All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:14:16
20120223_Thu_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to InfoWars Nightly News on this February 23rd edition.
With me, your host, Paul Joseph Watson.
And now to the news top story tonight.
Pasteurized milk 150 times more contaminated with blood, pus and feces than fresh milk.
This is from Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com.
The vaccine-pushing, disease-scaremongering agency known as the CDC has put out a stunning piece of propaganda attacking fresh milk, that is raw milk, claiming it's quote, 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized milk.
This is all part of their anti-American agenda to crush food freedom and criminalize fundamental farming practices upon which this very nation was founded.
What the CDC won't dare to reveal to the public is the far more horrifying truth.
Pasteurized dairy is produced in the dirtiest milk factories imaginable, where blood, pus, E. coli, and other truly dangerous pathogens are routinely bottled into milk containers and fed to consumers.
That's the whole point of pasteurization, you see, to kill everything that might be alive in their ultra-dirty milk.
The real purpose of pasteurization is not to simply, quote, make milk safe, as is claimed by the CDC, but rather to allow the dairy industry to operate dirty.
It's so much easier to just cook the crap out of milk, yes, there's fecal matter in it, than to clean up their operations, get it?
And so the Feds are up to their old tricks again with this demonization hit piece.
From the same CDC that told Americans to rush out and get their swine flu vaccines, when of course the side effects from the vaccines actually turned out to be a bigger threat than the hyped, manufactured swine flu pandemic itself.
Um, again, which was completely blown out of all proportion by, you guessed it, the CDC, who were tied at the hip with the pharmaceutical companies that made vast amounts of money out of it.
And of course, as Mike documents in his article, um, whereas farms that pasteurize their milk, which is the process of boiling it to get rid of all the bacteria, which includes all the good bacteria,
They're some of the dirtiest places imaginable, because the raw milk farms, where milk is not boiled to get all the crap and pus and blood and feces out of it, they're subject to so much regulation by the government, because in many countries raw milk is banned, in some US states it's banned, that they have to have far higher standards of hygiene to create raw unpasteurized milk.
So they're actually on average a lot cleaner than the pasteurized milk dairy farms which of course is documented in his article not to mention all the videos of torturing cows and all the other horrible stuff that goes with it and you know fifty years ago everybody drank Raw milk.
Today the hygiene in those farms is way higher because they're subject to stricter standards and regulations.
And this is again one example of which you can reclaim your food freedom.
Stand up to the very machine whose existence relies on pushing sickness and disease.
So they can keep their partners in the pharmaceutical industry, you know, keep that slush fund going with the partnership with the CDC, which is what they do on a routine basis.
So now, again, they're attacking raw milk because they're afraid of Americans reclaiming their food freedom.
Fed sick IRS attack dog on anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.
The feds are attempting to silence anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan by suing her for what it says are back taxes she owes the government.
In a federal filing in Sacramento, an IRS bureaucrat claimed that Sheehan had refused to provide financial information for the 2000 and 2006, 2005-2006 tax years.
On Tuesday, Cindy wrote on her blog that she learned of the government's case against her when a reporter told her about it at a cafe in Vassaville, California.
She had talked with the reporter on camera but, quote, I did not tell him anything that I haven't been publicly and loudly saying since my son was killed in this bloody empire's illegal and immoral war in Iraq.
I made a moral decision to refuse to fund the Empire's crimes, tortures and wars.
I have not been hiding from anybody and I'm fully accessible and easy to find.
Sheehan writes.
And of course, Sheehan is one of the few prominent leftists who railed against Bush during the height of the Iraq invasion.
and the aftermath, but is still vocal today in her admonition of Barack Obama, the so-called Nobel Peace Laureate, and the IRS, who she categorizes as a state-sponsored terrorist organization.
They left her alone during the Bush years when she Was on the record as publicly withholding taxes as a protest against the wars, but now that the majority of the left has gone to sleep as Obama intensifies the invasions, occupations and drone attacks, only now has the system decided to take on Sheehan.
Presumably acting under the assumption that she won't be able to count on enjoying as much publicity as when she was at the height of her prominence during the Bush years.
And we know that Obama has rapidly expanded the IRS, we know that he's now directing them to go against his political enemies, of which Sheehan has obviously become one, because unlike most leftists, she's remained vocally critical of the war as it continues under Obama in numerous different guises.
Quote, the Feds have thrown down the gauntlet against someone who has absolutely not one ounce of fear of them, and when it's over they'll know they'll have been in a fight, said Sheehan.
Unvaccinated kids banned from Indiana school due to measles outbreak.
Mass hysteria over a measles outbreak in Hamilton County, Indiana has led county health officials to irrationally prohibit all unvaccinated children from attending two public schools.
According to reports, 21 preschool-age students, 7 elementary-age students, and 26 intermediate-age students will not be allowed to attend either White River Elementary School or Noblesville Intermediate School.
The two schools where there have been confirmed cases of measles, unless they either get the combination measles, mumps and rubella, MMR vaccine, which of course has been linked with deaths and side effects and the people who have spoken out against it have been vilified and demonised, or wait until 21 days after the last confirmed case of the disease is remediated.
And so they're basically telling these kids, if you don't get vaccinated, you're not coming back to school again.
It's the hoax of mandatory vaccinations, which is not legal, it's not lawful.
In the collective mind of the state, refusal by some students to get vaccinated somehow represents a threat to the other students, even though those other students have been vaccinated.
Prohibiting unvaccinated students from attending school on the grounds that they will spread the disease further makes no sense.
As those who are vaccinated are said to already have protection against the disease.
So more vaccine school tyranny going on there.
Next story out, the LA Times.
LAPD chief backs driver's license for illegal immigrants.
Wading into a divisive, politically charged debate, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said Wednesday that California should issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
The chief becomes one of the most prominent local figures to support the idea that state lawmakers have battled over repeatedly in the last 15 years.
And Beck's stance is certain to further inflame critics who are already angry at the Chief for his efforts to liberalize rules on how his officers impound the cars of unlicensed drivers.
So, while Obama shuts down all the programs to catch illegal aliens, um, another example of, you know, how American citizens are being treated like absolute scum under the facet of regulation after regulation affecting their every behavior and existence, the illegal aliens are given Drivers licenses even though they've broken the law and they're in the country illegally.
Anyone who engages in, you know, political activism or criticism of the government is being demonized as a terrorist by the DHS, by numerous federal agencies, the FBI.
You know, buy a cup of coffee with cash and you may be a terrorist.
The D.O.D.
characterizes low-level protest as terrorism, so while American citizens who exercise their rights are being demonized as terrorists, illegal aliens are being given a free reign.
What does that tell you about the attitude of the federal government?
Has Ron Paul formed a political alliance with Mitt Romney?
And this is obviously from Infowars.com today.
Big story.
The suggestion that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are in cahoots because Paul is in the frame to become Romney's VP pick has again surfaced following last night's Republican debate in Mesa, Arizona, after which Rick Santorum claimed the two candidates were coordinating attacks against his campaign.
Quote, you have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they've got going together, Santorum told reporters.
Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks.
Santorum's campaign strategist, John Brabender, repeated the charge, stating, quote, clearly there's a tag-team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate.
Clearly there is now an alliance between those two, and you saw that certainly in the debate.
Now, of course, this didn't begin with Rick Santorum.
This is not an invention of Rick Santorum.
This story's been around for a few weeks now, if not a couple of months.
And as far as we can work out, basically what's happened is this.
This has not come from Ron Paul himself.
It's not Ron Paul's doing.
You're never going to see Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney, you know, the ultimate establishment candidate, who of course, as we know, is the elite's pick for the Republican nomination.
If you see, check out some of the links we've posted in this article, it becomes clear that the GOP establishment itself has attempted to some degree of success to infiltrate Ron Paul's campaign and push him towards this alliance with Romney.
And it's mainly because the establishment does not want Ron Paul to go third party.
They don't want him on that Libertarian ticket.
Because it could lead to a Ross Perot situation, which is largely out of their control.
I mean, that's when the establishment gets nervous, is when they're unable to completely be in control of all the political candidates in the race coming down to the final furlong.
So, they're basically pushing either Ron Paul or his son, Senator Rand Paul.
And to be fair, Rand Paul's come out and said he'd be honoured to be Romney's VP.
Jesse Benton, Ron Paul's campaign manager, said words to the same effect.
So they're pushing either Ron Paul or Rand Paul to be Romney's VP.
This is coming from within the Ron Paul campaign, as far as we can work out.
And this is the establishment GOP's attempt to co-opt and control the Ron Paul revolution.
They're terrified that Paul's message could eventually take over the Republican Party.
So they're trying to be proactive and subvert Ron Paul's campaign.
And according to Justin Raimondo, whose article we've got linked up in ours, it's coming from this guy called Traig of Olsen, who is one of these pro-interventionist regime change specialists, National Endowment of Democracy and all that, behind the colour revolutions, who now, bizarrely, given his pro-interventionist foreign policy ideas, is an advisor to the Paul campaign.
So he's the one pushing Paul towards being, you know, having this alliance with Mitt Romney.
Now, on the flip side, you could argue, you know, wouldn't it be fantastic for Ron or Rand Paul to be VP?
That'd be one step away from the Oval Office.
And you can certainly see it from that perspective, especially given the fact, as we've covered, that Ron Paul's basically being cheated out of primary wins and second place finishes in at least three states by the Republican establishment, as we covered yesterday.
But what I know for a fact is this, amongst all this speculation about a Ron Paul-Mitt Romney alliance, most Ron Paul supporters absolutely hate the idea.
And that's going off not just respondents to the article on our website, but the general sentiment across pro-Paul supporter websites.
And you can bet that the establishment media is going to push this story, as they already are, because it certainly works to create divisions within the Ron Paul movement.
But as Republican strategist Jack Berkman predicted last week, which we featured on Infowars.com, he said there would be a Paul on the Republican ticket.
He was talking about a brokered convention.
And so if that does indeed happen as a result of an alliance with Mitt Romney, the ultimate establishment candidate, you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of people are not going to be happy about it and it's going to cause a great degree of controversy amidst the Ron Paul movement.
Now, Lou Rockwell, who of course is close to the Paul campaign, was on the Alex Jones Show earlier today and he had some interesting comments on this subject, so let's hear from him now.
Is it good Instead of just losing and being cheated or whatever, to take a VP run from Mitt Romney and bring all those voters in, defeat Barack Obama, and now have Ron Paul with a bully pulpit.
To be able to at least inject some sanity.
Well, three things come into play.
I don't think Mitt Romney's going to do that, even though this is what the evidence shows being discussed behind the scenes and being offered to Ron Paul if he plays ball and doesn't run third party.
I think they'll betray Ron Paul.
Let me just say, I think this is all a bad idea.
My gut tells me that.
But I know why the Paul campaign is looking at all options.
And they clearly are.
Does that mean Ron Paul is going to go with the bad idea?
No.
But it means some of the people below him who are younger and don't have his wisdom are certainly chomping at the bit at this.
Because they get to go on.
They get to be in the Vice President's office.
If you're Jesse Benton.
If you're Rachel Mills.
If you're these people.
You get to be in the White House.
So what are you going to advise Ron Paul on?
And I know he's wise enough to still take counsel to bounce ideas around.
But they think it's enough of a discussion.
Not Mills, I'll use her as an example.
Benton does, to have said things like this repeatedly about Rand Paul.
And maybe that is a step up.
Maybe Benton's right.
I'm just stating all angles here.
Because I can tell you that's what's going on in their brains.
This isn't, oh my gosh, Ron Paul's bad.
Some people are discussing him running as VP.
When he hasn't done that, it's some of his people have.
When asked, over and over again, was it out of turn?
Is it wrong?
We don't know.
We'll ask Ron Paul next time he's on with us.
You better believe it.
I've put my cards on the table.
Lou, what do you say about what I've said, and what's your gut on this, and what's the inside baseball on this subject, because I haven't been able to get Ron on in the last month or so.
Well, Alex, remember I'm not a spokesman for Ron or for the campaign, so I'm just giving you my own view.
But I think it's all a trick.
It's just another establishment trick to make it look like Ron Paul is a sellout like all the rest of them.
Ron Paul has never sold out.
Ron Paul will never sell out.
And so this has two pieces.
You said to bring down Ron Paul to make him seem like he's just one of the regular criminal bunch.
And the other is to make Ron Paul supporters like Ron Well, if he's willing to consider Ron Paul as a VP, Romney must be a pretty good guy.
Because Romney, exactly like Gingrich and Santorum, even though Romney's a more pleasant person, and I'm sure his wife is a nice person, his kids are nice, and all those kinds of questions, but really he's, as you say, he's a globalist.
He's a big government guy.
He believes in corporatism and fascism and the partnership between big government and big business.
He's a warmonger.
He's an imperialist.
Uh, he's a protectionist, he's a big government guy, big spender, bail out the banks.
I mean, he's bad on virtually everything.
I guess, you know, he was against the bailout of GM.
But my guess is if he were president, he would have done it, and he would have made a lot of money out of it, because that's the kind of guy he is.
He makes a lot of money out of government projects.
So no, I think this is just another trick, and they would never let Ron Paul be vice president.
Ron Paul has a chance, we all hope and pray, to push his way into office by the people putting him there.
However, the idea that the regime would invite him into office is just science fiction.
Document proves DHS is monitoring social media for government criticism.
Infowars.com.
The Homeland Security Training Manual belies claims made by DHS representatives during a congressional hearing last week that the federal agency is only monitoring social media outlets for quote, situational awareness and proves the fact that Big Sis is also tracking online criticism of government including discussion of airport body scanners.
And yet again, The Department of Homeland Security has been caught lying to the American people, would you believe it?
Despite the release that we had a couple of weeks ago now of 300 documents that showed how the federal agency was monitoring Twitter and Facebook for comments critical of government and the operations of the DHS,
We saw its representatives last week go before a congressional hearing and brazenly lie in claiming that the DHS was only interested in monitoring and tracking information about banal things like extreme weather events.
They said that's the only thing they were interested in.
They were interested in situational awareness.
Turns out to be total BS.
To explain it, This document was released as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request to EPIC, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and it's basically a training manual which tells DHS analysts what keywords to search for when they're trawling and monitoring social media networks.
And as I said, during last week's hearing we had Mary Callaghan, this DHS representative, claiming that these keywords they were searching for were restricted to, quote, you know, flood, tornado, and things like that.
That's what they said they were interested in.
But in reality, the manual also directs DHS analysts to search for terms such as, quote, China, cops, hacking, illegal immigrants, Iran, Iraq, marijuana, organized crime, police, pork, and radicals.
Also the words, quote, militia, riot, body scanner and nationalist were also included in the list of keywords that the DHS is tasked with monitoring.
So not only are they tracking criticism of government, which came out in the original 300 document leak, They're even tracking not only other federal agencies, but agencies and organizations outside of the US government, such as the UN and the Red Cross.
And they're also tracking what people are saying about naked body scanners in airports.
So again, their testimony last week has been proven to be a complete lie.
They are tracking government criticism, they are tracking individual trends, including the backlash against airport body scanners, and it all boils down to the effort to create this chilling effect, this atmosphere where people are afraid to express their First Amendment for fear of, you know, some little DHS spy is going to be recording and cataloguing their dissent, which is all the more reason, of course, to
Increase your dissent exponentially, shove it back in their face and proudly assert your right to freedom of speech by engaging in increased vitriolic criticism of the DHS because we certainly know it deserves it.
Coming up now, we're going to throw to this interview with Flight 253 passenger and eyewitness Kurt Haskell.
Of course, he was the eyewitness to the manufactured underwear bomber attack and robbed you traveled to Michigan to get part two of this interview, which focuses on the aftermath of what he witnessed and the government cover-up relating to the underwear bomber incident.
So let's go to that clip now.
An intelligence agency gave Abdul Muttalab an intentionally defective bomb and put him on the plane to stage a fake terrorist attack.
Thank you.
Continuing now with our breaking news coverage, new facts on the table tonight about just how hard the father of the alleged Christmas bomber tried to warn U.S.
intelligence about his son.
One thing I'd like to point out is that the system works.
Mainstream media, anyway, is nothing but a fourth branch of the government.
Whatever the government says, the media reports.
They don't question it.
They just accept whatever the government says as fact.
And I really found that out during this case.
I didn't know anything about that before this, but I would see it firsthand where different reporters would interview me and they would think I had something important to say, only to figure out that their higher-ups would You know, not let them report the story, and then I would talk to them and it wouldn't appear in the press anywhere.
This happened many times with me in the free press.
I did three, four interviews with them, and they would never ever report anything on me.
It got to be just, you know, I'd see the free press reporter at a court hearing, and I'd be like, hey, are you ever going to report anything on me?
No, but I still have all my notes on the case, would be the response, and I'd be like, okay.
You know, we'll talk next time, I guess.
You know, that kind of thing.
Up until they were forced to cover me right before the trial happened, then the media was kind of forced to talk about me because I was named as the only witness for the defense.
So, you know, you will see the media talking about me if you go back to October.
But from, say, January 2010 until October 2011, you'll see basically nothing of me in the mainstream media except for Two Fox News interviews that I did in January 2011, which I was very shocked that they aired.
Fox News local here in Detroit actually did an interview with me outside the courthouse in January 2011.
I had about 10 reporters, or maybe 10 to 20 reporters standing by me, and I said, look, this is what happened.
I know none of you are going to report it.
And I told them the story of what had happened.
I was shocked when Fox News actually did report it on their 5 o'clock news here in Detroit.
And then, not only that, they came to my office the next day to do a follow-up interview, and I actually heard that on the 5 o'clock news.
Was the man known as the Underwear Bomber a pawn in a larger plan by our own government?
We told you about the two local attorneys, both passengers on board that plane on Christmas Day of 2009.
They believe the government was behind the scare in the air.
The U.S.
government gave Mutalab an intentionally defective bomb.
It's a shocking allegation, but Kurt Haskell remembers seeing Abdulmutallab at their gate at the airport in Amsterdam.
He didn't have a passport, but Haskell says a man with an American accent in a tan suit helped him board anyway.
What he said was, first of all, this man needs to get on a flight and he doesn't have a passport.
He's from Sudan.
We do this all the time.
That's a word for word quote.
That was basically the only mainstream media coverage I had from January 2010 through October 2011.
Yeah, you know, I went to a lot of the hearings in the case because I found out early on that The media wasn't reporting what was going on at the trial.
I would go and see things, and then I'd read the newspaper the next day, and the things I read in the paper wouldn't necessarily be the things that I think they should be reporting on or were reporting on.
It was really kind of strange.
I went to a hearing, I think it was in July, of 2011.
That was the hearing to determine whether Anthony Chambers, who by then was appointed standby attorney, Remember, Abdulmutallab fired his initial court-appointed attorneys pretty early on.
Judge Edmonds then gave him a stand-by attorney, Anthony Chambers, who was just kind of a helper, is basically what a stand-by attorney is.
So, this hearing was to decide if Anthony Chambers would have access to all the evidence in the case.
And I listened to the prosecutors argue, and what they said was, We don't think Anthony Chambers should have the evidence in this case, but only Abdulmutallab.
And the reason they gave was, if we give the evidence to Anthony Chambers, third parties can subpoena it and get the evidence to use it to sue us.
Because Anthony Chambers doesn't have the attorney-client privilege, which would shield the giving of the evidence, you know, by any subpoena he would receive, because he's not an attorney on the case, but only a standby attorney.
And I thought that was pretty telling.
You know, it raised red flags with me, number one, why does Abdulmutallab not have a Raylor attorney?
And number two, Why is the government concerned about being sued in this case?
What had they done to get sued?
Maybe put Abdulmutallab on the plane with an intentionally defective bomb?
I don't know, but I thought it was pretty telling.
And Judge Edmonds decided, well, I'm only going to give the evidence to the defendant, Abdulmutallab, and then he'll have to decide what Chambers gets, if anything, from there.
So the government won that hearing, and it was just kind of pretty telling.
To me anyway.
And that didn't get reported in the media as I thought it should either.
No mention of the government being sued or anything like that.
And another hearing I went to was again in, I believe it was mid-2011 or so.
Anthony Chambers of this hearing requested that the trial be delayed.
I think it was set for early October.
So there was maybe three more months until the trial started.
And what Anthony Chambers said was, remember this is maybe a year and a half after the incident.
He said, look, I've just been dumped all this evidence that I consider the most important evidence in the entire case.
And he went and listed it.
I've just been given Abdulmutallab's passport, I've just been given the airport security video, security and audio video, I've just been given the composition of the bomb by the government's so-called experts, and he listed a couple other things too, something about DNA, which I didn't know what exactly he was talking about with that, but I thought it was pretty telling because several of the things he listed
tie exactly into what I've been saying all along, that Abdulmutallab did not have a passport, that he was given a fake bomb, and that he was escorted on the plane without going through security, and that would all tie into that, and the reason I thought it was important was because the government withheld this evidence for almost a year and a half, giving chambers the least amount of time to look at it, the least amount of time to hire experts to testify for the defense, and have them look at it,
Which is a common tactic of lawyers that want to play games in a case.
You hide evidence and you give it at the last possible minute.
Because if you hide it entirely and don't give it to the other side, well then that can change the outcome of the case entirely due to hidden evidence.
But not if you give it at the last minute.
So I thought that was pretty telling.
And again, no report on the media about this or why it's important.
So just another You know another incident I saw in court that didn't really get reported.
Now later on as the trial was getting closer I started going to the jury selection hearings.
How this works is you put a potential juror on the witness stand and each lawyer and the judge gets to ask a certain amount of questions.
Well the questions that were being asked were The same couple repeated over and over again.
And Chambers would say, will you be able to tell the difference whether Abdulmutallab actually possessed a bomb?
Or whether he actually had an explosive device?
And different offshoots of that question.
So I knew what Anthony Chambers' defense in this case was, that Abdulmutallab did not have uh... bomb that could have exploded.
And Judge Edmonds, when she was asking her question, she kept asking this question over and over again.
Do you realize that sometimes the media does not tell the truth?
You know, and questions like that.
So, and it was pretty telling knowing that Judge Edmonds knew, at least what I took from it, that she knew the difference in the truth as compared to what the media had been reporting and that the media had actually been reporting a lie in the story.
So I thought that was pretty telling.
And there was a date set just a few days before the trial for final jury selection.
As my trial was ending, I got a text from my brother indicating that I would be testifying in the Underwear Bomber case that he heard on the radio in Florida.
I was actually shocked, because even though I'd been talking to Anthony Chambers, who indicated if he was appointed full attorney on the case, he would call me.
He was not full attorney on the case, he was still standby, and therefore, Abdulmutallab himself had full decision over the witnesses in the case.
So, I immediately Headed over to the courthouse to see if I could find out what's going on.
And I ran into Anthony Chambers outside the courthouse.
Different courthouse than the one I was at, but only about three blocks, three or four blocks away.
I ran into Anthony Chambers outside and he said earlier that day that Judge Edmonds asked Abdul Mutlaq, who he'd be calling as a witness, and he said the only witness he would be calling would be Attorney Haskell, me.
So again, I was quite shocked at that.
I really wasn't expecting him to call me as a witness.
The trial was then set for just a few days later.
I think this happened on a Thursday and the trial was set for the next Tuesday, I believe.
Lori and I were planning on attending every day of the trial and we went down there on the first day of the trial and the very first matter that was taken up was the prosecutor's request to kick both of us out of the courtroom for the entire trial, which I thought was pretty interesting.
It was a motion to remove Kurt and Lori Haskell from the court or something.
It was titled something like that.
And the prosecutors indicated that I shouldn't be able to see all the witnesses before I testify.
I was set to testify at the end of the case after the prosecution put their case on, so I wouldn't be testifying for about a month is what they estimated.
And Lori wasn't actually listed as a witness at all.
So they argued their case and Anthony Chambers said he didn't care if we were kicked out or not, so he had no response.
But interestingly enough, Judge Edmunds said, I'm not kicking Lori Haskell out.
She's not listed as a witness.
I only have one requirement, and that is that she cannot talk to her husband, Kurt, about anything that goes on in this trial until it's concluded.
Which, again, was going to last over a month, so it would have made for some very interesting times in our household.
Very early on the next day, the case was settled with Abdulmutallab pleading guilty to charges that require a mandatory life sentence, which nobody ever pleads to a mandatory life sentence.
Not only that, he made this long, pre-prepared speech that sounded like it came straight from the Pentagon, if you ask me.
It used language and words that I don't even think he knows what they mean.
They weren't, it wasn't language that I'd been accustomed to hearing from Abdulmutallab during the case, and I thought it was part, at least to me, I think there's some sort of plea deal going on that we don't know about, that required Abdulmutallab to give the speech, plead guilty to all the charges, and, you know, in order for some sort of promise that we don't know about, and nobody knows what that is, but you just don't plead guilty to a mandatory life sentence.
Further, I've known for quite some time that Abdulmutallab has offered some very lenient plea deals, and it's told us by Anthony Chambers, and he turned them all down.
So then I have the question of why would you turn down a lenient plea deal just to plead guilty to charges that require a mandatory life sentence?
and I would really like an answer to that question, but I don't think we'll ever get it.
Well, the sharp-dressed man is important for this reason. the sharp-dressed man is important for this reason.
One, he was the one that I saw get Abdulmutallab or help Abdulmutallab aboard without even having a passport.
Now, who else can do that?
Not only that, he was a man of some authority because he went down the secure hallway and talked to management.
And he said to the girl working at the counter, he's from Sudan, we do this all the time.
Well, you know, who are the we that he's talking about?
Is that CIA?
I don't know.
Who are they that gets people on the plane all the time without a passport?
So you have and then you have the admission from Dutch police that Abdulmutallab didn't even go through passport control.
Therefore, he didn't go through security there at all.
You have to really wonder, who is this guy?
He's speaking perfect American English at a Dutch airport, getting someone on a plane, an international flight, without a passport, without any bags or winter clothes, except for a small gym bag I think he had.
Why and how did this happen?
Who is he?
He's the key to the whole story, if you ask me.
That's why it's important.
This wasn't just some normal passenger that boarded his plane and he didn't go through You know, security.
It was someone put on the plane who shouldn't have been on, who didn't go through security.
And that's why the sharp-dressed man is important, whatever his role in that was.
The mainstream media won't talk about the sharp-dressed man because it blows the whole official story out of the water that Abdulmutallab just got through security by mistake.
You know, and he boarded the flight like everyone else.
He didn't.
He didn't go through security.
He didn't show a passport.
And he gets on our flight with a bomb or, you know, an intentionally defective bomb.
So, how can the media justify that?
And not only that, you have the comments by Patrick Kennedy that we wanted him in the U.S.
to track him.
You know, anyone with three brain cells can figure out what's going on here.
So how can they cover and actually report it?
A week or so after the flight, very early on, I got a call from another passenger and he said, look, I don't want you to sound stupid when all the evidence comes out and the truth is known to everyone, but you didn't see what you did.
What you saw was An unaccompanied minor being escorted through security and you know, I saw him after we landed in Detroit and I said Okay, and then I said well He wasn't a minor.
He was You know a teenager at least and this man said no, he was a minor I saw him after we landed in Detroit and I said well, did you see him before boarding?
And he said no, I didn't see him before boarding, but I know that's the same person and I thought it was really suspicious that he would say this.
So I ended the conversation and I did some looking into the man's background.
I found out that he worked for a contractor for the Department of Defense, which raised red flags to me.
And then I did some more looking into This unaccompanied minor thing and I found out well you have to be under age 12 to be an unaccompanied minor and the bomber does not look like he's under age 12.
You know maybe he could pass for 16 or so but not under 12 and Delta admitted that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight so that leaves me with a passenger calling me to try and get me to change my story For what reason?
I don't know.
It's highly suspicious of me that he works for the Department of Defense.
Interestingly enough, I googled him recently and I see that he switched employers again and now he works for a company that's supported by the Department of Defense, various members of Congress, the Senate, and various other people in the government.
To me, it all points to what I've been saying for quite some time now, that that's what happened here.
They gave him a fake bomb, they needed to stage a terrorist attack, and that's what they did.
The place I get the information from that it was a defective bomb was two things.
First of all, for months and months and months, I'm just living with this idea that maybe my government tried to kill me by giving a terrorist a bomb to blow up my plane.
I didn't want to believe that, and I really wrestled with this a lot, wondering if that was really true or not.
And I didn't know what to make out of it.
It was a big piece to the puzzle that I didn't have.
And in late December 2010, Anthony Chambers was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, The government's own experts that they've hired to be expert witnesses in the trial have reported that the bomb was impossibly defective because it lacked a blasting cap.
So to me, that was quite telling that the own experts hired by the US government don't even support their own theory on the case.
That they have said that the bomb was impossibly defective.
If you add that piece of the puzzle together with all the other terrorist attacks that have been happening in the past couple years, where the FBI has admitted to giving out fake bombs, such as Mohamed Mouhamoud, the Portland Christmas Tree bomber, and the Wrigley Field bomber, and at least five or six other ones that I'm aware of, I can't remember all their names, but they're all documented and all admitted.
by the FBI.
You see a modus operandi or an M.O.
of the government here, where they admit to giving out fake bombs to stage terrorist attacks.
And to me, it all points to what I've been saying, you know, for quite some time now, that that's what happened here.
They gave him a fake bomb.
They needed to stage a terrorist attack, and that's what they did.
Astounding revelations there from Kurt Haskell, Delta 253 eyewitness on false flag terrorism, which of course is especially important now with the build-up to war with Iran.
Astounding revelations there.
Today's quote of the day comes from Will Rogers.
A fool and his money are soon elected.
That certainly pertains to what we were talking about with Mitt Romney before.
A fool and his money are soon elected.
Will Rogers.
That's gonna do it for this edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
I've been your host, Paul Joseph Watson.
Greetings, fellow Info Warriors.
Alex Jones here, announcing the first of many trips that I'm going to take across this wonderful United States that we live in.
And we get so busy here at InfoWars.com, the nightly news, the daily radio show, the documentary films, and all the other things we're doing that I tend to never go out and give speeches anymore.
And I've got a lot of ideas bubbling around in my head about the history of the New World Order.
What makes them tick and how to defeat them.
So I'm titling this key speech I'm going to give.
It'll run around two hours long.
Blueprint to Defeat the New World Order.
And we're also going to have a surprise premiere of a short documentary film we've been working on at the event.
First off, I'm going to be going to Dallas, Texas.
Sunday, February 19th, 2012.
To the historic Lakewood Theater.
And the next Sunday, February 26th, I'm going to be in Orlando, Florida.
You can find out more about the events and buy tickets at infowars.com forward slash events.
Now unfortunately, every event I've ever had, we've had to turn people away.
So get your tickets early at InfoWars.com forward slash events.
There's a lot of crazy stuff going on in this world.
The craziest of all is this explosive awakening.
I can't wait to meet you and shake your hand.
I'll see you in Dallas and I'll see you in Orlando.
Infowars.com forward slash events. Infowars.com forward slash events.
Doesn't get any more out of control than that, ladies and gentlemen.
It's pretty un-American, what we're doing here at InfoWars.com.
I mean, not only are we promoting liberty, but we're selling 1776 flags.
Now that...
is Al-Qaeda.
Hello and welcome to InfoWars Nightly News with me, your host, Paul Joseph Watson, on this Thursday, February 23rd edition,
Now I'm delighted to welcome to the show this evening Dr. Michael Coffman, PhD.
Well, thank you.
scientist, ecologist, involved in ecosystem research for both science and industry for over 20 years.
Many of you, of course, will know him from Alex Jones' documentary Endgame, and his website is discerningtoday.org.
Dr. Kaufman, welcome to InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, thank you.
I'm glad to be with you.
Well, let's get straight to the heart of the matter, which, of course, is Agenda 21.
We've got the big 20th anniversary of Rio coming up.
Tell the viewers about Agenda 21.
How does it manifest itself today, and how will it affect our lives if we don't stand up and resist it?
Well, listeners are probably aware that it's a 40-chapter document that was Brought out and signed by President Bush in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, and basically those 40 chapters cover everything that humanity does as it interacts with the environment in some form or another, plus some other things like women's rights and that type of thing.
It really is a very comprehensive effort.
It is soft law.
It doesn't have any teeth or legal teeth to it, but they do have what is known as the Covenant on the Environment and Development in the Wings.
It's a treaty That will be a hard law.
In other words, it will have penalties if you do not do it.
So as a consequence, it is a potentially very dangerous type of agreement that uses a socialistic philosophy to basically develop what's called global governance.
It is the heartbeat of what we call global governance.
It will really allow government to manifest itself in everybody's life on a Very, very minor, but basically a very detailed level.
There's no one that can escape this, assuming they want to come down on you.
And of course, as a consequence, we are going to have, I think, a lot of trouble if this thing ever gets fully implemented.
Now, of course, one of the key facets of this is so-called sustainable development.
I mean, every time I turn on the television, whether it be the news or indeed commercials, I constantly hear this word sustainable or sustainability.
Dr. Coffman, when we hear that word, what is the true meaning behind the phrase sustainability as it relates to Agenda 21?
Well, there's two levels.
One is the public level, where we're not supposed to do anything that would cause damage to future generations.
The other is more spiritual in its nature.
It's occultish in its nature.
It believes, and it's based upon the fact that nature is God, and therefore we must do things that will not harm God.
That is a very, very powerful concept, and it's one that drives the whole sustainable development agenda.
Behind Agenda 21, it's not necessarily what you see on the surface that you just don't want to do things that are going to cause harm in the future.
It literally is that you can no longer do anything that they perceive causes harm to Mother Nature.
And that is a very restrictive type of concept of sustainable development.
One that's guaranteed to destroy property rights, one that's guaranteed to destroy Basically, many of the freedoms that we have around in the Western world, and as a consequence, I think it's going to be, as we get into this, as more and more of this is revealed, going to be very, very dangerous.
It's going to be harder and harder to stop it the longer it goes, and the deeper it gets itself entrenched into our law.
Now, you mentioned private property there.
I know that is a key aspect of this Agenda 21.
I mean, what's amazing to me is these technocrats are so apparently hostile to the idea of Private citizens owning property, and yet their own adherents, people like, you know, Ted Turner and Prince Philip, own millions of acres of property themselves, and they have huge mansions all over the world, and yet they tell us, via all these regulations, as you explain, that come with this environmental agenda, that it's somehow dirty for
You bet.
It is one of the things that is very classically elitist in its nature.
In other words, I can do what I want to do, but you cannot do anything because it'll be harmful.
with the elite that are behind this anti-property agenda?
You bet.
It is one of the things that is very classically elitist in its nature.
In other words, I can do what I want to do, but you cannot do anything because it will be harmful.
That is their attitude.
It's actually in what is called the Global Biodiversity Assessment that I use to stop the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the U.S.
Senate floor back in 1994.
That particular portion of it, I don't have it in front of me right now, but basically extolled the virtues of the feudal system of Europe back when the nobility ruled over the peasants as the desirable form of government that would be established Once it gets into place, which leads directly into the idea that the only one during that time that could own property were the elites, the nobility.
Basically, they want to go back to that so that they can define exactly what happens on this land as if they knew better than we did how to use property.
In fact, it's really kind of ironical.
That much of the damage you've seen to the environment has been caused by the elite because they have no restrictions on them whatsoever, and not by the average person.
And it's only until the average person owns their own property, uses it to make a living, that it usually gets protected because they need to protect it in order to continue to make a living generation after generation.
I mean it's amazing.
Prince Philip, also of course the frontman of the World Wildlife Fund and he's the guy, you know, back 20 years ago who was in Africa shooting tigers dead and yet the charity people from the World Wildlife Fund still come knocking at your door begging for donations to save the tigers!
Yeah.
When they're very denizen, their head is the guy who is killing them in the hunts in the safari.
I mean, it's amazing, the hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is incredible.
Yeah, I mean, Prince Charles saying that you can't take a bath to save water. - Yeah.
It just illustrates, as you said, the hypocrisy and the fact that it's one rule for them and another rule for everybody else.
Global warming, of course, this is again tied into agenda 21, the environmentalist agenda.
The latest data we've got came out a couple of weeks ago actually shows that the Himalayas and the nearby mountain peaks there in that region in China and along the border there, they've lost none of their ice over the last 10 years.
I mean, this stunned climate change proponents, of course.
We've had ClimateGate, we've had PolarBearGate in recent years, we've had the failure at Copenhagen, the failure at Durban, and it really seems that the man-made global warming alarmists are on the ropes.
Dr. Coffman, how close are we to actually pushing this back and collapsing the entire carbon tax agenda behind global warming, or do you think they'll just continue to push ahead with it despite all the opposition and evidence building against them?
They have to get control over the global economy.
There is no other way that they can rule with global governance until they get control of the economy, especially that of the US economy.
And the easiest way of doing that is to use carbon credits and trading, as many of our pieces of legislation have attempted to do, but all of them have failed.
The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is now attempting to do this piecemeal, but the fact is they have to control our economy.
And the easiest way of doing that is through scaring us to death with global warming.
It's amazing, as you had indicated, how many things have fallen victim to the truth over the last two years especially, and it's actually accelerating now.
More and more of their claims are being proven wrong, and yet all they do is increase the shrill of their scare stories and so forth so that somehow that's going to cow us into submission to accept the horrifying draconian types of regulations that they have in mind. and yet all they do is increase the shrill of What most people may not realize fully, they understand it in general but don't understand it fully, is that there's a one-to-one relationship between energy and our civilization.
We cannot have a healthy economy without cheap energy.
And what we're experiencing here in the States is that our President, President Obama, is doing everything he can to stop all use of fossil fuel energy and replace it with alternative or clean fuel energy That doesn't work, and it's very expensive.
That way, they can control how we live.
Our standard of living actually will reduce our standard of living somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.
It's already happening in England, I'm sure you know, and Germany and France and others are beginning to cut back on their subsidies for the so-called green energy because it's so expensive and it doesn't produce anything.
Now, Dr. Coffman, tell us why, what's the main reason they want to reduce our living standards?
Why are they so keen to usher in this post-industrial revolution that they talk about?
I think it's because of control.
They have to have a dumbed-down, impoverished civilization to be able to control it adequately.
If we get a good education and we're prosperous, It really creates a nightmare for them to be able to control us, and as a consequence, that is a mechanism that they can use to not only get us more impoverished, but to dumb us down.
They are using really nasty scare stories that have no truth at all in substance and validity.
It is incredible how they have literally tried to use every excuse they can To justify the need for having all these cap-and-trade schemes that they've come up with to control carbon, which does nothing more than controls energy, which controls or provides for our economy.
Once they have control of that, and they're down to 80% reduction in our energy use, we will not have an economy.
We'll be a third world nation here in the United States.
And unless they can develop some sort of incredible battery storage capability, green energy can never, ever replace fossil fuel energy for both the expense as well as the type and power of energy that's produced.
There's just no way that they can do it, because when the wind doesn't blow, windmills don't work, and when the sun doesn't shine, solar panels don't work.
It's as simple as that.
There's a lot of other reasons why this is not an efficient type of approach either, but the fact is our president here in this country and in Europe, now that they're starting to back off, but for a long time, we're pushing very heavily this alternative energy that just doesn't work.
And of course now we've got the EU trying to impose, well it already is, imposing carbon taxes on any flight that, you know, goes into European airspace.
I mean, China's rejected that.
What do you think of that move?
Is that, you know, a backdoor carbon tax effort?
Oh, absolutely it is.
I just don't think it's going to work.
I think there's going to be... I think what's going to happen is it's going to hurt Europe more than it helps anything, and as a consequence They're going to have to back off of that, but it is there now, so you have to deal with it.
It's just one more mechanism to try to basically put this cap on energy use into place.
You briefly mentioned before reduction in living standards, of course that's also tied into population control in general.
A couple of years ago we had the UN come out in their blueprint which got leaked and basically admit that the global warming agenda is starting to be discredited so now they're going to shift the alarmist propaganda over to the population bomb which of course we heard back in the seventies from people like John P Holdren.
Do you see this big reduction of population that they're calling for, or is it more a case of, you know, they're gonna push abortion and so-called fertility rights in the third world to keep the population down as it is?
Because as we know, Their own figures say that population will naturally level off around 2050, and yet still, even as the host population of countries in Europe, like Russia and Italy for example, declines, they're still obsessively pushing this population control agenda.
Can you explain why they're still insistent on that, despite the fact that, as we know from their own figures, the population will eventually level out by the middle of the century?
Actually, I think it's going to happen sooner than that.
It wasn't until about 10 years ago that they said it would reach its peak in 2010.
It hasn't done that, obviously, but nonetheless, we are gradually slowing down.
The fertility rate, as you just mentioned, in Europe is below 2.1, which is the replacement rate.
It's way down in Russia and other parts of the world, and the only thing that is keeping this going are some of the third world nations.
The question becomes, I believe, in this whole issue.
If you create wealth on an individual basis, which goes right back to the property rights discussion that we had earlier in the interview, because you cannot create wealth without property rights.
Nonetheless, if you were to create wealth in these third world nations by giving them property rights, it's been shown very, very clearly that once a nation starts to get wealthy, it all of a sudden naturally begins to reduce its own replacement rate.
Why?
Because before, when you're impoverished, you need a large family to take care of you when you're old.
If you get wealthy, you don't want that because it's a drain on your finances and so forth.
And most nations that have become more wealthy over a period of a generation or so have seen their growth rate plummet dramatically because people don't want as many children as they used to have.
So I think if we were to create wealth, For these people, it would actually do more to create a stable population than by the methods that you're talking about, fertility control and that type of thing.
And much faster as well, because there's a natural incentive then for people not to have large families, rather than the punishment or the bootstrap approach that they're taking now in these third world nations.
The other thing that I have to really recognize, and I can't say I can address it to any great is the eugenics side of it.
These people have always been big on eugenics and creating the perfect human being and all the rest.
And as a consequence, if you have population control, you can begin to introduce eugenics into it and keep certain people from reproducing while allowing other people to reproduce.
That's a pretty hard statement to make, I know, but it is part of their background and I think it needs to be recognized.
No, I mean, that's exactly what we've documented.
Of course, Hitler got his eugenicist ideas from the British before the whole Nazi Germany thing about, you know, infanticiding babies, disabled people, etc, etc.
It didn't start with Hitler.
And as you said, I mean, Brazil, India, their economies are rapidly developing, and as a result, the birth rate is naturally decreasing, which shows, as you said, if you give these countries wealth, property and prosperity, the problem ceases to exist.
I think we got a taste of what life under Agenda 21 would be like.
I don't know if you saw this.
There was a group, this was last year, it was called Forum for the Future, and it was this charitable organisation linked with the British government.
And they put out a video called Plannedopolis, and this was basically a nightmare technocratic future scenario, which they were basically advocating.
And it showed where, you know, only the super-rich elite would be allowed to drive cars in cities, meat would be rationed by a global food council, and it was just this horrible dystopian future which they were actually advocating under this Agenda 21 system.
How will our experience of life be characterized under Agenda 21 in the future if this plan is allowed to be fully implemented?
You know, that's a very good question.
I just finished a novel by James Patterson called Toys, T-O-Y-S.
I wasn't really enthused about going into it, but the more I read on it, the more I realized that this is exactly where Agenda 21 is taking us.
I don't know if Mr. Patterson had any kind of insight as to where Agenda 21 is going to do, but it basically sets up a society of elites and the peasantry.
And basically, the elites had anything they wanted, and the peasants were basically just the providers.
They just provided the materials and so forth that the elites needed to have.
One of the things that is very interesting about this whole concept, if you develop an elite class, the elite class can do nothing.
I mean, they're not capable of doing hardly anything in a practical sense.
Because they depend upon everyone else to provide them all the goods and services that they want.
And once that's entrenched into a society, they have to depend upon the peasantry to keep them under control in order to provide them on a continuous basis all the goods and services that they want.
And that particular book was astonishing from the standpoint and the insights of how this could happen.
I'm not saying it's going to happen that way, but if you want to see one version of what could happen with Agenda 21, Read Patterson's Toys book.
It is entertaining and very illuminating in the sense of what could happen.
The other thing that I kind of want to mention here is that in some ways there are several places in this country that we've already seen some of the restrictions of Agenda 21, at least with land rights or land use aspects of it.
Upstate New York, the Adirondack State Park.
The Adirondack State Park Commission was created in 1971, implemented in 1973, and it's a horror story because in this six million acre park, a little more than half is owned by private property individuals.
The rest of it's owned by the government, and they now have a commission that decides Everything that these private landowners can do, literally everything.
How much they can build, where they can build, how many acres is required, and all the rest that goes into living on a piece of land.
And you could drive through the Adirondack State Park today, and it's like driving through the 1960s, because nothing has changed.
This is the future of Agenda 21.
In fact, it is so pronounced That we believe that Agenda 21, much of the property or land use restrictions that are built into Agenda 21, came from the success story of government basically squashing the rights of private property rights in the Adirondack State Park in upstate New York.
It is literally astonishing.
And that's a classic example of where we're going, at least with the land use side of it, in the future if we don't stop this massive effort.
Here in the United States, for those who are listening that are part of the United States, recognize that we're not implementing Agenda 21 per se here in this country.
We're implementing what's called Sustainable America.
Sustainable America was created by Bill Clinton, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, back in the mid-1990s in order to fulfill the requirements of Agenda 21.
So we are actually implementing Agenda 21 through this Sustainable America program In which every federal agency now has as its operating goals.
And if there's any kind of grant given to a state agency or a local community, it always has these kinds of restrictions attached to it because that is now, their goal is no longer to serve the American people, but to protect the environment from the American people.
And I'm sure that's starting to happen in other parts of the world as well.
I mean, it's frightening.
Obviously it's not got this bad yet, but you can look through history at every classical tyranny, particularly in the East with the communist system.
I mean, that's the first thing that the Maoist cultural revolution did, was seize people's property and turn it all over to the state and make people, you know, work for the state on these collectivized farms.
So while it's far from that situation yet, that's the kind of the taste, the raison d'etre that this Agenda 21 is founded in.
How can people in their own lives go about resisting Agenda 21 in terms of the decisions they make and the lifestyle choices that they make in their lives?
It's one of the things that has been very active here in this country because of the so-called Tea Party movement.
The Tea Party movement have gotten a hold of Agenda 21 and realized what's happening, and they have made it a primary focus.
And I would hope that this is happening in other parts of the world, too.
In the case of global warming and alternative energy there in Britain and Germany and Denmark and France and Italy and so forth, Spain, all of these people, all of these countries, if you can organize into groups that will fight legislation and so forth at the local and Intermediate as well as the national level, you're going to start having some influence.
It is already happening here in this country.
It's amazing what's happened in the last year.
I've been fighting Agenda 21 since it was first created in 1992, and it wasn't until last year that it started to spread to enough groups around the United States that it's really starting to have an impact now in local communities, in comprehensive planning.
I don't know what they call it in Europe.
But here it's called smart growth or comprehensive planning.
And basically, I don't disagree with planning.
I think we need to plan for utility lines and all the rest that goes along with it.
But this goes far beyond this.
This goes to social issues kind of planning.
And once you start getting into the social issues, you're losing your freedoms.
Because the only way a community can provide services like that to all of the members of the community is by taking them away from individual members of the community.
That should otherwise have them exclusively to their private property rights.
And of course that ties into states taking people to prison or attempting to simply for growing vegetables in their own back garden and so forth.
Yes.
I mean we've had this massive revolution not just in America but across Europe of people turning back to the land to grow their own vegetables and I guess that's a key part of what you're saying there.
Yes it is.
In fact, we've had legislation in this last year at the federal level that is going to prohibit the sale of anything grown locally that is not served, first has a permit by either the federal or the state governments in order to be able to sell their produce and so forth.
Otherwise they'll go to jail.
Now that hasn't been implemented yet.
There's been a lot of backlash against it.
However, It is one of those issues that, just as you're saying here, it is creeping in.
And this is what is so disturbing, is that it's not happening all at once.
If it happened all at once, you would have a tremendous backlash on the part of the population.
But it's gradually being implemented.
We're now going into Year 30, since the Agenda 21 was first introduced in the world in 1992.
And basically, what we're seeing is a gradual, excuse me, implementation Slowly so that people like a frog in a gradually warming pot of water doesn't notice what's happening until it's too late.
And the best way to try to get this out is what we've done here in this country is education of those people who are concerned about it, organized into groups, and are willing to take action.
Because it requires us to take action, to go to town meetings and that sort of thing, to voice your concerns And to protest, if necessary, certain actions being taken by the community government right up to the national government.
And it's starting to happen here.
It's a long ways from what it needs to be, but at least it's starting to happen in the first time that I've seen in over 25 years.
And finally, Doctor, tell people about your website and where people can go to get your material and more information on Agenda 21.
Well, one of the things that I have now is an actual website called epi-us.com.
That's E as in Edward, P as in Paul, I as in intelligent, dash, US, like United States, dot com.
There I have all of my products and services and so forth listed for people to be able to see.
More specifically, I have a website called emergingscience.us.
That goes into the global warming issues.
Tremendous website in the sense of finding out information as to what really is behind global warming by DVD called Global Warming Emerging Science.
Basically interviews two dozen different scientists from around the world explaining why man cannot be causing global warming.
And we have a news page on that particular site that goes into what's happening currently.
In the news on this particular issue, my recent book called Rescuing a Broken America is on rescuedamericabook.com.
That has been a powerful book this last year in helping people understand what's happening in this country.
I'm not so sure how useful it might be around the world, but we have had orders from Australia, even England, for that particular book because it does reveal so much about the global agenda That it helps even those who are not necessarily part of this country and under its legal system.
So those are the primary websites, epi-us.com, emergingscience.us, and rescuingamericabook.com.
I think if you were able to go to those, you would see most of what we have available to help provide the information that you need to be more effective.
Okay, that's gonna wrap it up then.
Dr. Michael Koffman, we really appreciate you joining us on InfoWars Nightly News and we look forward to speaking with you again.
Thank you very much.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Bye now.
Okay folks, thanks for tuning in once again to InfoWars Nightly News.
We'll see you on the next edition.
▲
Export Selection