Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 9, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:30:32

Need to Know News (8 August 2022) with Joe Olson and Mike Cunningham

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is Jim Fetzer, Madison, Wisconsin, with a Texas Monday.
	We have Joe Olson in Houston and Mike Cunningham in Austin, Texas, and we're here to bring you all the news you need to know.
	We begin with developments in Ukraine, where Zelensky wants to talk with China.
	I don't think China has the least interest in talking with Zelensky.
	He says he'd like to talk directly with the president of China.
	I had one president with Xi a year ago.
	Since the beginning of the large-scale aggression, we've officially asked for a conversation, but we've had none, even though I believe it would be helpful.
	I don't think it would be remotely helpful.
	Zelensky stressed he'd like to see China redefine its stance on Russia, but understands Beijing is seeking a balanced approach.
	Frankly, he doesn't seem to understand that China and Russia are very tight.
	China has refused to condemn Russia for the Ukraine conflict, has opposed the sweeping sanctions the West has slapped on Moscow.
	Beijing has blamed NATO expansion for the tensions between the West and Russia, that the West has to understand Russia's legitimate security concerns and build a sustainable European security system through negotiation.
	It would have happened effortlessly if they'd only allowed Nord Stream 2 to connect with Germany.
	Everything would be terrific.
	Europe would have cheap gas.
	There'd be better relations.
	It would be obvious NATO has outlived its usefulness.
	Military defense expenditures would drop to practically zero.
	Russia sent troops into Ukraine on February 24th, citing the failure to implement immense agreements which would give Donetsk and Lugansk special status.
	The protocols brokered by Germany and France were signed in 2014, but former Ukraine President Poroshenko has admitted Kiev's main goal was to use a ceasefire to buy time and create powerful armed forces.
	Meanwhile, Amnesty International has confirmed Zelensky is using men, women, and children as human shields.
	Surprise, surprise!
	Meanwhile, he rules out talks if Russia holds referenda.
	He said Sunday, if Russia proceeds with referenda in occupied areas to join Russia, there'll be no talks with Ukraine or its international allies.
	In his nightly video address, he said Kyiv was holding fast to its position of yielding no territory to Russia.
	Our position remains what it's always been.
	We will give up nothing of what is ours.
	If the occupiers proceed along the path of pseudo-referenda, they will close for themselves any chance of talking with Ukraine in the free world.
	The Russian and Ukrainian official held several sessions after the Russian portion launched their incursion, but little progress was made and no meetings have been held since March.
	Russia holds most of the Kherson region in South Ukraine.
	Officials in charge have suggested a referendum on joining Russia could be held within weeks or months max.
	In Donbass, Russian proxies seized chunks of territory in 2014, held independent referenda, and proclaimed the People's Republic of Luhansk and Donetsk to be independent.
	The governor of the Luhansk region, almost entirely under Russian control for several weeks now, suggested Russia was preparing for a new referendum in newly captured areas and offering residents benefits for taking part.
	Look at this very amusing proposal for a prisoner exchange.
	We have this WNBA player Grenier, who seems to be a pawn in all of this.
	You got Putin with his bare chest negotiating with Biden, who's willing to make a swap.
	He's going to give them Donald J. Trump.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yeah, well that's an interesting little swap.
	Yeah, the Russians had a real surprise for Grenier.
	They just announced that they're going to do a DNA test before they assign her to a male or a female prison based on her real DNA, and that'll put the Knickers in a twist.
	Man, if they couldn't get her out quick enough before, man, now all of a sudden it's like, They're abusing her because she's a tranny!
	I thought she was a tranny from the beginning, Joe, but my wife insists, no, no, no.
	That's just my paradigm.
	Guess what?
	We're going to find out before she's released.
	Yeah, they got huge problems.
	Last week, and I didn't get a chance to report on it, but Alex Christopher, the Greek guy that does daily little things, sometimes with Durant, sometimes on his own at Bitshoot, said that the Russians had struck a military concentration less than 20 miles from the Polish border.
	They destroyed a billion dollars of NATO equipment.
	And over 400 mercenaries in that one strike, and the thing that's amazing about it is that we never detected those missiles that hit it.
	So they've got something that NATO was unable to detect, and now the news for these folks just keeps getting worse.
	They're rolling all of the remaining six strongholds in the Donetsk, and in the last, over the weekend, they have, let's see, destroyed Oh, man, where is the number?
	Oh, they've released that 190,000 Ukrainians have been killed or wounded so far in this conflict.
	And let's see, where was the other thing about what they did over the weekend?
	Oh well, can't seem to find it right this minute.
	But bottom line is, Blinken's really scared because it looks like the BRICS thing is gathering so much steam they can't stop it.
	So he's on a whirlwind tour of Africa to shake hands and bribe people to keep them from joining BRICS.
	He's in South Africa but he's also planning to go to Rwanda and Congo and what he's trying to do is get them to agree to not join the BRICS monetary system and that the U.S.
	will help them meet their obligations for climate change.
	No, it's absurd.
	It's absurd.
	It's too little, too late.
	BRICS is a done deal, Joe.
	Oh, yeah.
	You've heard me speculate.
	I believe even the gas price is coming down.
	It's being subsidized by the Biden administration at taxpayer expense.
	It's all an illusion up to the midterm.
	Mike, your thoughts?
	Yeah, I've noticed some words.
	I'm not trying to be a wordsmith or anything, but Lewinsky mentioned he said he did not want to yield any territory to Russia.
	Now, if you combine that with what you were talking about last week, and the Polish people were trying to broker a deal to take over the north part of the Ukraine, and Russia would take over the east and the south, that could actually go in with the terms that he was saying.
	So, there may be a third-party broker, considering the fact that what Joe was just mentioning about the Collapse, I guess, of some of the defenses, especially in the western part of Ukraine, which is really strong.
	They do not really have offensive missiles to go into Russia to really do anything.
	So all the armaments and stuff that we are sending is basically just going towards to prolong a war that may not end really well for the Ukrainians.
	So, the idea to reach out to China might just be a far-reaching idea, but maybe reaching out to some of these other countries may end up being what the reality is today.
	And that may not necessarily be really good, which makes me really wonder.
	Ukraine is done for.
	There's no way they can withstand the Russian assault.
	And Jim, I found my notes.
	Yeah, in the Kirsan over the weekend, the Russians were able to kill 500 Ukrainian soldiers and 80 mercenaries, destroy a few more, and it's undetermined how many HIMARS
	And in response, the Ukrainians fired on the Zaporozhye, and my Russian is even worse than the guy that I tried to listen to on the thing, but they were shelling the nuclear power plant, and they said, just by the grace of God, the shells didn't hit critical areas, and the fires that they started were put out.
	This really upset the
	UN Chairman Gutierrez who said that this is risking another Chernobyl and you know when you do something like that you're poisoning a really large region of the earth and it's going to affect western Europe as much as Chernobyl did and so I think Zelensky and a lot of people are saying it that he's in desperation and that he will be taken out by a coup really quickly.
	I think that would be a very welcome development.
	Meanwhile, China tells the U.S.
	it can't bully countries like George Floyd and strangle them at will as it severs cooperation with Washington and fires ballistic missiles over Taiwan.
	China has halted dialogue with the U.S.
	on climate change, military issues, and anti-drug work in retaliation for her colossally stupid visit to Taiwan.
	China has sanctioned Pelosi and her immediate family.
	Multiple Chinese warships and jets have crossed unofficial red lines in the sea.
	Taipei condemned its evil neighbor for war games that surround the islands, six of them.
	After Beijing fired 11 ballistic missiles over the island for the first time during military drills, Secretary of State Blinken condemned the missile landings as a serious escalation.
	Why didn't he think about how China was going to respond when Pulaski—when Pulse When Pelosi went on her wild goose chase, the Pentagon ordered the Ronald Reagan carrier to stay in the region and enraged China's halted dialogue on climate change, military issue, and anti-drug work.
	Beijing decided to sanction Speaker Pelosi and her media family.
	Despite China's serious and firm opposition, Pelosi insisted on visiting Taiwan, seriously interfering in China's internal affairs, undermining China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, trampling on the one-China policy, and threatening the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said.
	They compared the U.S.
	behavior to the slaying of George Floyd at the hand of cops in Minneapolis.
	We cannot allow the U.S.
	to take itself as a world policeman and treat other countries George Floyd style where they can bully and strangle them at will.
	Biden admitted throwing his support behind Pelosi's trip as a way to promote democracy.
	After China's actions overnight, we summoned Ambassador Ging Geng to the White House to demarch him about China's provocative action.
	But this is just silly.
	Here you can see how they've surrounded Taiwan.
	One, two, three, four, five, six major military operations.
	Taiwan, frankly, wouldn't have a chance if it were to come down to it.
	We condemn the BRC's military actions, which are irresponsible and at odds with our longstanding goals and the Secretary of State.
	Taiwan condemned its evil neighbor as huge military drills encircled the island.
	Multiple Chinese warships and fighters cross a median line between the center of the Taiwan Strait, a widely recognized border that Beijing insists no longer exists.
	Meanwhile, we have all these efforts.
	Secretary of State says China's military actions are unjustified, but what did he expect when Pelosi makes this harebrained trip?
	She defended her visit, claiming Washington would not allow China to isolate Taiwan.
	Well, what's the point of the one-China policy?
	Taiwan's premier called for allies to push for de-escalation.
	We didn't expect the evil neighbor would show off its power at our door and jeopardize the busiest waterways in the world with its military exercises.
	State broadcasts reported Chinese missiles had flown directly over Taiwan.
	Five were believed to have fallen in Japan's exclusive economic zone, with four presumed to have flown over Taiwan's main island.
	The Japanese PM condemned the missile launch.
	Parts of Japan's southernmost Okinawa are close to Taiwan.
	Biden also angered Beijing on a trip to Japan.
	But the team claims their decade-old approach to Taiwan remains in place.
	Well, then why the hell are they doing something as stupid as this?
	Again, it isn't about our visit determining what U.S.-China relationship is, Clayton Pelosi.
	It's a bigger and longer-term challenge, one that we have to recognize we have to work together in certain areas.
	This is just stupid.
	Tetsuo Kitani, a professor at Mekai University and your fellow at the Japanese Institute for International Affairs, said the drills could give the Japanese public a more realistic view of Tokyo's defense capacity compared to Beijing.
	Which is virtually non-existent by comparison.
	China is a behemoth.
	Japan has a minuscule defense.
	Deliberately, after World War II, we demilitarized Japan and have only grudgingly given them back some semblance of a military power.
	Joe?
	Yes, well, guess what?
	Nancy Pelosi's daddy was a crime boss in Maryland.
	He was also a U.S.
	representative and mayor of Baltimore.
	And Rep.
	Hillary's daddy was the CPA for the Chicago crime syndicate.
	And then, since the apple never falls too far from the tree, this is a New York Post story.
	January 14, 2022.
	Nancy Pelosi's son linked to five shady companies probed by the feds.
	So yeah, she's over there trying to sweep Papa Pelosi's DUI under the rug, and then also the fact that they did shorts short sells calls on computer stocks that they knew were going to be going up because of the chip bill that they passed the chip and science bill which you know she probably knows more about chips than she knows about science but only the kind you use for dips
	And so, bottom line is, yeah, she had a lot of criminal things that she needed to get off of the front page, and so why not just go over there and wave the flag even though that she was warned ahead of time, and it just shows how feckless the Biden administration is that they weren't able to stop her.
	I think this is known historically as insider trading, Joe.
	How disgusting!
	And from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, third in line to the cessation, to actually second after the Vice President, then the Speaker.
	How insulting to America!
	Mike?
	Yeah, I think in Nancy Pelosi's case, you look at it, Kamala Harris couldn't go over because she would, that'd be even worse, and Joe Biden was still under COVID, so they may be stuck with that poor lady.
	So I don't know if they did that from a position of power or a position of weakness, but that kind of shows you the whole Democratic Party.
	I have two comments.
	One, I think it's really interesting that we're in talks with China over climate change and then they're trying to dictate to us about trying to change our climate.
	They're the largest polluters in the world.
	And a lot of people may not realize that, but the air that goes over China, that pollution eventually will come to the United States, too, because we're in the same prevailing wind.
	So, you know, this is a kind of ridiculous story.
	I don't see how you could pay extra taxes here to set aside some carbon tax to help out in China.
	That doesn't even make sense.
	And the other one comment when President China is mentioned about George Floyd and after getting to visit Minneapolis and see the after effects of the riots and stuff that took place in Minneapolis and how the change of downtown has gotten so terribly bad and how liberalism is a complete failure and the police force today in Minneapolis Just let criminals walk the streets.
	I think we should be more worried about what's happening here in the United States than we would be with China, because our cities are crumbling.
	And if you just mentioned something like that, and we have no assimilation.
	I did not realize this, but we're looking at some population statistics.
	I think Minnesota right now is at 25% minority population.
	And in St.
	Paul and in Minneapolis, there are large areas in which I've never been assimilated.
	Some of them are Hmong and some of them are Somali.
	And our United States has worked really well together when we were united.
	And we all became Americans, although we all have different heritage, we all were Americans.
	But if you do not allow people to assimilate, or if we cannot get the people to assimilate, and they maintain their own language and maintain their own culture and maintain something like that, our society is going to be in real deep problems.
	Oh, you got that exactly right, Mike.
	I couldn't agree more.
	There has to be a national language spoken by all members so they can communicate with one another and coordinate in achieving common goals.
	Meanwhile, the Senate passed the Democrats' Health and Climate Bill, falsely described as the Inflation Reduction Act, when it's going to do nothing of the kind.
	51 to 50 with Kamala Harris casting the break.
	The $740 billion package now goes back to the House.
	It's been a long, tough, and winding road, but at last we've arrived, said Chuck Schumer.
	The Senate's making history.
	I'm confident the Inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative measures of the 21st century, which is an absurd claim.
	Simply absurd.
	The bill ran into trouble over objection to a 15% corporate minimum tax, disliked by private equity firms and other industries, forcing last-minute changes.
	Americans for Tax Reform, a U.S.
	advocacy group, stated the measure would increase taxes on thousands of mid-sized small businesses across the United States.
	As written, the provision appears restructured to define any company with private equity in its capital structure to be considered a subsidiary of that private equity firm for purpose of the tax.
	This means they'd now be swept up in the new 15% tax on book income.
	That would greatly expand the reach of the book minimum tax to apply to small and mid-sized companies that require capital investment to grow their business.
	Republicans said the measure would undermine the economy.
	Policymakers are struggling to keep from plummeting into recession.
	Too late!
	They said the bill's tax would hurt job creation and force prices upward, meaning it's going to increase inflation, not reduce it.
	Democrats have already robbed American families through inflation, and now their solution is to rob American families a second time, said Mitch McConnell, spending a tax increase that would eliminate jobs while having an insignificant impact on inflation and climate change.
	Starting on August 6th, the Senate began its so-called vote-a-rama.
	I think it was really Rama the Vote that comes before the final passage in the reconciliation process.
	The bill came to the floor about a week after Manchin announced he'd come to an agreement with Schumer in what is believed to be an attempt to boost Democrat and Biden chances for the 2022 midterms.
	I'm very worried about Manchin's role in all of this, by the way.
	after it was being opposed by Manchin, who said it was too costly and would fuel inflation.
	I'm very worried about Manchin's role in all of this, by the way.
	Oh, I think he has sold out.
	Despite this, friends have made clear they're completely unwilling to support the bill under any condition.
	None of their amendments would change.
	Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders wanted to expand the health benefits, but they were defeated.
	Most votes were enforced by Republicans designed to make Democrats look bad on issues like U.S.-Mexico border security, gasoline and energy costs, and like bullies for wanting to strengthen IRS tax law enforcement.
	Sanders said the measure—this is Bernie Sanders now—won't reduce inflation and doesn't go far enough with climate-related measures.
	And at a time when drug companies are enjoying huge profits, the pharmaceutical industry will still be allowed to charge the American people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
	Well, the parliamentarian of the Senate declared that the drug reduction agenda was unconstitutional, could not fit into a reconciliation bill, and therefore had to be dropped out.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yes, well, the bill includes hiring 85,000 new IRS auditors and arming them because, you know, you need to have your government employees protected while they're out fleecing the public.
	So that's a little bit of an issue.
	And then, yeah, he's right to complain about Pfizer, you know, the medical folks ripping everybody off.
	We have an interesting little thing.
	Pfizer just announced that they purchased for $5.4 billion a company called Global Blood Therapeutics, which helps solve blood clotting problems that they cause with their jabs.
	And an interesting little fact is that in 2021, Pfizer had $81.3 billion in income, which was double what they had in 2020.
	So, you know, make a lot of money selling $20 jabs that you just make out of antifreeze and Uh, you know, some diseased plant cells and just force everybody to take it, and the government just buys as much of that crap as they can.
	It's absolutely absurd whether it gets used or not.
	It's like they're making 20 bucks a jab in this country and killing people in the process.
	The trials for crimes against humanity can't start soon enough.
	I couldn't agree more, Mike.
	Okay, I have a couple comments.
	Number one, I like the comment or the In the article about corporate taxes, I believe that we have some economists up there in D.C.
	and economists are slightly not telling the truth to people.
	Corporations do not pay taxes.
	People pay taxes.
	Corporations just pass that cost off to other people.
	So if we raise corporation taxes, effectively, all the ones who are going to pay are probably going to be the middle class and the working people.
	So when you raise the taxes, it's kind of like changing the term Vaccines are changing in terms of recession.
	All you've done is change terms and taking more money out of people's pocket.
	You do not pass tax increases in the recession.
	This was said by a couple fairly famous Democratic presidents.
	One was Barack Obama early on when he said that when he came in and the other one was John Kennedy.
	I think both Kennedy was really very smart and he passed actually a tax cut that helped stimulate the recession in the early 60s.
	We need this climate change And the climate change we really need is to kick the Democrats out of Washington, D.C.
	You know, forget the idea about fossil fuels.
	There are a bunch of old fossils up there.
	We need to fuel them back home.
	And then finally, border security.
	They mentioned a little bit about border security here.
	And border security, and they say walls do not work.
	About three weeks ago, I was in El Paso.
	And I got to see El Paso, parts of El Paso, well right before El Paso, it's the Rio Grande River, then parts of El Paso, it's a land between New Mexico and Mexico.
	And they have a border wall, they have a series of like three border walls actually.
	And over the weekend I looked and there has not been any reports of people going across in the El Paso territories.
	For the border patrol, but we still have amazingly over 10,000 people going through these little small towns in Texas where you can literally walk across the Rio Grande River and there is no real border security to speak of.
	So you know this idea of open borders has come about and I could actually show you if I swing the camera around.
	We are supposed to have about 30 inches of rain a year here in Texas in Austin and where Joe's at it's considerably more.
	We have about 12 inches of rain.
	Everything is brown and crunchy.
	It looks like a desert out here.
	So, you continue down into South Texas, the Rio Grande River is not flowing all the way to the Gulf, and it's very easy for people to go across.
	So, I think Trump's idea originally of the border walls was an excellent idea, and if anybody ever gets to go to the border and see security, that's a real issue.
	And I love the idea about fossil fuels because I think we need to get rid of some of those old fossils.
	Oh, I couldn't agree more.
	Changing the climate in Washington.
	Brilliant.
	Exactly.
	Spot on.
	Meanwhile, get this.
	Dems think AOC might be their best shot against Trump in 2024.
	Talk about lunacy.
	Talk about being out of touch with the public.
	In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary and the Republican establishment both to win an historic election.
	The Democrats, on the other hand, have not made changes away from the establishment, as have they.
	Hillary and Biden are both establishment leaders who won their respective elections as nominees in 2016 and 2020 by defeating Bernie Sanders, preventing the left-wing populist movement from taking the White House.
	According to Democrat consultant Michael Hopkins, AOC, also known as the future of the Democratic Party, also known as occasional car tax because she's so brainless, has policies rooted in populism.
	She is less of a personality, more of a movement, will be a force to be reckoned with.
	I doubt it.
	In the age of social media and soundbites, no Democrat is more prepared to embarrass a bully like Trump, he asserts.
	This man is deluded.
	The candor with which he discusses the challenges of daily life provides a strong indication she's not only a persona created for public consumption, not tied to corporations, a prodigious small-dollar fundraiser with a potential to out-Trump Trump.
	It's possible that AOC will run for office in 2024.
	Biden has allegedly declared he's going to seek re-election, but no one in the world wants him to do that.
	He claims he's the only Democrat with a chance of beating Trump, but only if the election is rigged as massively as it was in 2020.
	Indeed, according to a CNN survey, 75% of Democrat voters want Biden to be replaced.
	The number's up from 51% in February.
	According to Harvard Camp Harris on Monday, Trump has a lead over Biden in a hypothetical race by four percentage points.
	It's probably closer to 40!
	It's not apparent whether AOC intends to wage a significant campaign against the Democratic establishment, against Biden or other prospective candidates.
	She came to the conclusion in the past she'd be better off remaining in her far-left House district where she faces no competition and can maintain her national relevance, or shall we say irrelevance.
	Really embarrassing.
	Meanwhile, let's take comments on that from both of you before we turn to Alex Jones.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yeah, only an airhead can save us from air.
	This is a clown that didn't know what a disposal was, that threatened to sell her Tesla just because Musk said he supported Trump.
	It's like, you know, she's an absolute clown show.
	They won't have any problem putting together commercials to ridicule her every time she shows up.
	And I can't believe anybody believes that silly bartender anyway.
	She supposedly got a degree from Harvard in economics, and she doesn't understand the very basics about that.
	Meanwhile, Nadler got redistricted to the point where it's no longer a congressman from east and west side of Manhattan, or upper west and upper east.
	It's now one district, and so he's happened to run against another incumbent Democrat that's just as ugly as he is, so that's going to be a problem.
	And now we've got Hoelzle that's decided that because she's de facto governor of New York, because Uh, Como had to resign that she's presidential material, so she's throwing her hat in the ring so that maybe she can weasel out the Newman crime family from California.
	So, you know, the whole thing's a shitshow on their side of the ledger, but thankfully we've got a few on our side.
	I'd be perfectly honest, I'd be happy to vote for Marjorie Taylor Greene as president at this point.
	She's terrific.
	I like her a lot, Mike.
	Yeah, AOC's economic policies are kind of like what she was asked.
	She was interviewed several months back and she was saying there's no problem about spending money because simply all you have to do is just print more money.
	So if this is the idea of somebody who's got a degree from economics, I think we really need to check what we're giving out for degrees anymore.
	Also speaking, which is I think is probably more indicated because I teach at public schools and many kids actually believe in what she says and actually believe in what Bernie Sanders says.
	They like this idea of a free college.
	They like this idea of all these all these giveaway programs until in fact they realize that their money is going to be tied up forever and ever.
	So you're going to be working for the man Or the government for many, many years to try to pay off this stuff.
	And then they realized that free college is not necessarily free and becomes much more expensive.
	I think the average college costs for people today, you know, $40,000 a year.
	I don't think free is going to be good because if you're going to be paying taxes, I would pay off my loan and that was it.
	But now, under this new free policy, you're going to be paying taxes on that forever and ever, as long as you pay taxes.
	So what is free, really watch out.
	And I think it's a very, it's a cheap imitation of what it is.
	Horrible, horrible decisions on her part.
	If that's all you have to do, I think we need to look at a whole different party, because that party has gone, gone away.
	After 35 years in higher education, I say there's no way AOC earned a degree from Harvard or any other institution of any repute in economics.
	You may have a mailing degree, but that's it.
	She's a complete airhead and a disgrace.
	Meanwhile, we're going to look at multiple different takes on Alex Jones, five or six different points of view.
	Here's the official mainstream narrative.
	Jury in Alex Jones trial awards $45 million more to Sandy Hook parents.
	This is in addition to the $4 million in compensatory damages to the parents of a child killed in the Sandy Hook shooting, whom he had not even identified by name.
	For context, the more than $49 million in total damages is roughly 75% of the nearly $65 million InfoWars had in revenue last year.
	Earlier, a jury in California ordered Bill Cosby to pay $500,000 in compensatory damages, but no punitive, to a woman who was found to have been sexually assaulted decades earlier after he drugged them.
	This was his practice.
	I mean, a guy we all used to think was the perfect father turns out to be a sex fiend.
	In Virginia, a jury awarded Johnny Depp $15 million compensatory and punitive, capped by a state law, The total dropped to 10.35.
	While Amber Heard, his former spouse, was awarded $2 million in compensatory in response to the ex-spouse's dueling defamatory claims.
	Meanwhile, Elizabeth Williamson, who is the main propagandist on these issues for the New York Times, observed, The judge just left.
	And Mark Banks and lawyer for Mr. Hessel and Ms.
	Lewis, whom, as far as I can tell, are not even married, erupted.
	Oh, take it!
	The parents are staying for photos in front of the bench.
	Lawyer is hugging them.
	Ms.
	Lewis, in the photo, forms a heart with her hands.
	The judge informs a party another damage trial against Jones is set for September 14th.
	Plaintiffs in that trial are Lenny Posner and Veronique de la Rosa, parents of Noah Posner, the youngest Sandy Hook victim.
	To the best of my knowledge, Lenny Posner was never married to Veronique de la Rosa.
	Indeed, his name isn't even Lenny Posner, but Ruben Vabner.
	He is the father of the image presented as Noah Posner, who appears to be a legal fiction made out of photographs of a real son of Reuben Vabner, namely Michael Vabner, when he was a child.
	The fraud is this extensive.
	Judge said she thought lawyers had already surrendered the contents of Alex Jones' phone to authorities.
	This is important!
	The judge says she's not preventing the San Diego lawyers from giving Jones' text message to law enforcement and the January 6th House Committee.
	The judge acknowledged Reynolds' objection, and in Texas, the law is capping.
	Punitive damage imply we don't trust our juries.
	Jones' lawyer is objecting, saying that the verdict does not comply with the law, which in Texas limits the actual award to $750,000 per plaintiff, so a total of $1.5 mil for Hesslin and Lewis.
	Total punitive damage is $45.2 mil, a big number.
	The chair is relaying the verdict to Judge Maya Gara-Gamble.
	The jury is back.
	Worth bearing in mind, this is the first of three trials for damages against Mr. Jones.
	Two more are scheduled for next month.
	One in Texas, and one brought by the families of eight victims in Connecticut.
	Were laws governing damages in favor of the plaintiffs more than in Texas?
	And of course, Connecticut is where the shooting occurred.
	I should say the purported shooting occurred.
	May I say I sought to interview in all three of these trials on behalf of the court and the parties to point out that there's never been a judicial determination that anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	And in all three cases, I was opposed by both parties.
	Punitive damages are designed as deterrents, and as the name implies, punishes Jones for defaming Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, parents of Jesse Lewis VI killed at Sandy Hook, except, as I say, to the best of my knowledge, he ain't never even mentioned them by name.
	Yesterday's damage were compensatory, meant to compensate the family for actual costs incurred as a result of Jones' defamatory claims, which, as far as I can tell, were actually nothing of the sort.
	Joe, this is the official narrative.
	Your thoughts?
	Yeah, well, Texas has 14 appellate court districts, and since San Antonio and Austin are pretty close together, they'll probably end up having elected appellate court judges that are just as liberal as the Travis County, where Austin's located.
	So that's going to be pretty much a non-starter, but this judge in this case is just Absolutely a flaming libtard.
	You should go and look at some of her Twitters where she's like dressed up with her purple hair and rainbow flags and you know we can do this and I'm triple jabbed and you know God I hope she is triple jabbed because we won't have to deal with her for that much longer.
	But bottom line is spend another six months or a year paying another hundred thousand dollars in attorney's fees and you'll get rejected in the appellate court, even though there's clear violations of court procedure and constitutional rights repeatedly in this case.
	But then when it gets to the Supreme Court, there's five Supreme Court justices that are elected statewide and they're not going to let this thing stand.
	It's just too flagrant.
	So he will ultimately get this turned around.
	But the problem is, like you say, it's lawfare.
	They'll just keep bleeding into death with the next two cases.
	And I'm sure with, you know, a claim 20 number of people dead up there, then they'll be able to dig up a few more plaintiffs and come after.
	Yeah, I keep on thinking about this.
	and five.
	So it's a nightmare for him.
	And there's no way around it.
	You just they're not allowed to have free speech in this country.
	Mike, your thoughts about the official story?
	Yeah, I keep on thinking about this.
	Just like 63 and 64 in America, the public concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, not in the courtroom, but through presented public evidence.
	And there's about Four things I'd like to mention that are way out of bounds when it comes to this A lot of people don't know in that particular thing, and I'll tie it together.
	Uh, on 3-15, about approximately on November 22nd, on Friday, Ruth Payne answers the door, and the policemen come up to her house, and she says, come on in.
	You've been, uh, we've been waiting on you.
	They already had much of Lee Harvey Oswald's stuff packed up at the front door.
	The landlord at that time could not give permission to search any of Lee Harvey's stuff.
	And no search warrant was issued until the next day, but evidence was taken out of that house that evening.
	Why bring this up now?
	Jones was convicted of defaming the survivors of Sandy Hood.
	But where is his First Amendment rights?
	Why did the survivors not have to prove their claims?
	If you defame somebody, you have to prove that something exactly happened.
	You can't just say they didn't like what happened, but they have to prove that.
	Is this justice?
	Can our society be sustained and maintained like this?
	In the Johnny Depp case, Johnny Depp actually had to prove a loss of income, what happened with Amber Heard's comments.
	So even in a defamation case there, and that pretty much paralyzed a lot of America, they had to at least prove that there are certain ones.
	I think that the Alex Jones here.
	The people from Sandy Hook were able to start out with kind of like the Lehar guy.
	The idea in the public is already convicted and they didn't have to bring that up.
	And what happens in that case is that we really have lost the whole sense of justice.
	Horrible, horrible situation.
	Yeah, I think you're right.
	Now, let's take a look at another point of view.
	This would be mine.
	Alex Jones ordered to pay Sandy Hook's parents more than 4 mil.
	This is preliminary compensatory damages.
	Lawyers for the families have requested 150 mil for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	In other words, he's supposed to have hurt their feelings.
	Now, notice we have here the photographs sent around the world.
	There's supposed to be a policewoman escorting children away from the Sandy Hook site.
	But it turns out there was an earlier photograph.
	Shannon Hicks, the Newtown Bee photojournalist, has admitted taking them both.
	But look what the earlier photograph, taken I would estimate five minutes earlier, shows that they rearranged the kids to get a better shot.
	And there were lots of parents there with their hands in the pockets, their arms folded.
	Look at the lower between boy number one and boy number two, several mothers looking on.
	Casually leading me to describe this photograph as lounging at the massacre, they took boy number one and put him at the head of the line, replacing the little girl in a pink sweater and the short skirt to get a better shot.
	In my opinion, this photograph all by itself refutes the claim that Sandy Hook was real.
	You don't have stage photographs of a purported evacuation at a real event, and no parent's gonna stand around if there's a shooting going on there, grab their kid, and get out of Dodge.
	Heslin and Lewis said there wasn't enough compensation for the pain and suffering they'd been put through, but it was all nonsense.
	Their claim?
	Ongoing trauma instigated by Jones, gunshots fired at a home, threatening phone calls, online messages, and harassment.
	I know of no one who does research on Sandy Hook who would perform those feats, but it would be easy to stage that.
	Meanwhile, in my own case, I've had to appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court because the summary judgment procedures in Wisconsin are absurd and allow the judge to determine the facts of the matter.
	If he thinks someone's pleading is unreasonable, he's got to set it aside.
	He did in my case.
	When I claim nobody died at Sandy Hook, that it was a FEMA drill, even had the manual to support it.
	He merely set it aside as not reasonable.
	And the Wisconsin Appellate Court supported him.
	Look at this.
	There's no reasonable dispute regarding the following facts.
	On December 14, 2012, a mass shooting occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
	Tragically, 26 people were killed, including 6 staff members and 20 children who were aged 6 and 7.
	This is from a previous suit, Jones v. Haslam, which states, Neil Heslin's son was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012.
	Rejecting the Substantial Truth Doctrine as a basis to dismiss Heslin's defamation claim, related a statement disputing Heslin's assertion that he held his deceased son in his arms.
	Soto v. Burstmaster, 20-year-old Adam Lonza forces way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown and during the course of 264 seconds, Well, right on its face, how could they come up with 264 seconds?
	Did someone have a stopwatch?
	Did they start timing it when the first shot took place, which officially should have been a surprise?
	How would anyone know?
	That's obviously worthy of dispute.
	on its face.
	How could they come up with 264 seconds?
	Did someone have a stopwatch?
	Did they start timing it when the first shot took place, which officially should have been a surprise?
	How would anyone know?
	That's obviously worthy of dispute.
	It's absurd.
	Both of these cases, Jones v. Sadlin and Soto v. Bushmaster, were decided on procedural grounds.
	There has been no determination through the judicial process that anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	Mine was a case that was dedicated to do that, and it was sidetracked by declaring all my evidence to be unreasonable.
	Moreover, Since the medical examiner, Wayne Carver, at his press conference declared that the parents were not even allowed to see their children, how is it possible that this Neil Hesselin could have held his dying son in his arms?
	So which was it?
	Either Wayne Carter was lying about the parents not being able to see their kids, or Neil Hesselin has been lying about holding Jesse in his arms as he died.
	They cannot both be true.
	But bear in mind they could both be false, which appears to be the case.
	Alex Jones cannot be guilty of defamation by denying that Neil Heslin held his dying son in his arms, as long as that is true, and even Wayne Carver supports a conclusion that Alex had it right.
	Meanwhile, while I'm legally constrained from addressing issues related to Noah Posner, especially related to his death certificate, perhaps the single most important proof that Sandy Hook was a FEMA exercise presented as mass murder to promote gun control is a photograph showing a crime scene vehicle in the parking lot
	Where we find a flag at full mass, areas isolated with crime scene tape, and a figure who appears to be Wayne Carver, M.D., reclining against a wall, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
	But take a close look at the windows of Classroom 10, which are intact.
	Those are the windows right here.
	Four windows in a row, just above the roof of the crime scene vehicle.
	After the event, They would be shown as shot out, especially the second from the left.
	So this photo was taken either before the event had taken place or before they had completed fabricating evidence.
	Either way, it may be the single most damning photo exposing the charade.
	Ryan Davidson P.I.
	tracked it down to a magazine where it was published and then to the photographic archives of the Connecticut State Police, who are apparently running the event behind the scene.
	As proof of consciousness of guilt, they have removed metadata from their Sandy Hook photos.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yes, amicus curiae is literally translated from Latin as friend of the court.
	Generally, it's referencing a person or a group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter.
	So it could be that your case gets heard by the Supreme Court, gets kicked back to the Wisconsin court, forced to review evidence before, and then you get a judgment reversed, and all that could happen before uh jones is able to work his way through the appellate and supreme court process here in texas which generally takes about two years so you could have a happy surprise ending for all of these people
	and and uh who knows book sales of nobody died at sandy hook may go through the roof except they brought the suit to ban the book and it would be the case however if it were reversed that it wouldn't sell like hot cakes but Mike, your thoughts?
	Yeah, if you could do me a big favor and go back to that first picture that you had on your deal with the cars.
	I wanted to point out something, I think.
	This one?
	No, the one at the beginning of your... Okay, right there.
	Okay, if you look, You see that green, you see behind boy number one, they have that green, looks like a station wagon and it's behind, it says boy number two there.
	Okay, if I'm not mistaken, there seems to be more cars in the parking lot under the second one than there is in the first one.
	Look at, see where there's, like, you count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you have a white station wagon of some sort, or SUV.
	Then you go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	I'm counting up here, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, is that what you mean?
	Yeah!
	Two, three, four, you think more than five?
	Yeah, I think more than five.
	And you notice that you have a dumpster or something that's green in the back over here, behind that car that you can see.
	Right over there.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	And it's not appears at all on this one, it doesn't look like.
	And then you have cars on the other side, which you do not see from that direction too.
	So this is almost like this is a Bruder film where all of a sudden it looks like they're playing and editing with that and trying to use that as evidence.
	That's really, really kind of a strange thing.
	Now, getting back to what you were quoting on the two cases, that's almost like hearsay, because we take a look at the two cases that they tried to conclude saying that there was actual death because of this.
	If they were decided for procedural reasons, that was technically not reason Why?
	It's very similar to how the Democrats are arguing against the voter fraud.
	They said that there's never been proof of voter fraud.
	The reason why there hasn't been proof of voter fraud is because they got rid of most of all those cases procedurally.
	They didn't get rid of them on their merits.
	So, again, you're exactly right where it points out there was no merit.
	And I think this is end up going to be a really, really a no proof type of a situation that they're trying to get around on words.
	But that picture, I thought, really spoke a lot to me, because just like you watch and take apart as a brooder film.
	And all of a sudden you see like people don't really belong in certain places and stuff.
	That obviously had to take place sometime.
	If you have more people coming, why would more people come and then park and park in rows if there really was a massacre?
	Oh, there's there's much, much more.
	But Mike, I'd like all those comments.
	Excellent.
	Meanwhile, Here's a report from Robert Barnes has been reviewing the trial and has a lot of interesting things to say about it.
	I'll pick up here.
	Listen to what he has to say.
	For those donors, you can ask for the funds back.
	There's a more effect, you know, normally if you're going to give donations back, you just email everybody who gave a donation and say, do you want your donation back?
	I don't know if he's done that.
	At least other people were unaware that he has.
	So, that's sort of some of the backstory, and in the middle of all of this, he has come out and attacked Robert Malone, he's attacked Simone Gold, he's attacked anybody who defended Ivermectin, got into a debate that he did not come on the better side of with Pierre Koury, he sort of ambushed Robert Malone on a Fox News station, and then he was sort of really badly whoring for the Ukraine war.
	And critical of anybody who raised any questions about that either.
	Even predicted back in March that China was going to tell Russia to end the war.
	A prediction that didn't turn out so good amongst many.
	So there's been a lot of people that since he's come back to, you know, it's like, why are you obsessed with attacking Alex Jones?
	When you don't know, when it's obvious you haven't done your due diligence as an investigative researcher or reporter.
	You don't know the facts of the case.
	You don't know what's really, you don't know the legal theory that they're actually propounding.
	You don't know what's taking place in the trial.
	You don't know what took place in discovery.
	You don't know any of these things.
	And instead, he just double downs and triples down.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Just keeps repeating himself and attacking anybody who raises questions.
	You know, earlier other people had raised questions about his Twitter settlement and he started threatening people with lawyers and lawsuits right away.
	This is what I noticed in a lot of the responses.
	I don't like it.
	This is like going after the intentions right away where people are saying, Oh, was this part of your settlement now that you have to toe the line for whomever?
	Was this part of the terms that now you feel indebted to the powers that gave you back your Twitter feed, even though, you know, Jones never got his back, so this is what you have to do?
	I don't like it.
	Berenson is entitled to have sincere beliefs.
	Sure.
	He's entitled to be sincerely wrong, but then show a little respect to the people who might know a little more on this particular issue.
	What really irks me is that Berenson, An individual who was demonized by mainstream media, deplatformed by big tech, and I bet there were a lot of other people out there who looked at Barron and said, I know this guy.
	This guy's a grifter.
	This guy's a poisonous shill milking COVID.
	He deserves to get booted from social media.
	That's what a bunch of his critics said.
	I mean, they said about him what he is now saying about Alex Jones.
	Oh, he's probably never really read or watched Alex Jones much at all.
	I find the people that hate Alex Jones, what they share in common is they've actually never really read or watched it.
	Alex's War is out now.
	People can get it on a streaming service.
	This is by a liberal Democrat who produced, my understanding, produced the film.
	It's a film that everybody's watched it.
	Says it's a pretty impartial film.
	It's neither partial to nor against Jones.
	Gets into a lot of his controversies.
	Some people in fact were unhappy that it didn't get into a lot of other aspects of Alex's life that could have been much more sympathetic to him.
	But it's not an advocacy film.
	It's a film of here's Alex Jones from Alex's perspective, highlighting some of the big controversies in his life.
	I would have highlighted his extraordinary role calling out every war lie that's ever been told.
	He was ahead of the curve for the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the dumb bombings in Syria.
	He was pushing Alexander Cockburn and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden before anybody else.
	And when many people on the right were attacking those people, that's the only part of the film I thought could have and would have been better included to really round out the scope.
	But Glenn Greenwald was very praiseworthy about the film and said very complimentary things about Alex at the film, a very prominent liberal journalist who actually does do his due diligence more often than Alex Berenson obviously does.
	And so if you're going to hold yourself out as an independent researcher, and that if you're making a statement, that statement is based on your knowledge, your independent due diligence.
	Then you need to be right, and he's not.
	And it's obvious he's not.
	In fact, I had a debate here with media here about, I was like, tell me what fact, what item of discovery did Alex Jones hold back?
	I was like, do any of you know?
	Well, what item of discovery did he not turn over that led to the default?
	None of them knew.
	New York Times reporter didn't know.
	None of them knew.
	And that's because it doesn't exist.
	As anybody watching the trial can see, they're like, okay, the plaintiffs have all of his videos, They have his internal private embarrassing emails.
	They have internal text messages.
	They have intimate details of all of his financial well-being and the well-being of the company.
	What was it he didn't turn over that required the extraordinary and extreme act of a default judgment depriving him of his constitutional right to trial by jury?
	Nobody can say.
	Nobody can identify.
	I was trying to look it up just to find out myself because there's so many things about this.
	Even if, and this is even if, Jones did not turn over discovery documents, even then, only exceptionally, I assume it's the same under the U.S.
	law, only exceptionally would the ultimate sanction be not just no defense or foreclosed from pleading, judgment by default.
	My question was this, two questions.
	Even in Canada, when you say, foreclosed from pleading, the plaintiff still has to prove their case.
	They can't just say, judgment by default.
	Prove your case, show your evidence.
	Did the plaintiffs ever do that or did judge, whatever her name is, simply say, foreclosed from pleading, so therefore here's your verdict?
	Yeah, all of that.
	I mean, that's what Alex Berenson got wrong.
	He didn't know what the discovery was, because he couldn't cite it like anyone else.
	He also didn't know what the legal theory is.
	The legal theory is not that Alex Jones said specifically false factual claims about specifically identified individuals.
	It's acknowledged in the trial that he never even named or referenced the individuals by name or by image, ever.
	Instead, their theory is, people are starting to figure out when watching this horrifying trial unfold, this Kafka-esque trial in Travis County unfold, is that the theory is, as one of the jurors made clear, because the jurors are being allowed to ask questions, and we'll get to that a little bit later when we talk about the Jones case, One of the jurors said, can we use this against election deniers too?
	Well, it was even worse.
	They said, is this an appropriate way to sanction?
	To stop election deniers.
	I mean, so you can see what the theory is.
	Have you voiced an opinion that the government disagrees with, that somebody feels emotionally offended by?
	And this is why Alex Berenson should have had his eyes wide open like Clockwork Orange.
	If he had been paying attention, he could be sued into oblivion based on the theory against Alex Jones.
	Here he is cheering on, not only cheering on the kind of censorship that he has previously opposed, but here he is cheering on a legal theory that could bankrupt him tomorrow.
	A legal theory that is, have you voiced an opinion, number one, number two, the government disagrees with, number three, you knew it could offend certain groups of people that are within a zone of emotional danger, basically a legalized safe space, well they can sue you into oblivion now, even if they can't show any specific damages that you caused them.
	Robert?
	What do the plaintiff's lawyers say wasn't turned over?
	I know it has to do with... I thought it had to do with correspondence.
	It almost always is small stuff.
	So what would happen is they would... Like, for example, normally a default judgment is someone doesn't show up.
	It's almost supposed to be reserved for that.
	Why?
	Because, again, you have a constitutional right to trial by jury.
	And the courts are stripping you of that right when they issue a default judgment on any issue.
	So the courts are highly cognizant of this.
	This is why people who don't even show up and show up a year later get the default judgment set aside more often than not.
	It's for constitutional reasons you can't do it.
	Robert, actually just to pause you there, but even if the defendant doesn't show up, you don't get a rubber stamp verdict.
	You still have to show your evidence.
	If you say there's a deed of sale, I own that house, defendant doesn't show up, you still have to submit the evidence.
	And if you don't submit the evidence, a judge can still say no, I'm not giving you the judgment.
	Oh, completely.
	Typically what happens is if there's really an essential discovery item, that they cannot get and that they can prove existed and destroyed, then you get a factual inference about that discovery item, and that's it.
	It's limited to that.
	It's not a default.
	That's an absurd.
	Let me just say there's much more to it.
	You can find the whole thing on my BitChute channel, Jim Fetzer.
	This comes from another source.
	Pat Shannon posted this.
	Musings of August 2022.
	My guess this month is Michael Baxter, who wrote almost everything I would have said about this case, is reported right on.
	We're witnessing the murder of the First Amendment.
	Deep state slams, free speech, pioneer Alex Jones.
	My thought, Michael Baxter.
	In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter asks Clarice Starling of the killer, Buffalo Bill, what does he do, this man you seek?
	To which Starling answers ascertainably, he kills women.
	No, Lecter replies emphatically, that is incidental, and points out that Bill's killings are merely a byproduct of his true yearning to covet.
	Jones was incidental, an incidental casualty in the deep state's war on free speech, its covetous desire to silence all discussion that contradicts White House talking points and the dogmatic view of mainstream media.
	The farcical trial was never about Alex Jones, not really, and certainly not Sandy Hook.
	It could have been you or me, but Jones, the biggest and wealthiest kid in the room, made an appetizing target.
	His fame and influence in the free speech community put crosshairs on his back, of which he was aware.
	In prosecuting Jones, the deep state delivered an unadulterated message to persons who dare question official narratives.
	No longer will we simply cancel or de-platform you.
	We'll sue you into bankruptcy and poverty.
	The Deep State case against Jones was open and shut.
	He was found guilty before setting foot in a courtroom.
	He wasn't leaving court unscathed.
	Even if Jones' horrible legal representation had magically produced evidence, a smoking gun, that plainly and unequivocally proved beyond all other exclusions that crisis actors were used as Sandy Hook, the court would still have found him liable for damages.
	I've seen articles trouncing Jones' defense team, and yes, his lawyers were among the most incompetent imaginable.
	What defense attorney, where the assault accidentally sends the prosecution privilege information?
	In the end, though, Jones could have hired OJ's dream team and still have been found guilty, not because he committed a crime, but because of the cafonious message that now reverberates through the free speech community.
	The deep state, the liberal lunatics, and the woke masses will tolerate no dissension, conform or else.
	Don't question the authority.
	For Jones, the most immediate authorities were a slanderous prosecutor and the most biased judge in the history of the American legal system.
	They worked as a team, playing off each other while overruling almost every objection raised by Jones' lawyers.
	The prosecution was allowed to enter into evidence statements Jones made opposing COVID-19 lockdowns.
	How exactly does COVID relate to Sandy Hook?
	Jones' lawyers asked that question but were shut down by a deep state judge.
	In short, Jones was wrongly maligned for practicing his constitutionally protected right to free speech.
	He expressed opinions and views, and he certainly didn't kill anyone in Sandy Hook.
	I hope a court of appeals nullifies the judgment against him, but I'm not holding my breath, and neither should Alex.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yes.
	Well, I saw Alex first in person May of 2009 at the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth DVD on a four hour long press conference.
	And so I got to see him up close and personal there.
	And then when the lockdown started, he had opened Texas rallies numerous weekends.
	I probably went to a half dozen of those in Austin over the last two years.
	So I'm somebody that spent hundreds of hours watching and listening to InfoWars.
	reading information on their website.
	He's a pioneer in so many ways, and you've got to admire his courage there.
	But Barnes says that people that criticize him don't have any contact with him.
	Well, one of the people that he had contact with was William Cooper, and right before 9-1-1, Cooper said that they were going to knock down the World Trade Center buildings, and he had a 30 minute long conversation with Alex Jones.
	And then over the next couple of weeks, everybody said, well, why don't you get him back?
	He goes, oh, that guy, man, he's just so abusive.
	I had to take his video down and he was cussing the whole time.
	And so William Cooper in his last dying moments had nothing but negative things to say about him.
	And another guy is David Knight.
	Who worked for Alex Jones for 10 years, and he's got a BitChute channel where he just reams him up and down, has no redeeming qualities at all, which has definitely reduced anything that I previously thought about David Knight's professionalism down to zero.
	I mean, the thing that he's got a 10 minute long rant about Alex Jones on BitChute is absolutely disgusting.
	Turn it on, watch it for a little while, give him a thumbs down in the comment section, say get your cranium out of your rectum.
	Mike, your thoughts?
	Yeah, I think we're looking or focusing on Alex Jones.
	We're doing a lot of ad hominem attacks and we're attacking his personality, but we should actually be looking at the constitutional rights that anyone could be taken away from.
	And this idea of just being convicted for Because you're being convicted and not even being have to prove damages is so bad that our Constitution is being torn up right in front of our eyes.
	And some people are allowing it simply because it's, quote, Alex Jones, without realizing the next time it could be you, me, or anybody else.
	And we cannot have this.
	This is simply wrong, wrong and very wrong.
	I think the key point is they weren't even asked to defend their case that they actually lost children at Sandy Hook.
	They weren't even asked.
	They just finessed it, which was a necessity because they could not have proven it.
	John Rappaport has a thoughtful piece about Alex Jones published on LewRockwell.com, one of the most popular blogs in the United States.
	Let's start here.
	While Jones was supporting Trump, he also mercilessly attacked the horrifically destructive COVID vaccines.
	In the process, he forcefully awakened millions of Trump followers to a truth they were one aware of or did not want to face.
	In the process, lives were saved.
	Decades ago, long before it was fashionable to do so, he explained and righteously attacked globalism, the Rockefeller empire, and the designs of the Chinese regime.
	Perceived by the public as living on the political right, Jones confounded that perception by attacking both big government and big corporations, while so-called conservatives were routinely and conveniently letting criminal corporations off the hook.
	About 20 years ago, the day after George Norrey interviewed me, John Rappaport, about those corporations, Jones called me out of the blue and insisted I come on his radio show and talk about the subject at length.
	Very early in his radio career, he saw the gathering clouds of medical dictatorship on the horizon and spoke about it compellingly.
	His audience got a strong dose of something they'd never thought about.
	Toxic pesticide?
	GMO crops?
	Jones contributed as much to the public understanding of these issues as any dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist.
	However, for years, he's also spoken about the psychopathic anti-human elitists who use the environmental movement as a front for a green revolution that aims to capture humanity in an endless future of poverty.
	No one has done more to expose the predatory adults who guide and groom young children for transgender medical and psychological destruction.
	Since the beginning of his career, he's defended the constitutional rights of citizens to own guns against a deluded crowd who've claimed that taking away all those guns from everybody would lead us into an era of tranquility.
	Millions of non-criminal gun owners owe Jones a debt of gratitude.
	Every day, Jones refuses to let the idea of the original American Republic die.
	Try that yourself.
	See how much energy it takes.
	I could go on and list a number of other vital issues on which he's led the way.
	He's inspired many to start their own independent news outlets and, as they've watched him, make his viable.
	In a materialistic age, he has a vision of the human soul, and whether you agree with it or not, it is not a slave to government-incorporated media and church propaganda.
	If the meaning of the soul sounds like a harmless position to take, it isn't when you're connecting with a large number of people for hours every day, and those propagandists want to shut off your connection and force you to go down to defeat.
	For more than 20 years without let-up, Jones has not only defended the First Amendment to the HILT, he has stood on it to speak freely about a blizzard of issues, and now this has brought him into courtrooms where civil suits have been leveled against him.
	Regardless of the outcomes of the cases, I trust he will survive and carry on.
	He's already won many victories during his career, and they will stand.
	As for the public, there will always be those who go after Jones.
	There will always be whiners and screamers and critics who devote their whole lives to finding someone to pick at and scrape at, while they studiously ignore the good that person has achieved.
	They feed on the bounty of the First Amendment like parasites and never have the courage to see a better world and fight for it.
	Anyone who rises above the crowd is their target, because they are the crowd, Knowing their way to oblivion, so be it.
	The world has its disgusting creatures.
	Alex Jones was and is a pioneer.
	He can handle it.
	He has for a long time, and in the process, he's made many other people open their eyes and see they can too.
	That's the rub.
	When dedicated terrorists notice a contagion of courage, they panic.
	They look for a source.
	Years and years ago, they honed in on Jones, but he's endured, because he and his work are built for the storm.
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yes, well my very first major web post article was Hoax of the Century posted at InfoWars in April 13, 2009, and so I have a gratitude for that, but since then I've approached him and his group multiple times to discuss the actual physics of
	Thermodynamics and radiation physics in the atmosphere and all the things that prove that global warming absolutely is impossible to have happen.
	And they go, we already know about all that.
	We're not going to talk to you anymore.
	So it's like, they've never had anybody that spoke about the actual, they've had some lukewarmest, but they never had anybody that actually understands and would debate any lukewarmness on the planet about what's actually going on and why even the smallest amount of carbon dioxide warming is absolutely impossible.
	And then on 9-1-1, they also not only do not have anyone trained in any physical sciences, they certainly don't have anyone who's trained in structural engineering.
	physical sciences, they certainly don't have anyone who's trained in structural engineering.
	And I've spent 10,000 hours since 2001 reviewing what happened to the Twin Towers.
	And I've spent 10,000 hours since 2001 reviewing what happened to the Twin Towers.
	I would consider myself one of the top experts in the United States on exactly what happened to the Twin Towers that day.
	I would consider myself one of the top experts in the United States on exactly what happened to the Twin Towers that day.
	And I've repeatedly gotten in Owen Schroeder's face at the different rallies where Alex wasn't there and he was stumping for him.
	And I've had 15 minute long conversations, shown him the color graphic stuff.
	And he goes, oh, we already know all about, we're the ones that broke the story on 9-1-1.
	So there again, they're obstinate beyond redemption as far as I'm concerned.
	They are not objective about a whole lot of things and they are certainly dictatorial.
	So from that aspect, I would really criticize him.
	And Alex, I challenge you or Owen Schroeder to debate global warming, green energy, peak oil or 9-1-1 with me anytime.
	Mike.
	Mike.
	All right.
	That was beautifully said.
	I go back to the comments.
	I think that most of the attacks on Alex Jones have to do with ad hominem attacks on him personally.
	And I think that's really wrong when it comes to our society.
	I think we need to be civil in the respect that court cases should stand for something.
	These frivolous court cases where you can sue for millions and millions of dollars without having to prove anything.
	And they're winning.
	It's going to set a tone that's going to cause more court clogging, and it's going to be the downfall of our Republic.
	So as far as Alex Jones goes, I've been down to I see him before, not as extensive as Joseph has.
	My son's been a devotee of him, and I've listened to him on the radio for many occasions.
	Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, but I always seem to learn something, so I just like to have that voice still out there, and I think that's what we need to protect, and we need to protect our First Amendment rights of free speech.
	Yeah, I think that's absolutely right that this is an attack on free speech.
	Meanwhile, believe it or not, you'd think you were dreaming a nightmare.
	The U.N.
	declares war on dangerous conspiracy theories.
	The world is not secretly manipulated by global elite, the U.N.
	tells us.
	Editor's note, I publish this on my blog as well as others about the Alex Jones trial, where my blog is now, jameshfetzer.org, jameshfetzer.org.
	They took my earlier blog, jamesfetzer.org, on the 28th, because that was the day during the Alex Jones trial they were going to start talking about Jim Fetzer, trash-talking Jim Fetzer, People might want to have known what Jim Fetzer had to say about Sandy Hook.
	My blog was a vast repository, so they took it.
	In my opinion, it was completely wrongly taken, but they had a court order that gave them the prima facie grounds to do it, which I'm protesting.
	So, I've had to create a new blog at jameshfetzer.org.
	My note here?
	Bullshit is bullshit, even when it comes from a source such as the UN.
	For antidotes to nonsense, check out my publications available online.
	Thinking about conspiracy theories?
	9-11 and JFK.
	And what's wrong with conspiracy theories?
	Then watch!
	This is an embarrassing development that all but discredits the U.N.
	as having a voice in international affairs.
	It has hereby discredited itself.
	The United Nations has declared war on conspiracy theories, ascribing the rise of conspiracy thinking as worrying and dangerous, and providing the public with a toolkit to pre-bunk and debunk anybody who dares to suggest that world governments are anything but completely honest, upstanding, and transparent.
	The U.N.
	also warns that George Soros, the Rothschilds, and the State of Israel must not be linked to any alleged conspiracies.
	I repeat, the U.N.
	also warns that George Soros, the Rothschilds, and the State of Israel must not be linked to any alleged conspiracy.
	UNESCO has teamed up with Twitter, the European Commission, and the World Jewish Congress, but of course, to launch a campaign dubbed Hashtag Think Before Sharing.
	Stop the spread of conspiracy theories.
	The UN wants you to know that events are not secretly manipulated behind the scene by powerful forces with negative intent.
	And if you encounter anyone who thinks a global elite are conspiring to consolidate power and dictate global events, you must take action.
	According to UNESCO, if you're certain you've encountered a conspiracy theory on the Internet, then you must react immediately with a relevant link to a fact-checking website in the comments.
	Never mind the fact that fact-checkers are mostly untrained and unqualified hacks, performing fact-checks from the comfort of their bedroom in between posting far-left political content on personal blogs and getting high.
	Here's one of their publications.
	Conspiracy Theories.
	What are they?
	Why do they flourish?
	We warn the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rise in harmful and misleading conspiracy theories that may be difficult to recognize them or know how to best deal with them.
	What are they?
	The belief that events are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.
	Conspiracy theories have these six things in common, an alleged secret plot, a group of conspirators, evidence that seems to support the conspiracy theory.
	They falsely suggest nothing happens by accident, there are no coincidences, nothing is at appearance and everything is connected.
	They divide the world into good and bad.
	They scapegoat people and groups.
	Why do they flourish?
	They offer an explanation of events or situations that are difficult to understand or bring a false sense of security and agency.
	This need is heightened in times of uncertainty like the COVID-19 pandemic.
	How do they take root?
	Conspiracy theories often start as a suspicion.
	They ask who is benefiting from the event or situation and thus identify the conspirators.
	Any evidence is then forced to fit the theory.
	Once they've taken root, conspiracy theories can grow quickly.
	They are hard to refute because any person who tries is seen as being part of the conspiracy.
	Why do people spread them?
	There are different reactions.
	Most believe they are true.
	Others deliberately want to provoke, manipulate, or target people for political and financial reasons.
	Beware!
	They can come from many sources.
	For example, the Internet, friends, and relatives.
	UNESCO also provides advice for anyone who encounters a real-life conspiracy theorist in the flesh.
	According to the UN agency, you must not under any circumstances be lured into an argument with a conspiracy theorist.
	Any argument may be taken as proof that you're part of the conspiracy and reinforce that belief.
	And conspiracy theorists will probably argue hard to defend their beliefs.
	Instead, you must show empathy.
	Avoid ridiculing them.
	And if you are a journalist, you must report them to social media and contact your local national press council or press ombudsman.
	Conspiracy theories.
	Concrete counteractions.
	If you're certain you have identified a conspiracy theory, react rather than ignore.
	Here are some concrete ways.
	On social media, comment with verified information from fact-checking websites, for example.
	Do not share the post.
	On websites and blogs, contact the author or the web manager with verified information and ask them to make corrections.
	Do not share the website or blog post.
	On media outlets, Contact the editorial board.
	Contact your local national press council or press ombudsman.
	Do not share the material!
	Remarkably, hidden in the fine print, UNESCO admits conspiracy theories do exist.
	Meaning, really, conspiracies do exist.
	Under the heading, what is a real conspiracy, the United Nations bureaucrats explain that real conspiracies, large and small, do exist.
	According to the UN, however, it's only a real conspiracy if it's unearthed by the media.
	They are more often centered on single self-contained events or an individual like an assassination or a coup d'etat.
	They are unearthed by whistleblowers and the media using verifiable facts and evidence.
	What is a real conspiracy?
	Real conspiracies, large and small, do exist.
	Looking for a real one in 2006, The U.S.
	District Court in Washington, D.C.
	ruled that major cigarette companies were guilty of conspiracy for decades.
	They had hidden evidence of health risks attached to smoking to promote higher sales.
	L.A.
	Times, 2006.
	There's just one problem with the U.N.
	definition of a real conspiracy theory.
	The media has been fully bought and paid for by the elite.
	And it's the elite who are conspiring against the masses.
	Ask yourself.
	When was the last time the media unearthed a conspiracy and asked yourself, when was the last time the media covered one up?
	Joe, your thoughts?
	Yes, well I love that meme that says we need to have some new conspiracies because all of the old ones have been proven true.
	Yeah, that's where we are in this crazy world right now.
	You cannot vote, pray, or obey your way out of tyranny, and that's exactly where we are.
	And as far as them stealing your website, Looks like a slapsuit to me.
	Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
	And I think that's been enacted in almost every state, so check in Wisconsin.
	Strategic lawsuits against public participation or strategic litigation against public participation are lawsuits intended to censor Intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
	And that's what we got.
	We got a bunch of bullies that decide that they can lie to us as much as they want.
	And if you dare try to tell truth, they will pound you to death.
	You're absolutely right, Joe.
	Yeah, it's a slap suit brought against me.
	They're illegal in some 36 states, but perfectly okay in Wisconsin.
	Mike?
	Yeah, conspiracies, and especially, I was reading this earlier this morning, conspiracies in the United Nations.
	That's kind of like an oxymoron because Conspiracies take place all around the world, not just here in the United States.
	In fact, some of the more popular Korean dramas had to do with conspiracies.
	There have been two very famous Turkish dramas that are out.
	One a couple of years ago, Flinta, which was all about a conspiracy during the 19th century.
	And then Telskat, I'm not pronouncing it right, but it's currently finished its second season, extremely popular again.
	Why are they so popular?
	They are so popular because in most cases they actually make sense.
	So you have media in other parts of the world actually poking fun of some sort of group of people controlling stuff, but it seems to me to make a much more sense that there is something to this and just all these things happen by happenstance.
	If you take a look at some archaeologists digging up our Our school 400, 500 years from now.
	And they just say, well, the thing came together by accident.
	It didn't come together by accident.
	It was actually physically built.
	And most of these conspiracies are orchestrated for the purpose of some sort of control.
	And most people that have a ability to do that are rich and powerful people.
	And for some reason, that's what they seem to like, is to control everybody else.
	So if we want to stay in the free world, forget about conspiracies and don't question anything.
	And the best example of this could actually probably be our American education system.
	We are not teaching people to think much anymore.
	We're just thinking to people to accept.
	And the more accepting you are and the less questioning you are, the more easy it is for people to be controlled.
	Mike, you got it exactly right.
	Meanwhile, we want to hear from you.
	Send fan mail pro or con to live-need-to-know-at-gmail.com.
	Live-need-to-know-at-gmail.com.
	Some comments from my blog.
	This seems like a satire.
	Almost like forgetting you woke up on April 1st and started reading the faux headline of your local newspaper.
	When The Vail Daily did this one year, they got more going for a minute.
	This almost seems like that.
	According to UNESCO, if you're certain you have encountered a conspiracy theory on the Internet, then you must react immediately.
	Post a relevant link to a fact-checking website in the comments.
	This reminds me of the Soros-elected Colorado Secretary of State Janet Giswold and her predecessor appearing on a fake book ad to tell us how safe, secure, and trustworthy our elections were right after they effed Tiny Peters out of the Republican nomination, which she was leading by miles.
	They SWAT teamed her and hauled her away after she made forensic copies of the voter database before and after Dominion's trusted build update.
	Do you think they would have raided her had the images been identical?
	Here's another.
	It seems hardly worth commenting on such poppycock except to say that the banning of conspiracy theories, aka spoiler alerts, is one more example of the desperation of Western elites in losing control.
	In all fairness, UNESCO and those other non-entities it's aligned with are not, the same as the United Nations.
	Only the vote of the United Nations General Assembly, ironically often berating Israel, or that of the UN Security Council, can truly be said to represent the view of the United Nations.
	The United Nations, as with other nations and global entities, has its own deep state, bureaucratic infiltrators at UNESCO and other agencies that go about business on their own.
	But since four of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—Russia, USA, France, and Britain—represent only 7% of the world's population, even a Security Council vote doesn't necessarily represent the views of the world community at large.
	Interestingly, the UN didn't mention itself and its alleged occult symbolism as a favorite target in certain conspiracy circles.
	Mind you, my case before the Supreme Court has been distributed for conference on the 28th of September.
	It's been through 10 of the 12 steps in proceeding to a hearing before the court.
	I will know by October 3rd whether or not my writ has been accepted by the court.
	Meanwhile, final thoughts, Joe, yours.
	Yes, well I'm overdue to leave my study room here at the library.
	I just want to mention over the weekend I had a great interview on Friday with Jorge Moric on TNT Radio, and then on Saturday a two-hour interview with Clifford Saunders, who's an electrical engineer that went back and got a PhD and applied Psychiatry.
	So he's a really great guy.
	We had a really wonderful, both of those presentations were great and both of them were posted at Principia Scientific.
	So if you want to find out what I do on the weekends, you're more than welcome to go to Principia Scientific.
	I got to check out guys.
	Catch you guys tomorrow.
	Great job.
	Thank you.
	Mike, your thoughts?
	Yeah, I think from today's wrapping up, I think that we should question everything.
	And it doesn't even hurt if you believe in conspiracy theories to question it.
	The idea of not questioning is really the problem in which they get the control from you.
	So we need to start with taking back our educational systems, which teach people how to think, not what to think.
	And we need to also start looking at our candidates, not what they say, but what they actually do.
	So, you know, they can say one thing, but they do something entirely different.
	It's really up to us to try to take ownership in our own lives.
	We can no longer just be puppets and be orchestrated by people from behind the scenes.
	And I think that's what my final thoughts are today.
	Well, Mike Cunningham, Joe Olson, Sensational Texas Monday, I'm delighted with all your contributions.
	After 35 years in higher education offering principled courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I can guarantee you all this is to defeat the idea of thinking things through.
	It's intended to make you a passive receiver of information espoused by government authority, which you are not allowed to be challenged.
	Alex Jones has been set up as a prime example of how you may be punished if you challenge official narratives.
	He has done a lot of good in his day.
	I volunteered to assist him, even to be an expert witness at his trial.
	But they had a different agenda in mind.
	I'm sorry to say, I believe his own attorneys wanted the very outcome that has come about.
	Pay attention to what's going on here.
	Never...
	Don't let these monsters deprive you of the right to think things true.
	Popper emphasized, our most reliable method in discovering the truth is by open discussion and debate featuring all sides and evidence from every available source.
	That's what we should aspire to do.
	Don't let these monsters deprive you of the right to think things true.
	Alex Jones has been a champion of free speech, and I stand with him.
	Thank you for joining us today.
	It's Spend as much time as you can with your friends and loved ones, people you love.
	We do not know how much time we have left.

▲