Jim Fetzer on Alex Jones - Today - 10-19-2006


Supposed to be on at 1:30 Central.

Live Streams.

If you tuned in fast enough

If you tuned in fast enough you would have been treated to Alex Jones doing his best Cookie Monsters impression (not bad actually) singing a song about water filters... lmao

on another note

there is a great website about
war in Iraq with daily updates and current
statistics on the number of dead and injured
go to

thats obviously going in my

thats obviously going in my next installment of funny alex quotes. thanks for the heads up.

Fetzer gone from RBN

If you listened to John Stadtmiller today, you heard his pernicious screed and dismissal of Fetzer, who had hosted for him yesterday. Fetzer is not a Libertarian, basically, so he's gone??!! John didn't like some of what he said yesterday, as "liberal". But wouldn't that include Tarpley and Abrahamson, who have their shows? Are they being advised now never to say the word "liberal" or "progressive" or to watch their mouths in some other way?

I hope a lot of people are joining me in seeing the stupidity of this, and I for one have deleted RBN from my bookmarks. I don't think Fetzer is the most amiable guy in the world, but bless him for his commitment to this issue.

I guess according to Stadtmiller...

....you can't be a liberal (believe that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid fill a role in our country that the market doesn't solve) and believe in 9/11 Truth and be on his network.

I'll bet roughly half the country supports those programs (even if they could stand reform).

Blatant censorship to fit his biases.

The real low in his diatribe was the gratuitous smear of Hillary and Eleanor Roosevelt as being "lezzies". Not to mention calling Fetzer a "Marxist" for being a self-admitted "liberal". (Is every "conservative" a fascist?)

Truthers, with friends like this, who needs enemies...

It was really gratifying to hear Fetzer on Alex Jones yesterday, giving his valuable insights.

You're Confusing the Word "Liberal" with its Opposite: Socialist

altruist , the only money government has to give is what it had already taken, minus most of it as a handling fee. Government cannot create wealth, it can only destroy it. Government can only make society as a whole poorer, while making the government-connected insider elites richer through extortion, theft, and grants of monopoly and other priviledge.

Nor is there anything altruistic about "charity" via the barrel of a gun.

The terms "left" and "right" in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General (États-Généraux) met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., "laissez-faire"), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government's power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII from October 27, 1614 to February 23, 1615.)

Also, "liberal" originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) "libertarian," i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

The term "liberal" as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the opposite of what it originally meant, as those commonly called "liberals" today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called "liberals" today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.

Of course, this change in the meaning of liberalism (such that today it means the opposite of what it originally meant) was by no accident. Authentic liberalism represents the only genuine threat to statism (i.e., right-wing conservatism, in the original sense of the term), and due to liberalism's triumphs in gaining the intellectual high-ground during the 19th century, it was necessary for the ruling elite to subvert the liberal agenda if they were to survive. The ruling elite did this by sabotaging the very meaning of the terms "liberalism" and "left-wing"--such that these terms now popularly mean the opposite of what they once did--via bankrolling and promoting self-termed "liberal" court intellectuals who in fact promote the right-wing, conservative agenda, i.e., statism, i.e., collectivism. Thus, in doing this, the ruling elite succeeded in changing the meaning of their oppositional philosophy to a philosophy that supports their empowerment! That is, the ruling elite created another branch of right-wing conservatism, nowadays called by the misnomer "liberalism," so also by the names of socialism and communism.

For the history on how the "capitalist" (i.e., mercantilist) elite in the West bankrolled Communism, see the below two scholarly and voluminously-documented works:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Prof. Antony C. Sutton (1974):


The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Prof. Antony C. Sutton (1986):



See the below work on how the U.S. ruling elite funded National Socialism in Germany, even illegally during war-time:

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Prof. Antony C. Sutton (1976):



See also the below post by me:

"Recommended Reading Concerning Political and Economic Theory," September 30, 2005:


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken


Alex Jones will be the guest on tonight's False Flag News Radio on www.RBNLive.com @ 9PM EST

Truth is a powerful weapon

pocket veto

In case anyone is following the story of the possibility of a pocket veto on the torture bill... one thing to keep in mind is that the 10 days supposedly doesn't start until the bill is actually presented to Bush, not when congress actually adjourns. At least that's the argument I've seen used in the past in similar situations. (No idea whether that's right or not... it sounds weak to me.)

And who knows when the bill was actually presented to Bush? I couldn't find that information. All I know is the bill was passed 9/29 and signed 10/17.

Oh, and the bill does clearly apply to alien unlawful enemy combatants. I've searched through the entire text of the legislation and the word "alien" appears in all the necessary places. Where that word does not appear, the legislation clearly refers to other sections which clearly stress the word "alien". Alex isn't reading the bill right. Or he is reading one of the earlier versions of the bill.

I'm not saying I support the legislation... but it isn't as bad as Alex says. Our congresscritters are stupid, but cmon they aren't THAT stupid.

U.S. Citizens Can Be Declared "Enemy Combatants"

Iconoclast421, S. 3930, i.e., the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," never states that U.S. citizens cannot be declared "unlawful enemy combatants." Indeed, the definition this Bill gives for "unlawful enemy combatants" very much applies to U.S. citizens. What it does state is that there are certain rules which apply to "aliens," which it defines as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States."

S. 3930:


Under Section 948a. Definitions, below is the entirety of the definiton of an "unlawful enemy combatant" as used in S. 3930:

In this chapter:

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--(A) The term "unlawful enemy combatant" means--

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Notice that no "alien" requirement is placed on one to become an "unlawful enemy combatant." Indeed, the word "alien" is never mentioned in the entirety of S. 3930's definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant."

So the above definition very much applies to U.S. citizens.

S. 3930 then goes on to state the following:

Section 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

But nowhere does S. 3930 state that U.S. citizens cannot become subject to "military commissions," while it clearly includes U.S. citizens under its definition of "unlawful enemy combatant."

In the below post by me, I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them--including homosexually anally raping them--and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government.

"Crushing Children's Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom," August 12, 2006:


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."--H. L. Mencken

‘‘§ 948b. Military

‘‘§ 948b. Military commissions generally
‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.


‘‘§ 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
‘‘Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by
military commission under this chapter.


‘‘§ 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION.—A military commission under this chapter
shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this
chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful
enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.


If one wants to argue that the president or anyone else has the right to strip someone's citizenship without due process, that is a completely different argument and has no relation to this legislation. And that's what would have to be done in order for this law to be applied to a us citizen.

Did anyone see how Fetzer is

Did anyone see how Fetzer is now endorsing the racist and Jew bashing provocateurs over at WING-TV? And how Fetzer is now claiming Israel was behind 9-11?

How low can Fetzer sink before people sniff this guy out?

I heard that interview...

He acknowledged their research and gave basic lip service to the fact that Israel is a taboo subject based on how much evidence there is for SOME involvement, and he's right on that count.

I didn't hear him agree with their nutcase conclusions, which make it sound like Eric Cartman is their executive producer.

At some level Mossad is involved, there was an Israeli warning and there were agents that followed the patsies.

If Iraqis had been caught filming, or with an intelligence operation on America's soil, there would have been something of a stink, let's face it.

These Wing TV guys should be confronted like Kaminski.

check out fetzer's review of

check out fetzer's review of thorn's book, on the wingtv website. i'd link to it.. but uhhh it might not be a bad thing if no one sees it.

Confusing the point of communications

..."Can we talk? Can we Talk? Can We talk...?"

Welcome to the dysfunctional world of talk radio! Stadtmiller, sorry Jack, your guest host won. I have no idea where you are coming from, but, once again I think it's rather obvious Who needs a long vacation!