Today, Dan and Jordan dip into the past to learn about how little Alex Jones really knows about how the UN works. In this installment, Alex has very dumb predictions about future presidential elections as well as UN leadership, and has a chat with a rock star's mom. Citations
I think it's more amusing that this is turning out to be like, people are just taking the ball and running with it in the directions that they come up with.
For those in our audience outside the United States, the 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1947, essentially to make sure that someone could only serve two four-year terms as president.
Prior to this, it was just kind of understood that this was the norm, with George Washington setting an unwritten precedent by not seeking a third term in office.
This amendment was ratified when it was, in 1947, because the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt had just ended, who served three terms and had won a fourth election for the presidency but died in office.
People kind of realized at that point that this norm that everyone just assumed everyone would accept was not actually a rule, and maybe we should put it on paper.
We've kind of learned some more of those things lately.
Since then, presidents have been bound by these term limits, although the wording of the rules has often caused some debate to pop up.
For instance, conversations often happen about whether a two-term president could run for a third consecutive term if they Sure, sure, sure, sure.
to allow someone who's served two consecutive terms to run again at a later date, essentially making the term limits only apply to the consecutive terms.
He speculated that given the people were living longer, quote, there may come a time when we elect a president at age 45 or 50, and then 20 years later the country comes up against the same kind of problems the president faced before.
According to the article on his speech that was in the BBC, quote, the former president said such a change probably would not apply to him, but would benefit future generations.
Between these years of 1995 and 2005, Representative Steny Hoyer also introduced bills to repeal the 22nd Amendment, and both of these dudes did this regardless of which party held the presidency.
So when Alex is saying that people are doing this in order to get their guy more terms, it's like, no, they're doing it because they don't believe there should be term limits for the presidency.
Right, right, right.
They're doing it even if it does bite them in the ass and Reagan gets a third term.
So the prospect of a leader unilaterally declaring they want established term limits to not apply to them, that's something that should maybe be seen as a warning sign.
But for Alex to report this news without the appropriate context, I think this is a bit of lying by omission.
Yeah, yeah, especially when we live in the present and you just heard everybody being like, I don't think there's anything wrong with Trump getting a third term.
I would say in relation to Clinton's argument that if it were the case that a president was particularly good at dealing with something and then 20 years later the same issue popped up.
I mean, I think what's funny about saying it at the Kennedy Center is just like, you could also be like, and your entire family should run the country forever!
Like, this is why, going back to the past, one of the reasons it's particularly fun for me is because there's so much going on now with Alex trying to be like, I've always been right.
Their terms last varying amounts of time over history, but since 1971, it's become tradition that a person's elected to the position for a five-year term, and they will get a second term, unless it's vetoed by a member nation.
This has only happened once since, with Boutros Boutros Ghali not getting a second term in 1996.
The next two secretaries general, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, serve full 10-year stretches in office.
For someone whose big villain in the world is the UN, Alec seems to not have a very good grasp.
No clue.
For someone who has years of study to bring this analysis, what?
There is a lot of distributed power among the Security Council and such in terms of the organization of the UN, but there's really something important about the representation that is given by having different regions of the world represented by the Secretary General.
If you have any awareness at all, and like I said, we'll talk about it in more detail later, but if you have any idea about how any of this stuff works, just on a structural basis...
Again, there's one really big reason why this will never happen.
We'll get to a little bit down the road.
But you'll notice that these predictions, no matter how bad they are and how wrong they continue to be, they often don't change.
In more recent days, we've heard Alex try to reuse this exact same conspiracy, but with Michelle Obama becoming president and Barack becoming the secretary general of the UN.
It's all a load of shit, but it's really effective in terms of terrifying the audience.
And so Alex can constantly just recycle this stuff with just slightly different details changed to suit the times.
It's important to understand when you're talking about something that is this conspiracy, like Clinton's going to become the Secretary General of the UN.
You kind of have to discuss how one becomes the Secretary General of the UN.
Or at least you have to give me some kind of an idea that you understand it.
Or else I'm going to say that this is bad analysis.
Well, he comes out of the gate and says, I'm going to take over the churches with faith-based initiatives, open borders, and I'm not going to go after Bill Clinton.
I'm going to block Dan Burton's committee.
I mean, they could have arrested Bill Clinton.
This guy was pardoning convicted cocaine dealers and taking money from them.
That's illegal.
They can pardon them, they just can't take money from them.
Taking money from convicted money launderers and arms traffickers.
This is all out in the open.
Bill Clinton could be behind bars right now, but no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
After the 2000 Senate elections, the vote was tied 50-50, with the vice president casting the tie-breaking vote.
Then, in June 2001, Jim Jeffords, previously a Republican, decided to go independent and he started to caucus with the Democrats.
In a book he would later release, Jeffords explained that he began to feel alienated by the GOP, particularly in their refusal to support and fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, which had been a major priority of his for at least decades before this.
I'll read to you here from a statement that he released after he decided to switch parties.
Quote, "'Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party.
I understand that many people are more conservative than I am, and they form the Republican Party.' Given the changing nature of the National Party, it's become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me, and for me to deal with them.
Indeed, the party's electoral success has underscored the dilemma I face within my party.
In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party and Congress have had some freedom to argue, and ultimately to shape the party's agenda.
The election of President Bush changed that dramatically.
We don't live in a parliamentary system, but it's only natural to expect that people such as myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president's agenda.
Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I will disagree with the president on very fundamental issues.
The issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues largely.
Which loops back to the Individuals with Disability Act issues that he was very passionate about.
You could make an argument that there was some backroom dealing involved, because duh.
After he switched parties and gave the Democrats a slight advantage in terms of votes, he was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but you could also kind of make the argument that this was making up for the chairmanship that he would necessarily lose when he leaves the Republican Party that he had held for a long time.
And so what you're going to have is Bush elected in 04. You're then going to have Hillary Clinton or some other creature put into power in 08, and long before them, in the next two years, Clinton's already lined up most of the G8 countries.
So we'll have Bush and Clinton double-teaming us, and then we'll have Hillary...
Clinton in there, while Clinton is a Secretary General.
So understand, for the last two years, for sure, probably the last three to four, you'll have Bill Clinton as Secretary General when George W. is President.
In this episode alone, it's almost impressive how much of a lack of awareness about the U.N. Alex seems to be displaying.
He's been wrong about the way the terms work for Secretaries General, and he's come up with this fun story about Bill Clinton trying to solicit votes to get in office.
Alex is wrong about those details, too, though.
He said that Clinton needed eight countries and he'd gotten the approval of six, but that's not true.
A candidate for secretary general needs to have the backing of nine members of the UN Security Council and not have any vetoes from any of the permanent members who are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.
There are 15 countries in the Security Council at any time, so you need to have support of nine of them and not be someone who would be vetoed.
Bill Clinton would absolutely be vetoed either by Russia or China, as you already brought up one million percent.
Alex is basing that eight countries thing, like he said, off the G8, but that has nothing to do with the UN Security Council deciding the Secretary General.
The G8 is a yearly summit that was held among the group of eight countries until 2014 when they kicked Russia out and changed their name back to the group of seven.
France, the United States, and the United Kingdom are all G8 countries that have a permanent spot on the UN Security Council, so there is a little bit of overlap there.
But the Security Council is made up of the five permanent members and ten rotating non-permanent member states representing different regions of the world.
In 2003, when Bill Clinton would supposedly be trying to lock down these votes for UN Secretary General positions, there weren't even six G8 countries in the Security Council.
There were the permanent members, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia, since they hadn't been kicked out yet.
In 2006, Germany is no longer a rotating member of the Security Council, but Japan would be.
So the numbers are actually just the same.
They balance out.
It wouldn't work.
It's really a big problem how little Alex seems to grasp about this stuff that he's making these grand conspiracies about.
He's pulling out numbers and making up fun, scary stories for the audience, but it's pretty embarrassing when you consider the reality of how the UN works.
Even if a candidate makes it through the selection process in the Security Council, they still need to be approved by the General Assembly afterwards.
Though no one has ever been rejected by the General Assembly after being selected by the Security Council, the awareness that certain candidates would be rejected is a critical part of the Security Council selection process, and part of why it often ends up dragging on pretty long.
There's zero chance that Bill Clinton or any former U.S. president would not be voted down by the General Assembly.
I refuse to take the predictions of someone who purports to be an expert in international affairs who would absolutely be destroyed by any 10-year-old in the Model UN Club.
Yeah, and how if you're confident and amass enough false credibility, people will just go along with what you say.
The notion that...
If you're in the Security Council and you're discussing who should we put up for the Secretary-General ship, it would be fairly obvious that it might be seen as insulting to the rest of the world to nominate a former U.S. president.
And that would probably be a consideration.
Like, it would be an affront.
Generally speaking, it would give the message that the United States has an actual primacy in the world, and that's not the message the UN wants to give.
Yes, we are the body that represents a large number of nations who all have some sort of tension between each other in some form or another, so we tend to elect somebody with a neutral, perhaps even a distant kind of view of how to deal.
with this on a global scale, or this time, we could elect one of the guys causing all of the tensions all around the world.
You've got to point out that they're giving us two false choices of a liberal New World Order or a conservative New World Order and point out we don't want a New World Order, period.
You've got to grow up, put your thinking cap on, figure out what's happening, expose who's behind the terror, or they're going to keep using it to destroy your future, to take your pension funds, to wreck this nation.
Yeah, so Alex has a guest on, and this person is apparently a member of a school board in Akron, Ohio, which is where they were having the discussion about the fingerprints for lunches.
It has legitimately nothing to do with this interview, but I was so bored that I was like...
Who is this person?
Can I find out anything about them?
And it turns out she's the Black Keys drummer's mother.
And in the process of looking at that, I realized that the Black Keys drummer, Patrick Carney, is married to one of my favorite singer-songwriters, Michelle Branch.
This is that anti-Semitic rag published by Willis Cardo.
Oh, and they also talked to William Still, whose film The Money Masters contains historical inaccuracies about the Rothschild family that have their roots in historical anti-Semitic propaganda, most notably the Nazi film The Rothschild Share at Waterloo.
Clearly, this is the kind of hard-hitting TV episode that does their homework on the possible crypto beliefs that their supposed experts might be secretly pushing.
Well, they would never do that because you can't really persuade people with that.
You have to couch your beliefs in these crypto talking points, which is essentially what this documentary about the Federal Reserve boils down to.
And you can kind of tell by the guest selection that, I don't know if the people who are making this documentary series had a vested interest in really giving the spotlight an unchallenged position.
It's kind of controlling the paradigm, and still I understand what you're saying, but does your film expose that this stuff goes on in Democrat administrations as well?
Oh, definitely.
unidentified
You know, it's just as much during all these wars as Republicans.
I think we're saying the same thing with different terminology.
I know, but then all I see is the low-level left galvanizes a battering ram against the middle class.
Take the environmentalists.
They're busy out grabbing farms and ranches.
And they're funded by the big corporations that are getting the land after this happens, but then nothing's happening with Texas company ProteGene putting AIDS virus in corn supplies.
So Frank Dorrell's a longtime anti-war activist who made a film called What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy, The War Against the Third World, which was released in 2000.
It's not really an original documentary since a lot of it is just clips of speeches by Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter, and Amy Goodman.
And there's even a 20-minute section in it that's just clips from a different documentary about the Iran-Contra affair.
It seems like Frank is a mostly level-headed anti-war fellow who seems to think that he's talking to the same sort of person, just like they have a few different political ideas.
What happened there is what I see happen when Alex tries to find this common ground.
What happens is, the common ground is established in that they believe that the problem of militarism is not unique to the left or the right.
And then immediately, Alex will start ranting about some other bizarre talking point that has nothing to do with what's being discussed, like HIV and the corn.
This is a complete curveball, and it's meant to disorient Frank, or at least put him in a sort of defensive posture.
Even in situations where Alex is trying to present agreement with somebody who's ostensibly on the left, he still needs to assert dominance.
And honestly, it comes off really weak and confusing.
So there's one thing that you can do generally, and it's...
It's not quite, I don't know if it quite applies to the Ba 'ath Party narrative, but in terms of Saddam, if you look at the way Alex is discussing the situation here, he's laid a perfect track in front of him where, like, no matter what happens, he can try and pretend he's right.
Yeah, I think the only one that you really probably couldn't fuck with just yet is that Saddam actually died in 1994 and it's been one of his devils the whole time.
It's about how there's death camps being announced in America, which is not the case.
This is going back to a headline that we talked about on a previous episode where there was discussion about the possibility of military tribunals that would lead to execution of prisoners in places like Guantanamo.
And Alex is relating that and turning it into a thing where it's like, well...
For those who don't know what the Liberty Resolution is, some cities have passed minor parts of it, hundreds of others have passed other resolutions reaffirming the Bill of Rights.
It's nice that we've always been hated by monsters, but what's especially nice to know is that they're also very, very lazy and just say the same things for years.
This is a person named Jan Furman, who's a Belgian lawyer.
And I don't know.
I think I'm more or less okay with Jan, too.
Like, he seems alright.
Might have a little bit of a...
It's hard to tell if there is a politeness or an inclination towards conspiracy.
In him.
It's kind of tough to tell, and I couldn't quite read it.
I couldn't quite read exactly how the dynamic was.
But, you know, you have this person who's a lawyer in Belgium who's part of bringing these charges against U.S. military forces who have shot at civilians in a Belgian court in order to try and get these things addressed.
Then you have the anti-war activist guy who made a documentary that's just a bunch of clips of things.
I don't totally hate him.
The lady from the Akron school board I think is wrong and I think the issue is meaningless.
But we talked about this a little bit because I mentioned on a previous episode that one of the people who was going to be a witness in this case in Belgium was on the show.
And so now this lawyer is on.
Talk about that.
So here's a little clip of that.
unidentified
We filed a complaint on behalf of 17 Iraqis and two Jordanians, as you probably know.
Through recent amendment of the law, the Belgian government has the possibility now to decide to pass over the file to the U.S., which they say they intend to do, but there's no formal decision yet.
And, of course, we will fight that decision because...
It's very clear that Iraqi civilian victims cannot get a fair trial before a U.S. military court that would have to go into war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq, and more especially by the supreme command of those troops.
So this is all good and well, and I fully support Iraqi civilians having their day in court and being given a voice.
I just have a bit of a problem accepting that Alex can credibly have this conversation, because I'm not sure what his solution could possibly be.
This gentleman is pretty clearly expressing the problem with expecting countries to hold themselves responsible for the atrocities that they commit, particularly during wartime.
How could these Iraqi civilians ever get a fair hearing in a US military tribunal?
This is where having international bodies can really shine.
But Alex's worldview is diametrically opposed to any kind of infringement on the sovereignty of the United States.
While preserving a hardline version of state sovereignty, there's absolutely no safeguard against a state acting however they want, provided they have the might to back up those actions.
Like, Alex can say, like, well, we just shouldn't.
Or there are other options, but I'm sure something like the majority report would talk to a person who has this kind of position or had it existed at the time.
They wouldn't be talking about Bill Clinton becoming the Secretary General of the UN and then becoming President again, and if you go on Napster, you're gonna get executed or have life in a fucking hard labor camp.
to see this as a worthwhile, even the things that are valid, they're a worthwhile use of time because I guess if you're the sort of person who thinks that you're going to be killed for using Napster, then...
I don't know what you can bring to the conversation about this Belgian case.
Yeah, he only likes more extreme gun organizations in 2003.
And other than that, I'm like, I don't know, maybe it's personal?
It has to be something personal between the person who runs that site and Alex, or it's about his support of the NRA, whereas Alex prefers gun owners of America and Jews for the preservation of firearm rights.
They could have gotten into an argument about that.
And then it spiraled out of control.
I can't imagine why.
I mean, you would need some sort of anger-addicted, some sort of man who can't control his impulses to elevate an argument about the NRA into a friendship-ending nightmare, right?
Hey, in an hour set, usually you can only take about 20 minutes off in the middle, but if you're doing InfoWars, you can take about two hour and 45 off.
We don't get involved in mindless garbage or conspiracy theories.
We analyze the globalists, their own policy reports, what they're doing, expose the left-right paradigm.
Because if you only expose one side of their system, one rail that this train rolls on, you only help the globalists.
Gold reaches 15-week high as dollar slips.
Financial times, gold...
Revelled in the misfortune of the dollar yesterday, reaching 374.40 per troy ounce, its highest in 15 weeks.
The precious metal has benefited from its inverse relationship with the dollar, whose appreciation has set prices up by $55 since the start of April.
Some animals believe gold is set to rise further, driven not by the dollar's weakness, but by demand from Asia, following a plan by Chinese government to allow individuals to trade gold.
Gold is coming to its own, and we are trying to see it going up faster this time.
When it was 320, it was a buying opportunity, but now demand is coming from Asia, said Ian Williams at Der Launcher.
And it goes on and on.
There will be a massive increase in demand as China is allowing its citizens to invest in gold, which means recycling the trade surplus, keeping upward pressure off their currency.
So what happens is they're dumping fiat dollars and buying gold.
The commies tell their people to do it, but not here.
That's a commercial in 2003 that gets you a little pat on the head from Ted Anderson, and Bob Chapman's ears start to get a little bit hot, and they're like, oh, I might have a job soon!
So, like, if you are Alex and you're talking about how everybody should be in gold and you have people who are listening to the show, they will hear the commercials for Genesis Communications and put two and two together.
It's as good as a commercial for Midas at the end of this.
I understand that, but if you are Bill Clinton and you're giving a speech at the John F. Kennedy Library, a notably young president, Sure, sure.
And maybe you do actually have a sincere belief that organizing the political system could be done better if someone were able to come back to office later.
Why should you have to not say that just because conspiracy theorists will be weird about it?