All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
56:50
Need to Know News (12 May 2023) with Chris Weinert
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, Master of Wisconsin, joined today by Chris Weinert from Fort Myers, Florida.
Carl Herman is engaged in a move in California.
We have war breaking out at the border.
Heavy gunfire.
Three dead.
This is only the beginning.
Bullets bouncing off the windows of our custom building.
A witness knows me.
Signed a photo of a shredded bullet.
The renowned gangs that oversee the flow of drugs into the U.S.
are fierce rivals for controlled Mexico's border regions.
Here we have a photograph of a spent shell.
In response to concern, waves of immigrants will attempt to pass when the COVID restrictions are lifted, which has, of course, occurred.
The flood is taking place.
Biden has claimed he'll send 1,500 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border.
That would be a pittance.
They're supposed to be supporting the Border Patrol, but the fact of the matter is it's for opposite reasons.
It's to channel, to shepherd all these migrants in.
Video shot from one of the bridge trucks revealed what looks to be Mexican Army vehicles whizzing past motorists who are cowering in their cars.
Here we have Texas National Guard showing up.
Are they going to make a difference?
Governor Abbott announced he's sending a tactical border force.
Texas is doing more than any other state to defend the southern border.
Here's Bill Mellon tweeting, A quick reaction force of Texas National Guard soldiers with riot gear have just arrived at a major illegal crossing here in Brownsville.
I'm told this is part of Governor Abbott's new specialized Texas response force to repel mass crossings.
More about it.
Currently a significant number of National Guard outfitted in riot gear have just arrived.
In a video filmed by journalist Benjamin Todd, DPS officers and members of the Texas National Guard are physically preventing and obstructing illegals attempting to cross the river.
It's going to be for naught.
Here's some footage of what's taking place.
Here's some footage of what's taking place.
Here's some footage of what's taking place.
So if one area is blocked, they're going to find another.
And we now know DHS is advising the migrants where to go, that they won't be obstructed by the Texas National Guard.
Chris, your thoughts?
Crazy stuff.
We're being invaded without being invaded.
This is almost an informal army, but it is certainly the refugees that have been created from basically turning these Central and South American nations into slave colonies of the Empire.
And I guess They somehow think that the United States is in a better situation, which means, I don't know, it's pretty bad right now here in the United States.
I can't imagine it getting much worse here than it is now, I guess, anywhere else, but I guess it's far, far worse.
So it really gives you a little bit of perspective as far as the psychology of the herd and the masses fleeing for safety and trying to make a better chance for life.
One thing I'd like to point out is I think there's a definite struggle between two factions in the cartels.
One might be the Mexican National Cartel and the other is like the Central Intelligence Cartel.
And Obrador is probably the guy that's in charge of a lot of the stuff for the black market cartel that I'm talking about from Mexico.
And of course, the CIA and its ilk are probably involved with most of the other one.
And I think that there is some sort of a collision or a clash, a power struggle going on there, especially in Mexico.
And I often wonder, too, if maybe this could even be a way to serve as a cover or a way to sneak in military troops or forces in terms of bringing martial law, maybe not even to Mexico per se, but to the United States should the banking system collapse.
Those are all appropriate thoughts, Chris.
I agree.
I think there are weapons caches here in the United States, and they're going to have all these young military-trained individuals identified as to where they can get them.
They're giving them cell phones.
They can instruct them where to get the weapons and what to do with them.
Biden promised that if he'd win a House GOP bill to enforce the border, Biden would veto a GOP bill aiming to restrict asylum, build more border wall, and cut a program that allows them the opportunity to stay in the U.S., including Ukrainian refugees.
Republicans want to capitalize on immigration trouble surges with an ending to COVID that allows border authorities to quickly return migrants who cross the border illegally.
The GOP lawmakers want to vote on their Secure the Border Act on Thursday.
That would be yesterday, the same day emergency expulsion powers expire.
The legislation represents the GOP's first major immigration proposal since the Trump era, long overdue.
The 213-page bill resurrects a slew of former Trump policies, such as building barriers along hundreds of miles of border, and in some cases goes beyond his effort.
It faces headwinds from some Republicans representing agricultural areas over requirement that businesses verify employees' legal migration status, even if it passed the majority Republican House.
It stands little chance in the Democrat-held Senate.
Were it to end up on the President's desk, moreover, he would veto it.
The Biden admin argues Congress needs to act significantly on the border to fix major problems that have led to record numbers illegally crossing, but this isn't the way to do it.
The fact is the White House is shepherding them in.
They want this to happen.
They're participating in the destruction of the United States.
It's all deliberate.
Congress in past decades has traditionally trackered overall support of security and immigration law by coupling stronger border enforcement measures with policy changes, expanding legal pathways, or providing legal status for undocumented immigrants already in the United States.
House GOP is applying the same logic, pairing a border security package with changes in immigration reform rules in hopes of uniting mainstream and far-right lawmakers.
But instead of expanding legal pathways, a package restricts them.
Here you have Mayorkas actually talking about what goes on.
Get this.
U.S.
to limit asylum at Mexico border.
Very difficult days.
Biden admin began denying asylum.
Don't believe it for a sec.
A rule comes just a day before the U.S.
ends Title 42.
The rule announced Wednesday part of new measure to crack down on illegal border crossing, but it's just smoke and mirrors.
This is bullshit.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas warned the days and weeks ahead have the potential to be very different.
Difficult.
Our plan will deliver results.
It will take time for those results to be fully realized.
Yes, the complete alteration of the demographics of the United States is the objective.
There's fear and anguish.
Here's a fellow who spent three months in Juarez trying to get an appointment to an app the U.S.
has encouraged migrants to use.
COVID pandemic-related restrictions have allowed border officials to quickly return people, as they've done 2.8 million times since March of 2020.
But after the restrictions expired yesterday, as they did, migrants crossing illegally will not be allowed to return for five years, even with the restrictions that affect border crossings have risen to all-time highs.
The measure is a key part of a U.S.
strategy, don't you believe it?
It's part of a smokescreen.
It's almost certain to face legal challenges.
The Biden and Biden emphasize the complex dynamic at play when it comes to immigration.
Here, key points.
DHS is using an encrypted online chatroom to tell Mexicans where to send illegals to cross the border to avoid Texas National Guard and DPS officials.
DHS is using border detection technology to track Texas law enforcement to alert Mexico where and when illegals should cross.
And facts.
43% of all food stamps are given to illegals.
95% of warrants issued for murder in Los Angeles are for illegals.
Less than 2% of illegals are picking crops.
41% are on welfare.
More than 66% of all births in California are to illegals on Medi-Cal.
60% of all HUD-occupied properties are illegal.
39% of all California students are illegal.
75% of L.A.
most wanted are illegal.
50% of all gang members are illegal.
U.S.
taxpayers are footing the bill for all of this.
Outrageous.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah.
I think a lot of the stuff that they tried putting on in the 90s in the Clinton administration as far as the UN colonialization and the asset stripping operation and the depopulation agendas for the U.S.
constituency, the stuff they didn't have the popular support or the political confusion or certainly this level of constituent apathy necessary To bring these things into fruition, to put these legislations in place, these things to all work towards the same agenda, which seems to be bringing our population down to 67 million people.
As the World Economic Forum and World Bank and many of these institutions have had census reports saying that in 2025, that was the expected population for the United States.
And these bastards might just get that, the way they're going and what they're doing.
What they're doing right now is, like I said, one of the largest asset stripping operations, I think, in human history, along with the depopulation agenda.
So it's a full spectrum assault.
And basically, you're seeing the liquidation of the United States.
Almost like an auction terms funded by public debt for private profits.
And if you think about the deregulatory and regulatory legislations that have been positioned in place from Clinton until now, it really does seem to be leading towards a lockstep agenda for this very same purpose.
It doesn't matter R or D, you can go down the line.
They seem to be all working towards this bipartisan agenda.
I really think that there is, and I hate to say it, and it's going to sound like an outrageous claim, but everybody can just rip me to pieces in the comment section, feel free.
I almost think that there is a World Economic Forum Deadpool, where they have to sacrifice certain numbers of their population in coordination with these global agendas.
I hate to say it, but I think that the research I've been studying leads towards this not only being a possibility, but a likelihood.
Oh, Chris, I'm not going to argue with you, my friend.
I think you've got it right.
Meanwhile, ABC News host actually asked if anyone will be able to police what Tucker says on his new Twitter program.
Or is this a point?
It's just a free-for-all?
Here's somebody who doesn't comprehend the First Amendment and freedom of speech and of the press.
On the heels of Tucker announcing he's playing a new program on Twitter, NBC News Now guest host Tom Costella brought in former CNN host Brian Stelter for a chat.
Twitter was already under fire for misinformation, disinformational outliers, anti-Semitism, racism, before Elon Musk took over.
Now it's gotten kind of crazy, right?
Seemingly unmoored, if you will, Costello suggested a stelter, who himself was repeatedly blasted with accusations of peddling misinformation prior to his house turn from CNN.
Here's the Alex tweeting.
NBC's reaction to Tucker's Twitter show?
Will anyone be able to please what Tucker says, or is this the point?
It's just a preferral?
On the heels of former Tucker host announcing he's playing a new program, Costello brought him in.
Costello continued with a jaw-dropping question.
Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says, or is this a point as just a free-for-all?
Stelter didn't appear shocked by the police reverence.
I think this is the point.
It's a free-for-all.
It's what Elon Musk wants to provide.
This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Tucker as a right-wing website, of Twitter as a right-wing website.
But Twitter's just open for everyone to use.
These are stupid observations in the extreme.
News Buster had Stelter predicted.
Some users trying to go off to other sites instead.
Costello wondered if advertisers on Twitter would stick around.
Now Tucker can give toxic culture on Twitter.
How ridiculous.
The answer is no, Stelter replied.
Tucker was radioactive.
He was a drag on Fox Profits, so I don't see how Twitter will be any different for Carlson and Must.
These mean ridiculous false claims.
It's worth pointing out, after Must bought Twitter a little over a year ago, Stelter, then-CNN chief media correspondent wondered on air if folks would want to use Twitter if it offers them too much freedom.
Musk made clear he planned to open a free speech floodgate on the social media platform.
If you get invited to something where there are no rules, where there's total freedom for everybody, do you actually want to go to that party or are you just assigned to stay home, Stelter asks, and that's a question for Twitter users.
Man, oh man, what a failure to understand democracy.
Here's the Washington Free Beacon tweeting, Stelter on Elon Musk buying Twitter.
If you get invited to something where there are no rules, where there is total freedom for everybody, do you actually want to go to that party or are you going to decide to stay home about it, dumb and undemocratic and un-American as it gets?
Critics often label Stelter a hall monitor, and attacks of him seem to grow louder and more frequent over time, before he is finally shown the door at CNN.
Chris, this is bizarre stuff.
Your thoughts?
It almost seems scripted.
A long con, I guess, establishing street credibility, control opposition, and I think that it's part of the persecution agenda and why they're really going after some of these guys and some of these guys are popping up to defend the public sentiment, which is pretty much becoming overwhelming.
They have to have some people that are at least toting the narrative of the multitudes, I think, and serving some degree of popular sovereignty or appealing to it in some nature.
So as far as Musk goes, I think that he's kind of a fair weather fan, but hopefully he'll prove me wrong.
But yeah, I think that Tucker maybe would be in the same boat as that, you know, somebody that They want to have steering the obvious majority of the political sentiment, as he was with Fox News, in some way, shape or form.
They're not going to let that go.
They want to have that harnessed and controlled by some media group.
And I would be surprised if he gets a lot of money to do something like that, like Howard Stern money, maybe more.
Yeah, I think Tucker's gonna be a huge hit on Twitter.
I'm very impressed and happy about it.
Meanwhile, did Tucker just kill cable news?
Tucker's back, or about to be, but not on cable news.
The former Fox News primetime host will have his own show on Twitter.
You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to say what they think is true, Tucker said.
Speech is a fundamental prerequisite for democracy.
Why?
It's enshrined in the first of our constitutional amendments.
Amazingly, as of tonight, there aren't many platforms left that allow free speech.
The last big remaining in the world, the only one, is Twitter, where we are now.
We're back!
Fox canceled Tucker's 8 p.m.
show, probably at the end of April.
Since then, ratings for his former time site are widely reported to have fallen by about 50 percent.
Fox News 9 and 10 hours are also down by more than 20.
Also on today's show, the situation on the southern border is about to get much worse.
We are breaking down the expected numbers, plus a Biden admin is pushing electric vehicles.
Will America make the switch?
Chris, if you'd like to comment on either of those stories.
Yeah, I almost want to just add a little bit, but maybe it's the same thing, about how they'll never break a fabie in terms of appealing to the patriotic bleeding hearts and the people that really do believe in the Constitution and the American way, and certainly people of a fanatic nature that have been misled by the people in charge of our country in terms of patriotic endeavors.
And they're the same ones that are certainly destroying the Constitution, our freedoms, our rights, and everything systematically with many of these social engineering agendas and these ridiculous legislations that I talked about.
But, you know, I guess people, their loyalty is kind of, you know, and nostalgia is a little bit overwhelming at times, and it's abused by this group.
Yes, yes, yes.
I think that the people, the fanatics, everyone in the world deserves better than what has been given to us by these people that are running the media circus and running the political spectrum, the financial spectrum.
Yeah, I just say God bless and keep the fanatic patriots.
God bless and keep them watching Tucker Carlson, too.
Yes, yes, yes.
Good.
Meanwhile, Trump erupts on interviewer for bringing up 2020.
Trump sat down with his good friend Nigel Farage in an interview on the UK's GB News this week.
The president became defensive when Farage suggested he has to stop talking about the last election if he wants to win in 2024.
Raj and Trump spoke at the former President Turnberry Golf Club in Scotland, a wide range of subjects from the coronation of King Charles III to the $887 million settlement and Dominion voting against Fox.
The former UKIP leader said he expected Trump to sail through and win the Republican nomination in 2024.
He then set up, noting Fox had just had to pay the large settlement We're reporting about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Trump cut off Farage to slam Fox for settling the case, calling it incredible.
He asked why Dominion would sue the network because someone being interviewed says something wrong.
Trump added it was ridiculous for Fox to obey Dominion.
He said the election was rigged, and Fox Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch should have talked about it.
Raj said he disagreed slightly with Trump's assertion the 2020 election was rigged, and then returned to set up the one he was seeking to make.
He pointed out when Trump ran in 2016, he told voters he wasn't one of the Beltway politicians, but one of you.
He said Trump 2016 outlined exactly what Trump would do as president to make the lives of Americans better.
With his setup complete, Raj explained, That if Trump wants to win the general election, he'll have to stop talking about what happened last time.
He said Trump's 2024 message has to be positive.
A defensive Trump snapped at Farage, accusing him of being the one to bring up the 2020 election.
He said he only said the election was rigged because Farage mentioned the Dominion lawsuit.
Trump said he doesn't vote half his rally speeches in a 2020 claim.
He only talks about it for about 10 seconds.
By the way, check this out.
Tonight, CNN gave former President Donald Trump a live town hall forum and he once again claimed the election was rigged and defended the throngs of Trump supporters who attacked the Capitol a few weeks later.
The former president also claims this week's verdict that found him liable for sexual abuse was rigged.
He also called the overturning of Roe v. Wade a great victory.
He said a lot of things tonight.
KTLA's Samantha Cortese live in the News Center with a closer look tonight.
Sam?
Sharon Micah, tonight for more than an hour, former president and again candidate Trump spoke about key issues surrounding his campaign and personal life, refusing to back down on some controversial topics.
Here are just a few of the key points from a very fiery town hall.
In his first appearance on CNN since the 2016 election, former President Trump answered questions from CNN journalist Caitlin Collins in a New Hampshire town hall.
Right off the top, Collins asked if he admits to losing the 2020 election.
Unless you're a very stupid person, you see what happens.
The former president did not concede defeat.
It was a rigged election, and it's a shame that we had to go through it.
It's very bad for our country.
All over the world, they looked at it.
He also said he would accept the 2024 election results if it's, quote, an honest election.
On foreign affairs, Trump was asked who he wants to win the war between Russia and Ukraine.
I want everybody to stop dying.
They're dying.
Russians and Ukrainians.
I want them to stop dying.
And I'll have that done.
I'll have that done in 24 hours.
I'll have it done.
Trump said Europe should be footing more of the bill, and it takes a strong president to get that to happen.
He also said the war would have never happened had he won in 2020.
Regarding abortion... A very complex issue for the country.
You have people on both sides of an issue.
But we are now in a very strong position, pro-life people are in a strong position, to make a deal that's going to be good and going to be satisfactory for them.
He did not say whether he would sign a federal abortion ban, but called pro-choice advocates extremists and said overturning Roe v. Wade was a great victory.
On the economy, Trump took a question from the audience.
What is the first thing you would do to help bring down the cost to make things more affordable?
Drill, baby, drill.
We're energy independent, soon to be energy dominant.
This place was rockin' and then we were given a gift from China.
Another mention of China when President Trump was asked about classified documents and the raid on his estate at Mar-a-Lago.
You have the Presidential Records Act.
I was there and I took what I took and it gets declassified.
Biden, on the other hand, he has 1850 boxes.
He had boxes sent to Chinatown.
President Biden reacted to the town hall tonight saying, it's simple folks, do you want four more years of that?
In the News Center, Samantha Cortese, Sharon Micah, back to you.
That's why I asked it.
It's very simple.
You are a nasty person.
I'll tell you.
President Biden reacted to the town hall tonight, saying, it's simple, folks.
Do you want four more years of that?
In the news center, Samantha Cortese, Sharon Micah, back to you.
Sam, thank you.
Chris, your thoughts?
Okay.
I'm on mute.
Wow.
I watched a little bit of that Farage thing.
I wish I could have watched the whole thing.
I didn't have time.
But yeah, to quote XTC, they're always making plans for Nigel.
And I think that he's maybe part of this trying to break the will of Trump in terms of his I guess, fortitude and standing up for the truth and what really happened.
And I guess, how do you forget about the truth?
You know, as far as when something like this happens to you as a president and you win, you know, the vote of the people and you somehow lose the election.
And I mean, do you embrace the deception afterwards?
I mean, do you pretend this never happened?
Do you pretend that this regime that basically took over the country by coup is somehow or another, you know, qualified or democratically elected to do this?
I guess, especially, you know, when you think about as monstrous as it has been.
Wow.
I mean, how much damage do you really let take place, you know, in terms of this economic coup and this Biden regime?
How much do we let it inflict, I guess, before we decide to stop it or say no to it or overturn it or whatever?
And they're really pushing laws in conjunction with full media, shame-based peer pressure to really steer people into the concept that this is a legitimate thing.
And they're going through a lot of legal, corrupted legal proceedings too, I think, that are leading to these conclusions.
So they're selectively displaying the information to create this narrative for the average Joe Sixpack that maybe won't study this stuff and will start to accept this as the quote-unquote truth when it's really the official narrative.
So yeah, I think the 2020 fraud, the J6, the Kovacs, you know, ADL, APAC, CFR, these are all things you can't talk about.
And if you do, you are censored by mass media.
In fact, you're jackled up upon by the accessories in the media complex in terms of, like I said, the shame-based peer pressure and bombarding you with gaslighting tactics.
You know, they assault the perceptions of the onlookers with this perception management.
And really, I think that it's a damn shame.
And you're seeing, you know, 7 billion global debt slaves that are all being ushered into this conflict or this strategy of tension with the departmentalized nation states in the way that they are.
But it's the same central bankers running all these damn things.
The same trust money of the robber brands that are behind the Chinese industrialization efforts.
The same group, you know, the Boston Consulting, the Harvard Trust guys, the main capitals.
You know, all these guys are behind the China operations and they are turning out and selling out the American labor force while basically pandering to their bleeding heart patriotism.
So it really upsets me and strikes a nerve to see this.
I just want to add that to what I said earlier.
You know, especially when they get on and gaslight about China, China, China, I think that there's a lot more to China that maybe Trump is going to maybe start unwinding and letting people know about once things start to heat up in the 24 race.
Excellent.
Excellent, Chris.
Just excellent.
Meanwhile, A new Supreme Court case seeks to legalize assault weapons in all 50 states.
I think in accordance with the Second Amendment, that's exactly right.
Those who claim that the Second Amendment wasn't designed to deal with military-style weapons got it exactly wrong.
The Founding Fathers wanted every citizen to be armed not just with military-style weapons, but with military weapons.
So we'd have a citizen-soldier army that could come to the defense of the nation in time of need.
The Supreme Court could hand down a decision any day now in National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Nannaperville, which could legalize assault weapons in high-capacity magazines in all 50 states.
The case challenges an Amperville, Illinois, ordinance and similar Illinois state law, both of which ban assault weapons, which the state codifies to include certain semiotic rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s.
In addition, the state prohibits the sale of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, which the state divides as long gun magazines with more than 10 rounds, or handgun magazines holding more than 15.
The plaintiffs, including a gun shop owner and a gun rights group, claim the two statutes violate the Second Amendment.
Should the Supreme Court accept the argument and overturn these laws, it would have sweeping implications for the entire country.
That decision would need to be followed throughout the entire nation, which would most likely mean that neither any state nor the U.S.
Congress could ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.
And there's good reason to fear that this Court could at the very least decide to make semi-automatic assault rifles legal throughout the United States.
In 2011, a federal appellate court upheld the District of Columbia ban on assault weapons over the dissent of an up-and-coming right-wing judge named Brett Kavanaugh.
Although the Supreme Court decision in Columbia v. Heller permitted lawmakers to ban dangerous and unusual weapons, Kavanaugh read that decision narrowly in his 2011 opinion.
He reasoned semiotic rifles are neither more dangerous than lawful weapons such as handguns, nor are they especially unusual.
Among other points, he argued About two million semi-automatic AR-15s have been manufactured in the last four to a dozen years.
Kavanaugh is now the median justice on the Supreme Court, dominated by Republican appointees.
So if he still believes semi-automatic rifles aren't particularly dangerous or unusual, he is well positioned to turn the opinion he wrote in 2011 into law.
That said, there's some uncertainty about whether the court would issue a sweeping pronouncement.
The Naperville case arises out of the court's shadow docket, a mix of emergency motions and other expedited matters the court sometimes decides without full briefing or oral argument.
Shortly after Amy Coney Barrett's appointment gave Republicans a supermajority, the court began handing down transformative, occasionally revolutionary decisions on its shadow docket.
In a Fall 2021 concurring opinion, Barrett expressed concern her court was deciding too many cases on the shadow docket, or in litigants were using the shadow docket to get the court to opine on cases it ordinarily would not hear on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.
Notably, Barrett's opinion in that 2021 case, Tose v. Mills, was joined by Kavanaugh.
So there's a real chance the court will delay deciding the questions raised by Namerville until a similar case has been fully litigated in the lower courts and reaches the justices through the ordinary, more time-consuming process the court uses to hear most major cases.
Even if the court decided to bush off Namerville, when that date comes, there'll be five votes that would appear on the court to legalize assault weapons throughout the country.
The court's Second Amendment jurisprudence, by the way, turns sharply rightward in Heller, the first case in American history to hold the Constitution and protect an individual's right to bear arms.
Heller and the court's later Second Amendment decisions are largely divorced from the actual text of the Second Amendment.
That, of course, states a well-regulated militia.
Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Thus, unlike most constitutional amendments, the second does not simply announce a particular right exists, the right to keep and bear arms.
It also states the purpose of the right to provide for a well-regulated militia.
As the court explained in U.S.
v. Miller, The obvious purpose was to render possible the effectiveness of militias, and the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Heller, however, abandoned this textualist approach, holding the actual purpose is to protect an individual's right to self-defense.
As the Court said in its most recent Second Amendment decision, New York State rivaled Pistol v. Bruin.
Individual self-defense is a central component of the Second Amendment right.
Yet Heller also held the right secured by the Second is not unlimited.
At the insistence of now-retired Justice Kennedy, a relatively moderate conservative, the Heller opinion enumerated specific limitations, including a rule permitting lawmakers to ban dangerous and unusual weapons.
Bruin was a 6-3 decision expanding the Second Amendment beyond the boundaries laid out in Heller.
Striking down a 109-year-old New York law that limited who could obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm.
Significantly, Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, emphasizing several of Heller's limits on the right to keep and bear arms, including the restriction on dangerous and unusual weapons.
That suggests, at the very least, the Court's current majority will honor this limit on the Second Amendment right.
Kavanaugh, plus Robert, plus the three liberals, form a working majority that supports bans on dangerous and unusual weapons.
But Kavanaugh has also signaled that he interprets the words dangerous and unusual very narrowly.
In his 2011 dissenting opinion on assault rifles, Kavanaugh explained why he thinks semi-automatic, like those captured by the D.C.
assault weapon ban, do not qualify as dangerous or unusual.
Recall, Heller essentially nullified the first 13 words of the Second Amendment, ruled the actual purpose is to protect an individual right to self-defense.
After inventing this new atextual right, Heller concluded, handguns enjoy special constitutional protection because they are the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family.
Kevin argued in his 2011 opinion, if handguns do not qualify as dangerous, then neither can semi-automatic rifles of any kind, because semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crime far more often than semi-automatic rifles.
He had a point.
According to the FBI, More than 10,000 were murdered by a firearm in 2019 alone.
6,400 were committed by a handgun.
Only 364 gun murders were committed by a rifle of any kind.
In other words, other murders by firearms were with other weapons than rifles.
It's worth noting that 3,281 of all gun murders were attributed to a firearm type not stated.
So it's likely the absolute number of murders committed with a handgun or rifle is higher than the FBI's raw numbers, nevertheless.
The fact remains, if you only count gun murders where the type of firearm is known, about 90% were committed with a handgun.
Only 5% were the rifle.
Similarly, Kavanaugh argued assault rifles are not unusual because they're widely owned by civilians.
Congress, remember, banned assault weapons in 1994, but it expired after 10 years and was not renewed.
As noted, Kavanaugh argued over 2 million AR-15s had been made when he wrote his 2011 opinion.
He also argued the AR-15 alone accounted for 5.5% of fire on 14.4% of rifles produced in the U.S.
for the domestic market.
I think my interpretation, to create an army of citizen-soldiers, is the broad meaning of the word militia, as the original was men, and is equivalent to allowing each individual the right to keep and bear arms for his own self-defense or to come to the aid of the nation.
Your thoughts, Chris?
Well, it seems now that they've actually deemed anybody that's interested Of course, they're going after the middle class in America in terms of deeming them as a national security risk, mostly because the investments and entitlements that they've invested in have been squandered by the political and banking class and are now insolvent.
And now they have to preemptively disarm them from the ability for recourse.
And of course, by taking away the Second Amendment is a very simple and easy, direct way of doing that.
I agree that they should have some sort of a militia like that, and it just won't happen without the ADL or the FBI infiltrating it with undercover operatives and turning it out into something that is terrible like the January 6th thing or anything else of that nature.
So really, I think Second Amendment rights are being compromised not only by the gun thing, but also by these NGOs and this political pressure that is really in this media pressure that is demonizing the true patriots of this country.
So I think that that's pretty disheartening to see the way that this group has been abused and used and sacrificed for 200 years.
And then discarded in such a manner the second the tides turn.
So you can see really where the loyalty is from the upper class that run this country and send these kids off to war.
And as far as dangerous and unusual weapons, I would think, and this is just my interpretation, that maybe if they were looking into that, they could go to places like Fort Detrick or the Wuhan clan or somewhere like that.
Maybe they could ban bio-warfare weapons, or gain-of-function weapons, or mRNA recombinants, or AI, or Neuralase, or Link.
How about GMOs?
Impossible burgers.
How about toxic vaccines?
How about drone strikes?
Maybe fentanyl production?
Possibly not.
How about chemtrails?
You don't even hear this in the docket, right?
How about nukes?
Not even close.
So, you know, as far as looking out for the people, how about dragnet surveillance, too?
I forgot about that one.
The TSA.
How about fractional reserve banking or compound interest or Shylock predatory lending?
How about banning homelessness?
How about, you know, doing some of these initiatives where you can actually take this fantasy land of political capital and use it towards good ends instead of colonializing the world and making 7 billion world debt slaves?
And all under the thumb of this elite oligarchy that is somehow coming up with all these decisions and forfeiting our rights for freedom and sovereignty or anything else, right?
Very, very good, Chris.
Excellent, excellent commentary.
Just superb.
Meanwhile, E. Jean Carroll wasn't surprised Law & Order SVU aired Bergdorf Goodman rapescenes seven years before she made her Trump allegations.
E. Jean Carroll alleges Donald Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s.
Law & Order SVU featured a rape scene at the same store in 2012, seven years before E. Jean Carroll publicly accused Trump of raping her.
Law & Order SVU aired an episode featuring a rape in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room while a victim was trying on lingerie.
Carol's allegations for publishing a book excerpt in New York Magazine in 2019 sounded remarkably similar.
She claimed in the mid-90s Trump raped her in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman's lingerie section.
In a 2019 email shown in court Monday during a civil rape and defamation trial, Carroll dismissed the eerie parallel as a coincidence.
This happens all the time with Law & Order stories, Carol wrote, in response to an email pointing out the similarities.
Also, there are 200 scripted shows a year on TV.
This kind of thing is bound to show up.
I'm surprised this kind of thing isn't seen more often.
Carol, a longtime LA Magazine columnist, said Trump raped her one evening in 1995 or 1996.
According to her version, she bumped into Trump at the entrance of the Bergdorf Goodwin in Manhattan, agreed to assist him in buying a gift for a female friend.
The two eventually went to the lingerie section on the sixth floor.
She jokingly told him to try on a lacy bodysuit in the dressing room.
Trump pushed her against the wall, penetrated her with her finger, and raped her, Carol said.
Trump denies Carol claims, saying he never met her, even though the two were photographed talking at a party years earlier, said she wasn't his type, and called her a liar, which sparked her lawsuit.
Here's a scene of the cast from Law & Order SVU.
When Carol's book was first published, some of Trump's allies claimed the writer fabricated her story based on the Law & Order episode.
Trump retweeted a clip from the episode to his followers after Carol made her allegations.
That was Junior!
In the episode, a character suspected of rape describes a sexual roleplay fantasy.
Roleplay took place in the dressing room at Bergdorf's, the character said.
While she was trying lingerie, I would burst in.
Carol testified that while she's a fan of the original Law & Order series, she has never watched the SVU series, which focuses on sex crimes because she believes it's too violent.
She also said she didn't know of the episode before writing her book, where she first publicly disclosed her allegations and did not base her story upon it.
During the trial, she testified within a day of the alleged rape in the 90s, She confided separately with two friends, both of whom are scheduled to testify, Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin, and publicly said Carol told them about the incident with Trump.
It tickled me to death, Carol told CNN in 2019 after the SVU clip surfaced.
It's a great, huge coincidence, but it is a magnificent one, I must say.
Chris, a magnificent coincidence?
Man, I tell you, just having the visual of Donald Trump being like Billy Bob Thornton in Bad Santa, you know, I'm trying not to get the John Ritter face here.
As far as him fornicating in the women's dressing rooms or whatever, never should have happened.
I don't know.
I think that, you know, these ladies that sometimes make these things up, it has two types of effects.
It triggers his opposition and it certainly calluses his base to such things.
How many false accusations have they put on this guy about stuff that he had nothing to do with?
And there's been no price to be paid.
There's no repercussions, no even recantations in the media.
If it is, it's 3 a.m. and it's a five second blog when they spent the better part of five years, you know, putting bullshit out.
There's no truth and basis to it whatsoever.
So, yeah, these outrageous claims, they have no repercussions.
And there's men who have served decades in prisons for these type of accusations if they are, in fact, baseless.
So, yeah, it's bad.
You know, if he did do this, you obviously want to see justice pursued and dealt.
But if he didn't, which it's seeming like, uh, then this is a hell of a, of a accusation to throw so lightly around it.
And for people to just take on with the media and the way that they have it sensationalize it in such a manner, when it really seems to me to, to be a nothing burger, to use the word of somebody that they should really be investigating.
Well, Law and Order is one of my wife's favorite shows.
I've watched hundreds of episodes, including a sexual, you know, the sex crimes episodes she's talking about.
I don't know that I've seen that one specifically, but I have no doubt at all, this is totally fabricated.
A woman who's been raped was not only going to remember the year, but the month, but the week, but the day, but the hour, but the minute.
Bringing this claim under such vague grounds isn't even procedurally permissible, because how can he marshal a defense and alibi where he was?
He may have been on a golf course, for God's sake.
He might have been in Europe.
This is outrageous.
It should never have been allowed into court.
It's a monstrous weaponization of the legal system, grossly elusive, and demonstrates, in my mind conclusively, the United States is a banana republic.
Because what hasn't amassed distinguished us, among other nations, is the objective enforcement of law and order, equal justice under law, not weaponizing the legal system to prosecute our political opponents.
But that's what it's come to now.
Outrageous.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Chris, you wanted to add?
Yeah, I was going to say when the legal system basically subverts justice and the service of the common man or citizen in terms of its entire function, then I almost think it's the duty of the citizen to work outside of the law in some way, shape, or form.
So I could really see them really trying to create a situation of lawlessness by this type of Yep, good.
Very good.
Very good addendum.
behavior of the legal system and the complete disservice, in fact, betrayal of most of these constituents and most of the common citizens.
And of course, the service of the wealthy in terms of the legal protection that they have is a hammer and shield for them.
And it really needs to be called out for what it's become.
Yeah, good.
Very good.
Very good addendum.
Meanwhile, Howard Dreyfuss, Richard Dreyfuss.
On new diversity rules for Oscars.
They make me vomit.
Richard Dreyfuss is getting backlash over his comments on new diversity rules to be eligible for Best Picture awards.
They make me vomit!
He said on BBS Firing Line, This is an art form.
It's also a form of commerce.
It makes money, but it's an art.
No one should be telling me as an artist I have to give in to the latest, most current idea of what morality is.
The rules set by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science will take effect in 2024.
When posting the question to Dreyfus, firing line host Margaret Hoover said, Starring in 2024, films will be required to meet new inclusion standards to be eligible for the Academy Award Best Picture.
They have to have a certain percentage of actors or crew from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups.
Dreyfus added, and what are we risking?
Are we really risking hurting people's feelings?
You can't legislate that, and you have to let life be alive.
The Jaws actor said he doesn't think there's a minority or a majority in this country that has to be catered to like that.
Dreyfuss, who won an Oscar in 1977 as Best Actor for The Goodbye Girl, praised Laurence Olivier's Black Forest performance of Othello.
Am I being told I'll never have a chance to play a black man?
Is someone else being told that if they're not Jewish, they couldn't play the Merchant of Venice?
Are we crazy?
Do we not know that art is art?
Hoover followed up with, Do you think there's a difference between the question of who's allowed to represent other groups in the case of blackface, especially in this country, given the history of slavery and sensitivities around black racism?
There shouldn't be because it's patronizing, Dreyfuss replied, because it's that we're so fragile that we can't have our feelings hurt, that we have to anticipate having our feelings hurt, our children's feelings hurt.
We don't know how to stand up and bop the bully in the face.
The interview online, I encourage everyone, check it out.
Chris, your thoughts?
Yeah, definitely.
There's been a lockstep movement as far as demonizing any sort of anti-Semitic speech.
I think there's a law in Florida that actually we can throw five years of prison on somebody for saying the wrong thing.
So yeah, I don't think that's how innocence behaves.
I don't think that's how persecuted people get treated.
I think that really Like you say, this is an elephant at the trough that needs to be addressed, historically speaking, presently speaking, and certainly towards moving into the future.
There's no way that you can keep these guys on control of the pulse of the world's financial systems and the world's intelligence systems, media systems, financial...
There's no way.
They have to have something happen to them as far as justice or as far as righteousness or retribution being, I guess, brought down.
And I guess the only way for this to happen is to really—the people are going to have to figure out a way to exempt them from these normal facets of life and go outside of their systems and their offerings, I think, and certainly take everything they say with a heavy grain of salt.
It probably doesn't have much truth to it, and it's probably more towards motivating useful idiots towards their servitude and service, whether it's emotional debt, political debt, or economic debt.
These guys are merchants of misery, and they use these economic sorceries to facilitate this conquest of the entire global population.
Excellent.
Absolutely spot-on, Chris.
Meanwhile, we want to hear from you.
Send fan mail, BroerCon, to live-need-to-know-at-gmail.com.
Live-need-to-know-at-gmail.com.
Mike Rivero may tempt Beverly Wright.
What really happened?
Mike Rivero reported removing Tucker was part of the Dominion settlement.
I, Beverly Wright, said this was the case when I first heard the news.
The billionaire Democrat subordinate who funded E. Jean Carroll's lawsuit against Trump visited Epstein Island and met with Epstein on at least two occasions.
E. Jean Carroll was part of the team that lobbied to extend the statute of limitations on filing sexual assault charges.
On another note, Tucker is moving his wares to Twitter.
His audience will be substantially reduced.
A lot of people don't use Twitter.
Despite it not being as relevant as in time past, mainstream TV is still where a lot of people get their news.
So the Deep State One, that is, they've got rid of Tucker to a certain extent.
Meanwhile, final thoughts.
Prince, yours.
There we go.
Sorry to get it muted off.
Yeah, I guess that's a very good point by Beverly, it was, that said that.
Absolutely.
There's a generation that certainly doesn't have any interest or inclination to really join into the Twitter thing, or if they do, it's probably not something where they follow and put on like they normally watch with entertainment.
As far as TV, it would be concerned, or radio as well.
So what are they going to play in all the nation's airports?
I'm sure everybody's probably going to be on their Twitter, but there's a lot of background noise that will go to CNN or some of the echo chamber and the rumor mill and stuff.
So yeah, really, who's to say that Twitter can't be taken over as well in such a way that it has been in the past or the way that social media is being used for social influencing the way that it is.
So yeah, I really think we need to see some honest dealers and some honesty going on around the world.
and certainly in the highest of places.
And the only way that this will happen is if they really have some sense for truth and justice, which it seems they have no reverence for at all.
Well, Chris, thank you for the excellence of your commentary, show after show after show.
Thank you.
I interpret the situation differently than Beverly.
I think Twitter is going to be a godsend.
Just remember, you can go Twitter at 24-7.
You're going to be able to find Tucker there any time you want instead of a limited time slot.
For my case, 7 p.m.
Central Time.
You're going to find him everywhere on Twitter.
I predict his audience is going to increase from what has been Around 3 million to potentially as much as 30.
So I think exactly the opposite is how it's going to play out and why.
I think it's right to ask, has Tucker killed cable news?
Who wants to go to a propaganda machine?
Fox has done itself in.
They're losing support.
They're losing viewers.
I think Twitter is going to reap a bonanza.
Hey, Feds.
Yeah, Chris.
Oh, I was going to ask, hey, do you think that he'll get more of an international audience now that he's going to this platform?
That was my thoughts.
He said he might lose the domestic viewing from Fox, but I think the people that are looking for him, the people that really want to hear what he's got to say, I agree with you.
I think it's going to probably increase his global viewership.
It's going to be easier to find his show on Twitter than it has been to find it on Fox, which requires going and looking if you didn't see it live.
Meanwhile, everyone, listen.
We're facing the end of America.
This flood of refugees is catastrophic.
They are deliberately destroying America.
The Biden admin DHS is making it happen.
They're bringing in $100 million to begin with.
I've heard estimates as high as $300 million.
They want to replace the indigent population of America with these migrants who don't give a damn about our history, our traditions, our culture, and they're using taxpayer money to do it.
Don't have any disillusioned, any illusions about America is dead.
We enjoyed it.
It was great while it lasted.
Sad to say.
Spend as much time as you can with your family, your friends, and people you love and care about.
Don't waste a precious minute.
You don't know when the migrant hordes are going to show up in your neighborhood and you're going to have a shootout for your life.
Your future is at stake.
Don't waste a precious minute.
▲
Export Selection