All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:55:50
The Raw Deal (3 May 2023) with Ron Avery
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
not just anybody you know i need someone is
- Hmm. - Well, this is Jim Petzer, this is Jim Petzer, your host on the Raw Deal.
I have a very special guest today, a dear friend and colleague, Ron Avery.
We're going to be talking about a New York Times sob piece about Sandy Hook that I frankly find embarrassing, but there it is.
It's the best they can do.
Before we turn to that, however, I want to share a couple of stories going on out there.
We got Biden team worried.
They're actually fearful, the aftermath of a failed Ukrainian counteroffensive, that they're going to be taking flak from both sides of the political spectrum.
The Biden admin is quietly preparing that if the spring of the counteroffensive falls short of expectation, critics at home and abroad will argue America has come up short too.
Ukraine's ever-imminent counteroffensive will attempt to retake Russian seized territory, most likely in the East and South, though for operational reasons no senior officials from Kyiv have detailed the specifics.
Publicly, the Biden team has offered unwavering support, pledging to load Ukraine with weapons and economic aid for as long as it takes.
But if the impending fighting season yields limited gains, officials are privately concerned they'll be faced with a two-headed monster attacking from the hawkish and dovish ends of the spectrum.
One side will claim Ukraine's advances would have worked, had the administration only given Kiev everything it asked for—longer-range missile, fighter jet, more air defense.
On the other side, however, They'll claim Ukraine's inability to mount the offensive proves it can't force Russia out of its territory, and I guarantee you 100% it can't force Russia out of its territory.
This is a pipe dream.
This doesn't even account for the reaction of America's allies, such as they may be, especially in Europe, who may see a peace negotiation between Ukraine and Russia as a more attractive option if Kiev Can't prove victory is around the corner.
Inside, the admin officials stress they're doing everything they can to make it succeed, but there is not a chance.
Russian bombers are already taking out—I mean, this is just a calamity.
You got General Petraeus talking about it, how beefed up they're going to be, how they're American-trained.
This is colossally stupid.
You do not talk about these things until you actually launch them.
We've nearly completed the request of what Ukraine said they need for the counteroffensive.
We've searched weapons and equipment, sent an admin official, granted anonymity to discuss these issues.
But belief in the cause is one thing.
In the tactics, another.
Those concerns have spilled out with the leak of classified info for which they're pilloring this Air Force reservists who, in the tradition of Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg, revealed documents showing that the U.S.
was already in Ukraine before the Russians got there, and that Ukraine is losing.
Not just losing, they're being slaughtered.
Ukraine has hoped to sever Russia's land bridge at Crimea.
U.S.
officials, however, are skeptical that'll happen.
There are those in the Pentagon who hope Russia will hamper Russia's supply lines even if a total victory over their newly fortified troops ends up too difficult to achieve, which of course it will.
U.S.
intel indicates Ukraine simply doesn't have the ability to push Russia from where they're deeply entrenched.
A similar feeling has taken hold about the battlefield elsewhere in Ukraine.
Zelensky says the U.S.
hasn't adequately armed its forces.
He's waiting for billions of more dollars so he can buy another Swiss chalet, mind you.
There's belief Kiev is willing to consider adjusting its goals, but I've seen no signs of it.
There's been discussion of framing it to the Ukrainians as a ceasefire rather than a permanent peace talk with incentives like NATO-like security, where you can see how much good they're doing, economic help from the European Union, more military aid to replenish and boost Ukraine's forces, and the like.
This is all just silly stuff.
This is nonsense.
If the counteroffensive does not go well, The admin has only itself to blame for withholding certain types of arms and aid at the time it was most needed, said Kirk Volker, a special envoy to Ukraine.
During the Trump admin, a counteroffensive that doesn't meet expectations will also cause allies to question how much more they can spare if he has victory looking farther and farther away.
If it hasn't sunk in now, I don't know when it's going to sink in ever.
Because Kiev is not going to have a victory.
Interestingly, we have a former Trump advisor hitting at a possible VP choice for the Donald.
Steve Bannon, really quite a brilliant guy, argues a unity ticket featuring former President Donald Trump with Bobby Jr.
But proven insurmountable in a 2024 presidential election.
Now, if you think about it, Trump's greatest weakness has to do with war of civvies and the Vax.
That's where Bobby Jr.
is impeccable.
So I do believe RFK Jr.
would staunch a major problem for Trump, but I would still like to hear the Donald denounce the Vax, explain it killing lots of people that he was playing.
It can be difficult to admit it when you have been played.
I have had to go through the process myself all the way, but Trump needs to do it.
Bannon said this week he would definitely love for Carrie Lake or any one of these strong women to be Trump's choice for running mate.
And I believe, in fact, year to four, Tulsi Gabbard was my pick to run with Trump, and I believe still that is to be the case.
But if anyone were to bump Tulsi, it would almost certainly be Bobby Jr.
Problem being that Bobby has certain baggage of his own.
Meanwhile, Trump would recognize an extremely—Bannon recognizes an extremely compelling reason for Trump to team up with Kennedy instead.
Speaking to Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Bobby Jr., the 69-year-old son of Homer, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and, of course, the nephew of John F. Kennedy watch his candidacy now in 2024.
For 2024.
While most recent polling shows him trailing the pack of Democrat contenders, his campaign is still in the early stage.
Actually, I think the last I spoke with, Rolf Lindgren right here, keeps track of the polling.
Bobby was already up to 21%.
He's moving up fast and could profit from Americans' enormous dislike of watching Biden run for a second time.
No one wants Biden to run.
According to a recent NBC poll of 1,000 Americans, April 14 through 18, 70% of respondents, including 51% of Democrats, even the majority of Democrats, Believe Biden, the most elderly president ever to take office, should not compete for reelection.
According to USA Today's Suffolk University, another poll conducted on April 15, 14% of Biden's 2020 followers would cast their votes for RFK Jr.
If he doesn't get the Democrat nomination, he might still have a road to the White House.
I realize Bobby Kennedy is awful on guns.
He ain't terrific on Ukraine.
But he is talking about going against the administrative deep state in an extremely significant way, Benny Bannon said to Kirk.
It would prove insurmountable if we pulled together a unity ticket with Trump and Kennedy.
We would draw many left-wing populists over.
I believe we could gain two-thirds or 70 percent of the overall American people.
If you bring Kennedy and Trump into a team, that's a dynamic duo.
No doubt about it.
No doubt.
Bannon stated on an additional occasion on his War Room podcast that Bobby would make a good alternative for Trump to consider, especially if Kerry laid.
Campaigns for the U.S.
Senate, indeed.
Now, Kerry Lake is, of course, sensational.
But she's inexperienced.
I cannot see how Carrie Lake can be taken seriously at this point in time as a candidate for vice president.
Tulsi, on the other hand, has deep experience, very thoughtful, wonderful.
Tulsi is plausible.
Carrie Lake is not.
Many of Kennedy's stated goals, according to Bannon, Connect with a hardcore MAGA population.
This is Bobby Jr.
now.
Would work then to corrupt, perjure at corporate and state power, currently threatening to impose an entirely novel form of corporate feudalism in our nation, to devalue our children, our Purple Mountains magnificence, to contaminate our children and our fellow America with chemicals and drugs, to strip minor assets, hollow out our middle class, and keep us in an ongoing state of war.
All of that is good.
Meanwhile—and this is another clue—Pelsi has endorsed at least 12 Republicans this election season already.
The so-called free thinker has only endorsed Republicans since leaving the Democrat Party.
I think that's not an accident.
Now, because Ron and I are talking about You know, Sandy Hook, legal and other aspects, and really the way in which the judicial system of the United States has been corrupted and politicized.
Here's another case now involving Trump, this rape trial in New York City.
You're not going to believe how bad it is.
Get this.
The crazy rape lady trial against Donald Trump is as bad as expected.
The crazy rape lady trial against President Donald Trump is underway in New York Civil Court.
Author and crazy rape lady E. Jane Carroll, Jean Carroll, is suing Trump on fake rape charges.
The trial has become every bit as batty as we all predicted it would.
In fact, it's going so badly, the mainstream won't even cover it.
Can you imagine?
Her story is so crazy and full of holes, MSNBC won't cover the allegation Trump raked his dingbat.
I'm not so sure about that.
My wife, who's addicted to MSNBC, Headed on, I think, yesterday, and they were talking about the rape trial.
She thinks Trump has raped everyone under the sun, and they even had sex with his own daughter.
I mean, it's bizarre.
People forget the entire hashtag MeToo movement was one of the endless efforts to get Trump.
Once the big Harvey Weinstein allegations came out, E. Jean Carroll sprang into action.
She wrote a book.
About all the men who have ever raped her, which is apparently enough to fill a good-sized baseball stadium.
The book was a total flop.
No one bought it.
Donald Trump called her a liar for accusing him of raping her and noted at the time that she was ugly and wasn't even his type.
That's obviously true.
Aging girl was a hard four on her best day 30 years ago.
That's, of course, on a scale of 10.
And that was before she hit the Nikki Haley wall.
For those who don't remember, the crazy rape lady did a media blitz and hit all the TV stations when her book came out.
She told Anderson Cooper on CNN that rape was sexy and sensual and that all women like it.
Because she's totally not crazy.
Proving she really knows her way around men, by the way, she then proceeded to hit on Anderson Cooper on live TV.
Maybe she thought.
She was so foxy looking she'd be able to convert him.
Anderson, of course, is gay.
Anyway, the book was a big failure.
So now the crazy gold digger is suing Donald Trump based on her fake rape allegations.
Trump's attorney, Joe Takapina, has been having a field day with E. Jean Carroll on the stand.
Her story?
She was trying on lingerie at the Ritzy Bergdorf Goodman store on Fifth Avenue in New York back in 1996.
That's when Donald Trump burst into the changing room, unable to resist the crazy rape lady.
Trump took advantage of the opportunity.
If this particular gentle rape fantasy sounds familiar, that's because it copies the exact plot line of a 2012 episode of Law & Order Special Victims Unit.
By the way, my wife also, and so do I. Law & Order is really quite terrific.
I've watched innumerable episodes.
When Takapina asked Carol why her story sounded exactly like that episode, she claimed she was shocked.
In her book, Carol also claimed former CBS chief Les Moonves raped her.
He was in an elevator, she was in an elevator when Moonves got on, seeing the crazy rape lady apparently couldn't resist himself either.
He pinned her against the wall and ravished her, according to the crazy rape lady's book.
Hakobina asked Carol why she didn't sue Moonves for raping her.
She responded, Moonves didn't say mean things about her when she accused him of rape the way that Donald did.
Huh?
You can get a pass for raping E. Jean Carol as long as you don't issue a mean tweet about her.
Is that how this works?
She also claims she was raped by Hunter S. Thompson, right?
Once in his hot tub at a compound in Colorado.
That story sounds just as much like a bored housewife fantasy as all the others in her book.
In fact, a skeptic I think all of Carol's tales of being raped by every man she's ever been in contact with seem just the least bit sketchy.
The fact that Carol can't even pinpoint the month in 1996.
Actually, she can't even pinpoint the year when she was supposedly raped by Trump gives the whole thing shades of the fake Brett Kavanaugh allegation.
Not that the judge is making things easy for Trump's legal team.
The judge is forbidding Trump team from presenting a lot of evidence that proves the crazy rape lady is truly a dingbat.
For example, Carol famously called her second husband a black man and ape in public.
The judge refused to let Takapina present that evidence because the jury is mixed race.
Still, if the mainstream is avoiding the trial, it seems likely the jury feels the same way.
E. Jane Carroll's rape fantasies are more in line with Stacey Abrams' softcore porn novels than with real life.
Hope they see through her lies and let Trump off the hook, because this trial is a complete farce.
Ron, I can't believe this is even in the courts!
How could a DA let this case come to trial?
I'm flabbergasted.
Well, I'm surprised they even had a trial.
I mean, wouldn't they want to do all this in summary judgment?
They ought to just have a, you know, that's hell with the trial.
You know, we just, we don't do them trials anymore.
That's old hat stuff.
What we're going to do here is we're going to have a summary judgment and Trump, I just, I just think you're guilty, man.
So you just take that up on appeal and you're guilty.
That's all there is to it.
You just look like a rapist and that's good enough for me.
Can you believe, I mean, this guy, he's rich, he's handsome, he's a famous playboy.
Women are throwing themselves at him.
I mean, this is just such a ridiculous story.
I mean, how could a DA let this into court?
Ron, this should have been just ignored.
I mean, it's obviously fraudulent.
Yeah, that's it.
This calls for a pretty much of a dismissal here.
If you can't remember the month of the year, well, I can imagine with all these cases, you know, she can't.
Well, she was she was probably raped eight times on that month.
She can't remember when it which one it was at what time.
You know, I mean, you'd have to have you'd have to have a calendar out there.
Ron, if a woman were raped, she would not only remember the year, the month, she'd remember the day, she'd remember the hour, she'd remember the minute!
I mean, this is absurd!
And she can't even remember the year?
Well, you've been raped 450 times.
Like I say, it's kind of hard to figure out when, where, and who.
We're going to be accused of insensitivity for laughing over a rape.
Well, hell, she should have filed a class action suit against everybody in America.
A class action suit?
Well, listen, before we turn to the, you know, New York Times piece, which has fantastic elements of its own, what do you think about this idea of Bannon's dream ticket, Trump and RFK Jr.?
Yeah, I like it.
I like it.
I like Kennedy.
I mean, and I didn't, I didn't, uh, you know, I haven't paid much attention to, to all the Kennedy stuff and I had a long time and, but, uh, the, the bit I've seen of him, I like it.
Now, you know, I vote Republican.
Not that I give a dang about Republican Party and all of that stuff.
But I do believe that he would carry a lot of people that would vote Democrat.
And for good reason.
I mean, he has, you know, I think that, you know, this guy, his family's been through so much.
I mean, talk about abuse from the governmental system.
This this guy has all the badges and, you know, I'm surprised anybody could even convince him to run.
In my view.
You've got to be a special person to even want to get in the driver's seat of this tyrannical thing when you don't even know the undergirding of the seat you're sitting in.
And all the criminal activities going on in every level of government today.
I'd be scared to be president.
I, you know, I, I'm amazed that we can even find anybody that wants to run.
Well, that's why we got an actor wearing a mask who's in the office now.
I've done a huge amount on this Biden business, and he appears to have died in 2017.
If you play old videos, Joe is actually a very animated guy who's very articulate.
He uses his hands to gesture just as I use my hands to gesture, so I notice that, a kindred spirit.
He's not at all like this mummified creature who can barely move and express a thought and has no affect whatsoever.
And indeed, when he was in Ireland, he reached back and scratched the back of his neck and pulled up his latex mask.
It bubbled up.
And we got other photographs where you can see the mask where it comes to the skin and there's the edge of the mask.
It's got a different shape and size of skull, different signature, different handwriting.
Ron, everyone in Washington has to know this is not Joe Biden.
This is an actor in a mask.
So why the hell is no one speaking out?
It's just stunning to me.
Well, I think, you know, I'm about the only one in America that constantly talks about the United States of America being dissolved and unlawful and tyrannical to the bone marrow.
And I think I'm going to be exonerated.
I think I'm a prophet.
I mean, the more I hear everybody talk, I said, You're just all you're doing is really reinforcing what I've been saying for 10 years, 15 years.
This place is dissolved.
There is no lawful government.
There's no enforcement of the law.
There's nothing.
We need a new lawful government.
We need to be we need to be cranking out the new constitution and getting and getting consensus on it because this thing's gone.
Well, you know, I've felt for a long time that the Constitution is not the problem.
It's a failure to adhere to it, to enforce it, that we have just, you know, corrupted its meaning to the extent that it's the improprieties of administrations that have caused the problem.
Or do you think that Case law, for example, in the history of legislation has made it so bad we would need a new constitution.
I've always regarded the document itself, the division of government into the legislative, the executive, the judiciary mission.
Procedures for recall, periodic elections, you know, Senate six years, members of the House every two, all that is really brilliant instruments.
I mean, I think Madison and Jefferson gave us a stupendous framework for government if it were properly administered.
Yes, correct, but it's kind of like a I kind of try to think of an example.
It's more like a car.
We agree that this is the kind of way we ought to build a car, and it drives well.
And that car is good, as long as everything is kept the same way as the people agreed to it originally.
But when you start altering the car and the parts of the car without our permission, you take the motor out and you put a two cylinder in there and you take the tires off and you put these little bubble things on there and you keep changing the car without our permission.
After a while, the Constitution or the car doesn't run.
Hold that thought, Ron.
We'll be right back after this break.
I'm here with Ron Avery.
We're going to talk about Sandy Hook.
- You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio.
Hey everyone!
It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
I have the proof and the law on my side.
What I don't have is the money.
They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada—take guns, impose tyranny, It's on the way with Remington's help.
First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
Check it out.
This is for all the marbles.
Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs, But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday 8 p.m.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, the people's station.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Now, Ron, you and I were both taken aback by an article in the New York Times Magazine about three purported crime scene investigators— The title is, They Saw the Horrific Aftermath of a Mass Shooting, Should We?
It says, they're the ones who document and remember the unimaginable.
This is what they saw at Sandy Hog.
And it raised a lot of questions in your mind, just as it did a lot of questions in my mind.
I'm really, I was very impressed by your take, that what they were doing was giving us basically a short story.
Your thoughts, Ron.
Yeah, I mean, the whole thing reads like, like in high school, we had little creative writing courses, you know, like, I remember I wrote one called, it was something like, what it was, was a personification of a bullet leaving a gun and going and hitting somebody or something.
It was all just dreamy stuff.
And when I started reading this article, I got the same feeling.
It was like it was just he was making this up just to create a wonderful or very, you know, even a tragic or a scary story.
And how would he know what Eric Holder was thinking in his mind?
He just says, this is what's going on in Eric Holder's mind.
And he just says, this is what's going on in these three individuals minds.
And it's all just really a trip through These three investigators of Sandy Hook, how they felt when they saw something.
And then he would describe the crime scene just with free license.
I mean, one that was brought up was the helicopter.
The sky was cluttered with helicopters and the crime scene tape.
The cordoning off the crime scene was fluttering in the wind, all that stuff.
And really?
I mean, how did he learn all that?
Did somebody tell him, you know, those helicopters were even making that ribbon flutter?
I mean, is that like reporting?
Because he'd have to have somebody tell him that, you know, that, oh, it was horrible.
The tape was fluttering.
Well, You're at a mass shooting.
Do you really give a damn about the fluttering tape out there?
You know, I don't know that I can work with all this fluttering tape going on here.
I mean, it just, it was a total, total kind of a, it was, it's a fictional short story.
It was the, my basic, just kind of conclusion about the story.
Yeah, yeah.
You've written a very nice piece about, which I publish in my blog at jamesfetzer.org.
Let me just say a few words about your point about reading the mind of Eric Holder, who, by the way, appears to have run the whole drill.
So, I mean, this is all fantastic!
Even though the Attorney General was convinced at this point, reeling on the threshold of this tiny, obliterated bathroom, that if the American people only saw what he was seeing, Congress would be forced to do the right thing.
Nothing would change in the end.
Now, Ron, what he's talking about is a bathroom where a teacher is supposed to have saved 15 kids—these are sixth graders—by packing them into a Bathroom, the dimensions of which are 3 by 4.
Now, mind you, it's got a commode in there, right?
Otherwise, it can't function as a bathroom.
It's gotta have a lavatory.
You gotta have a lavatory.
She's supposed to grab 15 squirming first graders.
Now, let's assume they average 50 pounds.
50 pounds times 15, that's 750 pounds of square foot.
She's 100 pounds.
She presumably got in there too, and the door swings inward!
Run, run, run, run!
And they're all supposed to have been slaughtered there.
So, you made the wonderful point when we were commenting on this just before the show, how did you even open the door?
If the door swings inward and it's packed with all these bodies, If you kill them all from the outside, shooting through the door, then you've got dead bodies in there.
How do you open the door?
You don't.
You really have to saw the door down.
You have to take the door down.
This is just an illustration of the stupidity of something that will happen to your ship.
We're sold over Sandy Hook!
Which has to be the granddaddy of all of these hoaxes, Ron.
I mean, they're just monstrous!
The Whoppers!
They want to sell us!
And here you got this... And you notice the author himself is a creative writing instructor, so I think you've got it right.
He's given us a nice example of his creative writing, a fictional account.
That's supposed to appeal to our emotions.
It's pathetic in both senses of the term.
Because pathos has to do with affecting the emotion.
Pathetic also means weak, feeble, inadequate, hopelessly inept.
And this article qualifies in both ways.
Well, you know, why is it OK?
And I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that reads this article that this thing is pretty much fictional because he's not quoting people.
He is just kind of describing their their feelings and all.
Well, that's not that's not news reporting.
So this is not a piece of news at all.
And it shouldn't be reported as news.
And in fact, if it's fictional, which it's pretty obvious it's fictional, then why is what you're saying conspiracy theory?
Is conspiracy theory any worse than fiction?
Fiction about an event?
I mean, aren't they the same thing?
I mean, if you have a fictional idea, I mean, it's just a theory.
The fact that we know the fictional to be false, whereas conspiracy theories frequently turn out to be true.
So there's a great advantage.
The conspiracy theory might be true, the fiction cannot be, because it's fabricated.
That's what he said in his mind reading.
You're so right about Eric Holder, but I'm telling you, Eric has a keen interest in how all these things play out.
It may be that my ongoing efforts to sort out what happened at Sandy Hook have inspired this article.
You know, we both know Brian Davidson did this brilliant work by getting into the Connecticut State Police photographic archives for Sandy Hook and drafted an affidavit I used in my petition for reconsideration to the United States Supreme Court now.
I've been told on the side that the decision not to allow my case to go to the Supreme Court was made at the highest level of the American government.
The highest level.
Now that can't be quite right, because the highest level is cognitively incompetent of making any decision.
But it was made in the name of the highest level of the American government.
Now, how the executive is supposed to interfere with the processes of the judiciary when there's supposed to be several branches of government?
Get back to your whole point about the disintegration of the American form of government.
But I have been told that, in fact, it was at the Biden level that the decision was made that my case not go to the Supreme Court, even though it represents what State of the Nation described as perhaps the single most important issue to come before the Supreme Court.
Not just this term, not just this year.
In our lifetime, Ron, in our lifetime, State of the Nation, because it had to do with a trial by jury, of which you're so well aware.
I was deprived here in Wisconsin because of the bizarre summary judgment procedure, which, of course, is why.
You're talking about in New York?
We don't need any jury.
What do we need those jurors for?
We can let the judge make up his own facts the way they do it right here in Wisconsin, Ron.
Isn't it astonishing?
It turned out a wonderfully crafted piece that illustrated that I was deprived of my right to a trial by jury because a judge was able to take all my evidence, including, by the way, The reports of not one but two forensic document experts that sided with me rather than with a plaintiff just set it all aside as unreasonable because his mind was made up, Ron.
His mind was made up.
I mean, he knew what happened at Sandy Hook.
He didn't need any evidence.
He didn't need any facts because he knew what they were already.
I mean, Give me a break!
And then it's heated up for the Supreme Court to clarify that the Seventh Amendment does apply indeed to all 50 states, when historically, ironically, it turns out that's never actually been resolved, Ron?
Isn't that astonishing?
Well, it's like I just, you know, I didn't think I could learn much new about our country until I looked at their case.
You mean the Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states?
You know, and when you go to school, that's all you hear about is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments.
So they're, oh, we have the first ten.
And you find out in reality, no, you don't have that.
That's not what you have.
You have you have number one and you have number three.
You have number five and you have number eight.
But you don't have what if you have one, you've got them all.
It's the first 10 amendments.
It's the Bill of Rights.
But now over in Wisconsin, you can have a summary judgment that deprives you of a trial with and you can you can you can lay out your facts and you can present your proof.
And the judge can just say, that's not what I call, those facts are unreasonable.
What you need to have is the reasonable facts.
The reasonable facts over here is Sandy Hook happened and we know it did because NBC, ABC and CBS and CNN said so.
And all your facts that you've found and all your friends and all your colleagues have found and wrote a book of 425 pages.
That's caca.
That's just caca.
Over here is the facts.
So you ain't got no facts.
He's got all the facts and you go to and you got no trial.
And and we're going to go.
The only time we're going to bring a jury in Is when we're going to allow this guy to go in there and cry and weep and have a picture of his son hanging on the wall.
Oh, God, I don't know.
And people threatened to kill me and shoot my kid and dig up his grave and on and on.
And they you know, what is the jury going to do?
They don't know anything that happened prior to that in the courtroom.
They didn't know that you were deprived of every fact and And in Texas, I'm going to tell you.
They couldn't have done that summary judgment in Texas.
That summary judgment violated every rule of the Texas Civil Court.
That thing would not have flown.
And if you'd appealed it there in Texas, they'd have said, you know, as much as we'd love to go along with you, that violates all the rules.
You can't dismiss this guy's facts and deprive him of a right to trial by jury with a summary judgment.
What an astonishing aspect, I mean, Ron, that I had those two forensic document experts on my side, because The plaintiffs didn't have any expert to contradict them, and normally in courts of law, if you have an expert testifying and he's unopposed, that expert opinion prevails.
So it ought to have been the case that it was settled right then and there by the expert document's findings.
But the judge just said it wasn't helpful and set him aside.
It was just somebody else's opinion.
You know, just.
Well, that just doesn't appeal to me.
Let's just say I don't like those kind of facts.
You know, I mean, this this guy was something else and he's still something else.
Things are not going any better since then.
I mean, the guy is unbelievable.
Well, let's get back now to The New York Times.
I mean, it appears that the whole idea is to make the public think Thank goodness those guys looked at those messy photographs and we don't have to.
Can I bring up one thing here?
I think it's pretty important.
Let's go back to that quote from the article, though, that you had there that you started off with Eric Holder's thing.
Right.
Yeah.
Let me go back to it.
Here it is, Ron.
Do you want me to?
Yeah, there it is right there.
What I wanted to comment on, first of all, that part that you quoted there about the bathroom and what he thinks about that.
It said he was convinced at that moment, reeling on the threshold of this tiny, obliterated bathroom, that if the American people only saw what he was seeing, Congress could be forced or would be forced to do the right thing.
Nothing would change in the end.
First of all, that's a very complicated sentence because it changes at the end of it.
So what he's really trying to say is, even though the American people would see this bathroom and the destruction of it and the destruction of life in it, they still wouldn't buy it.
They wouldn't force Congress to do the right thing.
And of course, what is the right thing?
What he's suggesting is the right thing.
He doesn't have enough courage to say it, but what he's suggesting is the right thing is to disarm the American people now and force Congress to do it.
But further on down, if we can, we go back one more time.
Of course.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I want to read that.
This got my attention a little later, it says.
And why wouldn't these people go along and force Congress to do the right thing?
It says the Sandy Hook photographs have been redacted by Connecticut state law since 2013.
Even if the law were to change with the consent of the families of the victims who pushed for the legal restriction, public viewing of the photographs would require one outlet or another to first make the decision to publicize the images.
And in a culture where reality is no longer agreed on, many will not believe what they see unless it is funneled through their propaganda of choice.
Now, that is here.
This author is agreeing with me that we no longer have consensus in our society.
But why is that?
And who is responsible for that?
The same kind of people that push this mass shooting stuff and what the result of it should be is a violation of another law and a bigger law, which is the Second Amendment.
These are the people that have destroyed consensus in America.
They have open borders.
Where people just flow in here like crazy.
They don't think like we do.
They don't have the history we do.
They don't have anything like what we have.
It's maybe similar.
The other human beings, but they're not.
They're not there.
They need to be assimilated into our culture.
And now and then they also advocate all kinds of alternative lifestyles.
Don't forget this.
Diversity is our strength.
Diversity is our strength.
Well, now they're complaining about their own project.
That's what you get when you have diversity is your strength.
You have no strength.
You have no consensus.
And who's in charge of the public mind?
It's not us.
It's not you and I. It's not the alternative media.
It's the mass media cartel that pushes out the same story all the time, and they're using it to achieve every agenda they have.
Yep, yep.
I think you're right on all those scores.
They did actually publish a few photographs.
They weren't dramatic photographs.
It's interesting.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
I want to correct you right there, Jim.
Oh, no.
These I remember when they show this stuff on television.
It's it's this they give you this warning ahead of time.
Now, we want to warn you ahead of time for your children and and for some of you people that may be a little squeamish.
Be alerted, be notified that what you're about to see is a bit disturbing.
And then they show you an AR-15 on a carpet, piece of carpet, or a pistol laying on some terrazzo flooring.
Are you serious?
I mean, I just got through watching Alien Adventure where the guy bites the guy's head off and this creature comes out of his stomach with a gun.
I mean, and this pistol laying on the floor is going to blow my mind.
That's supposed to be disturbing.
Well, it's like describing the Twin Towers, which are blowing apart in every direction, as collapsing.
They're using mines to make suggestions, you know.
Ribbons flapping in the breeze, you know.
That's reminiscent of in Boston bombing.
The explosive was so powerful it didn't even shred all of the ribbons and banners that were in the immediate vicinity of the explosive.
Because it was people!
I mean, it was really a pup-piece!
They're doing this all the time, Ron!
They're just playing with our minds!
I'm glad you brought up 9-11, because the first event that I ever remember, where I saw it myself with my own eyes, and then they tell me what I saw.
You know, and it's the jet, the 757 that hits the Pentagon.
And they show you some smoke.
And they say, did you see the 757?
You saw the 757, didn't you?
There it is!
What are you talking about?
And what I see, I see smoke!
I say, no, that's not a 757.
That is some smoke.
You know, I know the difference between a 757 and smoke, and you show me smoke and tell me that's a 757.
I'm not buying it.
I'm sorry, but see, that's what they're working on.
They'll tell you what's disturbing.
They'll tell you what you're seeing, but they'll show you a photograph that has none of that.
These people should be locked up for doing that kind of thing.
They should be in a rubber room.
It is.
It's a mind game, Ron.
Now, they did embed a few photographs and one of the they talked about the crime scene van being parked next to the black Honda Civic already identified as belonging to the shooter.
The yellow tape marking its perimeter.
This is where you sat, juddering in a helicopter glass.
Earlier that morning, before the van was cleared to move closer to the school, Jeff Corvello, the crime scene van supervisor, And his team were crowded around the dry easel board.
Art Walkley, the only one in the van who had so far been inside, sketched out what he said had been the two main areas of impact.
He arrived with the other first responding officers, stormed the school.
His children were running out.
There's no evidence of any children running out of this school.
We have the separate string.
With the police officer who actually, in two different photographs, is rearranging the kids to get a better shot, and there are parents present there when it's taking place.
It says, children were running out, his gun drawn, ready to kill inside, quite eager to pull the trigger once he collapsed classroom 10 and 8.
But classroom 10 and 8, I mean, in terms of the photographs, were faking!
Ron, Brian Davidson got in there, and he published photographs he got from the police archives, and there's no bodies, there's no blood.
There's not even no bodies and no blood, Ron, in classrooms 8 and 10, but there are no student desks or chairs, not even a teacher desk or chair.
So what Brian discovered in the Connecticut State Police Archives, and these pictures that are supposed to be so disturbing, Was not only proof that there'd been no mass murder, but proof that it wasn't even an operating school!
I mean, give us a break!
Well, yes, here's the way they get around that, Jim, though.
They publish a thing that says, you know, the photographs that really show the real ugly crime scene with the bloody victims and all of that on the floor, those are not for public consumption.
You can't get those.
But we have these pictures.
And as Mark Anderson pointed out on my show yesterday very well, those are not really crime scene photos.
Those are post-former crime scene photos.
So the question is, why even take pictures like that?
And why release those?
Is it that we don't believe there was a building there?
We don't believe there was a Sandy Hook School existed?
You know, here's proof that there's a hallway in this school.
Here's proof that they had swinging doors.
And here's proof that they had floors and ceilings.
Is that what we're looking for?
I mean, why even take that photograph?
The other question is, why?
Why would you?
Hold that thought.
We'll be right back with Ron Avery.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
- - Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message. - Was it a conspiracy?
Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhorns during the marathon?
That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
But there was no blood.
The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
Don't let yourself be played.
Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Whoa!
Because we know who they are and what they do.
This is what they do and we must fight back.
You can torture us and bomb us.
Fire is catching.
And if we burn, you burn with us!
Good evening.
Are you awake yet?
I hope.
We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
But time is over.
Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
Denial is not a choice anymore.
Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Not giving up.
Revolution Radio.
Radio Radio.
Radio Radio.
It is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda.
Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths, and because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
Join Dr. Ot every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
Eastern, and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing Unparalleled Broadcasting Excellence in 1997.
That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-on listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
- You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener supported radio, and now we return you to your host. - Well, you know, you know, Ron, I mean, they talked about the van there.
Brian got the van photograph out of the Connecticut State Police Archives.
And when they're talking about classrooms 8 and 10, it turns out the windows at classroom 10 are clearly discernible in this crime scene vehicle van in the parking lot.
And what's fascinating about it, Ron, is that they're unbroken.
Now, Brian determined this photograph had been taken the evening of the 14th, so it's after the event has taken place.
But the fact is that the windows aren't blown out.
They'd be later shown to be blown out.
Which means they actually hadn't completed staging the operation, Ron.
It's absolutely stunning!
I think what we've got going on here are multiple levels of psychological operation.
They talk about the van and you think you're seeing the van, it's creative writing.
But if you actually were looking at the photograph, you might think, by the way, you'd still be baffled because you wouldn't realize, you wouldn't know enough to understand that the window is being undamaged.
Contradicts the official narrative in that this photograph, which one would have thought was verifying the authenticity of crime, actually proves all by itself that it was a fake event.
I mean, it's just astonishing the chutzpah they show, the way they are manipulating the American people through propaganda pieces like this specific article we're addressing.
Now, why did they have the van sitting out there anyway?
Don't they have to have these, what do they call them, when they triage sheets, they lay them out, and there are different colors to determine how bad one is than the other, and they bring the bodies out.
There's 26 bodies, but you never see any bodies.
It looks like they could have at least put some pillows out there, and then put some sheets over them, and photographed that, but But they've come to the point that we are such an ignorant and dumbed down public.
They know we don't need any evidence at all.
Just tell those morons what happened and that's it.
And you don't need photographs or anything else.
Just tell those morons what happened.
And one of the pictures I think that's been released that's very irritating to me, and this says you're an idiot.
And it's a picture.
Of one of the classrooms where the slaughter took place, it's either eight or classroom eight or 10, and it's in the doorway, but it's obviously an already cleaned up site.
So it was the former.
Crime scene, but they bought they leave the pistol there, so in other words, they mop up the floor, they completely sanitize the place is completely cleaned up, but now Bobby, leave the gun on the floor is proof living proof of what happened here.
So you can't even enter the room without kicking the pistol across the floor.
So it's a very obvious thing to say.
Now we're going to prove this is the crime scene by laying the pistol down right here.
I mean, I don't like that.
I don't like that.
Ron, you're of course right across the board.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
In addition to what I'm pointing out here, They had a parking lot photograph.
Here you can see it.
Here they include it in the article.
But if you're not paying attention, you wouldn't notice that.
There's no handicapped parking.
In fact, if you look at a photograph of the parking lot that was taken actually from the chopper, You can see there's no handicapped parking.
There's none of the familiar blue and white signage, which again reinforces the point.
This cannot have been a legally operating school in 2012 because it was in violation of both Connecticut state and federal laws where the Americans with Disabilities Act were on.
It cannot have been an operating school because it didn't have the handicapped parking.
Well, I will.
I must say, I have found evidence of the handicap parking, and it's not in the same color blue, but I've also discovered that it does not have to be blue in various states.
The state can adopt the color of the of the handicapped stuff.
I'm an architect, so I know that.
I will research that.
I went in there.
I'm going to say this.
It's not very clear.
Now, apparently they did all the re-striping so they could see where to park because apparently that that that that paving out there is very old and it was a recent re-striping, but they didn't really re-stripe the handicap.
The handicap spots are very dim.
They're very hard to see, but they're there.
Well, but as I checked the law at the time, it required the blue and white signage, John.
Well, it does in places, but it's not absolute.
They can have different colors, and I think it's up to the state to determine what color they're used in.
I thought, too, that they had to be blue, but I was wrong.
They can be other colors.
Well, I seem to remember, though.
I verified it at the time, Ron, that it had to be blue and white there for Connecticut.
Maybe so.
I don't know what it was in 2014.
I know what it is now.
2012.
Oh, 2012.
That's right.
On the 14th.
Yeah.
Now, another photo they included that's also damning is of the shot-out window.
Here it is, Ron.
I mean, this is in the New York Times Magazine article.
Now what's fascinating is the furniture is not moved even an inch.
It's exactly where it should be.
And would you believe Wolfgang Halbig, who's a former Florida State Trooper, U.S.
Customs agent, he's been a school administrator, he's a nationally recognized school safety expert, has found ten sworn affidavits by Connecticut State Police who claim they entered the building through that blown-out window.
Ron, can you believe?
I mean, this is just monstrous!
No one can enter through that window without moving the furniture around, but for 10 people to have done it?
It's just ludicrous.
Well, weren't they, didn't they say, didn't the article say that they went in there, the kids were running out, kids were running out, And and they're running in kind of with the guns drawn.
And and oh, don't knock that bookshelf over.
Get back there and put that bookshelf up.
Don't move that chair.
Get back.
Look what you've done over there.
Clean that up a little bit.
Don't.
And then we'll proceed.
Looks like if they had been in the hurry to stop this, this evil crime, they would have knocked everything.
That furniture would have been all over the floor.
And the point I make is that Three Stooges would have done better.
Curly would have come in and then opened the door for Joe and Moe, but these ten Connecticut state cops, and they don't want to run the risk of shredding their uniform, cutting them on the glass, as Wolfgang observes.
A law enforcement officer would use his baton to clean out the glass, so there's no risk that he's going to be cut or his uniform damaged and so forth.
I mean, the whole thing is just ridiculous, Ron.
That's a photograph right in the New York Times Magazine article.
Well, even in this proves the article's false, because how could the kids be running?
It must mean the kids ran out through that hole.
So here they are trying to all get through the damn hole in the glass.
The kids are running out.
He's going against the flow of the kids running around.
They're running out and he's got his guns ready to shoot.
And why wouldn't they go through the door?
They're leaving through the door, right?
Well, then why would they go through a hole when the kids are leaving through the door?
I mean, Please!
Yeah, I get it.
Yeah, it's another one of these cases where you have a single photograph that just demolishes the official story.
They also put one in of the hallway, by the way, but they don't explain that what you see in the hallway contradicts the official narrative.
Brian, again, got in there And he's got hallway photographs.
The problem being that, according to the official narrative, you should have the body of the school principal, Dawn Hofsprung, and the school psychologist, Mary Sherlock, lying in pools of blood.
Well, not only are there no bodies, Ron, there are no pools of blood.
I mean, this is just... Well, yeah, exactly.
It's like Mark says, it's a picture of a former crime scene, which is totally useless.
And they're they're trying to they do tell us.
And in fact, the stuff that Brian Davidson got out from the Connecticut police files, it says in there that that the the photos that have all that kind of stuff in there are redacted.
They're blacked out.
You can't have access to them.
So you're not going to see any bodies.
They're going to tell you that we've we've reserved.
And in fact, this article that we're talking about and critiquing, they said they took fourteen hundred and ninety five photographs, still photographs of that crime scene.
Now, I think and this is the this is the point that Mark and I made yesterday on my show at Republic Broadcasting dot org.
If you're going to indict the American public and remove from them the right to keep and bear arms and defend themselves against abject tyranny with effective firearms, then you need to show everything in that crime scene.
The blood on the floor, the bodies where they lay, you need to show everything.
All that needs to be also marked out.
See, it's not even good former crime scene pictures because they are supposed to mark the bodies on the floor where they were.
They don't just pick them up and that's it.
They have to mark those things.
So the only pictures we have at all before they're trying to take away our firearms and indict every American And deprive every American of a right to defense, and then slaughter you and Alex Jones in these cases, and Bushmaster on top of it, and make millions of dollars from it.
They haven't shown a single photograph of any real proof that anyone was killed at Sandy Hook.
No real proof.
And the explanation, I would suggest, is because nobody died at Sandy Hook.
That's very true.
The redacted photographs are fake redactions, Ron, I'm convinced.
There was no crime scene to clean up.
These are post-cleanup crime scenes.
These are the only photos they have because there was never any blood, never any bodies.
It's all an enormous pretense.
It is a hoax.
And it involves Connecticut State Police, a governor of Connecticut, the vice president, the president of the United States, the attorney general of the United States, FEMA, FEMA managers who ran this, the citizens of Newtown who participated and were paid handsomely for their effort.
The whole thing was a gigantic, humongous scam, Ron.
Let me say this.
Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that it was a real event, that it really took place, just like they said, even though we have contradictory evidence.
Let's just presume this.
Why, then, are they allowed to take everything you've got to wreck your life, to indict every American and disarm every American.
Because what they're saying with this Sandy Hook is that the American people are not evolved enough, are not good enough, morally sound people cannot be trusted with effective firearms and cannot have them because they harm themselves and others.
And so they can't have them.
Yet, they will not show you proof of the crime itself.
And then on top of it, they get angry because we doubt it.
How can they get angry at us when we doubt it when they don't show us proof?
If you don't want us to doubt it, show us the proof.
I mean, it's just that simple.
And if you don't show us the proof, you cannot condemn us for doubting it.
I mean, it's a natural thing to doubt.
If you can't show it, you ain't got it.
That's right.
And they ain't got it.
They ain't got it.
Now, maybe they can come up with it.
They ain't got it until they show it to us, is the only thing we can conclude.
Ron, I agree.
I mean, obviously, the weight of the evidence favors skepticism.
Here's inside.
They showed this photo in one of the classrooms, and it looks like it's active.
But the fact is they removed all the metadata from all the photographs.
I mean, Ron, ask yourself, ask yourself, how could they remove all the metadata from the photographs when that would mean they were not admissible as evidence in courts of law?
How could they do that?
And look what Brian finds.
He finds photographs of completely empty classrooms with no student desk, no student chair, no teacher desk, no teacher chair.
As I say, evidence that it wasn't even an operating school, much less that there was a mass murder.
Yeah, they had these little yellow cords showing the projectory of the bullets, I guess, and then they had this little like had it had the room sectioned off in quadrants and these little yellow things.
Well, that's supposed to be see that's supposed to mean to us.
That's the crime scene.
But where are the little drawings around the people where they were and And it's all shoved on.
Well, you mean that classroom was like that?
It had all the furniture shoved up against the wall and the kids were like sitting on the floor.
They were all sitting on the floor and all the furniture smashed up against the wall.
Like you say, I think that room was really used for storage.
It was really an empty room.
I think all that stuff on the floor that they show a few little patches of discoloration.
I think that's actually stains from the roof leaking.
I think they have.
That's an old building.
I think they have some roof leaks in there.
Now, I think I should be given the leeway to say those kind of things when they refuse to show us any proof that a real crime took place.
I think we ought to be able to speculate any way we want to.
They've given us the freedom to speculate, and that's what it is.
It's not a conspiracy.
It's not conspiracy.
It's just speculation that it didn't happen.
Then Alex Jones offers the opinion that it didn't happen, and he's socked with a billion dollars for offering an opinion?
How will an American get—this is lunacy!
Completely idiotic!
That's sending a message.
When we tell you what to see, you shut up and believe what we tell you.
Right.
I mean, it's just that blatant.
Shut up.
Believe what we tell you.
And if you say anything else, we're going to slap a lawsuit on it and ruin your business and your life from now on.
Because we're the guys.
We're in charge.
We're the tyrants in charge.
There's no law when we take you to court.
There ain't going to be no trials for your defense.
You're not going to be able to produce any evidence.
We're going to take you apart.
Then we're going to bring in the people into a trial and try you for damages.
You've hurt these poor people.
You know, well, I'm saying this, and see, I have a bill that I've drafted, and you can find it on my website at lawfulgovernment.com, and it's a bill to stop disarmament terrorism, and this is exactly what this is.
This is terrorism, and it's the use of harm done by another, whether pretended or real or just supposed, By another to to alter the law of the land.
And what is the law of the land?
That's the Second Amendment.
You have a right to keep and bear arms for the security of the state and for yourself against even your government.
That's what that's about.
Now, they're trying to take that away from us.
And that that is alteration of the law.
So these parents have actually become terrorists.
The parents of the let's say it happened.
Let's say that thing happened in Sandy Hook, just like they said, the parents of those slaughtered kids have become disarmament terrorists because they're using the violence done by the supposed Adam Lanza against their own children to disarm the rest of us against the law of the land.
That is terrorism by definition.
And the object of it is disarmament.
So these people are disarmament terrorists.
And there's a way to stop that.
And the way to do that is to pass a bill.
That if any event like this, any mass shooting or any event like this, is used to alter the law of the land, to take away people's rights, then they have to show every shred of evidence.
The 1495 pictures, the blood and the guts on the floor, and where it was and all of it has to be produced.
Every bit of it.
Now, if they don't try to do that, If they have a crime scene where none of the parents are trying to take away every person's right to keep and bear arms or any altering the law that harms people's property, Then they can seal it, except for trial.
If the shooter's alive or something and they have a trial, they can release it in the trial thing.
But if you're going to try to take away the rights of every American, you should be compelled to show proof that it even happened.
And even then, it's not significant enough to disarm the American people.
A nutjob who kills people does not have the right, or anybody associated with that, or using him has a right to disarm all of us.
We should have guns to defend against those maniacs, and federal maniacs, and state maniacs.
Excellent, excellent points, Ron.
Can you imagine?
Just look back at Australia.
They picked up the guns in Australia, and then when they did the COVID thing over there, it was ugly.
They were knocking people down on the sidewalks and everything.
Well, they wouldn't be doing that if you had an AK-47.
They might knock you down once, but that'd be the last time.
And see, we can't do this.
We can't have COVID-19.
We can't have these pandemics and all these forced lockdowns.
And if you give up arms, if they do that to us, they'll do anything they want to to us.
but they're afraid of us now simply because we're armed.
You know, and I have so much more proof than I had way back when I was being sued by a person who claimed to be Leonard Bosner.
Lookie here, now, only those who are looking at the video show will see it, but this is the Connecticut, the drill at Sandy Hook was on the schedule for Connecticut, FEMA!
Look it right there!
12, 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary.
They even had a map to show where it was located.
Ron, I mean, 18 miles away.
Give us a break.
This is completely stunning stuff.
Just completely stunning stuff that we know exactly what happened, and yet they're still putting up the pretense that this was a real shooting.
I mean, honest to God, they have a lot of nerve.
I just, I think it all falls back on them.
If they don't want us to make our own decisions about what's going on and to speculate about what happened or didn't happen, they can always present the proof.
I mean, that's all we, and first of all, I find it interesting about this article this person wrote.
His name's Jay Kirk.
He's a young man, and he teaches creative writing.
Well, he certainly did a job here, but the point... Now, what was my point?
Oh shoot, I went off on the... Well, it just completely left me now.
I had one of those senior moments.
No, Rod, fair enough.
He'll come back.
I was saying the chutzpah they have in presenting all this stuff.
I mean, they have so much nerve in acting as though we should just take for granted what the story they're telling us, even if it's far-fetched and phony.
I must have a hundred different lines of proof that this thing was fraudulent, Ron.
A hundred different lines of proof, and I've yet to see even one bona fide that can sustain that it was real.
Because it was totally fraudulent!
I mean, that's ridiculous!
Yep.
Yep.
By the way, we are going to open the phone line so anyone can call in and talk to me and Ron about Sandy Hook or these other issues.
540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
540-352-4452.
And I'm telling you, there's that mass evidence whether it's suppressing it, They banned my book.
They sued me over it.
They've taken my book.
I'm trying to regain control of it, but the court system—I mean, I'm telling you, Ron, do I have any reason to believe I'm going to get justice out of the court system at any level whatsoever?
Yeah, see, this all goes back to what I've been saying for 15, 20 years, really.
And it's all was all written in John Locke's chapter 19 at the end of his book, Second Treatise of Government, Dissolution of Government.
He tells you what it is.
And believe me, we got it.
We got serious dissolution.
And that means we don't have lawful government at any level anywhere.
We don't have it.
We do not have lawful government.
We'll be right back with Ron Avery, and we'll take your calls after this break.
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back after this message.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio.
FreedomSubs.com.
The number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution.
Radio, radio, radio, radio.
Thank you.
Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at freedomslick.com, the people's station.
The people station.
Even the government admits that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuke on 9-11.
Available at moonrockbooks.com.
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Well, Ron, as we continue our conversation, we'll be open to any phone calls that anyone wants to, you know, ring us up and ask us questions or put it to us or whatever.
I just want to observe my article about it, Discussing the Photographs in Addition, is also on my blog at jameshfetzer.org, and I did a brief summation of parts of yours, which I like very much.
And here are some of the paragraphs of mine about these key points.
Crime scene photographs surely ought to be available to the public.
The purpose of this paragraph, it's the one you cited, appears to be to defend themselves from their own conscience and awareness that, as Avery observes, sealing crime scene evidence does not result in good individual reactions or good social policy.
Sealing evidence of crimes make crimes easier to conduct and conceal, whether we're investigating fake crimes or real ones.
A case of this kind, which is immersed in controversy, especially deserves thorough and meticulous investigation, which cannot be properly conducted when evidence is suppressed.
In this instance, based upon the evidence I and my colleagues have amassed, the Obama administration appears to have conducted, let's call it, an act of faux-terrorism by faking a mass murder of children to instill fear into the hearts and minds of their target audience, American parents, to make them more amenable to political manipulation.
It was an act of domestic terrorism.
And that it was also fake can be considered in relation to the photographs they included here.
What do they tell us about Sandy Hook?
Do they hope to resolve whether this event was reality or illusion?
The answer, surprisingly, appears to be yes, as I've already illustrated with several examples.
Ron?
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because that was the thing that slipped my senior brain there, was that even in this article, the author indicates that the question, he says the question keeps coming up about why we don't see evidence and we should see evidence of these events.
But I don't remember any mass media cartel story or news thing or anybody outside the mass media cartel ever saying anything about, we need to see these crime scene photos.
We need to see that.
So they are making this up.
They're making it up because they know in their own conscience that these that why even do investigations?
They even said in the article that they did meticulous investigation of Sandy Hook.
They took 1495 photographs.
They did all kinds of in-depth, detailed analysis of the crime scene, but they didn't let us see any of it except these former crime scene pictures or the proof that there was a building there.
Who was challenging the notion that there was a building there?
It's they're having trouble even with their own conscience.
And then they say that this stuff has to be that they wouldn't see.
They're trying to excuse themselves.
Here's their excuse.
Even if we showed you the photographs, you wouldn't believe them because you would think we made them up.
You'd think we we and hey, they could very well do that.
They could very well do that because they make movies that are that are God awful in terms of guts and gores and they could literally they could have gone in there and staged even the bodies and the blood and the whole thing and they could have done that very well could have done that but uh if they did the meticulous study anyway why don't they why can't they show it to us I mean
Or at least show us the stage stuff.
And see, they're going to say, well, you wouldn't believe it if we showed it to you.
Well, that's not good enough, friend.
You still have to show it to us, whether it's fake or not.
Well, look what a haven for criminality becomes Connecticut.
I mean, you can't see any crime scene.
Well, let's commit all the crimes in the world, you know.
They seem to be facilitating, fostering serious crimes by virtue of concealing evidence the public's entitled to know.
Exactly.
And state crimes.
The state crimes against the people.
And at least make them go through the theatrics of really doing a full show.
At least you ought to afford us a full show.
Go ahead and put some bodies out there.
They did it at Boston.
Hey, if you're going to do it at Boston, why not?
Why not do it as Sandy Hook?
I mean, go the at least make the whole movie.
As Mark Anderson pointed out yesterday on my show, he called me.
He was pumped up about my article.
He said, you know, Ron, it appears that the only people, the only people that are giving us actual crime scene photographs is the criminal themselves when they have a body cam.
And they go in there and they shoot people in the grocery store and shoot them on the course, only black people.
It was it was a racial crime.
So he went into the grocery store, only shot black people.
Excuse me, ma'am.
The white woman in the book.
Excuse me.
I have to get over here and shoot some more black people.
And then he shows it on body cam.
We didn't get any other pictures of it.
We didn't get any other crime scene pictures.
Well, the only thing we know about these crimes come from the criminal themselves.
The deranged maniac is all we get.
But at least he has the courtesy to give the public some crime scene photographs And sometimes even an explanation for the crime with his treatise about it or his manifesto, they call it.
Yeah, these manifestos.
I mean, give me a break.
They got a formula.
It's got to be a single shooter.
He's got to be a mega guy or be racially driven.
He's got to have a manifesto and he's got to be dead so that he's not available for cross-examination.
I mean, Ron, it's a little too cut and dry if you ask me.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
In Nashville, it's interesting you mentioned dash cam.
The team in response came in with their dash cam and they come into the school and there's nobody there.
Just as when they shoot her, because they had this footage of the shooter coming in in Nashville.
There's nobody there.
You got an alarm going off.
There's not a student.
There's not a teacher.
There's not a secretary.
There's not a custodian.
No one to be seen.
It's as though the building were empty.
And the explanation is because the building was empty.
And then you got this squad team rushing in and they're poking into all these different windows and filming and you hear bang, bang, bang.
But there's no ricochets.
There's no recoil.
There's no casings being ejected.
And when they shoot the burp and you catch it, the sneakers Our vans, and they're colorful, whereas he was wearing this other brand when he came in.
One's Parms and one's Rams.
Black and white coming in.
It's reminiscent in Colorado at the Walmart shooting, Ron.
The guy came in wearing one type of prowl, so it had these big cargo pockets on it.
And going out, he had a different kind of trowel, so I guess he figured while he was there in Kmart shooting up the place, he might as well pick up a new pair of trowel.
Yeah, just go into the restroom, you know, casually change.
When you go to a shooting, you don't want to come out of the place, you know, looking tacky.
That's right!
That's right!
That's absolutely right!
This is pathetic!
They're spending more money on fake shootings and cover-ups and going after those of us who are trying to expose what happened than they are solving any real problems confronting society, Ron, by far.
I mean, the margin, it's just staggering.
Right.
Well, they have this contract with the U.N.
to disarm the American people of even small arms, and they're going for it.
They're making it happen.
And they know they can't go to Congress.
Can you imagine going to Congress and arguing, we need to disarm the American people?
So that they have no firearms to defend themselves from crime or criminals or us or any invasion.
We just need to disarm the people because they're morons.
And the UN also is running a camp with the American government to get massive migrants from Panama into the United States, Ron.
They're facilitating the invasion of the United States with millions of illegal migrants.
That's right.
To hell with the UN, Ron.
I mean, this is disgusting.
If I grew up thinking the United States was a responsible organization and dedicated to world peace, it turns out to be as corrupt as they get.
And it's out to promote one world government, and it's a tool of the Rothschild banking empire.
I'm just revolted.
And it's an entity that has absolutely no authority whatsoever.
Not a shred.
It's like a coffee club.
It's a place where you go drink coffee.
I mean, these people have no authority.
They can't derive it from anywhere.
They have no means of deriving authority.
That thing needs to be shoved off into the ocean with a road grader.
Yeah, let's move it somewhere else.
It doesn't belong on American soil.
Let's put it in Haiti.
Put it in Haiti.
That's a great idea.
Haiti.
Or somewhere even more remote.
And they can maybe find some use for their money in Haiti.
I mean, Ron, it's just disgusting.
I repeat that the lines are open if anyone would like to call with a question about Sandy Hook or the rape trial or the The Ukrainian counteroffensive, I'm telling you, is not even going to take place.
I got a phone call while the show is going on that the Russians are now using these thermobaric bombs that are just devastating.
That they're not going to mess around.
That there have been attempts to take out Putin using drones, and the Russians are going to respond appropriately.
I think the situation is going to change very dramatically in short order.
Ukraine never had a chance anyway, in spite of NATO and U.S.
effort to beef it up.
Ron, how despicable is it that the West agrees to this plan for peace in Ukraine and just uses it as a cover to beef up the military Ukraine to make it harder for Russia to succeed?
I mean, that is just so disgraceful.
I cannot believe it.
It means the word of the West is useless in any international agreement.
It's gone!
It's apparent that we've interfered in that, and that we've prolonged the war by our interference.
And we're responsible for the extra deaths and the longevity of this thing.
And I don't believe those people had a right to do all that stuff they were doing.
I mean, I think that whole Western Ukrainian thing was reverse immigration from Israel, and that's why we're supporting all that stuff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, Israel wants Ukraine to be the new Israel, and this is why you get absurd statements such as, from Biden, as long as it takes.
Right?
And I guarantee you, I mean, this is, as I've said before so many times, this is a puppet!
Literally, this is a puppet!
This is an actor wearing a mask!
I mean, that's embarrassing!
It's embarrassing!
This goes back again to the dissolution of the country.
It's actually run by the people that have taken over our monetary system and issue our currency.
And they just flat tell us what we're going to do.
We're actually the military arm of the of the international bankarchy, which is pretty much controlled by people that call themselves Jews, but reject the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ, and their headquarters is Israel.
And they control the monetary systems of the world, of the Western world, for sure.
And they're using us.
They're using us to to achieve their goals.
And we don't have any control of it.
We don't get to choose whether we want to support the Ukraine or not.
We don't get to choose.
Anybody ask you whether we should do that?
No, we're just told we're going to do that.
You're going to do that or you're not going to get any more currency.
And everybody's going to wonder why the America collapsed.
We simply have to do what they say in order to keep our economy running.
And it's a false and illegal economy to start with.
I think America has collapsed.
I think we are a third world nation.
We are a banana republic.
The politicalization of our justice system was really the crunch, the deciding factor.
The idea of equal justice under law that has distinguished the United States historically, and it has been so corrupted.
This is completely consistent with your theme of so many years, Ron.
We no longer have an American government.
We no longer have a judicial system worth a damn.
It's all politicized to go after and punish the enemies of the state.
It is a disgrace.
It is.
And if the enemies of the state would be one thing, if it wasn't the people, they're coming after us.
I mean, that's not right.
The lawful government is supposed to protect our life, liberty and property, our possessions.
It's doing the opposite.
It's plundering us.
It's taking everything we have.
Well, I mean, yeah, go ahead.
I mean, that's why I say, if you don't, there's nothing to defend.
America any longer, there's nothing to defend.
And the problem with the constitution that most people have is they like the constitution.
It was good.
It was written good at the time, but the people sitting in the offices that it creates and the laws that you mentioned, how much common law over the years, the case law would have to be reversed.
How many laws would have to be repealed?
And I mean, it's just you'd have to if you want to use the Constitution that's there, you would have to read the people would have to come together and reinstitute it, because what they've done is they have altered the terms of the Constitution.
The form of the of the Constitution by law without approval by amendment of the people.
So that's dissolution.
So the only way these people what I like about dissolution is that the people in government now have no authority.
When they dissolve the government, they also dissolve their authority along with it.
So these people that are running things, they literally have no authority at all to represent you or any people in America.
So they can't, under law and morality, They have no authority over you and you have no obligation to them because they dissolved what you agreed to and what our forefathers agreed to.
And the only way to come up with a new lawful government with authority is to create it once again by the people and for the people.
The fear I have, Ron, is if you add anything like a constitutional convention, it could run amok.
You could have an outcome that was far worse than what we have now.
You're right, and the reason why a constitutional convention is bad is because you have to go through the dissolved entity to have it and to hold it.
You don't, you don't want to have anything to do with a dissolved government.
You don't want to have a convention through it.
You don't want to go through any of their routines.
You don't want to appeal to any of us.
You don't want to go through their system.
You want to create it outside of it, completely new.
They have nothing to do with it and can't even participate with it.
So how would we go about forming a new government, my friend?
I think we'd have to have a committee that wrote a new constitution that talked about all the issues that we really have, and what we ought to have for lawful government, and set it up online for approval of the people.
Wouldn't it resemble, in many respects, our present constitution?
What would be the major differences as you would see it?
Yeah, I think you could actually take it as a like a template, but you don't you don't keep it just as it is.
You just use it as a template as a beginning point and take the good parts and reject the bad parts and correct the parts that really weren't strong enough.
And, you know, take out parts that were obviously, you know, locked in a period of time that no longer exists.
So yeah, it just you clean up some of it, you'd adopt some of it, and you'd bring in new stuff that makes that makes first you set the premise of what government is lawful government only has one purpose.
The protection of life, liberty and possessions of every person.
That's where you start.
Oh, and the other thing is you keep it in a Republican form.
That means a Republican form of government.
That means that the government cannot get any authority that you yourself do not hold in yourself, because all they can get is what we delegate it to.
And we can't delegate what we don't have.
And we don't have authority to do a lot of things.
So, to ask yourself if government has authority, ask yourself, do I have authority to do that?
If I don't, the government doesn't either.
That's what the republic means.
What are some of the most important provisions you would accent that need to be strengthened, for example, or others that might need to be removed?
Well, I would think, first of all, I think one of the problems with the present constitution is no one knows how to most people do not know how to interpret it.
So I think you need a preface that sets out in the very beginning of what the major principles to be applied to every provision is.
And that would be just kind of basically what I just said.
And and then, number one, property should be made the way it started in America as unalienable.
Property cannot be a lien for the purpose of creation or support of the government.
Now, income, there's various forms of income that are various forms of taxation that are lawful, but alienation of your property is not lawful because it harms your property.
It forces you into a tenant relationship with the state feudal master, the lord of the property.
And that's not lawful government.
The means of support for government cannot destroy its purpose.
So the purpose of government is the protection of property.
It cannot lean your property to do that.
And we have that.
People don't own property in America anymore.
We rent it from the state.
And, of course, the banks.
I mean, it's wonderful.
And is it South Dakota that as a state bank is the only state in the union that's solvent because they operate to benefit the citizens of South Dakota?
This is something that ought to be emulated in every one of the other 49 states, Ron.
Absolutely.
And certainly, if you know all those things, too, that would that would eventually.
And first of all, you should have lawful currency.
I mean, if you're going to have a lawful government and the economy has to be based on lawful currency, it can't be paper debt notes, which are already forbidden in our present constitution.
And you can't have these these central banks.
It's really a banking cartel.
I mean, we first of all need to get rid of cartels, both the banking cartel and the mass media cartel.
Those are two of the most damaging things that we've suffered over the years.
Ron, I couldn't agree more.
It's been a joy having you here.
Where can one learn more about your views?
You have a radio program of your own, I know, and you've mentioned Mark Anderson.
Tell us more about your efforts.
Well, Mark Anderson and I have been working together for a number of years.
I don't even know him any now, but I live stream a simulcast of his radio show at republicbroadcasting.org from 2 to 3.
And that will be on today, by the way, an hour after this show, Central Time.
And you can find it at republicbroadcasting.org or at livestream.com forward slash Ron Avery.
And so you can watch it, too, and hear it.
And then I have I have a number of websites.
I have lawful government dot com.
I have suet dot com.
That's that's where your stuff is loaded up at is post WTC dot com, meaning after World Trade Center.
And by the way, I opened that website the day after 9-11 in 2001.
I knew that was going to be the police state coming.
So I got that website.
But anyway, I have other websites and you can find all of them.
At republic broadcasting dot org, go to my home page there, click on the show schedules and go down to search for lawful government.
That's the name of my radio show.
It comes on Tuesdays and Thursdays from two to three.
And then Mark Anderson's comes on on Wednesday at two to three.
We used to have the whole week between the two of us, Monday through Friday, but Mark got too busy and couldn't do two of them.
But anyway, we both work on the mass media cartel.
We think that's the most powerful weapon.
Being used against the American people today, and that needs to be busted up.
And if they're not going to do a social service and report the news and follow up on news stories and investigate them, then they should not have a license to be news outlets.
They should just be struggling along like the rest of us.
Well, if you want to follow up on my conversation with Ron today, check it out.
Go to jameshfetzer.org.
Two of the three most recent articles are Ron's about this New York Times Magazine piece and mine, especially discussing the photographs they include there.
Ron, it's been a joy having you here, my friend.
I can't thank you enough.
I very much look forward to having you back.
Well, it's been my thrill to come back anytime.
Yeah.
Excellent.
Excellent.
▲
Export Selection