All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
58:42
Beyond the Official Narrative (13 September 2022) with Richard Kary
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Music Someday they won't let you, now you must agree The times they are a-telling and the changing isn't real
Redding in the TV and the tracks are on TV We're the Sabbath's door, like 84 They'll spit your pretty granium and fill it full of air We can tell you that you're made air, but rather you want to watch it
Good afternoon everyone, and welcome You're listening to Republic Broadcasting at republicbroadcasting.org.
Today is Tuesday, September 13th, 2022.
I'm your host, Richard Kerry, and this is Beyond the Official Narrative.
And I would like to remind everyone to please donate Donations is the main way we keep everything running here, and of course you can find all our donation information at republicbroadcasting.org on our donate page.
We greatly appreciate it, and certainly monthly donations are greatly appreciated to help keep things running.
We have my regular Tuesday co-host, firstly, here with me, Paul in California.
Hello, Paul.
Today's show.
Hey, how's it going?
Always good to have you here with us.
And we have a couple of special guests today, Paul, which I'm very excited to share with the listeners.
Firstly, we have back the one, the only, Dr. James Fetzer.
And always an honor to have you.
Welcome, Dr. Fetzer.
Oh, Richard, I'm delighted.
I did not know Paul would be joining, but that's also a pleasure.
Fantastic, fantastic.
Yeah, I've been having him on Tuesdays lately, every Tuesday with me as a co-host.
And yeah, it's definitely been a good, I got in contact with him through you.
So thank you for that, sir.
And we have also here, Dr. Fetzer, Mr. Mike Sledge, whom I've had on a number of times, I know from previous platforms.
Welcome, Mike.
Hey, great to be here.
It's a pleasure again to be on the same broadcast with Dr. Fetzer.
Great to be here.
Dr. Fetzer, you know, I wanted to invite Mike because, yeah, Mike Sledge here was on your show.
Paul in California actually suggested it and that I help arrange it.
And I was really impressed with everything the two of you covered, both on just the long-term plans, you know, for these agendas we see converging.
Uh, in the current era, but also on a personal level, I mean, dissecting your court case, uh, the different lawyers you've had, the Sandy Hook case is so monumental, you know, to the, uh, you know, the, well, the whole gun agenda for one.
And, I mean, it was a very interesting discussion.
So, I mean, I am curious to hear Mike initiate a back and forth with you, almost sort of like interviewing you on your trial, and also some of these greater converging agendas we see now, whatever Mike likes.
Firstly, though, I don't know, I wanted to toss things over to Paul to head things off and see what he'd like to address.
Paul, if you would, please.
Thank you, Richard.
I've been waiting for this day all my life.
Jim, you may not know, but Julie is the board up here at Republic Broadcasting.
Julie, drop Jim!
Drop it.
You wouldn't know, Paul, but my very first radio show was on RBN, and John Stamiller, After I'd been on, I don't know how many months, called me up and in the middle of a live show fired me.
Fired me right on the air.
I was talking about Hillary Clinton and how there were rumors, this is many, many years ago, that she was a lesbian.
And I was explaining why her sexual orientation ought not to make a difference to her candidacy.
And Stantmiller called me out of the blue and says, Fetzer, he says, I'm going to ask you a question.
I want a straight answer.
I said, sure.
He said, are you a liberal?
And I had to laugh because I'd opened the show the very first time I'd come on RBN.
I'd said that I was A liberal in the JFK FDR tradition that I believed in the social safety network of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, you know, and I'd said that right up front that I believed everyone deserved representation, not just the rich, but he'd apparently missed that.
And he fired me on the spot.
I said, yeah, sure.
And he fired me right on the spot, right on the air, canceled the show.
Hysterical!
And now that you remind me of that, I do remember you talking about that before, so that is interesting.
And of course, as you know, we go back a very long way.
I was actually the first caller to your show.
I didn't really know that until somebody reminded me of it.
And you've actually given me a little bit of, shall we say, 15 minutes of Internet fame, some of our, shall we say, interchanges.
So, thank you for that.
Well, Paul, you've had much more than 15 minutes, my friend.
So, Jim, the first question I'd like to ask is, what's going on with Wisconsin football?
You were 17 and a half point favorites over Washington State, and you didn't even score 17 points.
You lost the game.
Come on.
It was dismal.
When we were watching the game, I was complaining about the refereeing, because these were Pac-12 ralphs.
And every time Wisconsin made a good game, they called it back.
Typically, it was on the basis of holding.
And of course, holding is an offense that can be called on virtually every single play of every college game.
But they were only calling them against the Badgers, and it was again and again and again.
It really dispirited the team, so that by the time they came out in the fourth quarter, they really felt enervated.
My wife at the time we were watching together said that was just my opinion, you know, that I ought to do that, that when the Badgers do poorly, I blame it on the refs.
But my son-in-law and my grandson had been at the game and they were both completely of the same opinion as I. So I think this was one of those cases where We got ratted by the refs.
It was a bad game.
But you're right to call attention to it.
We ought to have beaten them.
I do think they played a pretty good game.
I thought their quarterback was pretty good.
But I believe it's one we ought to have won had it been fair and square.
But there you go.
It's a big L either way.
Well, I would never dispute your observations because I've been watching sports for a very long time and trying to enjoy it as best I can.
And yeah, you watch enough and you can discern things that are not quite copacetic, as they say.
So, you know, it's one of those things.
Well, anyway, I'll throw it over to our esteemed panel now for more serious topics.
Thank you, Jim.
Sure.
All right.
Well, Mr. Sledge, I don't know, where would you like to start?
I mean, I really liked the way you were analyzing the The Sandy Hook trial, Dr. Fetzer's role in that and the different phases.
Well, he's had one lawyer that didn't work out so well.
You kind of went into that a bit.
I don't know.
Where would you like to begin?
Yeah, well, speaking of bad games, the court system of the United States, the Corporation of the United States of America, I think it's rigged.
And I think Dr. Fetzer has done an amazing job with the Sandy Hook case.
I think his book is incredible.
All of his research is incredible, which I agree with 100%.
I think it's brilliant.
It woke me up to a lot of that stuff that's happening now, and it was because of his research.
But I'm concerned that, Dr. Fetzer, I don't think you ever will be able to receive a fair trial in this system.
I think the system is rigged against you.
I think our court system is a country club.
You know, I think that your case goes against the very foundation of this system that we have that's corrupt to the core.
And I just don't think, you know, just like the refs, the bad refs in the game you're talking about, I think the court system are bad refs.
When any of us people come up to it and try to petition this corrupt system and put out truth, I think we get shot down every time.
And I just, I think you're up against a huge mountain here, and I don't see, you know, I think it's gonna be very difficult.
I wish you all the best, but I think it's gonna be a very difficult case for that reason.
I think that, you know, it's one thing to have a trial when your defense is, you know, a personal case involving personal issues and that kind of thing.
You can get a good lawyer and win, but when you're going against the very foundation of the system, I think it becomes I think you become a dangerous person.
I think you are to the system because you've exposed the most important part and that is the fakery, the trickery, the lies.
And that's really their most important thing that they have their most important weapon because propaganda and misdirection.
These people are black magic magicians and misdirection.
It's how they operate, and you've exposed the misdirection, the trickery, the fakery.
So anyway.
Well, Mike, those are all very interesting observations.
When Amazon first banned the book, less than a month after it had gone on sale and sold nearly 500 copies, Mike Adams interviewed me.
He was the one who took the most interest.
Even Project Censored out of Sonoma State in California never even mentioned the banning of this book, which was rather historic at the time.
I mean, there's no good reason it ought to have been banned.
There were 20 books on sale dealing with Sandy Hook, 19 of which were a variation, one or another, on the official narrative, only mine I was taking a skeptical stance where I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs, and we established a school that had been closed by 2008, that there were no students there, that it was a FEMA drill for which we even had the manual presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
They would subsequently ban five more of my books, Mike.
I don't know if you're aware of that, but they would subsequently ban my books on the Boston bombing, Orlando and Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, even the moon landing, though I believe that's not because of the moon landing chapters, which certainly demonstrate clearly we did not go.
We didn't have the propulsion power, the computational capacity, the communication ability.
We couldn't transit the Van Allen radiation belt.
But because of a section of the book where I brought together a group of experts disputing the official narrative of the end of World War II and what happened to a very large number who is supposed to have been disposed of in a way that wasn't even physically possible because they didn't have the facilities.
But it was when I released the book for free as a PDF, I think that they were taken aback.
I don't believe anyone anticipated that would happen.
They were trying their best to suppress what I put together and all the feedback I've had from both sides.
I mean, even from those who were involved in the event has been extremely positive about the book where they respect my efforts to expose the truth.
Those who are running the scam behind the scene, and it's not necessarily the actual players you see featured or discussed in the media and so forth, but rather these are the Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder.
Holder appears to have played a special role in this event where he traveled to Connecticut and met with the governor.
Maloy on the 27th of November, just a few weeks in advance, so that when the governor held a press conference, he said he had the lieutenant governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen, leading me to speculate something like this.
What could he possibly mean?
There are only really two alternatives, namely that someone was going to go berserk and shoot up a school and kill a bunch of kids, in which case he had an obvious obligation to notify the school systems to increase their security, or That they're going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, present it as mass murder to promote gun control, which is exactly what happened.
And when I tracked it down in Missouri Boulder, now these communities for these events are paid huge sums of money.
If I had to speculate, I would say this community was paid over a hundred million dollars.
This is taxpayer money.
They're doing this to deceive the American people.
And it happens over and over again.
And then they got 50 mil for the school and all that.
Now, the problem they had was many people were downloading the book for free.
So they had to try to figure out what to do about it.
And it took them a good while to sort out, combing through the book, trying to figure an angle.
And they decided they could attack me for observations I made about a specific document to win a death certificate.
Well, I'm actually permanently enjoined from reaffirming what I said in the book over which I was sued.
But let us say just for the sake of understanding the nature of the case, I was sued for defamation for disputing the authenticity of a death certificate where the opposition between my position, it was fake, nobody died, blah, blah, blah, that of
Leonard Posner, a man who called himself Leonard Posner, whom I convinced was an imposter, whose real name is Ruben Wagner, was known to have been bonafide, and he had a son that died, and by declaring, you know, questioning the authenticity, I impugned him.
This went through a series of transitions right here in Wisconsin that I found quite troubling and bizarre at the scheduling conference, for example, even though I'd laid out in my answer where I began by saying, assuming the plaintiff is a real person, meaning already in my answer, I was identifying the party whom I believe was bringing this lawsuit in a fraudulent fashion, perpetrating a fraud on the court.
I went through and explained how I had all this evidence that I was prepared to present, blah, blah, blah, to show that Indeed, if nobody died at Sandy Hook, then obviously no death certificate could be authentic.
Again, I say I'm not reaffirming the position, I'm explaining the case.
So we could not have been more in opposition.
Now, in order to have a summary judgment, there must be no disputed facts.
You know, there must be agreement on the facts.
But I and the plaintiff in this case could not have been more disparate in our positions, directly contradictory.
Well, at the scheduling conference, the court ruled that I would not be allowed to introduce all that evidence I had from the book that nobody died at Sandy Hook.
And get this, on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the truth or the accuracy of the document, the death certificate in question.
And yet the death certificate in question says a decedent died at Sandy Hook Elementary on 14 December 2012 multiple gunshot wounds.
That was the first curveball I was thrown.
I mean, I had great difficulty fathoming what was going on here.
And by the way, I was representing myself, bro say, I didn't have an attorney.
It was such a hot potato.
Really, there weren't a lot of people lining up who wanted to represent me.
Then I filed counterclaims for abuse of process because this suit was being brought in bad faith for improper motives.
It was clear they wanted to punish me for having exposed, you know, been instrumental in exposing what really happened at Sandy Hook.
This is what's known as a slap suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
And they're going to drag into court, you're going to run up legal bills, you know, even if they don't prevail, they've succeeded, you know, in the punishment.
Absolutely.
In my counterclaims, I made that claim also that the plaintiff was guilty of fraud and theft by deception, because since nobody had died at Sandy Hook, they were gaining between 27 and 130 million contributions under false recenses.
And third, fraud upon the court, because the party who came here to testify under the name of Leonard Posner was not, in fact, Leonard Posner, but Reuben Faber.
And the judge, to handle that, bifurcated the case and said, we'll only deal with that after we settle a primary case.
And then it went about basically disposing of all of my facts, which is the name given to assertions you make on your behalf here under the law.
You know, technically facts have to be true.
But in the case of the law, you're talking about disputed facts, where since they're in dispute, they can't all be true.
And yet they use the word fact to describe them.
And he just systematically suppressed my facts, even including the reports of two forensic document examiners who agreed with me.
I mean, this was egregious.
He merely set them aside as unhelpful.
Now, it took me quite a while to realize the problem here was with the summary judgment methodology in this particular state.
That Wisconsin has the oddity that according to their summary judgment methodology, the judge has the right to decide on the basis of his own subjective personal opinion, whether facts are or are not reasonable.
And if they are in his subjective opinion, unreasonably can set them aside as though they did not exist.
This is the only way you can reconcile the two sides and make there be no disputed facts by suppressing all of mine, which are directly contradictory to the plaintiff.
So that the key question here is, Mike, that I'm actually appealing the summary judgment methodology, not the facts of Sandy Hook.
Smart move.
That's a very smart move.
You know, they include words like reasonable and that kind of thing because that's legal jargon loophole they put in the law so they can twist it so that the lawyers and the judge and the system can twist it however they want.
That's a very smart movie that you're making there.
But let me just say this is that I think what they're afraid of is even deeper than what you're even exposing.
I think what they're afraid of the system that is is that You know, they're afraid of, it's really not about the crisis actors or Obama or Holder.
All that's important.
But what's even more important is, in all these type of events, the foundation funding behind the scenes for these events is, I think, really what they're protecting.
The foundation funding connected to intelligence communities.
For instance, the RAND Corporation used to finance protesters So they could do studies during the 1960s on mob violence and mob activity, street activity, protest activity.
And it was actually you had you actually had actors and paid agents on the ground.
They were actually financed not by the federal government directly, but by these foundations, Ford Foundation, Rand Corporation, this kind of stuff.
The 1969 Chicago protests, for instance, That whole operation was entirely funded by the Rand Corporation to study what would happen in a mob situation.
So I think what's going on with Sandy Hook and a lot of these other situations is not only is it a distraction for the public, but it's also an operation to study human behavior and how they can perfect psychological operations in the future.
Well, I think there's a lot to that, and in a deep way, and this is something I've been pondering.
Why is the establishment, and it's many on both sides, so eager to destroy Donald Trump?
What is it about Donald Trump that poses such a threat to the government?
And Paul and others have frequently argued, they think that, but you know, the two different parties are basically the same.
I don't quite buy that, but I particularly don't buy it when it comes to Donald Trump, because he really executed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party and turned it into a populist party, which was heretofore unimaginable.
But the fact is, I think that the standing of the establishment politicians on both sides is rooted in fakery in lies, in big lies, giant lies, going back to the moon landing, going back to JFK, going back to 9-11.
And Trump is willing to expose those lies because he believes the public is entitled to know the truth.
And in that sense, I feel it.
I don't feel it.
With all due respect, I think that's his role, I believe.
I think Donald Trump is one of the biggest crisis actors in political history.
I think his whole purpose is to play the victim, is to put on that show to appeal to America that understands they're being lied to.
So they have to create this fake politician that appears to be a populist, appears to be one of them, okay?
So they can keep people entrapped into the fake two-party system, you know?
Or, if you don't mind just a quick observation, that could be true and there also could be another alternative explanation, given the fact that I do think there are elements of Trump that are authentic.
I do believe that even though he has been bailed out by people before, that in many cases he might not hold the kind of loyalty that we would attribute to him being maybe somewhat of a maverick.
He could still be beholding to them financially in some way, shape, or form, but that doesn't mean that he's in love with them.
But I would say that there's another possibility, too, that they could be using him to destroy what he represents in front of our eyes.
In other words, as a part of learned helplessness and whatever other terms you want to apply to the psychological operation, they could let this man have a little, shall we say, run in the sun.
Well, I think he's genuine.
I think he actually cares about America.
He's not a politician, number one.
show, that's also a little take I've had recently.
So go ahead.
Well, I think he's genuine.
I think he actually cares about America.
I don't think he's, he's not a politician, number one.
He's not used to deceiving the American people.
I don't think he's got deceptive bones in his body.
That doesn't mean he's always right.
It doesn't mean it doesn't make mistakes.
And there's there's some he's made that are whoppers.
And I'd like him to fess up, you know, and admit he made a blunder in particular at moving with a VAX, the whole warp speed thing.
But.
On the other hand, on 9-11, the very day, he was a sole prominent figure right in New York City during an interview who said that the builders who had constructed the Twin Towers were working for him now and that there was no way a Boeing Could have actually entered the building and brought about the collapse and something else had to be involved and even use the word bombs.
And he was speaking the truth.
He wanted to release all the JFK stuff.
He released a lot of it, but he was inhibited from releasing it all, apparently under tremendous duress by the CIA who claimed on grounds of national security.
And if you stop and think about it, you know, how can anything related to JFK not be released on grounds of national security if the official account were true of this lone disgruntled Marine getting off three lucky shots?
There's not any element of national security involved there if the official story were true.
So the very appeal to national security and blockade indicates It's not true.
And of course we know today, Lee Oswald was actually standing in the doorway of the Book Depository when the motorcade passed by, and therefore cannot not only have been the lone demented gunman, he cannot have been one of the multiple shooters where we've actually identified, believe it or not, eight.
And I can give you the name, rank, and serial number of six.
Only domicards identify the seventh, with which I agree we have one and only one we haven't identified.
But each of the different sponsors and groups seem to have put up their own shooter.
There were quite a few.
There was an Israeli shooter.
There was an anti-Castro Cuban shooter.
There was a CIA shooter.
There was a military shooter.
There was Lyndon Johnson, personal hit man.
There was a Dallas County Deputy Sheriff, there was a Dallas County cop tied into the CIA.
I'm telling you, it was on this order, what happened there.
So they were all essentially involved in a blood oath.
But the fact is, I believe Donald Trump would be willing for the public to learn all these things and that they fear him because if he exposes the whole house of cards, I was just looking at a quote, you know, attributed to George H.W.
Bush, who said, if the American people ever learned what we've done, they'd chase us down the street and lynch us, which is claimed, of course, by the fact checkers.
They tell us he didn't say it.
But I think that's exactly right.
That's got there.
It captures the right situation, why Pelosi, Schermer and a whole host of these people are panic stricken.
They are literally shitting in their pants over the prospect Donald Trump could return to office.
It's just the most astonishing phenomenon I've ever witnessed in political life.
Dr. Fesser, let me just throw this in.
Presidents, when they're groomed to become presidents, they're groomed years in advance.
And a lot of times it can be 20, 30 years.
I mean, the case of Bill Clinton, he was groomed to be president Uh, when he was still in a teen in his teenage years, and he even told several people that he's going to be president one day.
It's already, it's already figured out that way because the brokers behind him, for instance, Jimmy Carter knew he was going to be president.
Uh, when he became governor of Georgia in the early seventies, because of his connection to April Harriman, who told him we're going to put you in the presidency, you know?
So with Donald Trump and his comments on nine 11, this is usually how it works, especially with, with the intelligence and psychological operations.
When they pull off a big event like 9-11, they already, as part of the operation, are going to have figures that will say things they can use down the road for credibility, to protect the official story, okay?
Or, they're going to have people out there putting conspiracy theories out, okay, all over the place, which is what happened after 9-11.
A bunch of fraudulent conspiracies were put out about what happened at 9-11 that weren't true, to lead people in the wrong direction.
A psychological operation has many levels, you know, has many layers.
And I think Donald Trump's statements on 9-11 was because he knew he was going to be a big player down the road, and that would give him credibility.
Because when you pull off a big event like 9-11 or a Kennedy assassination, the system already knows there's going to be questions down the road.
Anyway.
Mike, listen, I have great respect for your Well, actually... I'm sorry, Dr. Fetzer.
We're right into the break, sir.
I will hear your response, sir, right after the break.
You got it.
Tune in Saturday mornings, 8 to 10 Central to The Alternative Media with your host, Barron.
If you've not been listening, this is some of what you've been missing.
2,000 mules.
Like you like to say occasionally, Farron, in your face!
They might have a set of lactating mammaries available that could provide milk for their adopted children.
Listen, news media all pulling off this gigantic fraud.
Rhino Neocon Cups.
There's this wonderful thing called Vote With Your Feet.
Moves California.
I am a conspiracy factualist and everyone else is a reality theorist.
Hundreds if not thousands of ships came out of nowhere.
Give me liberty or let's give you death.
Any excuse to go and kill yourself for this fraud of a government.
This goes back a hundred years.
When they come for your gold, give them a lead.
And when they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.
And God help us all!
My name is John, the founder of Black Owl Coffee, and I started Black Owl because I really love coffee.
I've always loved coffee, and after traveling so much to Europe, South America, and trying so many different coffees that were so good, and every time I came back, To the U.S., I was so disappointed with the coffee, so I figured that I had to do something about it.
The biggest difference is really is on the beans and the roasting process, how we roast it, and how fresh it is.
The fresher the roast, the better the quality.
Here, like all of the coffee, it's roasted within one to two days prior to being shipped.
So it literally gets to consumer's house within three to five days after being shipped.
If you like coffee, you have to try ours.
It's fresh roasted, it's one of the best beans that we can get, and you will definitely see the difference.
Visit blackoutcoffee.com and use the coupon code REPUB10.
That's R-E-P-U-B-1-0.
That's R-E-P-U-B-1-0.
Homeowners, are you in foreclosure, expecting to be served with a foreclosure lawsuit, or suspect your lender has coerced you into an illegal mortgage transaction?
A huge number of mortgages made in the last 10 years have legal issues and are possibly defective.
State laws and the U.S.
Supreme Court have upheld that defective mortgage documents are grounds for foreclosure defense and for counterclaims in favor of the homeowner.
If your mortgage has been sold or signed since closing the loan, it may be defective and you may be paying the wrong party and the lender may not have standing or the right to foreclose or collect payments under the law.
If you would like to know if your mortgage is legal or not, or know if you are paying the right party, we can help.
Our initial consultations are free of charge.
We are not attorneys.
We are legal researchers and work closely with experienced lawyers who know how to help you find the evidence to help you keep your home.
Call toll-free 1-855-2-KEEP-IT.
That's 1-855-2-KEEP-IT today.
One day, we will put it all behind.
We'll say, that was just another time.
We'll say that was just another time.
We'll say that was just another day.
We'll say that was just another time.
One day we will put it all behind.
We'll say that was just another day.
And we are back, folks, beyond the official narrative.
Republic Broadcasting.
And who could be a better guest when discussing what is beyond the official narrative than Yeah, yeah, yeah.
James Fetzer.
Of course, we have Paul in California, co-host and additional guest, Mike Sledge, who's somewhat a surrogate interviewer today for Dr. Fetzer.
Dr. Fetzer, you were about to respond to Mike.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, look, I mean, I'm certainly not going to suggest what Mike is proposing is impossible, but I'm certainly also going to add that I don't buy it.
This is a matter of assessing a man's character and history.
I do not believe Donald Trump was groomed.
I accept Bill Clinton was groomed for sure, for certainty, that possibly Jimmy Carter was groomed.
But I do not believe that Donald Trump was groomed.
I think he got into it very circumstantially, and I think he's basically a good guy.
He thought the country was falling apart, that he might do something to help clean it up.
Now, this has got everything to do with judgment of the man's character and his sincerity, and this is obviously a highly subjective Factor where various of us, however sincere our own motives may have genuine disagreements about the man's character, but this is how I see it.
And I have, you know, all of us have been dealing with other men our whole lives.
I've had quite a lot to, when I was an undergraduate at Princeton, it was all men.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I dealt with a very large number of men, 35 years in higher education, all kinds of students.
I mean, You get to a point where you can make a pretty reliable assessment of a person's character.
And I just say, based upon my experience in life, Trump was not groomed and he was an accidental president.
God knows they did everything they could to stop him from the beginning.
One of the points I've made many times in arguments about this issue, which is such a critical question.
About the man's character and motivation, is that why in the world, if Trump were on the same team, would they be going so far out of their way to demonize him, to destroy him, to have to steal an election?
If he's part of the game, why not just go with the 80 million who feel the same way I do, that Donald Trump's real genuine and actually wants to make America great again?
That's what I take to be the bottom line here.
And when you do these things statistically, It's very interesting.
You know, we're really talking about a huge percentage of the American electorate who seem to feel very much as I do.
I mean, the other, the charlatans, I see Hillary Clinton, by the way, her fingerprints all over this raid on Mar-a-Lago, all this now.
They're going after subpoena and 50 of Trump supporters are making up all these phony charges.
I mean, this is so elaborate, and this is so outrageous, and this is so violative of the law, unless they were As I put it before, scared shitless of Donald Trump.
This would not be going on because this is going to go down historically as one of the blackest moments in the abuse of the American judicial system.
The DOJ and the FBI have completely exposed themselves and totally politicized We're acting like a third world nation.
What has distinguished this country in the past has been our respect for law and order, that we do not politicize the law, that we do adhere to the principle of equal justice under law, even though it's imperfectly administered.
No one's going to deny that.
And we can all come up with case after case.
I'll just return finally, and this is just an addendum to our previous conversation.
I think Because my lawsuit before the Supreme Court has to do with straightening out summary judgment, which is being used abusively in Wisconsin.
This doesn't just affect me.
It's not just reversing my case.
I'm asking them to set straight the summary judgment procedure in Wisconsin, which is adverse, to defend it throughout the state.
I mean, there have been thousands and thousands of cases that have been decided on the basis of this improper methodology.
I will add two further points.
One, a retired professor of law explained to me long ago when he first read my petition, and he liked it so much, of in essence incorporating the 7th Amendment within the 14th by confirming its applicability to all 50 of the states, which oddly enough is true,
Of the other nine of the first 10 amendments, but not true of the seventh, but also that he observed that the abuse of summary judgment is a major problem affecting the American judicial system since it was first introduced around 1957, and this would afford an opportunity for the court to straighten it out.
So see, they're not having to decide about Mike?
Yeah, I agree.
That's very important.
I think your case is very, very important and I hope you prevail.
I must say, Andy Hoek's cabinet.
It also gives the court an opportunity to show equal justice and the right to a trial by jury is to be afforded even the most controversial defendants.
Mike?
Yeah, I agree.
That's very important.
I think your case is very, very important, and I hope you prevail.
There's no doubt about that.
But talking about subverting the law.
Here's another reason why I think Donald Trump was a tool of the establishment of the system.
And I'll give you an example.
You know, they used to say that only Nixon could have done the open door policy to China.
Only, you know, it took a Republican during the Cold War to have a deal with a communist regime in China.
That's the only way the public would accept it.
Same case with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump gets elected.
He runs on immigration law and order.
And then when he gets elected, what does he do?
He passes this fraudulent criminal justice reform law, which lets out all these convicted felons and murderers and street thugs and hood rats and all kinds of people out of the system.
And that would have never happened.
If that would have been proposed by a Democrat, it would have been shot down.
But because his base Was so brainwashed they could get that done.
And why is that important?
We're seeing the ramifications today.
What happened in, uh, in, uh, Memphis, Tennessee last week with these killings.
These were all people that were let out because of Donald Trump's criminal justice reform, which literally is opening the prison gates to people that will oppress and threaten the middle class, just like they did in the Bolshevik revolution.
One of the first things they did was open the prison gates to flood the population with these thugs to put a reign of terror on the Russian people that might be still loyal to the czar.
And I see the same thing with Trump.
That was a very.
Yeah, go ahead.
Well, Mike, I would just remind you the main defenses to this day pro-Trump advocates have is that he was naive coming from the world of business rather than politics.
So he left a lot of Obama holdovers in there rather than firing all of them.
And so he wasn't able to have many people carry out most of his orders the whole time he was in office.
Jared Kushner, and many point out that's the connection to Chabad Lubavitch, that Jared was a major stumbling block.
I just heard recently a claim that You know, Steve Bannon and Kushner never got along.
And that, you know, supposedly that if Trump were to now go with Bannon or would have back then that things could have been different.
That Bannon would have been more hardcore for for white America, if you will.
I don't know.
Would you address maybe you could address those?
Steve Bannon used to work for Goldman Sachs is now the populist hero.
It's a joke.
Another thing.
It was Donald Trump that pushed that criminal justice reform.
He stumped on it.
It's tremendous.
We got to help these people.
We got to let them out of the jails.
And we're reaping the harvest of the seeds he sowed.
This country is becoming violent.
There's violence everywhere.
It's a third world country.
And a lot of it has to do with the fact that he opened the floodgates.
And it is really A form of domestic terrorism, I might think.
Well, let's steer this back, Mike, to you and Dr. Fetzer.
And where else would you like to take things while we still have enough time with with James?
No, I'll let Dr. Fetzer go where he wants to go.
I think I want to listen to what he has to say.
Well, you're making Donald Trump out to be George Soros.
Soros is the guy who's fired all these DAs who have created this revolving George Justice.
I have never, and Mike, I'm just astonished to hear this, I've never associated that with Donald Trump.
I just never have.
Now, maybe it means I've had an oversight.
And if I have had an oversight, it would be a significant one.
But you're talking about the Department of Justice now, people like this Fetterman guy in Pennsylvania, all these miscreants who are running as Democrats who want revolving door justice.
I've never seen that associated with Donald Trump.
I'm frankly kind of floored to hear it.
He had to have his position.
It cannot be the same as all this.
It was his bill!
Gentlemen, we have an interesting regular caller, listener to RBN on the line, and perhaps we could get your responses.
Let's hear this gentleman's feedback.
We have Andy in Texas on the line.
Hello, Andy.
You've been on hold here.
What did you want to add, sir, to the conversation?
Well, first I want to apologize to Mr. Fetzer for my Washington State Cougars winning.
No, I've been... I was born in Spokane, Washington.
Palma's just south of there.
They've always been my team.
But anyway, that's not what I called.
I'm talking here, Mr. Fetzer.
I agree with the other guests there about Donald Trump.
The one thing that really sets me off with Donald Trump is he got elected on lock her up, lock her up.
And then you see him at the presidential dinner, you know, and he gets up and he actually toasts.
He wants both of these two people to stand up, Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And then he says something just minute to me that was what?
You have done so much for our country, and I think we need to recognize you right now.
What?
So, I really think Donald Trump was, he was put there because if we would have got Hillary Clinton, it would have went too fast, because Obama sped everything up, and it would have just went too fast, so we got an appeasement.
And I could be wrong.
But anyway, what do you think of that there, Jim?
I think he was trying to be a unifier, which, you know, this present guy claimed he was going to do, but he'd been anything but.
I think it was just a magnanimous gesture on his part, trying to run the country, you know, having the responsibilities now of being president rather than a candidate.
It's a very different role.
And I think Trump sought to do that, whereas Biden now has gone into full combat mode.
And of course, I don't believe this is actually the real guy from Delaware.
This is some form of imposter.
In fact, the speech that was given, the dark speech with the blood red background and the two I believe these were actors, but they certainly look like Marines.
They were dressed like Marines.
They handle themselves like Marines.
I think that was actually a hologram.
I think they have so much problem with this guy, reading or even getting his words right, not stumbling.
I think this was a holographic projection.
And you may notice the following day, When reporters had access to the guy they're calling Biden, he said he doesn't hold any animosity toward Trump supporters.
He thinks they just follow a different political philosophy.
That's so inconsistent with what he said the night before.
And holographic technology is so sophisticated now.
If anyone checks it out, you can go online, you can see a guy giving a 10 minute speech and it's all totally convincing.
And poof, he disappears because it was a hologram.
I think it was a holographic projection.
That's aside from the whole political issue we're having here.
really it has to do with the character and sincerity of Donald Trump.
And I mean, I'll look at this.
Yeah, go ahead. - Well, and I'll let you go with this, Jim.
The reason why I love you so much is you question everything.
And so there's nothing left to trial.
I mean, we all get to make our decisions, but you get to the bottom of it.
And that is why there's a Jim Spencer in this world.
And you know what?
I suppose we didn't go to the moon either.
Thank you, Richard.
I so appreciate it.
Those sentiments.
Thank you for saying that.
Thank you, Randy.
Yeah, that was a great call.
Hey, Paul, is there anything you want to interject here before we go back to Mike and James?
Well, the main thing that comes to mind are the famous words of Oliver North's attorney in the Iran-Contra hearings.
I'm not a potted plant here.
Paul, no one has ever mistaken you for a botted plant.
Hey, listen, I've made my contribution of getting a couple of laughs on this show.
I feel like I got some laughs.
There's a lot I could say and that I have said before.
And, you know, I'll just leave it at the point that I am not totally Contrary to everything Jim says, and I'm not totally on board with everything Mike says regarding Trump, but I'm far more to the side of Mike than I am of Jim, unfortunately, just based upon my discernment of the world.
So we'll leave that in my input for the moment.
Thanks.
I think that's a very fair statement of your position, Paul.
That would have been exactly how I would have figured you would come down.
I get it.
Mike, go ahead, more.
Yeah.
Well, I think the funniest part of the Biden speech, whatever you want to call it, hologram or not, the funniest part, he's sitting there talking about how the country is so great and we're going to be united.
And while he's speaking, you hear all these police sirens everywhere going on in filthy Delphia all around him, you know, trying to stop the crime wave as he's making the speech.
That to me was the funniest part.
And then the other thing I find interesting is You know, people on the right are complaining, are saying, you know, look, he had that red background, you know.
Well, the red background is very symbolic of the Rothschild banking cartel.
It is their colors, the colors of communism.
But here's the funny part.
But at the same time, the fake right goes, you know, same reason why Donald Trump wears a red tie all the time.
Yeah, well, I mean, I could see why you would make that argument.
and bailed him out when the Taj Mahal went under.
But also, they're waiting for the red wave.
So you got red all over the place.
And I think it's a big joke.
And these people are laughing their asses off at us because they control it all.
Anyway, go ahead, Jim.
Yeah, well, I mean, I could see why you would make that argument.
I mean, I don't buy it.
I mean, just talking about red and blue is distinguishing the parties in terms of color has just been a tradition of longstanding It has nothing to do with a Bolsheviks or communism.
But I do agree that The way that whole thing was staged, I've been wondering if anyone went back and actually looked at some of the speeches of Adolf Hitler, because it was certainly reminiscent.
Biden does not have the voice for it.
He's got a terrible, squeaky, high-pitched voice.
Everything comes across tinny and phony as hell.
But if he had a deeper voice like Adolf Hitler had, I think you'd find a striking similarity between his manners and gestures and those you'd find in Der Fuehrer.
Well, I think it was more Stalin-esque, but anyway.
It certainly had bleak aspects that you'd associate with Stalin, and I agree with that.
Well, I mean, we have a lot of agendas, though, that seem accelerated now, gentlemen, and I don't know, Dr. Fetzer, I mean, where do you think things are going?
Some people are expecting a large event, considering the economic situation teetering on the brink here, and the situation in Ukraine, the elections, People are expecting a major false flag to justify any number of scenarios.
But we also hear about the central bank digital currency, you know, and with all the inflation, it could just be a Hegelian solution for us.
I mean, your thoughts?
I'm very worried about the idea of introducing a digital currency, because once that happens, it's all over.
We're all slaves of the state because they can cut off our access to money.
I mean, it's going to happen.
Very profound effects.
The drug cartels are going to be furious because, of course, that means they can't do all their illicit Cash transactions.
And while some might think that's good, it's going to be so compromising of the ability of human beings, American citizens, to do what they want to do without being totally surveyed by the state.
I mean, it'll even be the case if you want to gas up your car, but they want you to drive electric, that they'll cut off your money so you can't even pay for gas.
The whole electric thing is a monstrous scam.
It's based on pseudoscientific claims about the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere, global warming that are ill founded.
There's not even a correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth, which means there can't possibly be a causal connection, but it's being used to promote the green agenda as a way of attacking our economy.
I was asking myself, if I had been in a position of, say, a George Soros, who really has, as his lively long dream, the destruction of America, what would I do?
And And I say, if you assume it's not Joe Biden who's actually, but George Soros is the acting president, almost everything falls into place, canceling the XL Pipeline, federal permits to drill on federal land, the open borders.
We got 4.9 million who've come across our borders, equal to the population of Ireland.
This is insanity.
And then you have all this deviant stuff in the schools, Parents are losing their authority over their children.
Teachers are able to promote change in sex.
And little kids who haven't even passed through puberty have no idea what sex is.
If you wanted to create all kinds of cultural mayhem, you'd do exactly the things that have been done in the Biden administration.
And I say they represent more than anything else the approach of George Soros who wants to destroy America before he dies.
So I'll just quickly add an observation here.
I personally believe, I think Mike probably would agree, that George Soros is nothing more than a Wizard of Oz caricature.
In other words, all fiery, you know, smoke and bellowing voice, but George Soros is just the villain boogeyman they put up for us to hate.
That there are much greater and more numerous powers behind the scenes.
That's why they give us people like Soros and Bill Gates and And, you know, Jeff Bezos and Klaus Schwab and Anthony Fauci, those are the people they give us to hate.
And rightfully, we should hate them, but we have to keep that sentiment in mind, which I think is accurate.
Well, quickly, let's try to fit in one of the other callers here, if we can.
We have Charlie in Florida.
Hello, Charlie.
Hey, welcome.
What's on your mind?
Hey, how you doing?
Yeah, Schwab, you know, is a rough child, you know, basically.
And he might even be above the Rothschilds.
You know, if you go back and look at his family line, you're going to find that they were extremely prominent in the family lineage there.
So I just wanted to say, he's no little player by any standards.
No, you're right.
Yeah, he's no person, small guy.
He's probably one of the biggest.
I'm not saying he was, but... Yeah, no, he's one of the biggest.
He was groomed by Kissinger, you know, by the way.
But if we see them, to me, that was my point.
Yeah.
No, he don't.
Yeah.
But the other thing I wanted to say was, okay, on this thing about, you know, was Trump compromised?
Was he part of the, you know, is he sold out or whatever, you know?
I mean, you know, there's no proof of anything.
I mean, I can honestly, I know, I'll tell you, Dr. Fetzer, you're up against Professor Fetzer.
You're up against the group here.
Because these are all the good ones.
Could you speak more directly?
Could you speak more directly into the microphone, Charlie?
Charlie?
Charlie?
Charlie, can you speak?
Can you speak more directly into the microphone?
Oh, yes, sir.
Let me get to this real quick, then, before having connection issues.
Um, you know, you can look at anything that you don't like about a mistake or something that Trump did that looks odd and say, oh, this is proof of, you know, he's connected to the, the Schwab, the, you know, all these people that we're talking about.
But I don't see it.
Uh, personally, I don't see it.
I mean, it could be, it could be, but it's just like, okay, I can, I can paint a tapestry by picking certain colors.
I like it.
I like it.
Dr. Fetzer?
Yeah.
No, I like this call.
I mean, I think he's got it right.
sort of like creating, coming up with an idea and creating a paradigm around that.
So it's easy to do.
I like it.
I like it.
Dr. Fetzer?
Yeah.
No, I like this call.
I mean, I think he's got it right.
I think we're basically in agreement.
And I have great respect for Paul and for Mike.
I mean, they're super smart guys.
I think they've just gone a bridge too far in conspiratorial thinking.
I think Trump is much more on the up and up than any other figure in American politics today, with a possible exception of Ron Johnson, my senator from Wisconsin, and Jim Jordan from Ohio.
There are very few, in my opinion, who can compare.
We're already out of time, but it was a great show.
Powerful position because he's got roughly 80 million followers who aren't going to give him up because they believe in him.
And I think it's for the right reason that he believes in us.
Well, we're already out of time, but it was a great show.
Dr. Fetzer, once again, where can everyone find your work?
JamesHFetzer.org.
They took my old blog, so when I was trashing in the Alex Jones, no one could find my research on Sandy.
Jameshfetzer.org.
And bitch, you channeled Jim Fetzer.
Brilliant.
And I look forward to your next interview with Mike Sledge as well, sir.
Yeah, thanks.
Thanks.
Great.
Real pleasure.
Fantastic show.
Thank you, Dr. Fetzer.
Thank you, Mike Sledge.
Thank you, Paul in California.
And to all the callers and listeners, Sorry for the callers we couldn't get to, folks.
Just have a lot of voices.
We're trying to give their time on the air here.
All right, folks.
Well, please continue to support RBM and we will speak again soon.
Transcend the construct.
Regards.
Thank you, Richard.
Thank you, Dr. Fetzer.
▲
Export Selection