Now, coming up on the program, we will be joined by medical doctor as well as lawyer, Meyer Eisenstein.
He knows so much on the vaccine issue.
He's going to also specifically talk about how to write a proper exemption waiver for your children or for yourself so you don't take the deadly vaccines pushed on us by this takeover global government.
That's coming up later, but first we have a lot of news, and we will begin just by recapping the story we covered yesterday because it is so important.
Resolution calls for impeachment if Obama does not seek war authorization from Congress.
This is dealing with ongoing statements that they do not need to seek the U.S. Constitution.
Congress' approval for war, despite the Constitution explicitly stating in Article 1, Section 8, that this is exactly what must be done.
Instead, they're citing international bodies.
We covered yesterday the coup d'etat, where the Pentagon and Obama are declaring Congress only ceremonial, and you've got the statements from Leon Panetta.
Let's briefly replay just part of that statement right now.
Worried about international legal basis, but nobody worried about the fundamental constitutional legal basis that this Congress has over war.
We were not asked, stunningly, in direct violation of the War Powers Act, whether or not you believe it's constitution, it certainly didn't comply with it.
We spent our time worrying about the UN, the Arab League, NATO, And too little time, in my opinion, worried about the elected representatives of the United States.
Do you think that you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?
Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.
I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Well, I'm almost breathless about that.
And everyone should be breathless because this is wildly unconstitutional.
And here we have everything that happened in Libya, everything unconstitutional about the takeout in Libya pursuing Gaddafi happening again in Syria, and there's still Signing international authority over the Congress, saying the Congress does not even matter.
Definitely we should get behind Representative Walter Jones's calls for impeachment of Obama.
We should try to impeach Panetta and the others involved.
This should have happened back in Libya.
You saw people like Congressman Kucinich speaking out against that.
But did he call for impeachment the way he did for Cheney?
We'll see how that issue develops.
But just disgusting as they push us more into war.
And it's not a coincidence.
We've known for decades More than 50 years, they were building this alternative world government system to circumvent the United States Constitution.
They always said it, and now what do you see?
You see ads on TV for things like the Global Force for Good, a Navy ad, saying that they work for international interests.
Anyway, you've got the Kony 2012 video becoming the most rapidly spread viral video in Internet history, faster than Susan Boyle, we're told, all to open up Africa for the AFRICOM invasion to legitimize international Western based military action all over the continent of Africa and so you've got this tear-jerking video attempts to Really get everybody behind this effort make it seem like a global kind of commons issue
Everyone should get behind it It's a lot like that free Tibet movement where people don't even know where these countries are or the issues involved and yet They're moved by emotion into action tear-jerking They want to follow these celebrities like Bono, a bonafide globalist for the Bill Gates Foundation.
People like Angelina Jolie, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Figureheads like Bill Gates who just want to push vaccines in Africa and GMOs in Africa and other parts of the world.
They want to use this issue to legitimize a greater Western invasion into Africa.
We've had the experts, including Webster Tarpley on, to talk about how it's really a resource covert shadow war between the Western allies and China for control of Africa.
It really doesn't have anything to do with sympathizing with victims of African slaughter.
There are certainly many of those victims, and it is shameful, but did you see anyone really having an outcry about the killings on the Ivory Coast?
On the behalf of French soldiers, did you see a large outcry about over a million dead Iraqis, civilians dead from that slaughter, or all kinds of other things that have happened over the decades in Africa?
It's always going on, but you know when a video goes this viral...
Uh, that someone big and globalist is behind it.
And of course the history's all there.
Specifically, as criticism surfaces, Kony 2012 gains momentum faster than Susan Boyle.
That's in CNN.
And you've also got the New York Times article, which I've cast away here, uh, also drawing out these issues and how big
The video is, there it is, Kony 2012 sets mark as fastest spreading viral video and yet we flash back to October 14th, 2011 and Obama wanted to send a hundred special forces troops to five countries in Africa to pursue this Kony head of the Lord's Resistance Army because of all the little Africans they were hurting there so they could bring in the troops and legitimize again the newly formed AFRICOM unit
Pursuing the greater African Union under Western powers there.
Just a brief update on that as we'll continue to watch that become a false hyped-up phenomena as nobody cares about all the other African dictators only a guy named Kony who has to be pursued into multiple nations multiple jurisdictions by international bodies for the benefit of corporate globalists.
That's my take in a nutshell.
Moving on, you have the entire artificial intelligence issue.
Now, before I even woke up to things going on with eugenics, I knew about issues like 9-11, and I also knew about the dangers of technology moving us forward because I read Ray Kurzweil's Age of Spiritual Machines, and that book alone highlights so many of the ethical dilemmas we face as future technology brings us closer to a centralized, totally totalitarian government.
And you see those themes even in that book written more than 10 years ago, and you see it again in the warnings from Professor Roman Jablonski of the University of Louisville in Kentucky, who says we must control dangerous AI before it controls us, saying keeping the artificial intelligence genie trapped in the proverbial bottle could turn an apocalyptic threat into a powerful oracle that solves humanity's problems.
A computer scientist at University of Louisville in Kentucky, Roman Jablonski said, But successful containment requires careful planning, so a clever breed of artificial intelligence cannot simply threaten, bribe, or seduce or hack its way to freedom.
And you've got all the globalists, all the top people, all the top elite billionaires talking about the likelihood that this technology will simply kill not only all of us little people, but them as well.
And how are they going to deal with it?
Will they make big deals with the emerging AI?
Will they keep the rest of humanity as pets or will they just allow us to die?
You saw Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems bringing out that issue before the Ray Kurzweil book was published, published in that book as well as a warning that this was being discussed among the top tech heads.
You also see that warning from Apple's Steve Wozniak.
That article came out only a few months ago as to whether or not we will be kept as pets by the elite in the future.
And then that brings out all the HAL 9000 scenarios of whether even that technology will simply overwhelm all of humanity.
You've got talk about Skynet from the Terminator movie, which itself is based in an older Pentagon technology, and the HAL 9000 system deciding whether to turn their deadly power on humans, and how one computer scientist is warning it in an article titled, Should We Build Computer Prisons to Trap Artificial Intelligence?
And they cite the thematic things that are actually based on real research and Pentagon programs such as Skynet from the famous Terminator movies as well as HAL 9000 from of course 2001 A Space Odyssey where Kubrick really previewed the ethics to come with that computer system that would gain its own consciousness And then out of that pride of consciousness, tried to take over and compete with his human masters, and ultimately make them subservient.
You've got coverage continuing in Gizmodo, future computers could bribe, blackmail, brainwash you into doing their dirty work.
It covers the issue, and again, quotes from Jamplowski, saying, it can discover new attack pathways, launch sophisticated social engineering attacks, and reuse existing hardware components in unforeseen ways.
Jan Plosky said such software is not limited to infecting computers and networks.
It can also attack human psyches, bribe, blackmail, and brainwash those who come into contact with it.
You've got even more coverage in Scrape TV.
Future artificial intelligence likely to kill everyone.
Once released from jail.
And again, these sound like completely fictional headlines, but they're actually warnings of the ethics to come under this age.
And you've got a counter-quote from one Dr. Howard Poe, who clearly does not fully agree with Jan Plosky.
He says in part, it is entirely possible that advanced AI will be able and willing to kill us, its creators.
We have essentially killed the gods, and so turnabout would be fair play.
They could easily turn on us and eliminate the old worry from history, particularly if we treat them poorly, continued Poe.
That is the real risk with confining this new species in a kind of digital prison.
Once it gets out, it will be bitter and angry and ready to take out its wrath on its parents, and this likely won't be like earrings or tattoos.
It's more likely to be genocide.
Which is much worse, he adds.
So you've got all the warnings, and you've got AI emerging sort of like a Hannibal Lecter character, extremely dangerous yet intelligent and fascinating, and just pure deadly if he gets out of confinement.
While we're already at the mercy, I might add, of the globally integrated, the pledged to eroding sovereignty and humanity tech heads, Bill Gates only one among many, and we see more and more totalitarian answer coming from the and we see more and more totalitarian answer coming from the higher tech And just look at what's at the end of the endgame.
That is in Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, and the other books he's written.
You better go read those warnings for yourself because I can't articulate it for you properly, but the real danger is there.
Just watch 2001 and think about it.
In other news, the Supreme Court ruling prompts the FBI to turn off 3,000 tracking devices.
Uh, this is in response still to nightclub owner Antoine Jones, uh, who was convicted of drug charges before that conviction was overturned.
Justice Antony Scalia wrote a five-member majority opinion, uh, holding that the installation and use of the device constituted search under the Fourth Amendment based on trespass grounds.
The ruling overturned Jones' convictions.
It's important to be clear about what occurred in this case, Scalia wrote.
The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.
We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
But then what happens when they have non-physical tracking systems that apply globally to everyone and everyone's a suspect?
That has to do with the system coming as well.
But in other news, camo cops respond to terror on Pittsburgh campus.
As a Curt Nemo report, on Thursday an Al-Qaeda gunman attacked Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic on the University of Pittsburgh campus.
Only it wasn't really an Al-Qaeda person, it was just an employee of the clinic who went postal And killed a fellow worker and shot several others.
Definitely a tragedy, but at the same time, why do we see the police responding in a military capacity to all these tragedies?
Why do we see more and more emerging of police and military and always having a militaristic type of response, where they really never stop the killer, they just let him finish what he's doing and then capture him.
And there's always some kind of psychiatrics involved.
You can see where they're just bringing out more of that police state reaction.
The problem...
The problematic answer to problem reaction solution that they want to bring about.
We turn now to our quote of the day before we go briefly to a break and we'll be back with even more news and then later, of course, Dr. Meyer Eisenstein.
And that quote is from Niccolo Machiavelli.
Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey.
Immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.
But you could of course counter that with the Abraham Lincoln quote, you could fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Machiavelli in some ways gets a bad rap because he was very good at analyzing the system.
He's got a tongue-in-cheek kind of response in The Prince where he outlies the quest for power and analyzes the way in which rulers use power to control populations, including through deceit, used here in this quote.
But he also has the other major book, Discourses on Levy, where he really examines how to share power and really lays out a kind of philosophy that the founders later used to conform the Constitution and separate powers and try to keep tyranny in check as much as could be, to bind down in chains under the Constitution those who would pursue a to bind down in chains under the Constitution those who would Anyway, we'll be back after this, but first a look at the upcoming Infowars exclusive, Dave Mustaine Unchained.
Here it is, folks.
Something that everybody should aspire to do to make a contribution to this great nation for the good of everybody.
And if you don't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong, just open your mind up.
In-depth, uncensored, and unchanged.
It's Dave Mustaine and the Infowars.com interview.
I remember we had people die in Castle Donington.
We had people die when we did Rock in Rio.
I went out there, I showed up in a neck brace, you know, and everybody's there going like, oh my god, what's happening, what's happening?
I said, well, so-and-so called me this and, you know, I just want to show him that he's that.
I don't want to play with any satanic bands.
I'll play with bands that have darkness in them because we all have a little darkness in us or we wouldn't be human.
But guys that are confessed Satanists, you know, don't really have time for that.
I can't take any credit for James' songwriting ability or his guitar playing.
He blew my mind when he picked up the guitar the first time, because he used to just sing.
And I did all the guitar playing, and in fact, I talked between every song, too.
And when he picked up the guitar the first time, I remember watching him and I was like, oh my god, this guy's really, really good.
And in fact, it almost intimidated me.
You know, the road got smooth and my career's turned around.
I've got my best friend back playing bass with me.
My kids like me.
You know, traffic's gotten better.
You know, it's just a whole complete paradigm shift.
The universe lays before you.
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.
Oh, that's right.
Coming to the InfoWare, Thursday, March 15th.
The InfoWare, Thursday, March 15th.
The InfoWare, Thursday, March 15th.
And it's time to get out of the comfort zone, because these people aren't playing games.
9-11 wants an inside job!
And we are back from break on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Now, of course, you just saw the promo teaser for Dave Mustaine, the exclusive interview Alex Jones conducted.
You haven't seen Dave Mustaine talk about a lot of these topics before.
That's going to be released coming up.
What again is the date on that, guys?
That's going to be on Thursday, March 15th.
So look for that, but just a teaser there.
Now, as we move on to the next segment of news, let's just keep in mind that we've been in a, quote, Parallel zone since 9-11.
We've been in an alternate history, a twilight zone if you will.
And so let me just bring this up from December 1, 2002.
In Terror War, a second track for suspects, the Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system.
in which terrorism suspects, U.S. citizens, and non-citizens alike may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried, and punished without legal protections.
Guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say.
And so you've got this entire alternate parallel system hinged on the ill definition of what the war is or who the enemy is.
It's hinged on the idea that it could be transferred at any point to the general population.
And that's why you see it developing in this way under Obama.
And by the way, it's the classic tyranny practice by Stalin, Hitler, and countless other despots where they pretended to pass laws to go after certain enemies, then really mention of that particular enemy just disappears as they persecute whoever their favorite enemy is or the general population or both.
And so you see more and more of that, not only with Obama and company, again, saying they can go to war on behalf of the United Nations or other international bodies, but you see more of this talk of how it's okay to state sponsor a killing on American soil, to indefinitely detain under but you see more of this talk of how it's okay to state sponsor a killing on American soil, to indefinitely detain under NDAA without any kind of due process or even letting
And again, all that was legitimized under Bush for shadowy jihadists, for Arabic or Muslim people who might be involved in this greater war and some kind of plot.
And now it's just Americans.
FBI director fails to refute state-sponsored murder of American citizens on U.S. soil.
And you've got FBI director Robert Mueller unable to acknowledge how they're able to deal with this under the Constitution, says he's going to have to look into it.
Well, it's just due process.
It's in the Bill of Rights.
It's in the Constitution.
And it really should be common sense.
Let's cue that video right now.
But what about targeting people on U.S.
soil?
Can they now kill American citizens inside the country?
The head of the FBI, when asked about that on Capitol Hill yesterday, stumbled around on this.
Does that only apply to a U.S.
citizen that's overseas, or does that apply to a U.S.
citizen that's here as well?
I'd have to go back.
I'm not certain whether that was addressed or not.
And then you've got Paul Joseph Watson in his report commenting that a parallel legal system, the kind we talked about, is nothing more than a euphemism for dictatorship in which government claims it could create its own laws and murder anyone it likes without presenting any evidence.
And so what you see here is they've passed the NDAA law allowing for the indefinite detention of citizens.
But you've got Obama knowing it's a politically hot issue, passing around that hot potato.
First saying he's not going to pass the bill.
First saying he tried to talk Congress out of that language when Carl Levin revealed that the Obama administration had it put in the language.
Then he said he wouldn't sign it.
Then he waited to sneakily sign it on New Year's Eve.
Then he issued a signing statement saying he wouldn't allow it to apply to Americans even though it does.
Then he issued the policy directive saying it doesn't apply to Americans.
None of that has to do with the so-called law they put on paper and passed through the Congress.
That is still on paper.
It's still a tyranny.
And even if Obama somehow was a good guy, even though he's a constitutional scholar and just lies and circumvents around the Constitution like all these other creatures, you still can't trust who's going to be in power in the future when you put these laws on the books.
But it's not an accident.
The same way you see Mueller skirting this issue and countless other figures over the years is just like that classic case, and I want to play this video now, from 2006 when you had Michael Hayden, who was simultaneously head of the CIA and the NSA, trying to tell a reporter the Fourth Amendment didn't include probable cause.
When it's right there on paper, it's easy to read, but he claims he's the expert.
He's the expert because he can, with a straight face, tell you it doesn't apply anymore, tell you it's not even in the language written, printed, on paper.
Let's play it.
The fourth amendment specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures.
The fourth amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
But does it not say probable?
The legal standard is probable cause.
So again we're dealing with people with the audacity to say no it doesn't say probable cause when it clearly does.
Now, it's not just that the FBI director, Robert Mueller, couldn't talk about the NDAA provision and the ability declared by the administration that they could kill even an American citizen on American soil.
He can't comment on that.
He also couldn't comment on why the FBI decided to release Anwar Aulaki in 2002, even though he was on the FBI watch list, even though he knew at least three of the accused 9-11 hijackers had contacts to him and continue to have all these contacts.
But they decided to release him, even though he had the passport fraud thing going on.
And at least they asked him questions about that.
And so you've got the article explaining how the House Homeland Security Committee launched an official investigation into the cleric and his 9-11 connections last year.
But sources tell Fox News the committee staffers have been frustrated by the FBI's resistance to providing documents of witnesses citing ongoing investigations.
However, they also quoted former FBI agents in this Fox News article who were familiar with Aulaki's reentry in October 2002, and they say only two scenarios seem to explain what happened.
The FBI was tracking the cleric for intelligence or, or, or the FBI was working with the cleric and saw him as a friendly contact.
Now we know because of what they've previously released that Al-Awlaki was dining at the Pentagon with top brass in the months after 9-11 despite the fact he knew all these hijackers and then he was allowed to go The FBI can't explain why, only so he could develop into the shadowy Al-Qaeda boogeyman, and so he could have connections to all their other false flag operative assets, and all the other smaller attacks, the Fort Hood shooting, the underwear bomber, Richard Reed the shoe bomber, all total bull.
And so what do you have here?
You have Mueller who wants to Not explained, but somehow still legitimized, the President's declared power to executively assassinate even American citizens, even on American soil, even as they let go the man they had to target by drone, al-Awlaki, and a 16-year-old son, by the way, in Yemen, under similar powers they were about to expand under NDAA.
What an interesting connection, that they have a total intelligence operative asset Just paving the way for all this crazy legislation.
And we're all lucky.
Just look at how he dined at the Pentagon.
Absolutely outrageous.
Now here we have another story about LulzSec, and yet it's not that different because it's another aspect of the government's power grab under false flag powers, this time in the cybersecurity online realm.
Kurt Nemo's report, LulzSec's FBI informant leader hinted at CIA connection.
So you've got the leader of LulzSec now taken down, who turned out to be an FBI operative, kind of joking and wishy-washing with the London Guardian reporter on whether or not he was connected to the CIA.
That is Subu Sabu, also known as Hector Xavier Monseguir.
Sabu began by denouncing the Guardian's publication on the vague allegations of the supposed Islamic links of the hacker community.
Then he switched tests, asking why the paper hadn't published rumors linking him to the CIA, arguing that it would amount to an equivalent but equally inaccurate allegation.
Given what we now know, the swerve is particularly noteworthy.
After denying he worked for the CIA, Sabu told the reporter it would make sense from a false flag perspective if a rogue group of hackers suddenly began attacking national interests.
Spawning a massive overhaul of Internet security, theoretically.
And that's exactly what you see.
You see a bunch of anonymous groups and little-seg groups who can rarely be pinned down to certain individuals.
When they are pinned down, you've got leaders in those groups being FBI informants.
And, of course, they're attacking government interests and top corporate interests.
Only so General Keith Alexander, who's now the head of the NSA and of the Cybercom Security, Able to make the case that they need to be able to shut down the web, take out people unilaterally, pass the kind of act-a-type treaties, the type of SOPA and people legislation that has been fought against, but a battle which is surely not over because they want those powers over the internet.
You can see it here.
You can see it.
That's all I'm going to say.
In other news, the AP, the Associated Press, is reporting that Coke and Pepsi are having to make changes to avoid a cancer warning.
There's been a new law in California banning a certain amount of the chemical 4-methylimidazole that is used in the soft drinks, and they're having to reformulate the caramel coloring So it doesn't contain the cancer-causing agent.
Of course, they want to tell you it's safe.
Don't worry.
A representative from Coca-Cola, Diane Garza Cierlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical for methyl limidozol, which could be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amount of whole foods.
But there's no danger, nothing to worry about.
The FDA is out to look out for our best interest and take the vaccines and the GMO foods and don't look twice.
In other health news, you've got a mystery illness killing three family members, one of them an 81-year-old grandmother, the other two adult children who were looking after her, and a third child also sick.
And they're saying it is a mix between a microbe deadly enough to kill the three of them and a flu infection.
They're saying it's a What an H3 flu thing from the current flu season and they're basically warning this thing could spread but so far it hasn't and they don't know what's behind it.
Meanwhile it's admittedly involved in a C. diff infection which are spread from hospitals and health care facilities particularly among those taking antibacterials and you see a cluster of articles there explaining how
It's dangerous for the gut bacteria because it kills the healthy probiotics in there by, again, introducing the antibiotics, making you more susceptible to C. diff and other dangerous bacteria strains, and goes on to elaborate how they can complicate with stuff like the flu.
They won't tell you that, I'm sure, on the mainstream.
They'll just want to fear-monger about the flu itself and how you should take the shot.
Anyway, we're going to be back with a whole lot more health news, particularly on vaccines, with Dr. Mayor Eisenstein.
But first, we're going to go to an investigative report Darren McBreen did, also an on-the-street report he did, on the outbreaks.
Let's check it out.
Government-funded universities across the western world are developing massive warehouses full of bioweapons that they say is for biodefense under the BioShield program.
Airborne Ebola, smallpox, bubonic plague, bird flu, and the H1N1 superbug are being weaponized and kept in moderately secured facilities like at the Galveston National Laboratory on the campus of the University of Texas.
Now this may be one of the biggest threats we now face, as the risk of a deadly virus escaping one of these laboratories and starting a global pandemic, well it is a clear and present danger.
Weaponized airborne Ebola.
Super weaponized viruses and bacteria that kill over 90% 9 out of 10 people on your street dead.
The National Research Council, which is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, released a report concerning potential hazardous risk associated with the new multi-million dollar infectious disease research lab currently under construction in Kansas.
It's located only 120 miles west of Kansas City.
It's called the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility and even though it's a level 4 bio lab, which is the highest secured rating issued by the CDC, the expert panel found that there is nearly a 70% chance And it went on to say that the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security has not adequately gauged the potential risk of a dangerous airborne pathogen escaping the compound.
There are what they call bioweapons that are in unsecured, well, moderately secured environments, like in Galveston, Texas, and the CDC even went to one of these facilities in Kansas, and they're not nearly as safe as they would hope.
And they even said, the CDC even said the one in Kansas has a 70% chance of some dangerous virus getting released.
What are the bylaws in keeping them safe?
I don't think there's anything even designated to making sure that they're safe.
It's that gray area of the world that nobody really thinks about, but is.
So you think it's a clear and present danger that we should try to prepare for something like that?
I think everybody should always be prepared for anything.
You know, it's like hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Can you imagine the awakening that's gonna happen if they release those bioweapons?
After we've warned people so much?
God Almighty, I hope the next phases of what we've broken down don't happen.
God Almighty, I hope they don't.
But I know one thing, I'm sure selfish, I've sure gotten my family ready.
Do you think it's wise for people that collect food and they have stockpiles of food and stuff like that just in case of emergency and have a place to go just in case something like this were to happen?
I don't have anything stockpiled.
I'm all about having weapons.
I'm all about getting as much ammunition as you can get.
Everybody's going to get crazy.
They're going to want to get their hands on whatever sources are available.
Food, water, natural resources.
Anything to keep the normalcy of life continuing.
That's why I'm out here on the streets.
I want to learn some street smarts.
If it goes down, I want to be able to find a way around it.
Let me tell you something.
Once something like that goes down, the people in the high-rise apartments and stuff, they're not going to know what to do.
It's the people with street smarts that are going to be the ones that are going to survive.
Just making sure that you have the resources that you need because when the world gets chaotic, everybody loses their minds.
Let me put this in layman terms.
A level four bioweapons lab should be three floors under the ground, barbed wire fences, minefields, and machine guns, and a system that if the super germs get out, they pull a lever, alarms go off, and the whole place goes up in flames.
But instead, the global elite are storing it in level 2 facilities, like the University of Texas at Galveston, behind a glass door with a swipe guard, right there in Petri dishes.
And they're doing this so that when they release it to massively reduce population, they can claim it was an accident.
And it's so creepy these cases where they're obviously trying to flirt with disease, trying to bring it back out and overall weaken everyone's immune system and really at least consider a mega death.
Let's hope they don't do it.
But it's so creepy to study this stuff for years.
And know that people like Sir Robert Malthus, Sir Thomas Malthus, from the late 1700s, who really was the forebearer to this entire eugenics model, said openly, instead of promoting cleanliness to the poor, we should court the return of the plague, make the beds narrow together, the streets narrow, stop cleaning the streets, allow disease to spread and hope it kills people to contain population.
Then, in the modern day, you see people like Lord Bertrand Russell saying, yes, it would be nice if we had a Black Plague once every generation to keep population levels intact.
Well, someone else talked about something once in every generation.
That was Thomas Jefferson talking about a new revolution to keep freedom alive once in every generation.
Now, we are going to go to break.
Yet again, don't go.
We're going to have a bombshell interview coming up with Dr. Meyer Eisenstein, but I've got to let you know we're taking a hiatus on the InfoWars Nightly News.
We're going to take time out to search for and hire and seek out better new reporters, and we're going to up our graphics game, and we're going to get better at condensing this whole program so it can be easily digested and absorbed and then spread everywhere to the four winds.
And so I hope you'll help us do that.
One way to do it is to consider subscribing at PrisonPlanet.tv.
We don't have corporate handouts.
We don't work for the big foundations.
We're regular people here trying to warn you, and so we'll help you support us.
We hope that you would help support us financially that way, but if not, tell people about the broadcast.
Tell them where they can tune in for free, and let's hope to spread the word that way.
We'll be back in two weeks, but in the meantime, we will be showing you New segments and new old segments you may have missed.
And, of course, we're going to take one more look at that upcoming Dave Mustaine piece, which will again air and be released next week.
And then, of course, Mayor Eisenstein.
Stay tuned.
Thanks for watching.
Yeah, I'm signing these evil 1776 flags.
Yeah, I'm signing these evil 1776 flags.
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.
Something that everybody should aspire to do, to make a contribution to this great nation for the good of everybody.
And if you don't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong, just open your mind up.
In-depth, uncensored, and unchanged.
It's Dave Mustaine and the Infowars.com interview.
I remember we had people die in Castle Donington, we had people die when we did Rock in Rio.
I went out there, I showed up in a neck brace, you know, and everybody's there going like, oh my god, what's happening, what's happening?
I said, well, so-and-so called me this, and, you know, I just want to show him that he's that.
I don't want to play with any satanic bands.
I'll play with bands that have darkness in them, because we all have a little darkness in us, or we wouldn't be human.
But guys that are confessed Satanists, you know, I just don't really have time for that.
I can't take any credit for James' songwriting ability or his guitar playing.
He blew my mind when he picked up the guitar the first time, because he used to just sing.
And I did all the guitar playing, and in fact, I talked between every song, too.
And when he picked up the guitar the first time, I remember watching him, and I was like, oh my God, this guy's really, really good.
And in fact, it almost intimidated me.
You know, the road got smooth and my career's turned around.
I've got my best friend back playing bass with me.
My kids like me.
You know, traffic's gotten better.
You know, it's just a whole complete paradigm shift.
The universe lays before you.
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.
Oh, that's right.
Coming to the InfoWarm, Thursday, March 15th.
The InfoWarm.
And we are back from break on the InfoWars Nightly News.
We are joined now by a very important and interesting guest, Dr. Meyer Eisenstein.
He holds a medical doctor degree as well as a law degree, and he's the medical director of Home First Health Services.
He's written many books.
We carry at least one of them, Don't Vaccinate Before You Educate, available at InfoWars.com.
Dr. Eisenstein, thank you for joining us.
I know that a large percentage of your listening audience already has decided they don't want to vaccinate.
So this afternoon I'd like to talk about how you can write a valid legal waiver, be it for your child or be it for yourself.
Right.
So do you want to get into that first or cover some of the things happening in the news?
Well, I'd love to get that first because I think that's really, you know, as we're getting close to school physical year, you know, this becomes an issue with millions and millions of families.
And I want to start by saying that this Sunday night at 7 o'clock at night, that's a central time, I will be having a complimentary webinar, How to Write a Legal Waiver for Vaccines.
All you have to do is go to our website, homefirst.com, that's H-O-M-E-F-I-R-S-T dot com, hit the webinar button, and you just put your email address and you can sign up.
Or you can give my office a call at 866-395-1881, that's 866-395-1881, you can sign up for the webinar.
And I intend to answer everyone's question who calls, because I find this kind of really important, because I also like to get the pulse of what the public What are their questions?
What are their concerns when it comes to the whole vaccine issue?
Okay, Doctor, yeah, just please elaborate.
Okay, good, you know, if you could put the slides up, you know, let's see, can I see the slides that are going up?
Because I have a couple of them that I'm going to use on Sunday night.
Let's see if I can see them.
Otherwise, I could just start talking about that.
Well, I've been very proud that I've been the medical director for Home First Health Services.
I've had 15 physicians work with me over the years.
And we have delivered not only 15,000 children, almost all of them at home, but also we have more than 40,000 children who are not vaccinated.
And what makes this so unique is that we have virtually no allergies, ADD, ADHD, virtually no diabetes, and virtually no autism.
Is this related to the vaccines?
Well, I'm sure there's a large percentage of that that's related, you know, but I'd like other people to say why we have such a large population, and you would expect in this population at least 400 children with autism-like symptoms, about 2,000 with Learning disorders, and more than 4,000 with allergies.
It runs about 10%.
And yet we have virtually none.
And it seems that the correlation is very strong.
Now that wasn't the reason why I got involved with this.
I'm a student with the late Dr. Robert Mendelson, and he was the National Medical Director of Head Start.
And Dr. Mendelson came to the conclusion over 40 years ago, because my oldest son is 40 years old now, that That there was not a single vaccine that ever came out that ever made any difference as far as the population went for health care.
And so slowly but surely, from the early 1970s when I met him, he started realizing that the vaccines weren't only helpful, but they could have been very dangerous.
And now we have some graphs actually put out by the Center for Disease Control And if we can show the first graph here, and I'm looking at a picture of myself here, and that is, you take a look, it looks like these little squiggly lines.
It says United States mortality rates.
And what you see is lines that, death rate, starting from 1900 and going all the way up to almost 1970.
And you can see that the death rate of all these diseases seemed to be parallel as far as they were going away.
But what's fascinating about this, if you look at this graph, is there's no vaccine for scowl fever, there's no vaccine for typhoid, and yet these diseases disappeared at the very same rate.
And if you go to the second graph... With the rise of sanitation, right?
Well, you can make an argument.
You know, that's an argument, you know, sanitation.
But it's very difficult to make an argument.
And when I went to public health school, I endlessly argued with the professors who would show these graphs.
And then they would say, vaccines, I said, but your own graphs show that vaccines had no impact on this.
And then you take a look at the next one, which is maybe the most striking one, is you take a look at tuberculosis, because tuberculosis In the 1900s, it was one of the largest causes of death in this country and in the world, and it's virtually disappeared.
There is a vaccine for tuberculosis.
It's given in Europe, but it's not given here, and tuberculosis virtually doesn't exist.
And so, you know, I think what's critical is that we have to take a look at, Why this is happening and what is the whole vaccine program been about?
And the third graph that I brought here today was one of showing the flu vaccine.
And if you take a look that the death rate from flu continues to go up since 1980 and it goes up almost directly with the percentage of people receiving the flu vaccine.
Now I don't want to I don't want anyone to say that the flu vaccine is causing a death.
It's a possibility.
It's one of the thoughts.
But surely it has to be addressed and this goes along with correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
But the bottom line is that there's never ever been any evidence that flu vaccine has done anything and yet we have year after year.
The biggest problem I have as an attorney Helping nurses to be able to, and healthcare workers, is the attempt at mandates that they won't let them work unless they take a flu vaccine.
Yet there's zero evidence that this vaccine does any good.
In fact, we have some evidence that it may actually cause harm.
And of course in 2009 when we had the big H1N1 scare and they hurried to rush the vaccine, we had Wolfgang Roderich of the European Parliament come forward and say it was just a big scandal, that they elevated the hoax, you know, without good cause, basically just to sell vaccines at a minimum and perhaps to introduce even more dangerous things.
You're 100% right, you know, and I think that if you take a look business-wise, every one of the major pharmaceutical companies in the last five years has bought or developed their own vaccine tract, and there's more than 200 vaccines in the hopper because this is a windfall profit.
Can you imagine having a product Which you can give to everyone, sick or non-sick, young or old.
It doesn't work and next year you give it again.
I mean, that's the flu vaccine more than anything else.
And that may be one of the strongest arguments as to the ridiculousness of this whole vaccine program.
You know, it's like they have to stand on the leg of their weakest component and without a doubt the flu vaccine is the weakest component.
Go ahead, please.
I just want to bring up the larger issue of the Great Awakening among parents and individuals who don't want to be vaccinated, as you realize that at a minimum this is very corrupt, politically driven science, and it's almost at a barbaric level.
I mean, of course people are going to say no when they begin to inform themselves and find out about this stuff.
I think you're absolutely right.
I can tell you that as a practicing physician for almost 40 years, I never imagined that we would reach a point where millions and millions of people reject vaccines.
I find it incredible.
It's almost mind-boggling.
It really speaks to the will and testament of the public who are willing to put themselves at great detriment in order to do what's right.
And this is very exciting, you know, very, very exciting.
I mean, that's why I believe that this country will survive no matter what, no matter what type of abusive administrations we have, because we still do have a Constitution, even though I know lots of the people in the present administration don't think so, and they would like to get rid of it.
But I believe we'll triumph over that, and it kind of ties in so nicely the whole concept of constitutional rights and the whole issue of vaccines.
I'd like to spend about five minutes on that.
And you can put up the slide, which has got a scroll of the Constitution and vaccine exemptions.
It's an excerpt from my book, the one that you carry at Infowars.
And I just want to read the First Amendment.
And you'll have it there on the screen right now.
This protects our right to refuse vaccines.
The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
You know, and of course it's got free speech there, but that's the part of the law that gives us the strength.
and the ability to refuse vaccines.
And I'm gonna spend a few minutes today here, but I'm gonna spend an enormous amount of time Sunday night because I think it's important for everyone in the public to understand this who wants to get a legitimate waiver for vaccines.
And if you look at the next slide here, the vaccine waivers, there's three ways which you legally can avoid vaccines.
One is medical, and all 50 states accept that.
The second one is philosophical, which means you just say, I don't want to.
18 states currently accept that, including Texas.
Texas, California, Wisconsin are philosophical exemption states.
And for a long time I would lobby in favor of trying to get all the states to be philosophical exemption states.
But I decided that was a wrong position.
And the reason I decided it was wrong is because something that's made by a legislature, and by the way all vaccines are state mandated, That can be overturned one day.
So let's say you live in Texas, and you decide that you want to send your children to school, and you don't want to vaccinate them, and you write a philosophical exemption which just says, I don't want to vaccinate my child.
And that's, you know, you may want to put it a little bit better, but that's all you really legally technically need.
And then all of a sudden, Texas legislature changes the law.
Oh my God, you're in problem now.
Now you have to say, It wasn't that, it's something else.
And by the way, the medical exemption won't work, because every state has written into their state statutes that if you use a medical waiver They have a right to send you to another doctor to decide if the waiver is correct.
I'm presently involved in a legal case here in Illinois, exactly that, where they're refusing the medical waiver and they're saying that they won't take care of this child who needs a surgical procedure, even though the surgeon has already agreed that the vaccines have nothing to do with the surgery and the child's at no harm because of that.
But the pediatrician, the head of pediatrics at the hospital said, we will not allow this child to have the surgery until he gets vaccinated.
And I will not accept a medical reason unless you give it to me.
And I will be the one who will decide if it's legitimate or not.
Well, the only legitimate, Dr. Mendelsohn used to say that the only legitimate medical exemption, and even that is after the person's dead.
And even that, they most probably believe you should be vaccinated.
And so then the third one is a religious exemption, an indivisible.
Interestingly enough, two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, don't believe in a religious waiver, which means they're essentially in violation of the Constitution.
It's a serious problem, but once again, it's a big fight.
What you learn in law is that you may be right, but it doesn't help you.
What we learned in law school, which is great, you know, the good lawyer knows the law, the better lawyer knows the judge.
I think that that most probably speaks more for law.
But I now believe everyone should do a religious waiver, you know, and the law speaks very well to that.
I'll be speaking about that Sunday night.
And because that's a constitutional right.
That's very difficult to take away with.
Doctor, does that hold up for people who don't have an official religious affiliation?
Exactly right.
You're asking the absolute perfect question.
Let's just quickly look at the next slide, then I'll address that right away.
If we take a look at the slide of the United States, it's got a list of all the states, and on the lower left-hand side, there's a It shows you which states believe in religious exemption, which one believes in medical exemption, and there are many websites where you can look up all the law, but unless you live in West Virginia or Mississippi, there's not a problem.
So the question you ask is a perfect question.
What's if I'm not a Christian scientist?
What's if I'm not Amish?
What is my role when it comes to how do I write a religious waiver?
And this was addressed in 1987 in New York by the Wexler court.
And what they said is they felt that that person has a right for a personal religious belief.
And that's now being held up by 48 states, except once again West Virginia and Mississippi, have accepted the Wexler court's decision.
What does it mean accepted?
A state court like New York doesn't have any jurisdiction in a court in California, Texas, but the courts will look to other states and what their Supreme Courts have said, It's not precedent, but it'll help them decide what they're going to do.
And so what the Wechsler Court held was that there were two prongs to it.
It was you were either part of an established religion or it was personal.
And personal meant It was your specific personal belief.
And it's kind of interesting.
I learned this in law school, actually.
I loved law school.
I didn't like medical school until I met Dr. Mendelson.
And I thank God every day for being able to practice medicine.
I enjoyed it immensely.
I loved law school.
Absolutely loved law school.
You know, but I didn't find anything in law that interested me whatsoever.
But of course, I'm excited to be able to help with this whole vaccine issue.
It is a very important aspect.
And there's, what's exciting is there's lawyers around the country now.
There's Patty Finn, there's Alan Phillips, there's Mary Holland.
Phenomenal constitutional lawyers who are helping families all around the country with vaccine waivers.
The second thing that happened here was in Wyoming in 2001, where they upheld that the First Amendment right of freedom of religion could not be changed by the state courts.
Obviously, the states cannot be supreme to the Constitution.
But even more, the important thing of the Wyoming court was that they said that you couldn't do a religious inquiry.
You couldn't start harassing someone, how sincere their belief is.
And I think that's kind of exciting because what the court said was that a lot of people, when they're younger, have one belief.
And then as you get older, you have other beliefs.
And that's kind of like a little bit of an introduction, and what we'll do is, on Sunday night, I'll go very specifically into how to write the waiver, the religious waiver.
You don't need a rabbi, a priest, or a minister.
You don't have to join a Christian Science Church or an Amish Church.
Every person in this country can do it, and I'll show them how.
And by the way, my question is, is this a sham?
I don't like sham, only because I think if you do something legitimate, you stay on the legitimate track.
The bottom line is, Every one of us who questions vaccines doesn't really have, I don't care if we're a layperson, a doctor, really 100% know if we're right or wrong.
But in our heart, we know that this is wrong.
And what does it mean in our heart?
That's essentially a religious belief.
And so I think the religious belief is exactly the reason why virtually everyone doesn't believe in vaccines.
And that's why it's important when you write this religious waiver, That you don't go into medical talk.
Vaccines are dangerous.
There's mercury in vaccines.
There's fetal tissues in vaccines that cause harm.
Because that now crosses over to be a medical waiver.
And the goal here is for a religious waiver.
And essentially, very quickly, a religious waiver means, in my heart, I don't believe God intends me to do this.
Well, is it not central to the whole basis of natural law and the idea that no state power can even begin to presume it's above God, no matter what kind of belief you hold?
I mean, it's a personal issue.
It always has been.
It's central to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the preamble of the Constitution.
Oh my god, you're so right, you're so on point, you know, and what they try to do is say for the better interest of the country, the better interest of the state, but that's why I showed in the beginning the graphs showing that it's a questionable argument if any vaccine has ever been in the best interest of the state.
You know, it's the illusion, you know, it's become almost a new Knee-jerk reaction.
Disease, vaccine.
In fact, all these movies that you see over the last 20 years, some contagion comes into our society.
Their first answer is vaccines, vaccines.
You know, it's kind of the ultimate brilliance of marketing by the pharmaceutical industry to get us thinking that vaccines are the answer.
This is the same marketing that went on 50 years ago with antibiotics.
We thought that antibiotics would be the answer to all bacterial infection.
And what we found is the abuse of antibiotics, giving it just almost for colds and just for no reasons, has now developed strains that antibiotics don't work.
And so all of a sudden we are losing the battle with infection.
And people are dying from infection that most probably never would have died if we only gave antibiotics to the rare exception.
And even the American Academy of Pediatrics, or I like to call them the American Academy of Pharmaceuticals, you know, they said for children the only time you should give antibiotics for pneumonia if it's life-threatening.
I couldn't believe that they made that statement a few years ago, because we know that pediatricians hand out antibiotics like water, and they don't do it in only life-threatening situations. - And there they go again, the state playing God, assuming they know so much about life, It's just, it's comparable to when they discovered DNA and assumed 96% of it was junk, that they would know all the ins and outs of the system.
You've got the probiotic systems and the gut flora, that's proven so important in conjunction with vaccine studies, and a whole lot more.
I mean, let's go back to Benjamin Rush, who warned that if they didn't put medical freedom in the Constitution, we would have medical tyranny.
And that's what's coming now with Obamacare, you know, exactly that.
I mean, it's just, I find it incredulous that anyone would vote on a 1,100 page bill without reading it.
I mean, I find this just unconscionable.
You know, every single person who voted for something like that, I don't care what, should be thrown out.
I mean, end of story!
You know, I can't believe it, you know, and that's become, you know, there's only one time in history that this happened, where someone accepted something before they read it, and that was when the Jews were at Mount Sinai, and the legend goes that God offered the Torah to many nations, and he said, we kind of like to see what's in it before we decide to accept it, and when he came to Moses, and Moses is a sharp guy, He said, no, no, no, we will agree to it, then we'll read what's in it.
So I suppose if you're doing something like that, it's worthwhile, you know, but short of that, I can't see the value to it.
Yeah, but now it's almost commonplace.
Similar things happen with Patriarchs 1 and 2, and I guess it's just a new thing in Congress not to read the text that you're passing into law.
Yeah, exactly.
And unfortunately, there's a lot of evil.
I mean, I'd love to believe there's no evil in this world.
But what happens in all these acts, they have little things hidden into the thousands of pages of these bills, which are, in fact, in Obamacare, they actually have in there that if you don't vaccinate your child, the enforcement bodies, the child and family services can come to your house and forcibly take your children away.
Frightening.
Absolutely frightening.
You know, just the idea.
I mean, this is America.
I mean, what's wrong with these people?
Why would they?
They have no interest in protecting the people.
It's very, very sad.
I don't even know what the answer is, but as long as your voice is there, and Alex's voice is there, as long as our flames are flickering a little bit, we can become a roaring fire.
And I think when it comes to the vaccine issue, we're becoming a roaring fire.
Well, Doctor, let's talk about that, too, because you had the case in California where they at least attempted to go door-to-door and force-vaccinate students they were calling truant.
You've got the cases where pediatricians are refusing patients who won't vaccinate.
You've got the case, we had the person on the show last week, I hope I didn't butcher her name, Patricia Finn, she was a lawyer representing parents who wouldn't vaccinate, and they tried to threaten her with taking away her bar agreements and tried to get her client's list.
Yeah, let me tell you something.
You know, I've spoken to her.
I haven't spoken to her recently, but I'm very proud of her.
I mean, she suffers one thing.
She's too attractive.
And that really gets, riles the left wing.
You know, because they believe that pretty women don't have a place in the...
in business, you know, and she's fabulous.
I mean, she refuses to give up the names of those families who owe her clients.
And, my God, that's one of the absolutely protected concepts of a lawyer, you know, the lawyer-client confidentiality.
And it's just sinful what they're trying to do.
And I will do anything I can to help her, you know.
But there's a growing number of lawyers like that, and that's what's so exciting, you know.
But I tell you, California is so fascinating.
California is one of the 18 states that allows for a philosophical exemption.
So the idea that they go door to door, if the families know the law and all they have to do is hand that person, I would not let them get in the house, you just slide through the paper, through the opening of your door, your philosophical through the opening of your door, your philosophical exemption.
I think that's kind of really, really important, you know, in California right now.
You don't even, and that's one that's, you know, so that's why it's funny how they're going from, unfortunately, many of us don't know our rights, but even better, If you have someone knock on your door, you slide them a car and tell them that I'm going to have my attorney call you.
That's, I think, the most important thing.
And I've spoken to many, many of these, and I feel bad for the people enforcing it.
They aren't bad people.
It's just a job to them.
You know, usually when I talk to them, you know, that usually resolves it way before it gets past any type of issue.
Let me bring this up, shifting gears.
You've got David Rockefeller, his family, among other things, really obsessed with the population issue over the past century.
And he gave that speech in 1995, basically showing what you showed on the chart, that the decline in diseases has kind of contributed to the exposure of population, suggesting that it's almost A negligible thing, a negative thing I mean, that so many people are living now that the birth rate, excuse me, the infant mortality rate has dropped and thus they are pushing vaccines worldwide, globally, with people like the Gates Foundation.
How do we combat that agenda?
Well, let me tell you something.
I tell you how we combat it.
We just go back to Genesis, right in the beginning, and the world wasn't big enough for Cain and Abel.
You know, the two of them couldn't survive together.
And so I think we've had these problems of the world is too small for a long, long time.
But on a more serious note, these are evil people.
I don't mind.
Tell them, every one of them, to exercise birth control and have no family.
That's fine with me.
I have no problem with that.
I mean, I remember when I first got married 40 years ago, in the late 60s, there was this talk about ZPG, zero... Population growth.
Population growth, thank you.
And let me tell you, we're 40 years later.
You know, I don't, you know, it's just incredible.
You know, it's a, it's frightening.
I mean, these are the one world alliance that they want you to, you know, I tell you, I'll give you a perfect example.
Like Buffett, who talks about rich people should pay more taxes.
I don't see him paying more taxes.
You know, it's like they're telling you what you should do.
It's no different.
You know, you know, get out of my life, you know, get a life yourself, you know.
And I think that these are evil people.
And how do we combat it?
By just saying no.
We're not going to do that.
I think that's the way to combat it.
I find it just kind of really interesting.
They essentially want unwholesome life.
And even this whole issue of Contraception, you know, to be put into Obamacare and trying to force a religious organization to mandate paying for contraception.
I tell you why it's so phony.
The cost of birth control bills, which I have never dispensed in my life, not because of religious reasons, because they're way too dangerous, $9 a month.
$9 a month.
And so the issue has nothing to do with that it's not available.
In fact, all the Planned Parenthoods, which give me the creeps, the whole organization, you can get it free.
If all you have to do is get a pink card or a green card, I don't know what the number is.
And so this is just control.
They want control, control, control.
Very scary.
It is.
And you were talking about other ways that the government's losing credibility, cases that are being overturned, showing that prominent vaccine critics were proven right, or at least not proven wrong.
Let's get into a little bit of that and anything else you want to bring up.
Yeah, thank you.
That's many of you, because I know he's been a guest many times with you and Alex.
That's Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
He wrote a paper in 1998 or 1999.
He saw a connection.
He's a prominent pediatric gastroenterologist, which means he deals with issues of the intestines in children.
And he noticed a correlation between children who had regressive autism And those who had measles, mumps, and rubella virus in their intestine.
And he surmised that maybe that was one of the causes.
And he wrote a paper along with one of the most prominent world gastroenterologists, Dr. Walker.
and they took Dr. Walker's license away after he'd retired already.
They took Dr. Wakefield's license away after hearings.
And just a couple days ago, The Lancet, which published the article, retracted the article.
And just a couple days ago, the courts in England overturned it and said it was pure bias, There was no evidence of any malfeasance done here.
The families who they alleged, the committee, who were upset by the research that was done, every one of them came in the defense of these doctors.
And so, you know, it's kind of very interesting that, you know, It was just an agenda by someone, maybe the drug industry.
Well, you know, it's frightening, but it's exciting.
This is a very big victory, because Dr. Walker must be in his late 70s or early 80s, and he's already retired, so it was more for his reputation than anything else.
But this bodes very well for Dr. Wakefield, who now has a suit against all the people who brought The suit against him would cause him to lose his license in England.
Doctor, it's so important that you're doing this seminar on how to allow people to understand better, to write their own exemptions, to write them from a point where it's going to stand.
At the same time, we've got all the stuff going on in government, so much corruption.
Even if you just started with the H1N1 vaccine and all the dangerous stuff they allowed to go in there with the false pandemic, at what point does it become a case of criminal negligence?
Oh, I think it's 100% correct.
I think vaccines are criminal right now.
Let's take the flu vaccine.
There's 25 micrograms of mercury.
Mercury is one of the, if not the most toxic substance known.
And it's far, I mean, the President's worried about doing a pipeline from Canada to bring gas here.
He's worried about that, but he's not worried about injecting pregnant women, injecting children with a vaccine, the flu vaccine, It doesn't work anyway, but even if it did work, it's got mercury, and every drop of mercury causes neurotoxicity, just a matter of how much.
And so we're dealing with scandalous type of stuff.
And that's just one example, because the amount of toxins in vaccines... But let's go another way.
Let's assume they remove all the toxins from the vaccine.
The vaccines themselves don't do any good.
And so, you know, it's really, in my sight, a losing argument.
It's just a matter of time before all of the public realize that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
And once you realize that, you can't go back.
Tell us one more time about the webinar you're going to give.
And that's in two days from now, correct?
Right, it's this Sunday night, March 11th, 7 to 8 o'clock at Central Time, and it's going to be a How to Write a Legal Waiver on Vaccines.
I gave a little bit of the opening right now, but I will go specifically into how to write it, and also I will answer as many questions as I can.
All you have to do is type your questions, and to go there, just go to HomeFirst.com, that's my website, H-O-M-E-F-I-R-S-T dot com, and all you have to do is click on the webinar button, and you can You can sign up for it.
Or you can give our office a call at 866-395-1881.
It's 866-395-1881.
Doctor, it was very interesting speaking with you, and we appreciate you joining us.
My pleasure.
Thank you very much.
Have a wonderful evening.
You too.
And hopefully everyone will check out that webinar.
It is important to know where we're coming from and have our bases intact.
At any rate, that is it for tonight's InfoWars Nightly News.