All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
54:23
Crosstalk with Deana Pollard Sacks (28 May 2022)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today we're going to be talking about the Texas school shooting, and I have James Fetzer, who's a professor emeritus, from, is it Minnesota?
Duluth, yes, Minnesota, Duluth.
And I also have Clint Grieson from Brazil with me today as well to talk about these things, and hopefully we'll get to talk about the May 18th 5th Circuit watershed constitutional opinion near the end.
Which may be the beginning of the end of the administrative state, and we can only hope so.
So, thank you both so much for coming on the show today.
You're welcome.
So, Jim, I understand you have a matter pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Well, not actually pending.
You've asked for them to grant certiorari on a really important First Amendment issue.
And boy, I sure hope they do, because my understanding of the facts of this case are completely egregious and a blatant violation of your First Amendment rights.
Not just your First Amendment rights, your procedural due process rights.
As I understand, there was a law involved that is preempted by constitutional doctrine, a law in, I guess, Wisconsin that holds that the judge can make findings of fact in a case that's been set for a jury trial, which is absolutely ridiculous.
So tell us a little bit about your case and where it is and how you got to where you are.
Well, it was a long sojourn, Dina.
I was sued for four sentences in which I declared a death certificate to be a fake, which the plaintiff, ironically, had provided to a research colleague of mine.
It was an incomplete death certificate.
It had no file number.
It had no town certification, no state certification.
So, it was invalid on its face.
In fact, in Connecticut— It had four different fonts involved in this one-page document.
I know, it's amazing, Dina, it's amazing.
I mean, compare it to an incomplete driver's license, no one would have any doubt that a driver's license will act a driver's license number or state.
But what we have here is the same thing now attached to the complaint was a different death certificate that had a file number, town and state certification.
And believe it or not, Dina, in the complaint it asserted these two documents were not materially different, which is, of course, completely absurd.
Since a file number state and town certification made a huge difference from a legal point of view.
Nevertheless, during the I answered because I believe that it would be an opportunity to present through a judicial process.
All the evidence I'd put together in a book I edited were entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill to promote gun control, right?
13 contributors, including six.
Then current or retired PhD professors and we established a school of enclosed by 2008.
There were no teachers or students there and that it had been a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control, where I even had published a manual.
We discovered the manual for the exercise as appendix A in the book.
Well, During the scheduling conference, a judge said I would not be allowed to present all that evidence that we had to focus exclusively on the death certificate.
Which I thought was very strange, Dina, because both death certificates state the decedent died at Sandy Hook Elementary School on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds.
So how could all the evidence that had been drilled not be relevant to the authenticity of the death certificate?
It's ridiculous.
You know, you had mentioned, I'm not going to give her name right now because she wants to stay private, but you mentioned to me someone who lives in Newton, Connecticut, which is where Sandy Hook is located.
And after talking to you, I was curious enough to drive out to take a look at the Sandy Hook School, and I met with her, and this woman was, you know, skittish to meet with me.
I mean, she knew that I was friends with you, and we had talked when I was driving through, like, Massachusetts, coming down from Maine, where I was at a political event where Naomi Wolf was speaking.
So, the first thing that happened was, you know, I had to go to the bathroom, and I come in new tonight, and I'm telling this lady, I'm a few minutes late, let me stop at this cafe and go to the bathroom.
Her immediate response was, OK, you don't have to meet with me.
I don't think you want to meet with me.
I said, no, no, no.
I just have to go to the bathroom.
So she was real nervous about meeting me.
We did meet, though.
We sat down at a local bar and had a drink and talked about what happened.
And one of the first things she told me was, you know, that school had been closed down for years before this shooting.
And I said, what?
How is it possible?
That people wouldn't know that in the town.
She said, well, they knew.
So why didn't they tell people?
And she said, well, um, I don't remember her answer.
I think fear.
And just, it's like, you know, if you do that and go, they'll know who you are if you come out and tell the press.
Um, and that, that was really strange.
And the other thing she said, I thought was really, really strange is she said, well, you know, the night before this shooting was on the news, everyone came into town.
So what do you mean everyone came into town?
She said, you know, like I think she said Martha Stewart.
I'm not sure.
I think I know she said Anderson Cooper.
Anderson Cooper, yeah.
And I said, well, why would they come here into town?
She said, well, they all have houses here.
And I said, why would someone have a house here?
There's nothing here.
There's no skiing, no surfing, no mountain.
There's nothing in Newton, Connecticut.
She goes, well, the only thing I can think of that's kind of, you know, a big thing here is it is the it is the the official Um, you know, home office for the Church of Satan.
And I said, what is, is there a church called the Church of Satan?
I had never heard of it.
And then she showed me, she told me about the grounds, acreage, acreage in the area of Newton.
And then she mentioned that the scene from Fargo, where a guy puts another person in the wood, the wood chipper, that happened and was inspired by a true event in Newton, Connecticut, where I think it was a husband who put his wife in the wood chipper.
So I'm thinking, you know, I think I've seen enough of Newton now.
I'm going to go on down to like Mystic and get some pizza.
Well, you know, they brought in the news media to cover the event days before the event, so they'd be there, Johnny, on the spot.
This was to have instant coverage so they could make that first impression that's so all-important that tends to stick in everyone's mind, so that most people today aren't even open to discussing the possibility that it might have been a staged event.
People are saying that.
How dare you undermine those poor parents and those poor children who were murdered!
But I know how to cross-examine someone and I cross-examined her.
I was asking follow-up question after follow-up question and she did not falter in my mind.
She lives there.
She's from there.
She was there at the time and I left there thinking something is really wrong with the story.
I wasn't there.
I never can say for sure if I wasn't there because I like to have personal first-hand knowledge and I don't have that.
But the second best thing is cross-examining an eyewitness, and I have that.
That's wonderful.
I'd love that.
And of course, the events on the ground corresponded to the drill there.
It's signed, everyone must check in.
It says right in the manual, everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival.
They had porta-potties already in place.
I asked the law enforcement, have they ever heard a crime scene with porta-potties?
And they laughed.
It was so ridiculous.
They had pizza and bottled water at the firehouse.
There were many there with name tags on lanyards.
That's how FEMA runs event.
They provide restrooms and refreshments and they identify the players by color-coded name tags on lanyards.
Dina, there were parents bringing children to the scene.
Now, think about it.
No parent is going to bring a child to the scene of a child shooting massacre.
But this was a rehearsal.
They were treating it as a festive event.
So I had this massive evidence, including no EMTs into the building, no string of ambulance, no evacuation of the additional 469 students.
I mean, it was just farcical.
But the judge said I could not introduce any of that evidence, not even an FBI consolidated crime report for 2012 that shows there were no murders or non-negligent homicides in Newtown during 2012.
And since Sandy Hook is a part of Newtown, that meant there were no murders and non-negligent homicides in Sandy Hook in 2012.
That's right from the FBI.
But the court wouldn't allow me to introduce any of that.
I mean, I would make the argument, but I wasn't, you know, except at the very end, you know, I was able to get in my whole book as evidence as the final exhibit of the oral hearing.
But get this.
So we focus just on the death certificate.
I not only have the two, right, the one with no, no identifiers, no certification, the one with all of it.
My co-defendant, a publisher, was also being sued, obtained one from the town and I obtained another from the state.
So we had four death certificates, each one of which was different for the same decedent, Dina.
And I had two forensic document experts review them and they both concluded all four of them were fake.
But in Wisconsin, get this, Dina, you'd think I had a slam dunk.
In Wisconsin, the judge is allowed to decide whether or not the evidence is reasonable or not.
He just set it aside.
He said he didn't think it was helpful and he was going to disregard it as someone else's opinion.
OK, well, in every court there's a rule where if reasonable minds cannot differ, then the judge can rule as a matter of law.
However, this is the kind of evidence where reasonable minds can certainly differ.
So that's just plain wrong.
You know what I thought about when you said this?
I thought about the O, the movie O with Harvey Weinstein and how the lady, Rebecca Treister, was asking him about why it hasn't been released.
It was right before the 2000 election.
And the scuttlebutt was they're not releasing this very violent movie before the election because they have so many gun control supporters in the Democratic Party.
They didn't want to release this very violent movie called Oh, right before the election.
So she was asking Harvey Weinstein about this in the party.
And he said, oh, it's not my movie.
It's my brother's movie.
You know, tried saying it wasn't even his movie.
Well, she's like, all right, she didn't believe it.
And she went to put her microphone away.
And he said, Hey, you can't use that.
And she turned the mic on and put it right in his face.
And he said, very loudly words I cannot say, but.
Who brought this F-ing C-word into this party?
Whereupon her boyfriend, who I think is named Goldberg, I'm not sure if it's his first name, I can't remember, but it's in my book, anyway, he came over and he said, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, you know, don't talk to her like that, she just had a question.
He proceeded to beat the crap out of this other reporter, the man, throw him down the stairs, beat him up in the middle of the street, I think it was Sixth Avenue in New York, or Sixth Street, and flashes were going, cameras were popping,
Hundreds of photos and we went to hit the Goldberg the mail reporter the first time He threw something out and it actually I guess it hit or he hit him so hard It dislodged his recorder hit a woman behind him and he she has permanent injuries So Harvey Weinstein's beaten the living daylights out of this reporter after pulling him down the stairs into the streets of New York cameras are flashing and the next day Rebecca reports that she went to her boss and He said you can't You can't report on this.
Harvey is, what do you call him?
Harvey is Russia.
Harvey, he's not going anywhere.
Untouchable.
Yeah, and there's a documentary called Untouchable about this.
But anyway, she said it was shocking that not one of those photographs were ever produced in any newspaper.
And he'd also, Harvey Weinstein would also say things like, if you ever publish a photo, you will never send another photo in this town for the rest of your life.
So he was a real bully.
But the bottom line is he was that intent on hiding the story that O was not being released when all of the investors wanted it released because they didn't want to release it before the 2000 election because they were trying to help with the Gore, right?
It was Gore.
And Bush was put in by the Supreme Court, which was extremely surprising to a lot of us.
Oh yeah, it was stolen in Florida so they could bring us 9-11 and the Patriot Act.
Yeah, I know, I like to go back to that.
Even in Wisconsin, you can't have a summary judgment unless there are no disputed facts.
They just allow a method for the judge to eliminate disputed facts.
by claiming they're unreasonable.
So get this.
After he found, you know, for liability against me by Posner, I appealed.
And when I went to the appellate court, they had this fascinating remark that they actually had a paragraph.
They said it was unreasonable for anyone to doubt the official narrative of Sandy Hook that Adam Lonza shot his mother, shot 20 kids and six adults, and that here was Fetzer's.
And they said Fetzer denies.
He says the whole thing was a hope that it was a stage event by Obama to promote gun.
In other words, they had my position very clear.
And yet they insisted there were no disputed facts because of the Wisconsin methodology for summary judgment.
I'll tell you my Wisconsin experience very quickly.
It's so egregious.
I wrote a law review article published in the Yale Law Journal Online on Snyder v. Phelps and the speech towards jurisprudence of the U.S.
Supreme Court and how they modified claims to Make them consistent with the First Amendment.
They don't just block tort claims.
They amend.
They raise the burdens of proof.
They flip the burden sometimes to the plaintiff, things like that, to raise the burdens to establish defamation, to recognize where a public figure or public concern is involved.
There has to be some First Amendment protection.
There has to be some breathing room, some breathing space to make a mistake.
To make sure the First Amendment values are upheld and we don't chill speech.
So this article, you know, got a very good placement.
It came out while Snyder v. Phelps was pending.
Well, four years later, I get a call and I'm told that a Wisconsin Law Review article came out that was, quote, a ripoff of my article, like blatant plagiarism.
I'm like, what?
So I look, I look at this article and it is outrageously similar.
I mean, this man, Pepperdine Law Professor David Hahn, he is Same quotes from the same cases.
Same examples from, you know, violent video games that I create.
Remember, I've done all the violent video game research with, you know, Craig Anderson, Brad Bushman, Vic Strasburg, Ed Donnerstein.
I did my own Meet the Professors talk show with these men because of the violent video ruling in California.
We were so upset about it.
It's called meettheprofessors.org.
It's still online.
So I was really one of the originals.
And this was so outrageously similar.
And the same professor had two footnotes saying, I never saw anybody else publish this kind of information.
Like, who puts a footnote like that in a law review article?
So it seemed like he was trying to, you know, backpedal the fact that he used my article and didn't cite me anywhere.
So anyway, I made a complaint to the Wisconsin Law Review, and they just stonewalled me.
They sent something like, well, we have attorney-client privilege.
We can't release this information to you.
I said, well, who was the attorney and who was the client?
And then they said, oh, well, they said something to the effect that that was just boilerplate.
I'm like, that's what you told me as an excuse for not giving me the documents.
Then they produce a stack.
I'm talking, you know, several feet high, a stack of unrelated, irrelevant documents.
And I thought, this is Wisconsin Law School, University of Wisconsin Law School doing this.
To a professor, after they basically published an article, actually, they need to de-publish it.
And, in fact, a dean from the East Coast told me that he would come forward and tell them, if need be, that it was their law review editors who should have caught it.
Like, even if the professor, you know, didn't see it, which I find very hard to believe with the similarities, the law review editors are supposed to run searches to make sure the article isn't plagiarized.
And Wisconsin took a hard position with me, stonewalled me, treated me like Harvey Weinstein's lawyers would treat one of his rape victims.
And I just thought, I don't ever want to go to Wisconsin.
That's how I felt about that law school.
And then I remember hearing about the governor at that time wanted to get rid of tenure.
And I agree.
A tenure, I don't believe, I mean, other than your situation where you're really exercising First Amendment rights, most people who need tenure don't deserve it.
They're not active, they're not publishing, they're not productive.
And most people who, you know, don't have to worry about tenure don't worry about it because they're publishing so much.
So tenures, in my opinion, creates more laziness and more positions in universities that should be more fluid and let new people come in.
And they're just stuck with these people who are, you know, 70, 80 years old.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review my petition, which left me in a position where I had 90 days to go to the U.S.
because they're tenured.
I just disagree with that.
But yeah, so my Wisconsin, there's my Wisconsin story.
Don't plan to do it.
Well, so the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review my petition, which left me in a position where I had 90 days to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I recognized through discussion with colleagues, one of whom has extensive experience with summary judgments in Texas, that in Texas, it would have been a slam duck for me that they would have basically thrown it out or sent it to a jury.
So I knew there was an issue here because the states were deviating between themselves and under the 14th Amendment, we're supposed to get equal Well, I'm so concerned about you.
But I want to say something else.
I mean, the plagiarism thing is really complicated because, you know, a lot of people say, well, what is plagiarism?
How much could it be?
And here's something.
my case and make this uniform throughout all the states.
And I'll tell you, Dina, I think there's a real chance they're going to do it.
Well, I'm so concerned about you, but I want to say something else.
I mean, the plagiarism thing is really complicated because, you know, a lot of people say, well, what is plagiarism?
How much could it be?
And here's something I ran a search to see if any, you have to have four words identical technically to have plagiarism.
So what they do is they change the sentences just enough, like every three or four words.
So plagiarism is a question for a jury, but I will say that.
That you know a lot of people were contacting me saying hey this isn't fair you should say something and I did say something and they stonewalled me so I said whatever and another thing is I think that man's from another country and sometimes other countries have different ideas about what is and what is not fair to do with other people's research so I didn't mean to come down here I'm just saying I was really surprised I'm more upset with Wisconsin Law Review and the University of Wisconsin than the author
Because I don't know, you know, what was in his mind, but I felt like the official position of the law school was completely unreasonable and very disrespectful.
One of their professors finally told me what, you know, I could see how you would think that.
He said, I could see how you would think that.
Gee, thanks.
But I worked so hard for those things.
And then you just feel like someone just sort of, you know, takes your work and doesn't It doesn't give you credit.
Now, yours is different.
What they've done with you is they've taken your work and they're punishing you for it.
And to me, it would even be better if the court just dismissed the case against you and said, this is ridiculous.
I'm not going to entertain the case.
But that's not what the court did.
The court deprived you of a huge property interest and what, $400,000 plus six, but $1 million you're looking at, right?
A million dollars.
One plus one plus interest.
Yeah.
But let me just add, I had retired professor of law take a look at this and he said, you know, The weakness of your case is no one is going to believe that Wisconsin judicial procedure would be this ridiculous.
I wrote back and I said, but look at the quotes.
I got it all right there in the petition.
He came around and he said, you know, I have been, he was like 30 years, 40 years in the law, both defense, prosecution as a professor of law.
He has never seen anything like it.
It's completely outrageous.
It is.
Perfect case teed up for the court.
I know, and I hope I can, we'll talk after the show about, more about, hopefully I can get some funding and help you get an amicus brief on file, but here's the thing.
What he also said, and this is telling, and another reason I believe the court will pick it up, he said the biggest problem in the judiciary across the nation is the abuse of summary judgment, and Mike Hayes just tees it up for them to clean it up.
And by the way, Dina, I want to say, given this is your last Yeah.
on this date and on Saturdays at this hour and you're moving to a new hour.
I want to thank you.
I was your first guest when you were among your last guests here at this date and time.
So make sure your audience knows because they're going to want to follow you for sure.
Okay, so listen up.
I'm going to be on Tuesdays now, 8 o'clock New York time, 8 to 9 p.m.
New York time, 5 to 6 p.m.
California time, starting the 7th of June.
I will not have a show next Saturday.
The next show will be the 7th of June, Tuesdays.
Counterspeech now.
p.m. New York time.
I also have a channel on Rumble.
If you want to look at some of these podcasts, you go to rumble.com and search under channels.
You can search either channels or videos under channels, type in counter speech.
And we have, I don't know, maybe 10 or 12 shows up right now.
So yeah, thanks for reminding me to announce that, Jim.
But I'll tell you, the courts are extremely problematic.
There are still some good judges out there.
I tend to believe in federal judges generally more than state judges just because they do have life tenure, but not always.
I'd always rather be in the federal system, personally.
I think there's more consistency in quality of judging, but there's some bad federal judges, too.
But I want to move on to this shooting in Texas because I'm so disturbed.
And I think Clint and I had a little bit of correspondence about this, why the cops stood around outside of that school and didn't go in when there was an active shooter killing children.
I mean, this, from what I, everything I've heard is real.
And the parents were trying to push past the line of police officers to go and save their own kids, even though they were unarmed.
And at least one of them got tased.
Another parent was able to go in, grab her two kids and come out.
But the police stood around.
outside of the school and wouldn't go in because they were waiting for backup, which took an hour, and those kids were in there completely without any defense whatsoever.
No guns.
There's a new report that the chief of police, who himself was newly appointed, directed them not to enter the school, and he's going to call them under great scrutiny.
I have reservations about the authenticity of the event, but we will set those aside, because the issues that are posed, even if you take it all to be real, are very, very disturbing.
Very disturbing.
You know, Governor Abbott was informed by, I guess, the police department, That they should be commended.
So Governor Abbott commended the police effort, then later found out that it wasn't accurate and had to basically retract and say, you know, we're going to look into this because the governor was given bad information.
So, you know, if anyone out there feels like, you know, you're alone with people doing corrupt things and being unfair with you, our governor in Texas just got bad information and got embarrassed himself because he can't get his own police forces to give him the straight information.
I think that's really disrespectful toward the governor.
Oh, it's stunning.
You're absolutely correct.
A hundred percent.
It's just stunning.
Right.
Well, Clint, weigh in on this.
What do you think of this whole, the police's behavior at this shooting in Texas?
Well, I'll be honest.
The very first thing I thought of was that they were covering up information, that they were hiding the crime scene, that there was something behind that line that they didn't want parents and anyone else to see.
Oh, I didn't think of that.
I just thought they were being cowards, to be blunt.
I just didn't know what to think.
I know the police these days have no particular honor, to be honest.
They have a contract.
They have a job to do.
They'll do whatever they're supposed to do if they're paid.
But if they don't have to work like any other government employee, they're going to do as little as possible so they can retire and get their pension.
They're not really interested in dying today.
They're not the heroes, selfless heroes that they're made out to be.
Unfortunate to say, maybe that was last century.
I don't know when that died, but it absolutely died.
And it's no surprise because the incentives that we use when we hire these folks, the whole, you know, what is a sheriff?
If you go investigating, you know, it's a municipal security force, basically.
It's a private security force.
It's not a constitutional entity as it was intended to be.
And that's long gone.
So yeah, when they're there, I presume that they're just following orders and that there's There's something always afoot.
There's always something behind what they're saying because they always will, no matter if they've done everything perfectly or they've done something shady, there's always a great story that people love to lap up based on, again, the assumptions that they're honorable, they're doing the best things, they're selfless, they're always going to do the best thing because they're the ones in uniform and they have no other motivations other than fulfilling their glory as police and law enforcement.
But yeah, The thing is, I've learned that incompetence and corruption appear very similar to the outside observer.
They're hard to tell the difference.
And so, of course, the police would rather you believe that they're incompetent than corrupt.
But they were even trying to avoid any implication of incompetence at first, but then the press kept pressing, and they had to finally say, yeah, we made a bad decision.
And so that was their There's something so wrong with this story.
position, but they haven't admitted to corruption.
And that's something that I think we all need to be talking about, more frankly.
There's something so wrong with this story.
It is absolutely senseless.
Nobody would, in my opinion, would fail to run in.
But I have found, for me, the people who I would rely on the most at large are civilians and preferably Army veterans or active military men.
Those are the people I've seen step in and do the right thing consistently.
My son is in the military.
I can tell you he would never stand.
It's just Part of it's the training.
A lot of them start young.
My son was 19 when we started the military.
Their brains are still developing and they learn discipline.
They learn to follow rules.
They learn to do the right thing regardless of maybe how you feel in the moment.
You can't let fear and cowardice run you in this world.
A lot of people do and that's one of the biggest problems we have.
I talked to someone in the police force a couple of years ago.
Down in Southern Cal and I said, why is the morale so low?
I can see it.
They're all so depressed and just low morale, low energy, no smiles.
You walk in the office to get a document or something.
There's just no, they're like lifeless, like stepford wives.
And I said, what, what's the deal?
And after some conversation, my, my takeaway was, you know, there's so much corruption and they can't get ahead.
And there's no way to basically break through the barrier, but they're kind of stuck because they're kind of like tenured.
Some of them may actually have forecast contracts.
I know that I know firefighters do at some point.
And so they're kind of stuck with this job.
They've got their benefits, their dental, their medical.
They really can't just quit.
Just like a professor really has a very hard time resigning a tenured position because you've got all this cushion that you're you've worked for.
So they stay and stay and stay for the money and for the benefits.
And they just turned into a person whose eyes look lifeless.
And that's what I saw among these police officers, which is why I started asking questions.
And I saw the same look in the eyes of the young men and women at Fort Hood when I went up there to talk to my son and go talk to his doctor about getting an exemption from the Pfizer shots, because my son had one, didn't feel well afterwards.
And my mom, of course, died after having two Pfizer shots.
Um, and it does depend on your genetics, uh, both the COVID infection itself and your reaction depends on your genetics, obviously.
Uh, so I was on campus up there looking around, I mean, base on base, uh, not campus.
And, uh, and the, the, the, they were so demoralized, these people, and I ran to a JAG attorney.
I'm like, Oh, good.
I'm so glad at the, at the store.
And so I said, Oh, I want to ask you about this situation with the COVID vaccines.
He said, we've all been ordered not to even discuss it.
I said, wait, not even with the soldiers?
You, They're supposed to go to the JAG attorneys to get assistance on legal issues.
He goes, and I'm not even handling that kind of case because I'm in a whole different division and even I can't discuss the vaccine mandates.
I said, this is insane.
Anyway, my son's going to be leaving at some point, uh, but, uh, cause he, I said, do not get that second shot.
And I offered him a significant amount of money to walk away and just walk off that base.
If it comes to that, to give him an apartment, help him make a transition.
I don't want him getting that second shot and he's not going to do it.
But anyway, so yeah, this whole, this whole, uh, Texas shooting, uh, is, um, Um, really disturbing, but in terms of what really happened, but I will say when someone online was saying, well, why is this happening?
I wrote in, I said, well, it's happening because our children have been so desensitized to violence through largely violent video games.
If you look at the shooters from High School, Heath High School, they had tons and tons of very violent media.
And we know that not everyone's going to react that way, but for young people who Excessively play video games.
We're talking six, seven hours a day and this is not uncommon at all.
I've researched this and done shows on this.
What happens is their brain chemistry starts to change and we know that kids who are sociopathic have a different, different patterns of brain activity than regular kids.
We also know, and this is on my talk, one of the talk shows on meettheprofessors.org, we also know that if a child plays enough video games, Their brain chemistry begins to change.
The way that the electrical impulses carry through the brain change and they become similar to sociopathic processing.
The brains start to process like sociopaths.
And one of the most disturbing studies we talked about on one of the shows was this study trying to show whether people who play a lot of video games have recategorized violence as a good thing.
And what was three photographs basically is a photograph of a very disfigured man who anyone would say is negative.
Photograph of a man, a woman with a knife held up to her neck, which most of us would say is negative.
And then a picture of a really cute baby smiling.
And so what they found is that most of us would put the knife to the woman's neck photo and the disfigured man's photo in the same part of our brain.
So that would light up in the same area and the cute baby in a different part.
But guess what?
The people who played a lot of video games, the photo of the woman with a knife to her neck came into the area of the brain with the baby, not with the disfigured.
And that is really scary when you think about how cognitive processing works and what it means for processing information and making conclusions, especially if you're on a jury or you're a judge.
And it's terrifying to me that these parents do not know, in part because of the Brown v. Entertainment, what is it?
I can't remember the name of it.
The big video game case that came down, which is what caused me to do this show called Meet the Professors with Ed Donnerstein and Vic Strasburg to start with, because of losing that case.
So it was Entertainment Fortunes Association, I think, but it was Schwarzenegger, but then turned to Brown because the governorship changed over during the lawsuit.
But people need to realize this is going to continue to happen.
Until we get parents to not allow the kids to play video games for so, so long on end.
Especially if they don't have friends.
Especially if it's a dysfunctional family.
Those video games were created originally to train our military troops to shoot at the opposing soldiers.
Because it was happenings that go out and they'd shoot into the sky to try to get them to push back.
They didn't want to kill people.
And to get them past that resistance to killing others, these video games were created for our military.
Then they became popular.
And kids started using them and we know that kids are having a lot of dysfunction, but the more common dysfunction is just anti-social behavior.
Bullying and you know, someone watching a lot of video games, it's not going to cause them to go out and kill someone usually, but it's very likely to cause them to become more anti-social and just not as empathetic toward others.
You know, I have three different experts with backgrounds in investigation and law enforcement looking at this, and they say it's adding up to another staged event like Sandy Hook.
Indeed, it looks like it was modeled after Sandy Hook, where Adam Lonza was supposed to have shot his mother and then gone to this elementary and shot up first grade kids, 20 and six adults.
Here he's shooting his grandmother.
Then he's going to the school and shooting up second, third and fourth graders.
Some of the oddities include he's driving his Ford F-150 pickup truck.
They're being widely advertised.
They're very expensive trucks.
He's supposed to, in one instance, have driven into the school building with it and another into a ditch.
I've seen photos of it into a ditch.
He's supposed to have had his two AR-15s, but he's got the high-end models.
These are very expensive weapons.
The claim I've even heard is he was supposed to be touting some Oh, 1400 rounds of ammo?
I mean, he could not have carried it.
It's just absurd.
So I'm telling you, we're doing a lot of research on this.
We're going to have relatively definitive results about it this coming week.
But let me add, There are multiple reasons for having a staged event right now.
Number one, Hillary has been identified by her own campaign manager as having been responsible for, you know, targeting Trump with a Russiagate hoax.
Hillary has been identified as doing it.
So if you look at the New York Post, one day they got Hillary, the next day all of a sudden they're down in Texas.
Number two, the Buffalo shooting was such a Obvious fake.
Amateurish.
I have an expert who did a sundial analysis, for example, on the shadows of the first woman shot, who happens to be white.
And it turns out that was taken at 118.
Meanwhile, the police show up, and it's at 332.
In other words, we actually had released the rehearsal video.
He's shooting.
There's no blood.
The bodies are already stacked up.
You got him inside, and he's shooting at the cranium of a guy from point-blank range, and there's no shattering of the cranium.
It's just like New Zealand.
New Zealand was similarly cartoonish.
Also, the driver was in a car, had a weapon that was painted up.
There were no shell casing ejections.
I'm telling you, that buffalo was so bad.
And then Dena, I think it was irresistible to say just before the NRA is going to meet in Houston.
So they're trying to embarrass the NRA to bring more pressure for gun control, which has been their objective.
It's not going to work.
But not for lack of trying.
Yeah, my husband mentioned the convention center is just packed with the NRA people right now, and I think Donald Trump's going to Texas.
So I do see the timing issue, and I am very concerned.
You know, the Second Amendment is the most recently incorporated amendment.
I think I talked on this on an earlier show.
The various Bill of Rights did not apply to the states when the Constitution was adopted, and when the amendments were adopted, which was post-Constitution, which is why they're called amendments.
Anyway, the Second Amendment was the most recent to be incorporated, which is 2010.
Now, if our court composition changes, we've got problems.
I'm actually worrying at night, and I'm praying for the safety of our Supreme Court justices, because I saw the Pelican Brief, and I have to tell you, I'm worried about our justices.
I don't know what happened to Scalia, but I don't like the story.
I heard some things.
I was in Texas, so I heard some very unusual things from people who were around the area.
But more importantly, I worry about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Alito.
I worry about these men because I think there are people desperate enough in today's world to possibly hurt them, to get their way at the U.S.
Supreme Court level, because they could reverse a lot of things.
You may remember the film, The Pelican Brief, with Julia Roberts and Sam Shepard, where three justices were assassinated because a guy didn't want them to rule on a case he thought would be unfavorable to him.
And of course we know that Gabby Gifford was really to kill the judge.
She was known for giving maximum sentences and a drug dealer didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail, so he had him whacked.
I'm not at all sure how badly Gibbons was actually harmed, but she's gone on a campaign against the Second Amendment.
Jonathan Turley made a very nice point that while they're demonizing the gun lobby, that the real obstacle is the Second Amendment itself, which gives us the right to keep and bear arms.
It's a completely well thought out amendment.
It enables you to protect yourself personally and your family, also to come to the aid of your community if there were riots or a bicycle gang.
But ultimately, Dina, for the national security, they were recognizing every American as a citizen soldier with the right to come to the defense of the nation.
And this attempt to take away the RAR-15 is just loaded with Well, I know, and you know what?
Let me tell you something.
hear discussion about the defensive use of guns, which goes on millions of times a year, estimated to save 200,000 lives every single year, where many victims, just by showing they have a weapon, they defeat the assailant and he runs off.
They don't even have to use it.
You never hear that from the mainstream.
Well, I know.
And you know what?
Let me tell you something.
In Texas, people are a lot more polite on the roadways.
You know why?
Because everyone's packing!
They're gonna hold their temper and wait till they get home, and I don't know what, go for a long run, I don't know what they do, but I'm saying, I think people in Texas are a lot more polite in general, in part because everyone knows, you act out of line too much, you know, you start being violent with women in public, you know, someone's gonna probably go ahead and shoot you.
And I feel safer in Texas.
Yeah, for sure!
All the men in my family are packing, I can tell you that.
I'm the only female, so everyone's packing.
I don't need to, because they all have it.
But I want to segue a little bit into this new case.
And let me announce again, you're listening to Revolution Radio.
This is Counterspeech.
Please get on freedomslips.com today and make a donation if you can to keep us on the air.
We're 100% listener sponsored.
But this show is going to start up again on Tuesdays.
Uh, starting June 7th at 8 o'clock p.m.
New York time.
Um, but speaking of the Supreme Court making big changes, you know, such as incorporating the Second Amendment to the states, that's a big thing.
If that were to be reversed, it'd be horrible.
In fact, one of my colleagues who, uh, is one of the main litigators in the vaccine cases said, you know, if we didn't have guns in this country, they would be going door-to-door, force vaccinating us.
And I said, yeah, try that in Texas.
They're not going to get, they're not going to get out of the driveway in Texas.
But anyway, I want to segue into this new case that came out on May 18th that Clint gave me, which is fascinating and a very big deal.
The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the SEC's delegated authority from Congress is ultra-virus, is unconstitutional, as a violation of Article 1's vesting of all legislative power in Congress.
Let me explain that very briefly.
We have representative government.
Our lawmakers are supposed to be elected.
When our lawmakers delegate authority to an agency that is unaccountable to us, and they can make up their own rules, we no longer have representative government.
Two other things, though.
The Fifth Circuit also said that the SEC's in-house adjudication procedures violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil matter.
The Seventh Amendment, of course, only applies to the federal government as of yet.
It is the only amendment that has not been incorporated to the states, but most state constitutions have it anyway, for civil claims arising from common law.
And the third thing the Fifth Circuit said was the SEC's statutory removal restrictions violate Article 2's Take Care Clause.
So we've got the SEC as an agency being kind of Slapped around by the Fifth Circuit as really not having the authority to think they have.
And I couldn't be happier to see this, because I think the administrative state is a lot of our problem.
We've got way too much non-represented government.
We haven't had democracy for years.
Don't even get me started on the con laws, certificate of need laws, or Prop 13, or all the anti-competition legislation that has shut down free enterprise and shut down the American dream for people.
But let's go back to the administrative agencies now.
Clint, were you so happy when you saw that paper?
I think you were.
I was thrilled.
I couldn't believe it.
Honestly, at first I said this headline must be misleading, but yeah, then I went to read the actual ruling and wow, we have got, like you said, it could be the end of the administrative state.
If every American read this ruling and understood the implications of it, It would crack this whole thing wide open, because we often do talk about the, you know, the bloated government or this unwieldy bureaucracy.
We talk in general terms about it, but what we find revealed in this case are the exact mechanisms that are used to intimidate and unduly enforce, quote-unquote, laws against American people.
Now let's just be very clear, everyone knows that this particular party That's that's asking for a review by the court is has not been determined to be guilty or innocent.
And, you know, they're innocent until proven guilty.
And so I just want to be clear that this is not a question of the guilt of the party, George Jarczewski or not.
This is just him trying to get his day in court in front of a jury.
But what we learn in this case, as I was saying, unpacks Exactly the mechanisms that are used by countless agencies, not just the SEC, to impose this administrative law.
So the principles of separation of the powers is definitely at stake here because basically this SEC and their behavior is adopting all three branches of government in themselves.
All of it.
The investigation all the way through the... Unelected people and they're unelected.
They're not accountable.
We can't get them out of office.
I'm so tired of our legislators being such cowards and, you know, shoving all this dirty work onto these agencies and saying, oh, well, it's not us.
It's the agency that you created it.
And in fact, one of the things I mentioned recently to a client was You know all these vaccine mandates have been done in a way that was never done in history ever before this country ever in this country before COVID-19.
We never saw you know an executive You know, order or OSHA, you know, vaccine mandate or all these other things.
It was only a matter of state legislative action in the past, or they may delegate to the boards of health.
And once in a while, there's another delegation, a sub delegation to the universities and schools.
And that's not that uncommon either, but it has to be delegated.
It has to be specific.
Even then, there is a question of whether the delegation itself is ultra virus.
This recent case, Jarkessy versus Securities and Exchange Commission, it can be found on the Fifth Circuit website.
This is really a big deal because this is finally, finally, someone is doing something about this because for years, scholars have talked about how these health courts are depriving victims of pharmaceutical vaccines of a day in court.
And it's horrifying.
It was supposed to work like workers comp.
It was supposed to be like a sure compensation scheme with less process, easier, not the way it's working.
I've talked to lawyers who litigate.
They said it's so, so horribly contentious.
They call the children who are sick from vaccines liars.
They call their parents liars.
They call the money hungry.
It is sick and they have no discovery.
They can't and this is sick.
This is a discovery and process is part of our procedural due process under the 5th and 14th amendments.
We are entitled to that's all been taken from people in vaccine cases because there were so many huge verdicts.
Before the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed in 86, the vaccine manufacturers were threatening to not do the research anymore and no longer protect us from the forthcoming bioweapons.
So our Congress reacted by passing this, and Reagan was very hesitant to sign into law.
And the Justice Department begged him not to sign it into law, saying this is what's going to happen.
But Reagan kind of felt he had to, I think, because If he hadn't signed it, we have all of our vaccine manufacturers threatening to stop research on, basically, bioweapons.
And we needed to have protection.
So, Reagan was in a terrible position.
But I think it's a huge mistake for our government to immunize any industry under any circumstances.
It's wrong.
It's un-American.
You know, look where we are now with what they're doing.
And of course, you know, people like Bill Gates, of course, they're going to invest in vaccines.
Anyone who reads the law is going to say there's an area where I can completely screw up, kill people and never face consequences.
In fact, all the taxpayer dollars are being funneled into the research.
They're not even paying for their own research, but they keep all the profits.
And who pays all those, uh, the injury claims that do get processed through the vaccine court, the so-called vaccine court in Washington D.C.?
Us!
Back the taxpayers again through an excise tax on the sale of vaccines.
The manufacturers externalize everything, including research and development, to a large degree.
It is disgusting.
They also spend twice as much on advertising as on research and development.
So there you go, people who trust the vaccine manufacturers.
I don't know how anyone could voluntarily take a vaccine, knowing what these big pharma companies have been doing to us for years, or knowing anything about the vaccine industry.
I mean, it'd be a death of a fight in Texas, I can tell you that, if a vaccinator came door to door.
No one would take the job as vaccinator because it'd be a very short-lived job.
Indeed.
So what do you think, Jim?
Did you know about this fifth circuit opinion?
Because we talked about it really just as we were coming in the show.
I think it's fascinating, Dina.
It sounds like the court might have some really large-scale cases to deal with in its coming term, and I would be thrilled with They're deciding both of these in the right fashion for the benefit of the American people.
Well, the Fifth Circuit also just ruled in January of this year that the PrEP Act does not preempt a negligence claim.
So that's interesting.
So the Fifth Circuit's been very active.
It is considered the most conservative circuit, but right now, you know, they're the circuit that's saving us.
Remember, the Fifth Circuit was the first to say the OSHA mandate was a joke.
They didn't say it was a joke, but they, if you read the opinion and you got the humor, they pretty much called it a joke.
I mean, so, and that was ultimately confirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court in a six to three opinion.
But this is why I started worrying about our justices, you know, and especially the conservative justices, is that the Supreme Court is all going to land there.
And because the Supreme Court declared itself the final arbiter of the Constitution in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, they are the final stop.
No one's ever questioned it.
It's the court.
And so these nine people have tremendous power in their hands, and they also have risks.
I imagine they have a lot of security.
I would assume they would get Constant security, especially since that really, that really, well, she looked really nice.
The Hispanic federal judge in New York was blown away at her, I'm sorry, her husband and son were shot at her door.
Someone came to her door.
She was downstairs.
She's safe, but she took on a case.
It is an organized crime case, as I remember.
I put it on my Facebook page a while back when it happened, but this very nice looking female Hispanic federal judge was, took on a case.
Someone literally came to her door dressed in like a delivery person or something.
I'm not sure what it was, but her husband opened the door and the person just opened fire and killed her 19 year old son and I think severely injured her husband or killed him.
OK, our judges shouldn't be going through this.
Our federal judges shouldn't need protection.
And I think that if Congress does anything right, they should pass an act to provide our federal judges with full time security and detail.
I mean, you know, these judges need to be protected or no one's going to want to take the job.
Oh, I think you got that right.
And a lot of the points you were making before about the exposure to violence, inducing or promoting it, I think apply to society generally.
And you got the Democrats, they become such ideologues in every position.
They're attacking the Republicans when the Republicans are actually being responsive to the evidence.
I mean, look at the messy problems Biden's caused since coming into office.
I'm convinced it's not even the real Joe.
But look at the floodgate open to the migrants.
Look at the supply problems, skyrocketing inflation, gas going up, up, up.
I mean, the Democrats are headed to disaster.
And that, I believe, is another reason they wanted another state shooting before school was out for the summer, Dina.
You know, by the way, the latest polling shows that actually the American people think that the Republicans are better at dealing with gun control than the Democrats.
So not even that is going to save them.
The Democratic Party has changed so much.
I have friends who are very much Democrats for years.
I voted exclusively Democrat for 30 years.
Yeah, isn't that incredible?
Isn't that incredible?
it now because I don't like there's a fact that part of it is nutty just nutty but I want to mention something else I read the story from the lady named is it Mary Maxwell who wrote the story about the Sandy Hook shooting the stuff and she mentioned there's only one person who claims to be an eyewitness to the dead children at Sandy Hook you know who that one person is Joe Biden isn't that incredible not even the parents were allowed to use their children that's one of the reasons
a couple of cases that are mistakenly cited is showing it's a judicial fact that anybody died at Sandy Hook both of which were decided on procedural grounds and never reached the question of whether anyone died is Neil Heslund claiming he held his dying son in his arms when Wayne Carver explained they didn't allow the parents to see the children They only identified them viewing photograph.
So I can't get their story straight, Dina.
The whole thing is coming apart.
I hope this Supreme Court case is going to make it manifest that this was a fraud.
Well, it's funny because I met you because my husband represented Alex Jones in some of his proceedings.
They went after Alex Jones really hard, and he hadn't even said anything.
I think it was a guest on his show who made some statements, but you're not responsible for guests on your show, usually.
But, you know, poor Alex.
Let me tell you something.
My husband had to review a lot of his old tapes just to get a sense of who he is.
He said, Dina, I can't tell you how many things he was saying five or ten years ago are now happening.
I mean, people look at Alex Jones and call him a conspiracy theorist and all that, but let me tell you, he has some intel from somewhere because his predictions from the past are strikingly accurate.
So, you look at what he's saying today that might sound, you know, some of the stuff he says sounds a little crazy, but if the past is any indication, he has some kind of intelligence that is working for him.
So, anyway, that's how I met you, Jim, because I heard about your case, and I reached out to you.
I thought, this poor guy, I got him for judgment.
Alex Alas has been on both sides, both affirming it was fake but also affirming it was real.
So he's vulnerable to attack no matter what your position may be.
He would have been better off to be steadfast.
Even during an oral deposition, Connecticut said, never read my book.
How can you take a stance on this and not read the one book that gives a serious objective study of the whole business?
▲
Export Selection