cases, it's a no-brainer, meaning, I presume, that it's permissible to have an abortion.
	But we need a massive clampdown on this late-term stuff and post-birth abortions and all the other demonic baby trade, SHIT, and the vaccine industry involvement is demonic.
	We need to revisit this and make it much better.
	Canada is a nightmare.
	And we hate Castro immensely.
	In truth, my daily life hasn't been touched much, where I'm independent on my own land, thanks to an inheritance.
	My garden is awesome.
	My life is like that of an old pioneer, really.
	Keep it up, Jim.
	Love you huge and the gang.
	He liked to ditch Paul with an unflattering comment.
	But we know Paul is a unique case.
	Your thoughts about all of the above there, Mitchell?
	Well, I'll tell you, Jim, you know, that's one of the other things that they're using this abortion topic to crowd out all the other news in the news cycle.
	The Pfizer document dropped the other day, you know, it revealed that there were little, there were no women A rich pregnant women that were brought into the study.
	I think it was 42,000 people.
	If I remember correctly, and in the end, though, 240 some women became pregnant during the Pfizer trial.
	And, um, by the end of the study, I think all but, um, 35 women had dropped out of the, of the women that were pregnant had dropped out of the study.
	And of the 35 women that had been in the study, uh, I think only there was only one live birth.
	Wow.
	And, you know, of course you're aware, hopefully you're aware that the, um, The studies that were actually done before the approval of the Pfizer COVID vaccine were just studies that were done on fetus mice fetuses, not on any other type of animal or anything else.
	They just did a fetus study in mice.
	Well, Mitchell, here's a very disturbing, it's a video, but you'll hear the soundtrack.
	It runs about six minutes about creating baby farms, really raising babies in incubators.
	Check this out.
	So it doesn't even require the mother, because Cal's point include, you know, awful lot of the women who've taken the vacs are going to be sterile.
	So what is going to be the future for reproduction of the human species in the absence of which we will go extinct, although the The World Economic Forum, the Rothschild banking empire seems to want that virtually to occur anyhow.
	Let's hear what we have.
	This is the artificial womb facility, a place where humans could be grown entirely from scratch.
	The devices you see here are called growth pods.
	Each growth pod is designed to replicate the same conditions that exist inside the mother's uterus.
	Growth pods are designed to host human fetuses until they are fully developed.
	These artificial wombs are designed to help premature babies to continue developing after their birth.
	But emerging scientific research is making it possible to use them to create designer humans entirely from scratch.
	If you go to Disney World, for instance, down there in the Haunted Mansion, you see the hologram, right?
	Oh, you know how to make a hologram.
	Well, our scientists have learned how to make people.
	They call them synthetics.
	Are you familiar with those?
	Well, actually, we just interviewed John Lear and he was talking about being in an audience in which they were given a lecture by a guy that they thought was real and found out later was he was a hologram.
	But it's a synthetic.
	The synthetics, when you touch their skin, it feels like plastic almost.
	That's the latest technique.
	The old techniques, if you guys can rent a video, the boys from Brazil, Rent it, because in it, it gives you the exact way how our government's been making people.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Well, come on.
	And it's only a different method.
	Making people meaning temporary people?
	No.
	Walking, talking ones.
	Meaning through genetics?
	You're not talking about that?
	Well, let me tell you.
	The movie shows it, but I'll share it with you right now.
	All right.
	All I need to do is take two cells off of your body, yours.
	Uh-huh.
	We give them a small electrical charge.
	I'm just going to act like a fertilized egg.
	If I got a fertilized egg, all I need is a receiver in order to make it.
	So they were hypnotizing women, you know, say they were being invaded by aliens.
	And the fetus starts growing, right?
	Needs food.
	But they can use cows and sheep, too.
	Again, a food source.
	That's all we need.
	After about 14 weeks, all of a sudden, that fetus is gone.
	Because they've learned to take, that's when the fetus starts developing its own blood supply.
	Then they've used a pituitary hormone extract that they have, which accelerates the being that grows.
	And the original technology was given to our government by the grays.
	Now, the reason was that our scientists were all excited because we could have spare parts.
	If you need a heart or a liver or anything, you won't have any rejection.
	It's your own DNA, right?
	Okay, because theoretically, if we have overpopulation, we don't need more people, right?
	That's, but the so-called elite are selecting on who they want to have around anyway, so if we want to keep people going as long as we can.
	I talked to the doctor that was working on the regeneration of Castro, for instance.
	Right.
	On the DNA sequencing.
	And they're just whining about this.
	Well, my understanding is that a lot of presidents have already been replaced.
	That's right.
	I don't think... They're walking around, they look old, but they're basically, some of the people are just... I'll give you something to ponder.
	Get some old videos of George Bush when he first came into office.
	Look at the person and listen to him speak.
	Look at his actions and listen to everything that's there.
	Now, it's a lot easier to put somebody out in front and as a, you know, even Bush did.
	He had somebody else that was up there acting like he doesn't look like it.
	Even Hitler had a, you know, he had his stand.
	In fact, his standing was the one that they found in the in the ground over in Germany.
	I mean, Hitler and Eva and the dog and 14 other people got aboard a plane and flew down to Barcelona, Spain.
	You were aware of that and then ended up in Antarctica or in Swabinland and then died a few years ago in Brazil.
	That's what we heard.
	I have all the documents from our own government.
	Oh, you do?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we have a contact.
	Stalin even.
	Stalin asked for the, you know, they tried to burn the body and he got the body back.
	And so we had different ears and the testicles were different and everything else.
	So they knew it wasn't Hitler.
	But is it a clown or not?
	Oh, now, you know, going by cloning, cloning techniques.
	Since 38, we've been, 1938, they've been making clone people.
	There's eight countries making clones.
	I have a doctor friend that all does treat the clones.
	Where do you get your information?
	I get it from some of the people that are willing to come forth.
	And they talk to me because they hope I'll put the information out because they always got two people following them and they need to be killed.
	If I start talking about cloning too much, the people who get involved into that disappear on it so I don't go into too many more.
	is information that's available and it's more and more that's coming online i just told you go into the movie voice from brazil yeah and you'll see the whole technique on what they show it to you in different places so you you can imagine what's going on okay so now let's go to the next step because this is the most important part all right if your physical reality that you have based on this physical life that you have this dream is made up of the experiences that is impregnated on your body and in your mind consciously
	right your soul memory is another thing it It goes back whatever time that you elected to be in this incarnation for whatever reason.
	Let's show you the division on these things.
	Since the body is very physical, and we just got you making a physical being in a few months for spare parts, they said, now we've got the perfect deal.
	How can we have that work better?
	Well, if you go to the hospital today and get an encephalogram, what's that?
	That's the memory of your conscious mind.
	It's on the CD.
	Let's download it on this being.
	Now we got a walking, talking duplicate.
	That has the total memory that you have, because we just took it off of your own mind.
	Okay, it's like Blade Runner, the android.
	Exactly.
	The only thing is that it's like this DVD recorder.
	Sometimes you have glitches in it, so you have to have them tuned up occasionally or redone.
	And so we take them to Camp David, or there's a wing at Bethesda Hospital, to just tell you.
	If you go down there and check, you'll find the nurses, if they're willing to come forth, they'll tell you they work on those people, and they call them the others.
	I thought it was interesting.
	They're people.
	Remember, these people can think and act, but they don't have soul.
	That's also prophesied.
	That's true, that's true.
	Now we have another agenda that's going on so you have to be careful on this.
	There are many extraterrestrials that would like to be in on the game right now so they can sometimes will come into these physical beings that we make to manipulate them.
	I see.
	So now you have a combination effort that you have to look at and discernment.
	You have to discern what the game is.
	Well this figure that most of the leaders we have in the world have been bought and paid for or created Pretty fascinating stuff, Mitchell, really.
	Pretty fascinating stuff.
	You want to squeeze a word in or wait till after the break?
	We will take calls.
	I think you have to.
	They kill you if you try to walk away.
	And they clone you.
	Pretty fascinating stuff, Mitchell.
	Really pretty fascinating stuff.
	You want to squeeze a word in or wait until after the break?
	We will take calls.
	We will take calls.
	Stunning stuff, isn't it?
	We will take calls.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back.
	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, freedomsubstance.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution
	Radio. Revolution Radio.
	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.
	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 American Nuked on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Let me just add immediately that if that report on the level of cloning capabilities is remotely accurate, then the capabilities here far exceed those that I have supposed were possible.
	Really fascinating stuff.
	Mitchell, I want your comments on all of that, but we'll go ahead and open the lines.
	540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
	Mitchell, your thoughts about what we were hearing there?
	It's straight out of the Matrix.
	The only thing they haven't figured out is how to turn us into the battery yet.
	It's unfortunate, but the metaverse is the Matrix.
	I see you laughing, but it's unfortunately it's true.
	We live in such a bizarro world that.
	What?
	Passes for normal.
	Is so far out of the norm that it's it's literally you really can't believe what's going on today.
	Um, you know, look at our federal government, you know, oh, the governance, uh, the board of disinformation.
	What was it?
	The misinformation board of governance.
	I mean, you know, how Orwellian can you get, um, you know, this, uh, push by government, uh, the federal government to be, um, Bigger to be more to do and more and more and more.
	You know it has to end somewhere and where it ends.
	It's either we end our constitutional republic.
	And turn it turn it into a populist national socialist country where the the the president is voted in by the popular vote.
	Which is everybody that's in the United States can then vote, essentially.
	We lose our constitutional republic, our individual states, and our distributed power structure.
	And, you know, that's one of the things that really makes our constitutional republic so unique, is that we're supposed to have a distributed power structure where the states
	Have rights that they are essentially the sole proprietor of those rights and the federal government is limited in pressuring and pushing and prodding in states and we have gone so far from the the real basis of what our government is supposed to be.
	It's hard to.
	It's hard to think about getting back to where we should be because it seems so radical.
	And that's the thing, you know, as radical as this environmentalism is today and the green movement and all that stuff, that's so radical that the federal government is essentially going to take over industries and labor And everything else and re-engineer the everything.
	You know, that's not their responsibility, so to speak, to bring in new, how should I want to say it, to institute wholesale millions and billions of dollars of technology that the private industrial sector Should be doing not the government.
	And that's why I say, you know, our government has essentially, you know, bowed to world fascism, if that makes sense.
	Let me just ask your opinion, Mitchell.
	Do you favor or not the Electoral College?
	I mean, yes, I support the Electoral College 100%.
	And I would tell people that want to Want to try to have a referendum within their own state that says, well, their state electoral college votes will go to the popular vote winner.
	You have lost track of the site of what a constitutional republic is.
	And as I said, this distributed power idea.
	This is why we have our country set up the way it is.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think the Electoral College was a very good thing.
	Yes.
	A very good thing.
	Yeah.
	What's your assessment of how much this Roe decision, assuming it comes down?
	And I don't rule out the possibility, even though I think it's remote, that Some one member of the court might change their mind given the public outrage or protest.
	What do you think will be the impact in November?
	How substantial or not, you know?
	If a member of the court now changes their vote, OK, OK, let me preface on this.
	If a member of the majority change their vote now, it will give power to the mob.
	And it will essentially undercut everything the Supreme Court does in the future because they will be pressured.
	How should I say it?
	They know they're compromised.
	OK, they know they can be pressured.
	It's just a question of the amount of pressure that is put on the justices.
	Schumer, I believe it is, is already Schumer and somebody else is already talking about stacking the courts.
	That's just another failed idea that these political parties believe that they're the arbitrators of our freedoms and our liberties and our rights, and they are nothing but bullshit in the wind.
	The Constitution is where those rights and liberties lay.
	And this is the idea.
	There's another thing that I'll bitch about while I'm here.
	What do they call it?
	Ranked voting.
	That they have in states now, where you essentially, you know, there can be 6 or 7 candidates and you vote.
	I want this 1 1st, this 1 2nd, this 1 3rd, this 1 4th, this 1 5th.
	or this one fourth, this one fifth, and if one doesn't get a clear majority or a majority, Then they use some kind of formula using the number two and number three choices to find out who is the populist candidate.
	That's an aberration to the thought of, as I spoke a few minutes ago, the Constitution is the law of the land.
	Our rights, our laws, our privileges, everything is drawn from there, not from the blowhard politicians and the political class and the corporations that pay them to say what they say.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	By the way, I just got a marvelous review about 2000 Mules, which everyone ought to watch.
	I'll be publishing it on my blog.
	It's by Mary Maxwell, who, by the way, has a book entitled Unreality, How Sandy Hook Messes Minds, that you can download for free.
	This is a new book you can download for free.
	Well, Mary Maxwell is a wonderful author who has a good number of books and who has a law degree and who initially believed Sandy Hook was real, that it was authentic as the day is long, but it came to the realization that it's not.
	And if you go to gumshoenews.com, gumshoenews.com, right up at the top, there are books You can download her book on reality, Sandy Hook messes minds for free.
	And Mary Maxwell has just a gift of writing.
	She makes things effortlessly clear, even when they may be inherently complex.
	So I want to put in a big pitch for Mary Maxwell's book.
	And that anyone who, you know, has an interest in seeing a different point of view, you've heard a lot from me and you will more because I will be, you know, addressing my writ to the Supreme Court and sharing its contents with you when I have it submitted.
	And it has to be in by the 17th.
	So I have, you know, I got 11 days more for which I'm very grateful.
	But I'll be sharing that with you.
	In the meanwhile, I think it's just a super, super idea to download Barry Maxwell's book and get a different take.
	Get a different take.
	I highly recommend it.
	Unreality, Sandy Hook, messes minds.
	Mitchell, more of your thoughts.
	You're saying Trump is going to screen 2,000 mules at Greensburg, Pennsylvania rally.
	How soon will that be?
	Tomorrow?
	Tonight.
	Tonight.
	Oh, God.
	God and I believe tomorrow tomorrow is it the seventh I believe is the the national or the international online preview where anybody with 20 bucks I think.
	I think it is can stream and watch the watch it.
	So and it's going to be available everywhere.
	I know it's on rumble and bit shoot.
	I think rumble is actually carrying the 2000 mules on.
	There's another.
	Alternative media site, but I don't expect YouTube or any place else to affect.
	Of course, they're anti-truth.
	You know, Biden creates a ministry of truth.
	It's really a ministry of propaganda.
	There's just no question about it.
	It's so insulting.
	Well, Jim, how?
	I've got a good question for you.
	Being at Marine Corps Depot San Diego, okay?
	Because you will know this from experience.
	How long does it take to brainwash somebody into a system?
	Well, I mean, you know, one could describe retraining as a form of brainwashing.
	It's really kind of ripping a person down to the bare bones and then rebuilding them as a more disciplined entity.
	When I arrived in San Diego, the training program produced 8000 Marines in 11 weeks so I had command of 15 DIs.
	And 300 recruits going through a training cycle that initially was 11 weeks in length so I think you could say.
	11 weeks of intense training could do the job as you're describing it there might be reasons for.
	Not describing it precisely as brainwashing, but certainly let's say it's a way of enhancing discipline and instilling behavioral practices and thought patterns that were not there initially by going through this process of training.
	I was the second year moved up to regimental headquarters because the war in Vietnam was developing.
	Jack was going to blow all our forces out.
	Lyndon reversed gears and now wanted to pour more in to revise the training schedule using exactly the same facilities.
	So now we could train 11,000 Marines in eight weeks using the same facilities.
	And I was there to see it operating at peak capacity.
	I must say I have had mixed feelings about that because I do not believe we ought to have been in Vietnam.
	My brother, I have one full brother and then four half brothers and a half sister because my parents divorced and both remarried and had children.
	So I have a full brother by my mother and father and then I have a half brother by my mother and stepfather.
	Father and then I have three half brothers and a half sister by my father and stepbrother.
	So I have brothers and sisters who are not related to one another.
	How how novel is that?
	But my full brother who.
	Also graduated from Princeton, as did I, was a conscientious objector, and I knew it was bona fide.
	And when he came before the draft board, I wrote a letter on his behalf.
	At that point, I believe I had attained the rank of captain, where I would subsequently resign my commission to intergraduate school in the history and the philosophy of science in 1966.
	I suspect it's the only time a California draft board had a candidate, an applicant, who received a letter in his support from a regular officer in the Marine Corps.
	But there was no doubt in my mind that Phil was 100% sincere, and I so articulated, and as I understand, he received his His deferment by a three to two vote, and I would have to imagine that my letter made a difference.
	So that's maybe a little more than you were counting on, Mitch.
	Give me your further thoughts.
	No, you know, just just being as one who never trained recruits was just a trained recruit.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	No.
	You know, it's always a double edged sword when you go through an indoctrination.
	And, you know, God, I love the core.
	And I don't I don't want to call it a cult, but it's kind of, in a way, cult style training, whereas you said, you know, you basically tear a person down and then rebuild them up with with certain characteristics.
	And, you know, I guess it just depends on the characteristics of the rebuild.
	One of the biggest things that I see today happening, and I think this is a good place to kind of wheel this discussion to, is this governance board, this disinformation board of governance, or whatever they call it.
	You know, if we had, if that had been instituted,
	And for say in the 1970s, 60s and 70s, we would probably have a monument in the in the pond there on the National Mall of, you know, of a destroyer getting attacked by, you know, a North Korean patrol boat.
	Of course, the Gulf of Tonkin being completely false and disinformation to get us into Vietnam.
	You know, you know, this idea of disinformation, misinformation that is going to be regulated by the United States government is.
	It just shows how how far our government has fallen Yeah, I certainly don't disagree with that, Mitchell.
	I mean, honestly, I think the young people of today have missed out.
	I think abolishing the draft was under Nixon.
	Eviscerate the anti-war movement, and he did a good job of it by eliminating the draft, so it took the wind out of the sails of the protest movement.
	But what it also did was to take parents out of concern over issues of war and peace, decisions made by our own government, because they knew Well, whatever matters were decided that they didn't have a stake in the game, that their own children were not going to be called to serve.
	And I think that that is a very unfortunate situation, that one way to reconnect the people in the government is to restore the draft.
	Unfortunately, Well, with his president administration, they're reconstituting the military to use it as a weapon, not to defend the nation's security, but to put down and subjugate the people.
	And I am as certain of that as I am that I'm speaking with you here and now, Mitchell, that we're dealing with a grotesque situation where the Democrats
	Joe Biden, whoever he may be, Lloyd Austin, everyone else in the government really is gone full, full, call it communist.
	Is a close approximation, but it's really kind of a bizarre form of ideology where they have fallen under the spell of George Soros and the Rothschild empire.
	And Barack Obama appears to have a major role here, a major role here.
	I mean, it is bizarre because I thought it was a great event in American history when Barack Obama was elected.
	I was simply overjoyed.
	And if I hadn't learned everything I know now about Barack Obama, I might still maintain or have a modicum of positivity about him.
	But I think he turned out to be a total creature of the CIA and that everything about him has been fraudulent.
	And just one illustration, of course, is that he nullified the Smith-Mudd Act of 1948 by means of the Smith-Mudd Modernization Act of 2012, which thereby legalized all kinds of fake events, paid riots, staged shootings and the like within the United States that had been illegal before.
	So that the agency, the CIA, for example, but other government agencies could perform staged events in order to manipulate public opinion to promote their agenda.
	And they did it just in time to bring a Sandy Hook.
	I mean, it was a Perfect example under Department of Homeland Security.
	Eric Holder appears to have played a key role here.
	I have no doubt about that either.
	And where, you know, they staged an event.
	It was a two day FEMA drill.
	They presented it as mass murder.
	I'm given to understand the media was even there in advance.
	The media was even there in advance.
	Absolutely stunning what we have with this Obama guy.
	Absolutely stunning.
	Absolutely stunning.
	2000 mules is a very good thing because it shows how far the Democrats have gone to preserve power.
	This is the greatest theft of an election in American history, and yet they went out of their way to insist that it was all above board.
	They've even massively criticized and critiqued anyone who questioned the authenticity of the election.
	And now, now we have a situation where the evidence is simply Overwhelming.
	I mean, overwhelming.
	Everyone must watch this business, 2,000 mules.
	It leaves absolutely no doubt about it.
	And once the public catches on, I think there's going to be a dramatic shift against the Democrats.
	So it will, in all probability, counteract whatever benefits they derive from a Supreme Court ruling that in my opinion was wrong.
	But certainly motivating for Democrats by the revelation that all their propaganda, all their anti-Trump moves have been baseless because Trump actually legitimately won by a landslide the election of 2020.
	So I think it's a fascinating development is going to be played tonight at a Trump rally.
	I can't wait to see the ramifications as the public gradually catches on that We were massively scammed by the Democrats.
	They knew exactly what they were doing.
	100% they knew what they were doing.
	They use Zuckerberg or Facebook put in some $400 million to pay for all these mules and it's just staggering.
	I can't wait to see how the American public is going to react when the evidence becomes so powerful they cannot continue to deny it.
	They will continue to deny it.
	The mainstream has abdicated its responsibility to the American people so they can continue to lie their faces off, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
	But I think A growing percentage of Americans is going to see through all the smoke and mirrors and hold the Democrat Party in contempt, in contempt, in disdain, in utter contempt.
	This is the most undemocratic, un-American action a political party has ever taken in the history of the United States, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
	Mitchell, you were wonderful today.
	You were simply wonderful.
	I was just delighted that you were Here with me to discuss these issues.
	And I thought you did a very capable job of defending your position, even though it differs from mine.
	Democracy and the search for truth hinges on free and open debate.
	And that's certainly something I like to foster right here on The Raw Deal and where you've made a wonderful contribution today, Mitchell.
	I just can't thank you enough.
	You're more than welcome, Jim.
	Remember, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton met with the Bilderberg Group before the election, and Barack Obama got the blessing, not Hillary.
	That's what sealed it for me.
	I believe Jim Tucker broke that information, or Daniel Estilis.
	Hey everyone, have a great weekend.
	Spend as much time as you can with your family and friends because literally we do not know how much time we have left.
	Thanks for being here.

▲