Today, Dan and Jordan dip back to the past to check in on Alex's roots. In this installment, Alex clarifies his position on the death penalty, gets all worked up about an op-ed, and dreadfully misreports the details of a 1982 bank robbery. Citations
But, you know, I'm not too mad at you, because some of these other ones are alright, and the ones that I don't want to try, like birthday cake, I'm just never going to try.
Normally I would have had it, because I'm a big peanut butter person, but in ice cream terms, my partner, she's allergic to peanuts, so we never have ice cream in the house.
With that type of flavor, so I've never gotten it.
So it's good to know that I can just skip to Lenti's bullshit peanut butter.
I think there might have been cake, but it was never brought out, and all we had...
We're just candles because you would assume they were going to try and do the hundred candles thing, but I think they just quit on that halfway through because there's just a ton of candles around and no cake anywhere.
But there's a couple of things, actually, that get revealed over the course of this episode that are like, man, you've had some really fucked up positions for a pretty long time, and you've just done a pretty good job of obscuring some of them, let's say.
So we start off here on August 4th, and Alex is talking about a...
What do you know?
A gun bill.
No!
Certainly, this is going to be one of the most serious situations ever.
I'm going to cover something that I went over several years ago.
I covered this three years ago on air during the election, and I informed the listeners that I would not be voting for Al Gore, that I would not be voting for George W. Bush, because they are carbon copies of each other.
When it comes to their actions, not their rhetoric.
And people had trouble believing the policy of Bush that he would reauthorize the assault weapons ban and expand it.
He told you what he was going to do to you.
And I had a lot of callers who denied it at the time as I would read excerpts of Lord Bush's speeches here on the air.
Well...
I have the NRA fact sheet here, and it's nraila.org.
That's the NRA Legislative Alert website.
And its most sweeping gun ban ever introduced in Congress, Clinton gun ban, reenactment ban, bans millions more, and right here, bans all, that's their quote, all semi-automatic shotguns.
They even have a link to the subsection.
Banning, I mean, shotguns that hold two rounds, folks.
Everything.
We're talking everything.
And I try to explain this to people, and I have been shouted down on radio shows by people that call in and say, I'm a liar.
So just keep living in your fruitcake land.
This bill has a very good chance of passing.
And I'm sick and tired of the total denial by you people.
I mean, it makes me sick.
And I'm not talking about our general listeners, but...
The types that are driving along in their cars, listening to this show for the first time.
So this bill that Alex is talking about, this gun bill...
It did not pass, as has been the case with literally any proposed gun bill that's come up that Alex has insisted is about to pass and would lead to door-to-door confiscations of everything all the way up to a child's pop gun.
One of the great consistent trends you notice when you go back and listen to Infowars from the past is that every proposed gun bill is apocalyptic, and all of them are set to be passed any day now.
It's ridiculous as an act, and it's weird that it never gets old for the listeners.
Bush never did any of the stuff Alex is claiming he was going to.
He let the Clinton assault weapons ban lapse.
He didn't champion any other gun legislation.
But it does kind of make sense for Alex to think that he might, primarily because he's clearly just getting talking points from the NRA's press releases.
And in the interest of total fairness, as recently as May 2003, the White House had commented that Bush supported extending the 1994 gun bill.
The thing is that in the real world, Bush can't just do that on his own.
It would need to be passed by Congress.
Alex subscribes to a very narrow, strongman theory about the world, and thus, because Bush said he's in favor of one thing, it must be the case that it's going to come to pass.
After the 2002 midterms, there was a 51-49 Republican majority in the Senate and a 229-204 Republican majority in the House.
It was safe for Bush to signal support to the idea of gun control in order to sway independents to the right while being entirely comfortable that no gun bill had any chance of making it through either House of Congress.
It's the governmental equivalent of having your cake and eating it, too, basically.
An element of that strategy was probably informed by the fact that he was running against John McCain, who had a far more outsider character than Bush and appealed to a ton more voters that were closer to the center.
There was no way Bush could win the election just off the support of the fringe right, so he tempered his conservatism as a strategy.
One might argue that he had some actual inclination toward reforming gun laws, but that seems like bullshit to me.
The NRA loudly endorsed Bush in 2004, and they actually strategically withheld their endorsement of him in the 2000 election, because according to the New York Times, Yeah.
it on the surface, they also, the NRA had a vice president who said that if Bush got elected, quote, we'll have a president where we work out of their office.
Yeah.
This notion is a load of bullshit, but Alex is taking at face value some basically political maneuvering that Bush is doing in terms of placing himself in a place where independent voters could be drawn towards him and there's no actual consequence.
And by rallying the, like, really far right in a certain direction, you kind of make sure that the status quo remains the same and that gun bill never makes it to your desk that you never have to sign.
Almost identical record and then walk around talking about how conservative you are to really be conservative.
If you're actually pro-gun or pro-sovereignty or against open borders, that is very, very bad.
And we're in the very, very bad camp here on this show.
And, you know, I'm learning how to be a good neocon here and I'm apologizing that I actually don't want to turn my shotguns in.
The most sweeping gun ban ever introduced in Congress, Clinton gun ban, reenactment ban, millions more guns.
H.R. 2038 introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy, does not just reenact or reauthorize the 94 Clinton ban, but the so-called assault and ban law.
It bans millions more guns, and it begins the backdoor registration of guns.
At the point Alex is on air pretending he's covering a news story about a bill that's a real threat to gun ownership, he should have every reason to know that this is a dead bill already.
This isn't news or analysis, it's manufacturing a threat to scare your audience into thinking someone's on their way to take your guns, relying entirely on, I guess, a press release from the NRA.
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I look back and...
I wasn't even in a really conservative family, but I would listen to conservative talk radio a lot, and with the passive nature of listening to it, yeah.
He was replaced by Condoleezza Rice, who Alex hasn't mentioned up till this point, and I don't know if he thinks she's a Trotskyite.
Also, it's weird to imagine that Alex's listeners are the kind of people who could be so sensitive to covert racism and simultaneously unaware of what black ops are to the point where he could sincerely think anyone would send him an email about that.
Someone possibly should send him an email about his obsession with the mysterious secret Trotskyites and how that sounds suspiciously anti-Semitic, though.
So I've got to watch it here that I don't commit thought crimes on the air.
I've got to be very careful in this politically correct world.
I could be arrested for what I just said.
Talking about Colin Powell involved in secret government budget programs here.
We'll say it like that.
I was talking about, well, like I was last week when Mr. Poindexter, the convicted felon, the old white guy, I said was involved in big black ops and black budgets.
I can say that about Poindexter, but I better be careful about saying Olin Powell is involved in black budget ops because there's no pun intended.
Okay, but that's the insanity of the thought police in America today.
He's getting mad about imaginary people having a completely absurd response to something he's saying and portraying himself as the victim of these imaginary people.
The goal here is for Alex to take a completely obvious example of something that isn't racist, but includes a trigger word that he can pretend someone will call him racist for saying, in this case, black.
He pretends that people will say he's racist for saying things like black ops, so if a listener hears someone accuse Alex of saying something racist, their immediate response will be like, oh, sure.
unidentified
Like how he said, everybody said he was a racist because he used the word black ops?
I mean, it really is exactly like how they think vaccinations work, where it's like, okay, I'll take a little bit of inert false racism and kind of make you immune to that.
And so then whenever the real racism hits, you're like, I'm already prepared!
Yeah, but I think it's more for them to be able to withstand criticism from their friends and family, who might be like, hey, That stuff you're listening to is pretty fucked up.
But jumping back into the news, thinking outside the U.S., and it's a lengthy Washington Post article that happily announces that our Supreme Court now is getting its walking orders from the European Criminal Court.
It would be less than a page of text but it might appear longer because Alex just prints out websites and the formatting there could make it look larger and longer.
He hasn't read it, so he has no idea how long it is or what it's even about.
This is an op-ed about how Supreme Court justices have appealed to legal ideas from other countries or legal bodies in their decisions, notably about, you know, one of the things they bring up is the recent case Lawrence v.
Texas, which invalidated sodomy laws in the country and made same-sex relationships legal across the board.
That happened in 2003, and if Alex and his buddies have their way...
Anyway, Justice Kennedy's opinion included a point that, quote, the court's past approval of sodomy bans was out of step with the law in other Western democracies and made mention of the European Court of Human Rights.
This is not the same as the Supreme Court being told what to do by other international bodies, but it's a fascinating and really depressing thing to think about.
This op-ed makes the point that traditionally the United States has seen itself as the innovator in the world in terms of freedom and human rights, but that the country, quote, now has much to learn from the rapidly developing constitutional traditions of other democracies.
Conservative legal scholars are largely opposed to even citing international opinion in terms of the Supreme Court, but it's important to recognize that this isn't the first time it's happened, nor is it really that groundbreaking.
Conservatives like Alex hate it, though.
Legal experts in this article aren't thrilled with the thing.
When the court starts taking things like that into account, it reveals itself as more interested in making policy than interpreting the fixed text of the Constitution or statutes.
That was a quote from John Yoo, the guy who worked in Bush's Attorney General's office, who's most remembered for his memos that he wrote, justifying torture in the war on terror.
In 2003 or even in the present day, I think he still doesn't know.
He's legitimately trying to pretend that this op-ed in the Washington Post is announcing that the Supreme Court is under the control of international bodies.
That's one of his top stories and this is his only source.
And the presentation that he's trying to make is that this is announcing that our courts are under the control of the European courts of human rights and what have you.
But because he keeps reading, he gets to the point where they talk about how a bunch of people aren't into this.
50, 60 articles here in front of me, and here's just one of them.
And it's out of the Washington Post, and they admit that the court...
He is following the edicts of several European courts and several global courts that have been set up, and at the end of the article they say, oh, well, it's because the justices travel more than they used to, and every summer they all go visit with their friends in Europe.
Yeah, folks, the chief justice and others have gone to Bilderberg Group meetings, and they're getting their walking orders, and...
The article that I'm reading from, and I wish I had a computer screen up on it because I printed it in the non-printer-friendly version.
It's hard to read here.
But it says, conservative legal scholars who regard the court's use of international legal sources as an intellectually amorphous endeavor that would subject citizens to the decisions of foreign legal institutions.
When the court starts taking these into account, It reveals itself as more interested in making policy than interpreting the Constitution of the statutes, said John C. Yu, a former Bush administration advisor in international law who teaches law at the University of California at Berkeley.
And it goes on to say, citing his words from the court's provision, the previous death penalty case, they wrote that they must never forget that it was the Constitution of the United States of America.
That we are expounding on where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people or of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this country may think they can be.
They cannot oppose that upon the American people through the Constitution.
See how they calmly report and calmly announce in the Washington Post and USA Today and all their legal speak that, oh yeah, we're changing our jurisprudence.
And that stuff where he's like, and then it's a bunch of hyperbole and they say it's about globalism and taking our sovereignty, that's not in the fucking article.
It's legitimately unthinkable to me that someone could get away with being this transparently bad and doing what they're pretending to do and people just are like, yeah.
It is absurd to live in a world with the internet and then think that the Supreme Court is just going to never look out at other legal scholars anywhere else.
That's a really illuminating clip, because it shows clearly how Alex's position on the death penalty isn't based on any moral principle.
It's only really the objection that he has is that he doesn't trust the government with producing evidence.
It's not a moral objection.
It's strictly logistical, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
And it makes me think that Alex hasn't thought through this position very much.
For him, it should be a primary concern whether or not the state has the ability to take a person's life for committing a crime.
Yeah.
unidentified
Why would you want to vest that kind of power in the hands of the very thing you consider your sworn enemy and you think has been taken over by globalists?
So the story of the German bank robbers is being a little bit misreported by Alex here.
This is about brothers Walter and Carl LeGrand, who were executed by the state of Arizona in 1999 for a bank robbery that went wrong back in 1982.
They weren't illegal immigrants, the way Alex is trying to present the situation.
They were born in Germany, but their mother had fled to the United States when one brother was four and the other was five.
They'd essentially lived here their whole lives, but they'd never become U.S. citizens.
The brothers were robbers by trade, and the bank robbery had happened just after they'd been released from prison for robbing a string of supermarkets in Tucson the year before.
They were trying to rob the Valley National Bank in Marana, Arizona, and Alex has almost all of the details of this crime wrong.
They showed up before the bank opened, and there were no customers there.
They didn't shoot anyone because the gun they had was a toy gun.
They did murder the bank manager when he couldn't open the safe because he only had half of the combination, but they did that by stabbing him 24 times with a letter opener.
They attempted to kill the other person who was in the bank at the time, too, who was an employee named Dawn Lopez, but they only managed to stab her a few times, which proved to be not lethal, but bad.
The police didn't surround the bank, and then the brothers gave up.
Another employee showed up and thought that they saw something suspicious going on inside, so this other employee, she wrote down the license plate numbers of cars outside.
When the Legrands left and the police showed up, she gave them the plate numbers and the cops tracked the brothers down that way.
Alex has basically taken a real-life case and transposed all of the elements of bank robbery movies onto it.
And that's what he's accepted as truth of what happened.
Anyway, this case is actually really, really interesting, and the way it played out in the courts is something that's worth talking about, and it intersects with Alex's ideology.
They gave him the death penalty, and the court was about to hear the case.
Well, the Supreme Court, well, the state went ahead and executed him.
Because the Supreme Court didn't agree to hear the case first off.
Well, Ginsburg then said, oh, this is horrible.
In the future, we will follow the edicts of the International Criminal Court and the World Court of Human Rights and all these other kangaroo institutions that have been set up.
On the day that Walter Legrand was set to be executed, Germany filed with the International Court of Justice, seeking a provisional court order so the U.S. would pause the execution.
The ICJ did give this provisional order.
From there, the Supreme Court decided that they didn't have any jurisdiction to hear this provisional order, since it was the state of Arizona that was carrying out the execution, and the federal courts can't hear lawsuits brought by another country against a state.
Right.
unidentified
A bunch of arguments flew around about whether or not executing the men would violate the Vienna Convention.
But ultimately, all of the U.S. parties seem to take the position that international law wasn't legally binding and that the actions that were being taken weren't actually violations of this convention.
Then, in 2001, the ICJ ruled that the U.S. had violated rules about consular relations because the LeGrand brothers were never told by Arizona law enforcement that, as German nationals, they had the right to contact the German consulate for help.
And then we get a little bit of a cameo by a very special animal.
unidentified
Well, I tell you, until this happens, I'm going to continue going to website, or rather going to chat rooms, and pasting Infowars and Prison Planet and handing out your website to people who I meet in work.
But, you know, I guess that's really all we can do.
Yeah, and I think the reason is because Alex does all that stuff about how, like, hey, my movies have a 90% success rate in waking people up.
They must think, like, well, the wider we get this message, the more people will wake up, as opposed to the more people will give Alex ratings and buy his dumb shit.
So Alex gets another call from a guy who is anti-NRA now.
unidentified
It's nice to know that these guys were for us, but now it's like, eh, we'll hang you out to dry like a piece of dirty laundry.
I mean, I love America now.
I mean, there's better groups out there who are willing to fight for our gun rights, and you're one of them who's greater than all of us, who's showing us what's going on, and a lot of people are really blind to what's going on, too.
This caller really illustrates how helpless Alex has made his listeners.
Everything Alex has covered so far on this episode is completely fake and based on nothing.
His whole riff about the courts being told what to do by foreign international legal bodies is a load of shit based on him making things up about an op-ed that he didn't read.
The entire fear about gun confiscation is based on a bill that's languishing in committee for the last three months with no actions taken.
He's done nothing but misinform, and yet this caller experiences what It's really a testament to the power of branding.
What's really remarkable, though, is that this caller is saying that Alex is a hero in informing the people about threats to their gun rights and that the NRA is not a good organization for gun defense.
But, if you've been paying attention, the source Alex is basing his entire coverage of Bush intending to re-up the assault weapons ban, he's basing it on a legislative action press release put out by the NRA.
He's relying on them for talking points, and yet he and his callers are pretending like they're not doing anything to support gun rights.
Yeah, it is interesting to me, and also intensely disappointing and horrific, but it does feel like all of the buttons that they've been pushing for, like...
The past 50 years.
All of the conservative buttons that get people to do things that, like, okay, so not only do we just want people to support us, we want certain people that do support us to vocally say that they don't support us.
And all of these buttons can be pressed, and the only thing that's different is just they press them a lot harder now.
If you believe this caller, he ran into somebody who a year prior he had gotten into InfoWars-type material, and the guy was like, I had to go to therapy.
And then this is like, oh, no.
It's a sign of weakness that this guy ended up...
Mm-hmm.
Because probably, you know, this is indicative of somebody who got into this and it just went down a terrible rabbit hole.
interpretation that's being given here that is the depressing part yeah that is the people who left the cult and they're they're like oh i can't believe those apostates how could they do that how could they go get therapy and live well-developed lives yeah Yeah.
And I mean, like, on a real level, the damage that this is also doing is encouraging people who are listening to experience any instinct to veer away from InfoWars as that.
When you're in a Nazi Germany or a Stalinist Russia or a Caesar's Rome or a Fidel Castro's Cuba, you don't have armed citizens.
You have an armed government.
With a monopoly of force.
And I'm able to deprogram leftists by explaining this to them.
I go, would an American Indian be allowed to have a rifle?
Or should, while they're being oppressed and killed, should they have their gun taken?
And they'll go, oh, of course not.
Well, now you get it.
So shut up!
And look at the facts and then speak out once you know the reality that swimming pools and cars kill far more people than guns do and you've been manipulated by the corporate media.
If they get our guns, you people, it's all over for everybody.
All right, I'm going to break.
We'll come back and go to the calls.
Before I go any further, I want everybody, because this is a great sponsor and they do a wonderful job.
And they've got amazing prices and wonderful products, and I recommend them highly to call Herbal Healer Academy and get their free catalog.
I don't know how many pages long this is.
It's got every medicinal thing.
I mean, every page has got like 30, 40 items on it.
It's 121 pages long.
It's a color booklet, color cover booklet, multicolor on the inside.
Things that will help you.
Just so much.
I can't describe everything they do.
Just go to HerbalHealer.com or go to Infowars.com.
And I think if that were the case, I think things would be a little bit different.
And also, if there were just like common sense type gun reforms that were going around in the time of the colonists, then I don't think it would have been a problem.
And also, let's not forget that the Trail of Tears and Indian Removal Act were championed by Andrew Jackson, someone who Alex thinks is one of the only good presidents in U.S. history.
So I don't really care too much about whatever sort of bizarre argument he's trying to make.
He is a Vietnam veteran himself, a guy who's fought the New World Order tooth and nail right here on this network.
Pastor Butch, what's going on?
unidentified
Well, sir, I don't want to interrupt your program.
You're having a good program, but I just got home a few minutes ago from working a job, as you know.
And I had to pass this on in case you didn't know, but you probably already do, and the listeners may not, that they now are extracting DNA from your fingerprints.
And those fingerprints can be up to a year old.
So when you give your fingerprints for your driver's license, they have your DNA if they want it.
Well, I've got a sneaking suspicion that if it was in United Press International Science, my wife has probably already posted it on InfoWars.com.
But, hey, you heard about New York?
They're going to have the homosexual high schools.
Oh, absolutely.
unidentified
Of course, as you know, as I talked to you already, the Christian schools in Texas, especially with Pastor Jake Wade, have to shut down because they're not licensed.
But we can fund a public perverted school, of course, yes.
That's a real strange thing for somebody to call in and be like, Alex, did you know that a horde of Pegasus are flying over the country to start murdering all of us?
I checked out his website, though, and in the coming week, one of his guests is Coach Dave Dobbenmeier, the complete lunatic that we've covered a couple times.
More bizarrely, though, in the last week, he had Larry Pratt on as a guest, the guy from Gun Owners of America.
That's only weird because I haven't seen Larry Pratt on Alex's show in a bit.
It feels like he's not on Alex's gun shit-talking Rolodex, and I suspect that it's because Ted Nugent's there for that, and Alex is nothing if not a star fucker.
I want to take calls, but I can't because I've got to get to the news, but also here's some plugs, and then we'll do some news, and then I'll get to some calls.
Continuing, months before movie on death of Jesus causes stir, I'm going to try to get Hutton Gibson or maybe even Mel Gibson on the show because, I mean, all it does is show what the Bible says happened.
The corrupt Pharisees had Jesus killed.
And the Jewish groups are saying that is anti-Semitic.
So this wasn't the criticism the Jewish groups had.
And the criticism wasn't just coming from Jewish groups.
There were a whole lot of anti-Semitic tropes that at least were nodded towards in that movie.
And there's just a foundational problem of trying to make one story out of the four Gospels that many people have suggested Mel Gibson should just not have tried to do that.
Also, Hutton Gibson is a Holocaust denier and has claimed that the Second Vatican Council, the one where it was decreed that the Jews were not responsible for Jesus' death, was a secret plot orchestrated by the Masons and the Jews.
In 2010, Winona Ryder told a story about meeting Mel Gibson.
Jewish people came up in conversation, and he asked her, quote, You're not an oven dodger, are you?
This language, and worse, was reported to have been used regularly by Mel Gibson, reported by Joe Esterhaus, a screenwriter who was working with Gibson on a film that never got made.
He also said that Gibson called the Holocaust, quote, mostly a lot of horseshit.
And, of course, in 2006, he yelled about how Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world when he got pulled over for a DUI.
Gay product placement show draws high ratings, and they admit that it's actually being funded.
The sitcoms and dramas are being funded by groups to push homosexuality.
Yeah, the government pushes anti-gun messages.
A lot of this is paid for, and here's a positive promotion out of one of the big advertisement agency websites bragging about this.
Major marketers or ongoing placement deals on the breakout hit Queer Eye for the straight guy, even as NBC plots an August 14th special in which the show's gay fashion team...
We'll make over Jay Leno.
See, it's paid for, folks.
When you watch that sitcom and it seems like they've got this agenda, yeah, it's paid for when you see them say anti-gun comments or anti-American comments.
Yeah, you remember how, like, right when the invasion of Ukraine started and Alex was saying that false flag attacks and hack attacks and, you know, the power grids going down and everything were about to happen so they could blame it on Putin?