All Episodes
Sept. 12, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:11:04
Truth vs. NEW$, Inc Part 2 (10 September 2024) with Don Grahn, Victor-Hugo Vaca, and Chris Weinert
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Three, two, one.
And welcome back to Truth vs. News on September the 10th, 2024, the night of the debate, and tomorrow is the 9-11 Remembrance, and we better remember the truth about what really happened there and study it.
This is an excellent book that Scott Bennett wrote, and I added to it.
And so we were in the middle of a real crisis, and Ben is talking about, you've got to hear that first hour.
There's so much going on that is so vital to our survival.
You need that.
And I think we have some more here.
Go for it, Jim.
Kamala sent her staff panicking to cut her microphone after she went off script and humiliatingly exposed her huge weakness.
The Democrats were about to take off for Chicago when they made a quick stop in a crucial swing state.
She broke away from the teleprompter to share her thoughts on her newly invented talking point, the duality of democracy.
Kamala chomps into a nonsensical word salad at Pennsylvania event.
Vice President Harris did not wait time to return to her norm, tripping over words during a weird off-script monologue during a recent campaign event at Pennsylvania.
The event, which took place in Rochester, PA, was led by her, alongside her newly selected running mate, the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz.
Here's Buck Saxon tweeting, Kamala is uniquely awful.
She's not smart, charming or talented.
The more voters hear her voice, the less I want to support her.
All downhill from here.
Keep the faith.
B.B.
Harris is most known for her awkward speeches, word salads, and weirdly endless and unwarranted crackles.
Just because she was recruited by Democrat leaders to lead the ticket, after asking Joe Biden, actually, he died, but it was a fake Joe, not a real guy, it does not mean she can all of a sudden speak skillfully and publicly.
Kamala sent the staff panicking, took out her microphone after she went off script, And humiliatingly exposed her huge weakness.
Here's what she said.
Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy.
As a democracy.
We know there's a duality to the nature of democracy.
On the one hand, incredible strength when it is intact, what it does for its people to protect and defend their rights, incredibly strong and incredibly fragile.
Then she pitched, it's only as strong as our willingness to fight for it.
And that's what this campaign is about.
Almost immediately.
The clip of her weird talking point created a feeding frenzy on social media as it went viral.
Video journalist Nick Sorto jumped onto the frenzy to argue.
This is why comrade Kamala isn't allowed to speak off script.
Holy crap!
Anybody know what the hell she's talking about here?
Yes.
He'd later add to his comments.
This is the best the Democrats could get.
Meanwhile, Harris gets more concerning accurate picture of the 2024 race in a new poll from just the news.
A majority of voters view former President Trump as more consistent on border security, despite VP Harris saying she supports building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to a Rasmussen report poll.
A national television telephone and online poll Of 1,134 likely voters from August 28, 29, and September 1, found that 58% believe Trump had been more consistent in his policy positions on immigration and border issues.
On the contrary, just 32% believe the same of Harris.
10% are undecided.
Trump is in the fight of his life, and the Rasmussen report poll proves it.
According to the latest survey, a vast majority of voters see him as more consistent than Harris when it comes to immigration and border.
No surprise there.
Harris has lip-lobbed so many times, it's hard to keep track.
One minute she's against the wall, now suddenly she's for it, not buying it.
The National Poll found 58% trust more to stay the course on immigration.
He built part of the wall.
And if he gets back into office, and if he gets back into office, you can bet he'll finish the job.
In contrast, only 32% think Harris has been consistent.
That's less than a third of the voters.
And who can blame them?
He's been all over the place.
No one believes he'll follow through.
Voter knows that Trump talks tough, but he acts even tougher.
Harris, on the other hand, seemed more interested in scoring political points than actually solving problems.
Last visit data showed a significant chunk of Americans don't believe Harris would ever build a wall, even though she's suddenly saying she supports one.
And here's the kicker.
10% are still undecided on Harris.
They're not convinced by our newfound commitment to border security.
Meanwhile, Trump has a clear record of action.
The border is a mess under Biden and Harris, and Americans know it.
They want someone who will secure it once and for all, not someone who waffles based on the political win.
This election is a showdown.
It's Trump-proven leadership versus Harris inconsistency.
Voters are making their choice clear.
They want someone who means what they say and does what they promise.
They want Trump.
Takeaways?
58% of voters believe Donald Trump has been more consistent on immigration and border security compared to Harris, according to a Rasmussen poll.
Only 32% view Harris as consistent on immigration and present an undecided about her stance.
A majority of voters doubt Harris's willingness to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border despite her recent claims of support.
Victor Hugo, your thoughts, my friend.
With all due respect, Jim, please don't get upset at me.
But when you're talking about polls, you might as well be doing reports on Bigfoot sightings and the abominable snowman sightings.
I give more credence to that.
The polls are just as fake as the whole election thing.
And I don't trust any of those polls, Jim.
So really, for me to comment on that would be insulting the audience's ignorance.
I'm pretty sure your audience is smart enough.
Actually, yeah.
Actually, Victor, Hugo, Rasmussen has been pretty reliable over the years.
They're a pretty good pollster.
They aren't going to be biasing in favor of Harris, unlike many other polls.
That's not even saying much either, because that's like saying, The 58% of the people would rather have a sirloin steak than a shit sandwich.
I mean, again, they're not really giving you anything to vote for.
Kamala Harris, when she said that thing about democracy, by the way, we realized we're not living in a democracy.
We're living in a constitutional republic, if you can keep it, and we failed miserably.
And then I understood what she said, because she said democracy is incredibly strong and democracy is incredibly fragile.
Which is basically tantamount to who she is, because she's incredibly smart, but she's also incredibly stupid.
She's not incredibly smart, she's a moron!
She's incredibly smart in gym, she's vice president, and you're not.
So whatever she did, whether it was getting on, whether she was on her knees and she was smart with her mouth, she was smart.
You know?
But yeah, she's incredibly stupid, and that's the whole point, Jim.
They have us all in this spell, where we're even having this conversation, which, like I said, is an insult to your intelligence, and I keep asking you this because I respect you, but I'm confounded by how you can say That you even have the slightest bit of trust in Donald Trump, knowing all the things that you know about Trump and even what he did in the four years.
Realize he had the opportunity to build that wall, but he never got it finished.
And yes, you could say that, oh, he was getting a lot of pushback and this and that, the other thing, but he's a construction guy and he happened to leave certain parts of that wall open.
That was by design.
If he really wanted to have it done, he would have had it done.
And also the people that he put in, the Bill Barr and all these other people.
So again, and again, I say this with the utmost respect, but I'm also confounded.
I don't quite understand why, for example, the reason why I'm saying I'm not voting is because I voted already.
I voted in 2020 and my vote didn't count.
There's no way that Biden got 81 million votes.
So why am I going to continue to pound my head up against the wall?
Why am I going to make pretend?
Look, look, look, look.
This is a decision you have to make.
I'm not arguing with you because I want to give you the opportunity to present your point of view.
For me, it's real simple.
If I'm given a choice between Harris and Trump, which do I think can do more for America?
It's not a close call, okay?
We can argue forever about his failures and shortcomings, but warts and all, his head and shoulders are better than the opposition.
And given we have a two-party system, we're not at liberty to revise on the spot, I'm going to support the guy who's going to do more for America.
And I don't really give a rat's ass about the fact that he has a host of failures a mile long.
He is overwhelmingly better than Harris.
And if you can't appreciate that, that's all right with me, Victor Hugo.
I really didn't want to initiate an argument here about this.
No, no, no, no, no.
This isn't an argument.
As a matter of fact, I agree with you 100%.
If I had to choose between Trump and Harris, of course, I would choose Trump.
That's our choice.
But the thing is, what I don't understand is, what makes you believe that your vote's gonna count?
I'm not arguing that.
It's an expression of belief, even in the face of skepticism.
One's going to do what one can do.
One can cast a vote or not cast a vote.
If you don't cast a vote for a certainty, you haven't affected the outcome.
If you cast a vote, you might.
Affect the outcome, even though we know it's all rigged.
So I'm going to cast a vote because it might affect the outcome, even though we know it's all rigged.
I'm hoping enough of us are going to cast a vote, knowing it might change the outcome, that it becomes obvious if they try to steal it, they're going to be exposed because nobody is voting for Harris.
And I frankly think that's how it's going to pan out.
So we'll see.
I've got so much more for you to critique, Victor Hugo.
Don't leave me hung up here.
Times Paul.
Trump leads Harris going into the debate.
The first major poll after Harris' loan sit-down interview has shown a reversion back toward Trump, where he leads in the New York Times-Siena College poll, going into Tuesday, today's loan debate.
Now, mind you, we know the New York Times bends over for Harris.
The fact that they're showing Trump leading nationally, which is really quite remarkable because Democrats historically lead nationally because they're just more Democrats.
It's just they're all stacked up in big cities like New York and Chicago and Los Angeles, so that they don't make a difference in the electoral college, but they do in terms of the popular vote.
So that Trump is leading in the popular vote is remarkable.
Even though it's within the margin of error.
Even the Times noted Trump's support remains remarkably resilient despite positive media buzz after Harris took the Democrat crown from Biden and the DNC.
Notably, Democrats historically have an edge in supporting national polls due to the large strangleholds on registered voters in the largest blue states of California and New York that do not impact the Electoral College but can skew the popular vote in a national poll.
Whatever the explanation, the Times-Siena poll would be one of the first opportunities to pick up a reversion back toward Mr. Trump, according to their poll analysis.
Overall, the poll may bring Democratic exuberance back to earth after a buoyant party convention in Chicago last month and rapid gains in support for Harris after Biden's poor showing in the polls.
The poll result is larger mirroring that of a late July time poll taken just after the switch from Biden to Harris.
Trump may have had a rough month following the President's departure amid the burst of excitement Harris brought Democrats, but the poll suggests his support remains remarkably resilient.
The national results are in line with polls in the seven battleground states that will decide the presidential election, where Harris is tied with Trump or holds slim leads, according to New York Times polling averages taken together.
They show a tight race that remains either candidates to win or lose.
One Trump backer said Harris is more the same as the Biden admin.
I don't see how Harris, instead of Trump, would bring change.
Stephen Osborne, 43, of Branson, Missouri, said, I mean, she's Biden's vice president.
How can she be seen as different?
A majority of 55% of likely voters agreed Harris represents more of the same.
Just 40% she represents change.
Trump, by contrast, is a change candidate for 61% of the voters.
Among the other strengths Trump showed in the poll, he's more favorable now than he was when he was elected in 2016 and the incumbent in 2020.
Trump has a five-point lead on Harris in whichever the most important issue was to voters.
Pollsters asked a two-word question.
What's the most important issue?
Is Harris or Trump better?
Trump occupies the center.
While a near majority say Trump is neither too far from the middle, a near majority say Harris is too far to the left.
The Time Bulletin of 1695 Nationwide was conducted September 3 through 6, with a margin of error of 2.8 points.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi says a Trump-Harris debate tomorrow—that is, today—might not happen.
Nancy Pelosi just shocked a group of people being interviewed by the Texas Tribune, suggesting the Trump-Harris debate might not happen.
The media thought was, why?
Will Kamala back out, fake an illness?
No.
Not Kamala, according to Pelosi.
No.
Nancy suggested strongly she does not expect Trump to show up.
What an extremely strange thing to say.
It even led the interviewer to ask, do you know something I don't know?
Watch the short clip.
Here we have, just in, Nancy Pelosi is casting doubt that Trump will show up for the debate.
Do you know something I don't know?
I know cowardice when I see it.
Pelosi is a communist lunatic.
Let's stop acting like she's got all of her marbles.
Meanwhile, Alex Jones claimed Kamala will take a molly before a debate.
Alex Jones, during his latest show, claimed Kamala will take the drug molly ecstasy before her first debate with Donald Trump.
Jones, in his latest airing, stated Kamala is going to be on drugs and going to be bombed out of her gourd.
Post of InfoWars also claimed Harris was high during her speech at the DNC last month.
TMZ reported, Alex Jones, well known for his nutty conspiracy theories, when his latest about Kamala is completely outrageous.
Joan predicted on his far right-wing Infowars, Harris will take, wait for it, hallucinogenic drugs before a Tuesday debate against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Specifically, Joan said Harris, the Democrat presidential candidate, will be bombed out of her gourd on Molly, a synthetic drug that alters your mood and perception and creates health risks.
Here's a special poll.
Who will win the debate between Trump and Kamala?
Kamala Harris, 1%.
Donald Trump, 99 out of nearly 3,500 votes cast.
Victor, Hugo, your thoughts.
I trust the New York Times only as a birdcage liner and to wrap any fish that I catch on the lake.
As far as Nancy Pelosi, she should be in jail.
I don't even know what she's still doing out and about.
And I would love to meet that 1% that thinks Kamala Harris would win.
Boy, that would be fun.
And as far as Molly, I think everybody watching that debate should be on Molly.
That would make it really, really much more interesting.
Thank you, Victor and Hugo.
Very good.
We got more to come.
You're going to love this.
Landslide!
Pauline Giroux now predicting huge victory for President Trump.
Through the roof!
After the statistical probability Trump will win just went, according to polling guru Nate Silver, not only is it highly probable Trump wins, but it's likely to be an electoral college landslide.
Interactive polls published latest Nate Silver forecast Trump 64.4%, Harris 35.3%.
Swing state, chance of winning.
Pennsylvania, Trump.
65-35, Michigan, Trump.
55-45, Wisconsin.
Trump, 53-47, Arizona.
Trump, 77-23, North Carolina.
Trump, 76-24.
The big picture, who is favored to win?
Look how the blue line for Harris has ascended after her nomination in the DNC and has now dropped.
Now Trump dropped and has now ascended.
Those are huge margins of victory.
Several pollsters have updated their number with wild swings over the last few weeks, but this is by far the largest jump so far, showing that the final electoral college tile might not even be close.
A shocking new projection from pollster Nate Silver has Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump winning every swing state en route to an electoral landslide over VP Kamala Harris, Mediate reported Monday.
Nate Silver's latest projection?
Trump wins every battleground state.
Here's a whole story written up in Newsmax.
A shocking new projection from pollster Nate Silver has Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump winning every swing state en route to an election landslide over Vice President Kamala Harris.
Silver's update came after Sunday's New York Times-Siena poll gave Trump a lead nationally over Harris, one head-to-head, two with third-party candidates, running any post-Democrat national convention bomb.
This is one of our highest-rated pollsters, so it has a fair amount of influence on the numbers, reducing Harris's lead in our national polling average at 2.5, which would put her in a dangerous territory in the Electoral College, silver-teased on his Silver Bulletin blog before Monday's uptake.
And our model is more bearish on Harris still, because of its Convention Bounce Adjustment and its assessment of economic fundamentals.
These calculations often sit oddly, but accurately, outside the average range of other polls.
From the same article in Newsmax, here's why, according to Nate.
Silver's statistical modeling to project the electrocoil's winner is more complex than a numerical comparison, as it uses data points outside mere polling.
You're welcome to debate the mechanics of the adjustment, but recent polls confirm its basic hypothesis.
There's been a shift in momentum against Harris.
Tuesday's debate will potentially reshape, if not define, the race next, Silver wrote in his contemporaneous analysis.
The good news for Harris is there's a debate on Tuesday, today, and if she turns in a strong performance, most unlikely.
Nobody is going to care so much about the time poll.
Other data models show a more competitive race than Silver projects.
It goes on to give a warning to those who would count the eggs before they hatch, so to speak.
Nevertheless, with all the media violence and blubbing on policy, I can't fathom a good showing for Harris in today's big debate.
I have a feeling that issue with the muted mics is going to haunt her.
She'll have to let Drop Speed won't be able to play Tough Prosecutor by showcase her interruption abilities, which I highly suspect will put her inabilities on full display even before Nate's current numbers drop.
The shift in momentum we'll talk about in a moment had already started showing up.
Here's Invokedus.
This is a projected map according to Nate Silver's 2024 model.
Trump's odds are up to 63.8%.
Fox News also carried the story.
Harris has come out ahead in several national polls and swing state polls since taking over the top of the ticket.
However, the results of the New York Times-Siena poll, according to Silver, show the results of the poll confirming his election model view there has been a shift in momentum.
The N.Y.C.N.A.
College Poll also found more voters said Harris is too liberal or progressive on key issues than voters who said they considered Trump to be too conservative.
According to his model, Harris had just a 36% chance of winning the Electoral College and overall lead Trump by 2.5 points in Zillow's national polling average.
That shift in momentum?
Could that be because Kamala and company finally sat down in front of cameras?
And even CNN spin couldn't hide her ineptitude?
Could it be because nearly the entirety of the Tim Walz family are Trump supporters?
Maybe it had to do with the rising swell of support she is losing and President is gaining from some big-name Democrats who are jumping the sinking ship of the Democrat Party?
Whatever's causing that shift in momentum, I think Nate's right, it's happening.
It seems to be spreading across different domains all at once.
Here's more from the same Fox story.
Silver also said Michigan and Pennsylvania, both key swing states, might prove to be a problem for her.
In PAR, Bullion averaged at Harris 1.8 plus pre-DNC, but it's now Harris 1.
That'd be for any convention pounds adjustment implemented at a later stage in the model in Michigan.
The polling average has fallen from Harris plus 3.1 pre to Harris 1.9 now, so we're pointing to multiple key portions of the New York Times poll in an additional post-Sunday, specifically the fact that 47% of voters see Harris as too liberal.
I'm not quite sure how Harris is supposed to spin her way out of this perception," Silver wrote, knowing that a high percentage of voters said they don't know what Harris stands for in the poll, suggesting there was room to improve on those numbers.
But Harris also blew a big opportunity to tack to the center with her selection of Tim Walz rather than Josh Shamblerho.
That a tiny minority of progressives objected to Shamblerho was an argument in Shamblerho's favor, if anything.
I think Walz was a decent uptick on his own merits, but given an opportunity to offer a tangible signal of the direction her presidency was headed, she reverted to the 2019 model.
Could it be that a shift in momentum made his scene came from two simple facts?
One, she got out of her way to avoid specifying her policy.
Two, what is known about her previous policy record turns off most voters.
I have to agree with Nate again.
I'm not quite sure how she can possibly skid her way out of the perception she has created.
And short of a completely obvious victory, in today's debate, I highly doubt her numbers will improve, not with bolsters, and not in November, when it's counting time.
Victor Hugo, your thoughts.
My God, that article just proves why the General public has an immense distrust for journalists and for Fox News.
If that, whoever wrote that article, would have substituted Kamala Harris for a diarrhea salad and Donald Trump for a Smith & Walensky steak, of course the Smith & Walensky steak would win in a landslide over a diarrhea salad.
That's basically all I've got.
Okay, okay.
Nate Silver is a pretty savvy guy, and I tend to agree with his analysis.
Meanwhile, there's no debate.
Really, meaning there's no room for debate.
As the news trucks and security detail begin lining the street of my neighborhood in Philadelphia, obstructing traffic, causing general chaos over the next few days leading into tonight's debate, part of me wonders if I'm being crass and partisan when I shrug and wonder what there is to actually debate.
As I wrote last week, the substance of what Kamala is going to bring to the debate stage will have very little to do with policy, instead likely rely on jabs about Trump's personality, mistruths about media hoaxes like Charlottesville, statements attributing to Trump things he has publicly disavowed, like Project 2025.
This gaslighting campaign will likely be combined with strategic flip-flopping to acquiesce to policy positions that were Trump's to begin with.
We've already seen this leading into the debate.
First, it was stealing the no tax on tips policy, then reversing her stance on tracking, then claiming she's not an electric vehicle mandate, And that it was using photographs of Trump's border wall in an advertisement claiming she's tough on immigration.
CNN calls Harris out for using Trump's border wall in campaign after condemning it for years, where she called it in the past useless, unnecessary, wasteful, unrealistic, a vanity project, a misuse of taxpayer money.
Harris now?
Tough on the border then?
Border wall is stupad.
The gold hard facts are, when it comes to policy, there is no debate.
And so, tomorrow, which is today, turns mostly into an exercise on how to run a crisis public relation campaign, like Kamala Harris, while Trump does what he always does, bludgeoning his way forward ruthlessly.
Trump will say what he's been saying for the better part of a decade, with little change.
And Harris will attempt to present a $2,500-an-hour McKinsey Consulting Focus Group-approved slide deck book report on a book she clearly hasn't read.
As I said to Andy Schechtman on our podcast this weekend, I can understand voting for a Democrat if your number one priority is abortion.
If the right to be able to get an abortion in all 50 states at any time for any reason is the most important thing in your life, it makes sense to me you would vote Democrat.
Even though Trump reportedly won't push for a national abortion ban, has taken the stand he only wants to move the decision back to the states, there's still a significant amount of my body, my choice fear after Roe v. Wade repeal, ironically, for many on the left who are perfectly fine with trampling on people's right to travel, work, and otherwise live their lives due to vaccine mandates.
I don't pretend to understand how that could outweigh all the numerous other issues that would heavily impact our quality of life for some.
I believe strongly in everybody's right to prioritize whatever they like in their lives.
We used to call that freedom, and in this country it's supposed to be sacrosanct.
When it comes to almost every other major key issue, when you understand properly, to me, there really is no debate.
There's no doubt the country experienced an incredible surge in illegal immigration over the last four years under Biden-Harris.
If you're pro-undocumented illegal immigrants who rely on taxpayer cash to get by and who take jobs and opportunities from both existing citizens and legal immigrants, Then I argue that you don't understand the problem well enough.
Look at the surge shown graphically, how it dropped, and now has skyrocketed.
Emotionally, it's a lovely gesture to say something like, no human being is illegal.
But when Asians start taking over your small town, cutting the heads off park geese to heat them, sleeping on mattresses on your front yard, living in five-star hotels on taxpayer cash, the reality of a country bloated with illegal immigrants becomes clearer.
On the issue, there really is no comparison.
Kamala was not tough on the border, and on the contrary, actively fought against Texas when they tried to secure their own border.
Though his rhetoric may be uncomfortable to some emotional amoeba, who have little understanding of how the real world works, Trump kept the country secure.
It made the border a top priority to his presidency.
To me, there's no debate on who handled this issue better.
Taxation is another commonly misunderstood issue.
Kamau's policy of raising capital gain taxes and considering an unrealized gain tax No one lives at the far end of the Loffer Curve, where capital flight out of the country would be extensive, but would also almost assuredly guarantee a stock market crash and obliterate the entire U.S.
economy quickly.
Taxing unrealized gains is also dangerously close to confiscating private property.
As my friend, professional investor Chris McMillan said this weekend, Confiscating unrealized capital gains isn't a tax policy.
It's a declaration of war.
It transformed the concept of private property.
Nothing would be private.
Nothing would be your property.
You'd be in a 24-7 partnership with the government.
No amount of taxation would ever extract you from.
America's founders rebelled against policies that were a fraction as expensive and invasive to our basic freedoms.
Again, the tax issue comes down to misunderstanding.
Malleable leftists think we can tax billionaires and infinitum to prop up our social services and give a free ride to the middle and lower class, despite their productive output.
But this simply isn't the case, and eventually leads to the destruction of the country, when taxes become too burdensome.
Job creators who would be responsible for footing that enormous bill are simply going to move their money out of the country.
And once they leave, it does far more damage than keeping their capital and businesses here in the United States taxed at a reasonable rate.
If ever taxation became brutally counterintuitive, it would be taxing unrealized gains to try to confiscate wealth from the richest people in the country.
Ask yourself a very simple question.
Why do millionaire politicians like Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren, who advocate for higher taxes for the rich, not voluntarily send the Treasury Department tens of billions of their own wealth that they don't owe every year?
Wouldn't that be putting your money where your mouth is, literally?
And while immigration and taxation may have a roundabout effect on our quality of life, the calls for defunding the police, allowing activists to burn down a portion of the country in 2020, and the idea of vilifying all police and those who keep law and order in place has a clear impact on our quality of life.
There's no way to put polish on it.
During the summer of love in 2020, when the George Floyd riots took place, far-left politicians like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris encouraged the destruction as it took place.
They supported the lawlessness, and along with a horde of Democrat district attorneys and big city mayors, have been soft on crime in a way that makes repeat offenders of violent crime across the country an everyday news item.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep police in check and holding their feet to the fire so they are there to protect and serve the taxpayers who pay their salary.
I'm all for this.
I'm all for objectivity when it comes to examining police interaction with the public.
I'm the last person who wants laws to be too strict, but to apply the ideology that all cops are bastards, or that we need to defund the police and vilify first responders does damage to our very country.
Maybe it's because it's been almost 25 years that we have had a nationwide reminder of who shows up when the shit really hits the fan.
It's the summer of love all over again, only far more blatant in their hatred for the United States.
Activists even burned flags outside the DNC this year.
Sadly, it makes me believe that, if God forbid, we have another terrorist attack on our country, a large portion of the nation is going to celebrate it.
The simple fact is, there really is no debate.
The country needs a common-sense solution that, while some people don't like the packaging they come in, because Donald Trump can be sharp-tongued, there's no doubt that he is the only one of these two who will be delivering common-sense policy prescriptions.
It's going to be a spectacle tonight, because Kamala's had three and a half years of doing a terrible job as VP to run on.
I've seen a lot of political bullshit and doublespeak.
I spent a fair amount of time examining public relations crises in some of the largest companies in the country, and I can't even begin to conceive what kind of nonsense Harris is going to try to put in place in lieu of actually having substantive solutions And I would call in Mr. Massey.
Can we be honest with the American people about what's going on here?
This is political theater.
check this out.
And I would call in Mr. Massey.
Can we be honest with the American people about what's going on here?
This is political theater.
I'm going to call out both sides right here.
It's all posturing.
It's fake fighting.
We all know where it ends up.
This is Groundhog Day.
I don't care if the Democrat is the speaker or Republican is the speaker.
We always get a CR in September, and then we get an omnibus.
Sometimes there's a twist on that.
We might get the omnibus before Christmas.
But if we're not good, it comes after Christmas.
But that's what's going to happen.
And in the meantime, it's political theater.
You know, it's good theater.
We've got great writers.
I wish they'd just come up with a new plot.
It's the same plot every fiscal year.
What should we be doing?
It's already been discussed.
We should have done 12 separate bills.
We should have done 12 separate bills.
But again, whether Democrats are in control or Republicans are in control, we never do the 12 separate bills.
Why do we always spend at least as much as we did last year, and why do we never cut spending?
It's because Democrats want to grow the welfare state, and Republicans want to grow the military-industrial complex.
And we're eventually going to get together, and they're both going to go up.
I guarantee it.
And both parties are just fine letting the bureaucrats do their thing, which should be our thing, according to Article 1.
Section 8 in the Constitution, we are empowered with these things.
Most important of the things we do is the funding, and that's the big lever we have.
I've sat through now almost two years of hearings in this Congress where we've exposed lies at the CDC, shortcuts at the FDA, unconstitutional gun bans at the ATF.
Over prosecution of January 6ers at the DOJ, targeting common citizens at the FBI, spying by the NSA, illegal mandates for livestock by the USDA, targeting transgenic plant vaccine at the NSF, and Censorship, the industrial complex of which the NSF is part of.
Automobile kill switch at the DOT.
Now these are all things I think most Democrats are just fine with this kind of totalitarian state that the bureaucrats are pushing on us.
But Republicans at least pretend to be against these things.
But what are we going to do this September?
We're going to fund every freaking one of those things that we have exposed.
That is the tool that we have is the funding.
Why are we funding things we don't like?
We don't have to.
Well, it's because we're addicted to spending.
And this doesn't do anything about the addiction at all.
So let me touch on one point, too, here that I think is important.
A couple years ago, or a summer and a half ago, I suppose now, we did something where we allowed the debt limit to be increased.
But as a condition of that, we said, if you do a CR that lasts past April 30th, everything's going to get cut 1%.
And that, to me, seemed like at least a little tinge of fiscal responsibility was creeping in.
But now I notice that this CR, instead of going one year and giving us time to do the 12 appropriations bills, is going to go six months.
Now, let me tell you what's going to happen because this goes six months.
Number one, it ends on March 28th.
Well, the automatic cuts happen on April 30th if the CR went past that.
So that is exactly why the Speaker chose a six-month CR, is so we don't have even the chance, a threat, To this, to this town, it's a threat of a 1% cut.
We don't want to even, this is like t-ball.
The 1% cut is on the tee and Republicans won't even swing at it.
So instead, we're going to do a six-month CR instead of a one-year CR.
That sets up another crisis next spring where we can do another pretend fight sometime around March.
And that fight will be the same fight regardless of who wins the presidency and who's in charge of the Senate and the House.
And we're basically going to get pretty much the same result.
But that's six months from now.
In the meantime, we can kick the can down the road.
All of these things that we've exposed in all of these hearings are going to continue to get funded.
But wait, there's a bright, shiny object on this CR.
I've never seen one of these.
I have never seen a bright, shiny object attached to one of these must-pass bills.
Oh, wait, no.
It actually happens.
There always is.
A bright, shiny object.
A bauble, if you will.
A little something to get excited about.
This SAVE Act.
It's going to save us all.
Right?
And by the way, this is good political theater.
I do like this part of it, that we're going to see almost every Democrat cast a vote so that illegals can vote in our elections.
I mean, that's pretty clever on the part of our speaker to set that up, make you all take that vote.
But here's what he's going to do after you take that vote.
He's going to take it off.
The bright, shiny object goes away.
It's Lucy and the football again.
And the American public is all revved up.
Yeah, we're going to get the SAVE Act.
We're going to save these elections.
We're going to stop the illegals from voting.
Really?
How are you going to do that in like six weeks?
I think they're already registered if they're going to vote.
Some of them probably already voted.
This SAVE Act ain't going to save anything.
And particularly because it ain't ever going to become law.
It's a false promise to get all the Republicans half pregnant, and then you're going to get fully pregnant by the end of September when you vote for this CR.
I hate to break this to you.
I mean, the Democrats already know this.
I'm not telling you anything special.
I hate to break it to the Republicans.
You ain't getting the SAVE Act.
It is not going to stay on this bill.
Why?
Because we're going to cave!
We're going to cave!
Is it a fight worth having?
Absolutely it's a fight worth having.
Make those Democrats say they want illegals to vote.
Make them take that vote as many times as you can.
And then make them go to the ballot box in November.
But that's what it is.
It's political theater, folks.
We all know where it ends up.
We've seen it.
I've been here 12 years.
I've seen it 12 times.
I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater.
And with that, I yield back.
Wow.
Oh, what a guy.
Victor Hugo, I think at least half of that you must have liked.
Your thoughts?
I liked all of them.
The only problem is that it makes me feel disheartened because he's the only guy who's out there seemingly willing to speak truth to power.
And he seems disheartened as well because he refuses to be That's what I'm saying.
I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater that we're being put through, this humiliation ritual.
Just like he said, with voting, whether it's voting in elections or voting in Congress, it's all theater.
There's no debate.
There's no debate.
That's the part I figured you would discount.
Not Massey.
Whom we all endure.
Oh, as far as the explanation why there's no contest between Trump and Harris.
And you want to deny there's no real difference.
Yeah, as far as the debate goes, obviously Trump is just going to destroy Kamala Harris.
But my concern with the debate is that the real issues are being brought up.
Why isn't anybody talking about the COVID bioweapon disguised as a vaccine?
That's the major issue right now.
The illegal aliens, we know what's going on with that.
That's part of the Calergi plan.
Obviously, Alejandro Mayorkas is behind that, and Merrick Garland, who's in charge of the Department of Justice is keeping the police and the border patrol with their hands tied.
That's treason.
But nobody's able to do anything because the United States has become a nation of order followers, and Merrick Garland should be arrested, and Alejandro Mayorkas should be arrested.
And yet the police are just saying there's nothing they could do.
The one guy who wrote the article said that the police are the ones who show up when shit hits the fan.
Well, I'll tell you what, the shit is hitting the fan.
And where are the police?
Why are the Venezuelan gangs?
Running most of the country, the police say, oh, well, we're not allowed to do anything.
So then why are we funding the police?
So that the police can go knock on the door of Christian parents who don't want their children to be groomed in schools?
So that the FBI can go knocking on people's doors to try to set them up for January 6th?
So that the prisons can be filled with January 6th peaceful protesters that are sitting in solitary confinement?
In Miami, Florida, while the gangs are running around free?
The whole system from what I'm seeing, and again, it saddens me because I'm watching this from the outside looking in, and when I hear Thomas Massey spell it out so clearly, again, we're watching a theater.
We're watching what it's like to be part of a suicide cult, and the people that are on the inside are actually funding their own suicide.
And from the outside looking in, we see the frogs boiling in that water.
It's starting to get to the boiling point.
But it might just be too late.
And when I hear Thomas Massey said he's been through that for 12 years.
Wow.
Us as Americans, we've been through that for more than half a century, Jim and Donald.
And we're watching the younger generation Accepting this as the norm.
And, uh, I don't really, if Thomas Massie doesn't see hope for it, that really leaves me in a, in a sad place.
So yeah, that's going to be fun.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm going to stay up.
It's almost five o'clock in the morning here.
I'm going to stay up to watch Donald Trump sweep the floor with Kamala Harris.
I get it.
I don't expect Donald Trump to win only because I expect the same thing that happened in 2020 to happen in 2024.
I expect the election to be rigged and stolen.
They did it in 2020.
They did it in 2022.
They're going to do it again in 2024.
I believe that Trump will, like he got in 2020, get the majority of the votes.
But, like I said, they're using the same machines.
And yes, like Thomas Massa said, a lot of the illegal aliens have already voted.
So Trump may end up losing.
And if he's actually allowed to have the election, let's say they don't do what we were talking about earlier in the show, a nuclear attack or anything like that, or several terrorist attacks from these sleeper cells that Alejandro Mayorkas allowed in, that they will create martial law and that they will not allow the election to happen.
They'll try to assassinate Donald Trump because it's clearly obvious now that even the blacks and the Hispanics and pretty much everybody, unless you're like, I don't know, what kind of an idiot you are that you would want to vote for Kamala Harris, but everybody pretty much is going to vote for Donald Trump.
And so they can't have that.
They just can't have it.
So that's the reality.
I'm just being pragmatic.
Like I said, yeah, if we were living in a real world scenario, Donald Trump would win in a landslide.
And the evildoers know that.
So they're going to try to kill him.
And I'll tell you what, if he does win in a landslide, they've gotten rid of his insurance policy by putting J.D.
Vance in.
All they got to do is once Trump is in office, I think that's very discerning, Victor Hugo.
I think that's very discerning.
and he's controlled by Peter Thiel.
And Peter Thiel is obviously controlled by the synagogue of Satan.
So it doesn't look good, guys.
I think that's very discerning, Victor Hugo.
I think that's very discerning.
Meanwhile, January 6th, Trinus Abbot testifies.
January 6th prisoners were offered classes in jail on Trump's big lie, Trump's crime, Trump's attacks on democracy.
How bad is that?
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene led a special live hearing entitled Unusually Cruel, a continued investigation into the treatment of J-6 political prisoners.
Gateway Pundit Reporter.
Kara Strastanova testified today at the hearing, with others, including investigative reporter Yehuda Miller, J-6 defendant Trenas Evans, Jessica Rivera, Brandi Bowen, Eden Quinton, and attorney Jonathan Gross.
Kara spoke about her reporting on J-6 political prisoners, as well as Trump supporter Roseanne Boylan's death that day.
MTG has been a passionate voice for J-6 political prisoners since the Pelosi insurrection of January 6.
Last fall, the pundit was informed that political prisoner John Strand was being tortured in isolation after he entered the prison.
We encourage our readers to write a warden's assistant and demand the isolation end immediately.
Here's a tweet from our jury.
Another extreme human rights violation of a non-biasic protester, John Strand, is being held in solitary confinement in a Miami prison.
Murderers, child rapists, terrorists are treated better than this.
I demand it end.
When will more Republicans join me?
Trent Evans, in this document, This talks about a re-education material provided to the January 6th defendants.
If you start reading through the titles alone, you'll start to quiver.
I did it.
I was very upset.
This is a reprogramming information given to them on their tablet.
Once upon a time in prison you could take a class on plumbing or electricity or trade.
Do something in another language.
They're actually giving credit for taking classes on me.
I share a couple of titles.
These were the re-educational materials distributed to them about Trump's big lie.
Trump's crime before he called for the attack on our democracy.
Donald Trump.
How he's attacked our democracy.
Negligence.
Obstruction.
Rape.
Tax evasion.
These are actual lesson plans.
Take a look at the tablet.
Ask them to show they were available to them in the jail.
Here, let's listen.
Listen, we released in this document Contained in here is the re-education material that was provided to the January 6th defendants.
And if you start reading through just the titles alone, you'll start to quiver.
I did.
I was very upset.
You mean this is systematic?
They're trying to reprogram them?
This is the reprogramming information given to them on their tablet.
Like, once upon a time, in prison you would take a class on plumbing, or an electrical, or trade.
Do something or another language they were actually given credit for taking classes on may I share a couple of titles taking classes on information such as I'll tell you what I'm going to say something else with care.
Will you find that section there, please?
So These were re-education materials distributed to them about trump's big lie.
Well, how the election here.
Oh, here we go Trump's crimes before he called for the attack on our democracy.
Donald Trump, how he has attacked our democracy.
Negligence, obstruction, rape, tax evasion.
These are actual lesson plans.
Take a look at the tablet, ask him to show you.
They were available to them in the jail.
Stunning stuff, Victor, Hugo, your thoughts, my friend.
The first thing I noticed is that guy Yehuda Miller.
Right off the bat, that guy's got a yarmulke on.
He's a name stealer, a name changer.
That's not Yehuda.
That Yehuda Miller, boy, you see?
You see how he are?
My God, I bet you his name is something different, his last name.
Anyway, that's the first thing that stuck out to me, so right off the bat.
The second thing that stuck out to me was the guy who was speaking was too close to the mic.
He kept sounding horrible there, so that was a distraction.
Again, the people that they put in these situations are inept, really.
It just shows you right off the bat that we've either got name changers, name stealers, or people who are just inept.
That whole presentation was so distracting with his voice being so close to the mic that the people would tune out.
And I'm noticing that as a podcaster, That all you need is just the slightest thing to have people tune out.
Because everybody's consumed with everything else.
And that's why we're losing this battle.
Because the Republicans, like Thomas Massey said, they're putting on a show, but the script that's being written isn't very good.
And people know that they're being conned.
And that's what we're watching.
We're watching a show I mean, all these things that these guys, I can't even believe that they're holding this right now.
It's been almost four years since January 6th, and these people are still rotting in jail.
Some of them still haven't even had a trial.
That's the other thing.
How can Trump be actually holding this debate, and why isn't anybody bringing up that question?
You know, this guy's been running around playing golf, Mar-a-Lago, when in actuality he was the one who You know, people trusted him.
People had a lot of trust in Trump.
And that's another thing that, again, I get the lesser of two evils part, but there's people who their lives have been ruined, their families have been ruined, rotting in January 6th.
And it's not just the prisoners, but also the families, the daughters, the sons who are being raised with mothers and fathers that are absent in the most pivotal points of their life, because these people Peacefully protest that they would have been literally better off raping somebody or killing somebody they'd get less time in jail So what kind of a society are we living in and why aren't these questions being asked?
I doubt any of these questions will be asked at the debate.
But these are the questions that need to be asked, because we're not living in a civil society.
We're not living in a democracy, and we're definitely not living in a constitutional republic.
The United States has become a modern Sodom and Gomorrah, and the citizens are paying with their sole currency, because whether you believe in God or not, natural law deems that there will be retribution for the sins of all the people in the United States of Israel, because they're all commiserate in this.
I don't see people daily protesting outside of these courthouses for the January 6th Patriots, you know?
They've been abandoned.
What a shame.
Well said.
Well said, my friend.
Meanwhile, we're on the verge of the 23rd observance of 9-11.
If you go to the government bank, you can find a wonderful piece.
Twenty-three years later, the evidence tells a different story.
9-11, the day the laws of physics and nature were suspended.
Another.
Overview of what Scholars for 9-11 Truth found about the events of 9-11, from the fabrication of all four of the crash sites, to the mechanisms of destruction of the Twin Towers, to the classic demolition of WTC7, to who was responsible and why.
Not a collapse.
Look at that photograph of the destruction of the North Tower.
Could anyone possibly think that was the collapse of a building?
Meanwhile, Ron Barton of Untold History and I have done a two-parter on 9-11, the 23rd anniversary of which occurs this year.
This may be the best discussion of what really happened you're going to find.
We took time and addressed Ron's concerns when they arose, part one.
Part 2 on Untold History of the Events of 9-11.
Brace yourself.
It was an inside job, brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
The plan was to create a pretext of U.S.
forces that do the dirty work for Israel.
And, finally, America nuked on 9-11.
Does this look like any kind of collapse?
The Twin Towers were masterpieces of design and engineering.
They were virtually incapable of collapse, but blown apart in every direction from the top down.
In only 9 seconds for the South Tower and 11 for the North.
Did you know that a third building, WTC-7, actually did collapse at 5.20 p.m.
ET, which is about seven hours after the North Tower was destroyed?
Did you know it was not hit by any plane?
It had no jet fuel-based fires?
Did you know that the most striking piece of aircraft debris on the Pentagon lawn came in the crash of a Boeing 757 near Cali, Colombia in 1995?
It follows that 9-11 was not done by 19 Islamic terrorists.
If you want to know the who, the where, and the why, the answers are found here.
My friend, Victor Hugo.
Thank you, Jack.
Don?
Jim, what do you think about the... Have you seen the footage of the planes being holographed?
The plane, actually, you could see the wing.
And it disappears, and also the way that it goes through the building doesn't make any sense.
Have you seen that footage, Jim?
Yeah, that's my view.
It was Richard D. Hall of the UK who first advanced with his Flight 175 3D radar study.
That holograms had been used.
I admire his research.
I've been told he's now repudiated his own theory, in which case I make it mine.
It can be the Jim Fetzer Flight 175 theory of the use of holograms.
Absolutely, I may be the foremost proponent of the hologram theory, my friend.
So absolutely, yes.
Why do you think he refuted it?
If he did, it was from political pressure.
I mean, he was just forced to do it.
I mean, maybe threaten his life, his family.
I can't answer that.
If, in fact, it's true.
Now, I don't have that personally, but I've been told.
And that's one way they try to discredit.
You have a true theory, then claim that the proponent rejected it.
Well, was it true theory?
And I stand by it.
So I'm glad you asked the question because that's central to my analysis.
Yeah, and also, did anybody ever interview the people who actually took the footage?
Because from what I understood, that famous footage of the firemen that were by the building and being interviewed, the people that were around there said that they were there for hours before that happened.
It seems like they were actually put there on purpose to get that footage.
And also, that stuff could be edited in.
If you're a filmmaker, that's easy to put in with special effects.
And then when you slow it down, it shows that it wasn't even done properly.
It wasn't even a good special effects job.
But nobody bothered to inquire about this.
And then when you see footage of people that actually took it from outside, There were no planes.
It was just explosions from that Israeli arts group.
I think it was called the Gillette Group.
Gelatin.
Yeah, gelatin.
And then you had the dancing Israelis.
who admitted that they were sent over there to document the event.
And I'll tell you what, being here, I've actually met some of Osama bin Laden's family.
And they told me that that whole thing was just set up because the United States wanted to start this war in the Middle East and everything like that.
And then when I was living in China... Israel wanted to come in to take out seven countries in the next five years, and they were very successful up to Syria, when the democratically elected President Bashar al-Assad requested support from Russia and Iran, and they put a halt to it.
But many believe, Paul Craig Roberts included, that what's going on now is an attempt to complete the job of 9-11, to create a greater Israel of Zionist aspirations, from the Tigris or Euphrates to the Nile, which takes up a good chunk of Egypt, virtually all of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, even parts of Iraq.
Yeah.
My question is, Russia knows this and China knows this.
I know this because I've met with people and they told me that they have all the information that shows that this was an inside job and everything.
Do you think they will ever release that information or will the United States release it?
Because the thing is, once they release that, the people of the United States will realize that their government has actually been Proactively working towards killing the people there and that might create the revolution that's necessary.
So that's what I'm thinking.
And that's what I'm hoping that Russia and China do to instead of just release this information.
They've got it, but they've been blackmailing the United States with this.
I don't think the CIA will ever release it.
But I can assure you the American government isn't going to change.
Once it takes a position it's locked in, whether it's a moon landing, the JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, the government isn't going to change regardless of the evidence.
Because in Thomas Massey's words, it's all political theater.
So then the United— Then is there any hope, Jim, for the United States?
Because if we're going to be basing our history on a lie, then how can future generations be taken seriously?
What I mean is like Russia knows it, China knows it, that means the rest of the world knows it, okay?
So if we're walking around like the emperor without clothes, the world sees that we've got a small dick.
And, you know, that's the fact.
Meanwhile, we're parading around like we're Long Don Silver.
It's like, no, we know you guys are full of shit.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's all very good.
I think if Trump got in, he's actually resolved to release all the JFK.
Mike Pompeo boasted that he talked Trump out of doing it.
And he's a P.O.S.
I think if Trump got in and was open to revisionist history, we could potentially get it all right.
I mean, that's what I've been dedicated to this whole period of my life, since I began doing serious research on JFK in 1992.
So it's now over 30 years.
That I've been investing in collaborative research and bringing together the best experts to sort out what really happened on all these complex and controversial events.
Why do you keep doing it?
Because I feel it's my contribution to my country which has given me so much.
And that the American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history.
Do you think you'll live to see that?
Oh, probably not.
But it won't be for lack of trying, my friend.
It won't be for lack of trying.
You were wonderful tonight, by the way.
I want to thank you.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you for not giving up.
I appreciate that.
And of course, special thanks to Chris Weinhardt, who, of course, looking after his daughter could only spare an hour, but it was very, very nicely contributing.
Don, take us out.
Oh, wow.
I think we're being taken out by the That's what we're talking about here.
Everything is happening.
It's false and fake and terrible and just wrong.
I mean, 9-11 and everything else, it's all lies and everything.
We can't go on like this.
I think this is about a crisis time right now between now and election time.
It could be all over or we could have a new beginning.
There's supposed to be some Our action is supposed to take out what's going on here and replace everything.
It's supposed to be good coming, but that hasn't happened.
Anyway, hopefully it will, but right now we're in a crisis situation.
I think if the whole society goes on lies and fraud and cheating and theft, I mean, we can't go on forever like this.
That's just impossible.
So, we're at a crisis time here at this crisis day of 9-11, and I think that we have addressed that very well here, gentlemen.
And I thank you so much for watching, and take care, and hopefully we'll be able to come back next week My golly, this is something else you want to share this one widely and realize and read these books about 9-11 and Sandy Hook and Kennedy and things.
We're standing for the truth, whereas everybody else is out there up throwing lies or looks like the lies are getting stronger instead of being butted by the truth, which needs to happen.
We got to stand for that, otherwise we're all gonna fall.
That's my Terrible prediction for what's happening right now, but I've seen it for so long, and Truth Vs. News, we've done about 15 years of heavy-duty reporting, and it's not getting any lighter right now.
So thank you, and hope to see you next week.
Export Selection