All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
57:37
20120730_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Aaron Dykes.
Today is Monday, July 30th, 2012.
Here's a look at what's lined up for tonight.
Tonight, on the InfoWars Nightly News, DHS prepares for civil unrest as Obama is poised to destroy the Second Amendment and the U.S.
Army is buying riot gear as fears of civil unrest grow.
And we have a special report from John Bowne on the Batman massacre, highlighting evidence of a second shooter.
And finally, Aaron meets with Dan Graber of OilPrice.com to talk about how an uprising in Syria could affect the global oil market.
All this, plus Predator drones flying over North Dakota in tonight's InfoWars Nightly News.
So let's lead off with some warm-hearted individuals that want to take your guns.
Yes, gun control is in the air.
And it's, of course, got the Democrats involved.
We've got a cyber security bill in the Senate.
They're trying to ram that through, saying they're voting on it this week.
Meanwhile, it's been found that there's gun control hidden in one of these amendments, which surely shouldn't be allowed but routinely happen in this monster legislation's page after page.
In this case, it's led by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who has his own concealed carry gun permits and shoots quite often and has bodyguards, but doesn't want you to have it.
Let's have some reasonable gun control, he says, in conjunction with this rider, this amendment for the Cybersecurity Act, which is itself quite dangerous, all on its own without this hidden gun control.
At any rate, you've got a handful of common Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer, Feinstein, the rest of them, who want to make it illegal to transfer, buy, or even possess clips with more than 10 bullets in them.
Or even semi-autos that can take more than 10 bullets.
That's almost every gun, folks.
That's a wide range.
And they want to include, of course, gun magazines, belts, feed stripes, drums, and all these scary sounding words.
Why would anyone need these things?
It's protection from the government.
Everyone knows that, but they want to make it sound reasonable.
Schumer says maybe we could come together on guns.
Talking about Democrats, Republicans.
Come together in the middle.
If each side gave some.
They always want us to give up just a little of our rights.
Do not infringe.
That's the Second Amendment.
Do not infringe.
Shall not infringe.
Do not infringe.
No, we don't move towards the middle on this.
It's a do not cross line.
It's a line held by individual Americans.
That's the whole reason we have a Bill of Rights to offset tyrannical government.
It was a greater protection Because many of the wise founding fathers in the founding day did not trust the power given to the federal government under the Constitution.
That's why they insisted before ratifying at the state level the Bill of Rights.
That's really what's going on there.
But Schumer doesn't see it that way.
He wants you to think it's reasonable just to have a few, a few, just a few little control things in there.
We're not talking about radical gun control, just rational gun control.
But, why are the Republicans also calling for gun control?
They're supposed to be pro-Second Amendment.
They're supposed to be the group that's really fighting for our rights.
Well, obviously we can't hold our breath.
Judge Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, opened the door for this, saying that D.C.
Heller was just the beginning of new decisions for gun control, while they upheld the right to have a handgun in D.C.
after the long-standing ban.
It actually was just opening the door.
Let's play part of that clip now.
My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time.
They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be born.
So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.
And of course he makes the non sequitur argument that menacing with a weird or particularly disturbing seeming weapon was recognized by the founders that has nothing to do with the actual right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, if you go and use that weapon to menace someone, obviously that's a crime.
There's already things on the books to deal with that.
We don't need to conflate that with reasons for gun control or saying it's okay because the Founding Fathers had that in mind.
Read the quotes, I dare you.
None of them are for gun control, no matter what side they're on.
But Scalia is just the beginning of so many of them.
You saw Rupert Murdoch, you saw Bill Kristol, all phony.
Conservatives, not real conservatives, but very much leaders of the GOP, all calling for gun control, and now Bill O'Reilly has jumped on that bandwagon as well.
And of course that's true, but it also makes sense for Congress to pass a new law that requires the sale of all heavy weapons to be reported to the FBI.
In this age of terrorism, that law is badly needed.
And there's more of that clip, of course, but Michael Savage has also made comments.
We'll play a few seconds of that as well.
Why was this idiot allowed to go buy a drum magazine for a .223 rifle, an AR-15 convert?
I don't know what the AR-15 was.
I once owned an AR-15, but they became illegal in California with a certain stock.
I got rid of it.
I own a Ruger Mini-14, which shoots a .223.
They're wonderful weapons, but I don't have a drum magazine.
What do I need a drum magazine for?
Where in the world is it written that an average citizen should be able to buy a drum magazine that holds a hundred rounds of ammunition?
That's a military, that is a military drum.
It's for military use only.
I know many of you say, oh, in case the government, we're going to fight the government.
Please, I don't want to hear that anymore.
And that's just a small smattering of all the people on the so-called right who are joining in this chorus for banning, quote, semi-autos, for banning assault weapons, for banning these multiple, multiple round drums.
This is about protection from tyranny.
We know That Homeland Security has geared up with 450 hollow point rounds with all their riot gear control.
The Army's doing the same thing.
They're prepared for civil unrest and riots that they are going to cause.
That's why Americans are not stupid.
They're buying guns and they're getting ready just in case.
Nobody wants a fight.
None of the people, anyway.
The government, on the other hand, is menacing and coldly circling around us and pretending there's this false debate between left and right and that they're about to agree on, quote, reasonable measures.
Meanwhile, has anyone actually studied the real case concerning the Batman shootings?
Well, John Bounds has been following the evidence.
He's got some pretty important connections about how they never even followed up on the other reports of other shooters.
Yet it made the police scanners, witnesses at the theater, all brought this issue up, but it's not good enough for the police chief.
Let's roll that footage now.
Police Chief Dan Oates issues this immediate public statement, claiming there's just one shooter.
Every single indicator is that this is all Mr. Holmes' activity and that he wasn't particularly aided by anyone else.
This is the same police chief that presided over a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment by illegally cuffing and detaining 40 innocent people, including women and children, for over two hours while looking for a bank robber.
Early on, the police scanner supports the one-shooter theory.
Sixteen Adam, I need a marked car behind the theater, stable side.
Got a suspect in a gas mask.
Two-Nine, okay, and we need cars south side.
Mainstream media promotes the one-shooter theory.
And honestly, for the record, there was only one guy.
Yes, actually, the shooting probably started, like lasted probably for like about a minute or two.
But according to the police scanner, another suspect is spotted just three minutes later.
321, one of the shooters might be wearing a white and blue plaid shirt.
From what we saw, he wasn't alone.
He had someone with him because the second can of tear gas didn't come from his side.
and from the crack it looked like he was signaling somebody or looking for somebody to come his way.
From what we saw, he wasn't alone.
He had someone with him because the second can of tear gas didn't come from his side.
He was completely dressed in black, head to toe.
From what we saw, it seemed like he had something over his face, probably to prevent him from breathing it in.
We can only assume that someone got him in, because whatever he was wearing seemed thick, so I don't think he would really... I think he'd stand out in a crowd.
One shooter theory loses even more credibility when a second gas mask is discovered.
How is it possible that 12 people were killed and 58 were injured by a semi-automatic weapon that jammed?
He shot easily like 60 or 70 rounds.
Then there is the official story given by the president himself concerning the blood path behind the theater.
Obama claims that this wound spilled what appears to be buckets of blood.
In the aftermath, the vulture media swoops in, misquoting Holmes' mother regarding the shooting, causing her to issue this statement.
I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time.
He asked if I was Arlene Holmes, and if my son was James Holmes, who lives in Aurora, Colorado.
I answered, yes, you have the right person.
Holmes' father worked for San Diego-based HNC Software, Inc., a company that worked with DARPA to develop quatronic neural networks.
These enable machines to translate oral and visual stimuli and simulate human thinking.
And Holmes' grandfather had deep ties into the intelligence framework of the U.S.
military.
The children of people with similar backgrounds are highly susceptible to exposure to monarch mind control.
Using brainwashed patsies in PSYOP massacres has become a commonplace thread in American history as the shadow government strengthens its stranglehold on public perception.
Instead of really digging into why this apartment would be rigged to kill, but then Holmes would then warn police, and then lawyer up and not say anything else, where he got the funding and the firearms training, and these eyewitness reports that there was more than one person?
Yeah, instead of asking those questions, national media want to focus all their attention on why guns were legal in the first place.
Now is the time to shine a light on the obvious motive behind this tragic event.
The motive to pass the United Nations Treaty on Small Arms.
John Bowne, InfoWars Nightly News.
And of course we now know that the UN gun ban is on hold, but only for now.
They may pass it after the election, during a possible Obama lame duck session, or when he's re-energized with the vote.
But the points Ballin makes in that video are so important, and the points that that one mainstream outlet made about why aren't they talking about all these questions about another shooter, the other gas masks, the unanswered questions, but instead we have to talk about gun control on the backs of all these victims Well, I'm thankful for one thing, and that is the backbone, the courage of the families of these members.
And I don't say that lightly.
to ask the relevant questions.
Well, I'm thankful for one thing, and that is the backbone, the courage of the families of these members.
And I don't say that lightly.
We've got a clip.
It was in that O'Reilly clip where he calls for gun control, yet it was on MSNBC where Jordan Ghani, I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name, but he has the courage to fight back against these MSNBC anchors as they try to goad him into being the excuse for gun control, and he instead says, no, this does not need to be politicized for greater gun control.
You know when they did that before?
The last time they tried to use a very unfortunate tragic shooting to bring about gun control measures but they thought better and didn't do it.
That was after the Gabrielle Gifford shooting, and you had the father of that 9-year-old girl, Christina Taylor Greene.
He stepped forward and had the courage to say we don't need to restrict Americans' freedoms just because a tragedy fell on his daughter and on the other people who were harmed at that shooting.
That is courage.
This other mainstream media talking point of getting everyone together behind the idea that guns kill people when it's people who kill people, as the bumper sticker goes, well, that's just a bunch of nonsense, and they're preying upon our weak minds when we're in the delusional state of thinking about the victims, thinking about our own and they're preying upon our weak minds when we're in the delusional state of thinking about the victims, thinking about our own mortality, and thinking about how can And that's...
The death of innocence, obviously.
But you know, there's another point that Baum just briefly makes in that package for about two seconds when they show the gun pointed at the 14-year-old kid, the little teenager.
That was in Aurora, Colorado just a couple months ago.
The town that has a total gun ban, by the way.
They had a bank robbery suspect and they pulled over hundreds, dozens of cars for two hours, handcuffed all the adults, as you saw, put guns to minors' faces because they had a suspected bank robber.
Didn't know anything about them, including gender, race, anything.
No physical description.
They just believed there was a bank robber somewhere at the traffic stop.
And on that basis, they stopped all these people Handcuffed them and detained them when they didn't do their proper policing.
Yet you see the total opposite here with the Batman shooting.
Isn't that a greater crisis?
All the loss of life, not just a bank robbery money, but they don't even hold these people up, ask them all questions, try to figure out if there was anyone else suspicious at the theater.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me.
These are questions that need to be investigated, but instead they just want to talk about gun control.
And that's because you see DHS preparing for civil unrest.
Headline, this was on Drudge Report over the weekend and it's bombshell, DHS prepares for civil unrest as Obama poised to destroy the Second Amendment.
That's our contributor Susan Posl.
It really just highlights the fact that there's 30,000 drones.
Janet Napolitano was just in a House hearing last week justifying this, saying how it's all for public safety, that they're going to have tens of thousands of drones spying on everything imaginable in this country.
It's all to get ready for this economic collapse or the possible fight back against new gun bans or any other crazy policies that this administration or any other tries to jam down Americans' throats, and we've seen them Saying that the new terrorism is going to be a lone wolf.
It's some kind of American.
It's White Al Qaeda.
They've been demonizing tea parties, returning veterans.
You don't think we could see how this is all being added together?
They want a strategy, attention against the people themselves in this country.
That's why we're all getting armed.
Nobody wants a fight.
But Homeland Security has repeatedly shown that they do want a fight.
And it's not just Homeland Security.
The Army is in the news.
The U.S.
Army purchases riot gear as fears over civil unrest grow.
Well, you know and I know if you've been watching this program for any amount of time, the Army War College police stations in Arizona Different parts of the National Guard and Army have all been preparing for the civil unrest with their own riot gear and everything else since at least 2008, before the economic crisis had really even truly begun, when it was just beginning, if you will.
And they've seen all this coming.
It's just disgusting.
But you have Paul Joseph Watson reporting on this, the purchase of the riot gear, and how the recently leaked U.S.
Army military training manual for civilian Civil disturbance operations outlines military assets used to domestically quell riots, confiscate firearms, and even kill Americans on U.S.
soil during mass arrests.
Yes, the manual says don't even fire a warning shot, just fire on people if they're believed to be rioters or basically otherwise causing problems.
Fire on Americans!
Will you fire on Americans?
And they've done surveys at all these different military training institutes.
You've seen Entire units stand down, refusing to answer these surveys, but it's been going on for some time.
It's a complex issue.
I can't give you all the details here, but the government's ready.
They're ready.
They don't like individual Americans with rights.
That's why they're so willing to embrace gun control at every opportunity.
Whether you believe they staged these crises or not, you're damn sure they seized upon them.
You can see it time and again, and I really hope they don't do it in this country.
And here they are again.
Government military to fly predator drones over North Dakota and they've got new FAA regulations allowing the National Guard to train with predator drones with laser-guided bombs and missiles on domestic soil in North Dakota.
And they've already been mixing the metaphors because they've been using drones in North Dakota in particular to spy on that farmer who was accused of stealing, I think, six cows or something.
And here they are separately training for the type of predator drones that actively use missiles and other high technology weapons.
And you bet it's all coming home.
Unfortunately, it is.
Anyway, they go into the details here and different aircraft owners and pilots associations object in particular to the use of lasers because they could be dangerous to other aircraft.
So we're going to turn now to some power news, but of course war always does go hand-in-hand with power, with competing interest for energy, how it's going to be distributed.
It's a big issue.
I don't pretend to bring you all the answers, but it's in the news that more than 370 million Indian people Lost power this week in a country of more than a billion people that's close to or at a third of the total population.
More than the population of the US and Canada combined lost power during a midsummer outage where basically their grid was not able to hold up.
This has happened on many occasions but never on this wide of a scale.
It's really crippling things like transportation there as well as the basic modes for survival.
But that's a developing country.
It's unfortunate, but you can understand where they may have some real problems.
But what's happening in the U.S.
is we've got a first world nation being voluntarily rolled back to third world status.
All for saving the planet, of course, and how evil we are to consume energy.
Yeah, we don't get any real alternative energy solutions.
We just want to shut down the existing resources for energy.
I'm talking, of course, about coal plants.
Yes, they've been dirty in the past.
Yes, I think there's a valid argument over the environmental impact.
But there's been a lot of upgrades at these facilities.
Not all the coal plant facilities.
A lot of them have implemented the new EPA standards to catch things like mercury, vapors that are emitted and so forth and so on.
Yet you see Obama promising to bankrupt the coal industry.
You see Senator Jay Rockefeller in the key state of West Virginia using his Rockefeller clout to tell them, yeah, we are going to go after coal.
And they're shutting down coal plants every week across the country.
Just a couple of those headlines.
Two coal-burning plants to power down early.
That is in Pilsen and Little Village there in Illinois.
Obama's quote, home state of Chicago.
They're shutting them down.
You've also got three coal power plants closing in West Virginia.
We just mentioned Lord Rockefeller.
And it's happening all across the country.
Texas has been very heavily targeted because we're more than 50% supplied by coal power, as are several of the surrounding states.
Now let's go now to some of the clips of Obama over the course of his term, calling to shut down coal plants, and then where using the EPA, where they couldn't get carbon dioxide restrictions, where they couldn't pass the carbon tax mandates, they use the EPA on policy to shut these things down.
Let's roll that.
Obama hit struggling Americans with energy rate hikes following Barack Obama's vow to bankrupt the coal power industry.
Americans are set to be hit with a wave of utility bill hikes as draconian EPA regulations drive up the cost of energy.
So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
The Obama administration's crusade against coal-fired power plants, which was launched on the back of discredited junk science about hyped global warming threats, has little to do with improving the environment and everything to do with lowering living standards by creating artificial scarcity.
The EPA has now listed as harmful carbon dioxide that is part of the life cycle of the planet.
New EPA rules dictate that utility companies will be forced to spend an initial outlay of $800 million to conform with regulations that mandate harmful emissions be reduced under the Clean Air Act.
And yet power plants supplied by General Electric One of Barack Obama's biggest campaign contributors have received an EPA waiver and will not be subject to the new regulations.
The new rules will exacerbate the problem of rolling blackouts, warns Donna Nelson, head of the Texas Public Utility Commission.
Nelson said, quote, I have no doubt in my mind that this rule will result in reliability issues and rolling outages in Texas.
Obama's strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, which has in turn led to Texas and other states becoming energy-dependent.
All of this, of course, will lead to significantly higher utility bills for U.S.
citizens, who are being assaulted with more and more expenses, even as the threat of a double-dip recession lowers living standards.
And these are economic sanctions being placed on the American people.
I realize, I recognize there's a partially valid environmental excuse going on here.
This is not about saving the environment.
They're doing nothing to stop that.
They're allowing the pollution to go on from many of the major polluters.
They just have to get the carbon credits and play along with the game.
This is artificial scarcity, not shutting down a power plant when it's reached its maximum ability, when it can no longer safely supply power, as we think probably happened with this Indian case.
This is artificially setting limits for shutting down these power plants on the basis of the carbon emissions, and it affects real people no matter what the best arguments are for the environmental side of things.
This is in the In the heat of summer and in the dead of winter, shutting down power when old people who are very frail and fragile can't afford to turn on their air conditioners, can't afford to turn on their heaters respectively.
And I live in Austin where they have voluntarily signed up for these carbon emission limits.
It is skyrocketing the energy prices and they've just barely gotten started as they phase in these policies over time.
I've actually looked at the charts and the way they have three-time price increases, how Austin decided to voluntarily accept, I think, around three-time the carbon limits they were trying to impose on the entire country, and it's just devastating.
It's very devastating.
But you think it's probably just about the energy and how we need a green future and we need renewable sources, and that is dinosaur energy anyway.
I agree.
I'd like to see some new energy come to market.
I'd like them to stop suppressing alternative energy.
But that's not going to happen overnight.
It's not going to happen with phony green friends on the left who are really just dictators and occupationists in the Obama administration.
Why do I say that?
Because they're also going after rainwater.
Yes, they've arrested a man in Oregon on the basis that he cannot collect his own rainwater.
Sound incredible?
It's true.
Today, Jackson County, Oregon says it's your rainwater and the country has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him $1,500 for the supposed crime of collecting rainwater on his own property.
The man's name is Gary Harrington and he owns over 170 acres of land in Jackson County.
On that land he has three Ponds, and those ponds collect rainwater that fall on his land.
Common Sense would say he has every right to the ponds with the water on his property, but Common Sense has been all but abandoned.
And here they are arguing that once it heads towards natural waterways, it's no longer your water, no longer the Earth's water, but the government's water.
But the issue is, in fact, bigger than that.
But I would point out, this has been in the media for over a week.
I've heard the audio commentary from this guy, Harrington, and he's quoted in part as saying, when something's wrong, you just as an American citizen have to put your foot down and say it.
This is wrong.
You can't just take away any more of my rights from here on in.
I'm going to fight it.
As you well know, they're going after everything from backyard gardens to lemonade stands, raw milk, Amish growers, Amish dairy people, you name it.
They're coming after individualism in this country because they're pushing collectivism.
Now, according to Oregon laws, one must obtain a permit in order to have a reservoir.
But Harrington had the permits for the reservoir.
In 2003, he was granted the permits, but the state reversed the decision, then come along to seize his rights to collect water, and now we're putting him in jail, which he's basically going along with as an act of civil disobedience, as an act of saying, if you're going to be a tyrant, then you be a tyrant, as a Henry David Thoreau move of saying, The best place in an unnatural state, in a corrupt state, is in prison, because that's the only place for a righteous man.
Bad paraphrase of that quote, but it's on the record.
But why is this a bigger issue than just rainwater collecting in Oregon?
Well, it's because since at least 2010, they've been doing it throughout the Southwest.
Many western states, in this previous article, collecting rainwater now illegal.
In many states, as big government claims ownership over water.
Another Mike Adams article, he points out how many western states, including Utah, Washington, and Colorado, have outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater.
Calling it an unlawful diversion of rainwater.
What turning of natural rights of common sense all on its head in claiming that government has the default rights to something that comes naturally on the earth instead of an individual.
That's the reverse of the way the Constitution was written and understood where all rights are kept to the people and to the states except those very few that are enumerated and specifically given to the limited federal centralized government.
All that has turned around over the centuries and now collectivist big government assumes the right until you're proven innocent, until you're proven to have some kind of individual right for something as necessary and basic to survival as water.
The infringement on the right to things like collecting rainwater, which falls from the sky, total act of God, no intermediaries, there's no state function between where that rain falls and the individual or the creatures in the forest, but they want to control it.
Who else wants to control it?
The private sector does.
They've been trying to privatize water rights around the world, again to infringe on things like the individual's right to collect water.
It happened in South America.
Because you've got these predatory institutions like the World Bank and IMF, which are just sister, twin, hydra, evil, deviant creatures that piggyback off of each other.
They say, well, we've got country A. It's in serious debt.
They really need to reform.
We've got a great program to correct their economic downturn.
Turn things around in maybe 20 or 30 years.
So we're going to put on these really burdensome loans at interest rates we know the country can never pay back.
And through that loan, which is sold to the people and its leaders on the basis of doing them a favor and helping them out of a crisis, as they're doing today in Europe with the crises going on there economically, they convince people to take on what is not only a predatory loan, But a predatory set of conditionalities.
Those conditionalities determine the way that country is allowed to develop for the next many years.
Now, the rubber hits the road in the case of Bolivia.
In 1998, through the course of an IMF and World Bank loan, and you know, one sets up the loan conditions, the other monitors it and regulates it, They privatized the water rights.
They took away the public water utility, which I'm sure had its own flaws, its own need for correction, and they gave the water rights away through privatization to the Bechtel Corporation, one of the biggest and meanest no-bid contract utility companies around the world.
They're tied to all our same friendly administrations, and they're predatory.
In the case of Bolivia, they were not even allowing people to collect rainwater.
And in this case, I've got PBS's Frontline reports.
And they've got a timeline where they chronicle the new IMF policies, how this led to water privatization through the loan assistance, and how they handed this over to the Aguas de Tunari entity, which was really just a front for the Bechtel Corporation and a few other select entities, which were all multinational occupation forces there in Bolivia.
I'm not backing socialism in Bolivia or anything else, but the people rioted.
Rioted in the streets of Bolivia.
They rioted over this water thing.
They couldn't take no for an answer because they're so poor there.
They couldn't take them saying no to the ability to collect rainwater.
I'm not calling for riots, but mass demonstrations does make a lot of sense.
If we don't stand up to an issue as invasive as telling us we can't collect water rights because the government has a right to it, or that some corporation has the right Well, we're clearly not going to make it.
I just want to bring your attention to the point that this is an ongoing, long-standing plot to take control over our water, our air, you name it.
And again, this is all part of the larger United Nations agenda too.
So it's a mix of privatization schemes as well as total government control.
Under things like Agenda 21, and through quotes throughout time, you see these environmentalists who all want to save the earth and bring peace and justice to every little country around the world, telling us they will control the commons.
What are the commons?
It's the things that go everywhere in the world.
The air, the water, and the land.
And those are the very things they want control over, even within our countries here in the United States and the countries around the world.
This is a loss of sovereignty, in this case over water and everything else.
You've seen it coming down the pipelines.
Look up Agenda 21, Oceans.
Look up the U.S.
Oceans Council.
This is all happening and this incident with the rainwater is part of it.
I can't continue to rant, but it just freaks me out that they could tell us we can't even collect rainwater on our own property.
Total invasion of property rights.
So you can see whether it's privatization, where they want a monopoly of profits, or the state, where they want a monopoly of power, they're not interested in individuals having an alternative, in this case, to rainwater, because it cuts into their domination.
Meanwhile, while more things are becoming crimes we didn't think could be crimes, more people are becoming pre-crime suspects before they even carry out crimes.
Well, we're talking of course about that minority report trend, and here's Steve Watson's headline, More Law Enforcement Agencies Turn to Pre-Crime Policing.
Law experts warn of threat to reasonable suspicion.
Police and other law enforcers in the U.S.
are increasingly turning to minority-style pre-crime strategies to fight crimes by predicting them before they take place.
A report out today from the AFP notes the predictive and analytics software, computer algorithms that predict where and when...
Crimes will occur, and they've been adopted by police departments in places like Santa Cruz, California, in places like Memphis, Tennessee.
I know they're using pre-crime red light spotlights in parts of New Jersey.
And all this is just picking up steam as the technology develops without a care in the world for our rights.
Whatever happened to the Fourth Amendment right?
That without due process, without reasonable belief of suspicion, without Any kind of incriminating evidence, they're going to be targeting people.
Now this is all on the basis of computer algorithms, and here it is in the AFP, police using predictive analytics to prevent crimes, and they say the same kind of technology that can track our shopping habits?
Well, I don't know why they have to track all our shopping anyway, but they're definitely doing it, storing and using that data, selling it to third parties, mostly, if not entirely, without our permission.
Somehow the same technology allows them, they think, to be tipped off to potential crimes.
Even if it works, it's an incredibly dangerous technology, not a step in the right direction at all.
This is a total takeover of government.
They presume they're always in the right when they're usually in the wrong, and they Always, always want to put doubt in individuals.
This is the same mentality behind airport checkpoints and everything else, where everybody has to be screened and found to be not culpable before they're cleared to just go on about the things they have the right to do in ordinary life.
Travel, shopping, you name it.
But now they've got cameras and everywhere they're going to be monitoring places, particularly where their little computer algorithms have found might be little troubled hotspots.
And I guess it won't be long before those are considered Constitution-free zones, just like our borders, just like our airports.
I guess it won't be long before that includes shopping malls and sports stadiums.
It's already shifting into train stations.
We've covered the TSA swooping into those places and how they don't like to be filmed about the fact they're setting up checkpoints.
Anyway...
We really have to keep an eye on this.
It's getting out of hand quickly.
You know that.
But we've got a guest in the next segment about how oil prices will be, or at least could be, affected by the various conflicts in the Middle East, with Syria clearly heating up.
We don't know if it's going to go into all-out war, or if the secret covert, partially secret, Backing of Al-Qaeda and other so-called Syrian rebel forces.
The Syrian Transitional Council will overturn Assad before the need to bring in the Western forces.
But you better believe they're waiting in the wings.
And yet this could trigger pressure on the gas pumps, particularly if Iran does decide to block the Strait of Hormuz.
They've threatened, they've claimed they're capable of doing it, and they claim they will if they're struck preemptively or if certain types of sanctions are put on their country.
Let's hope that doesn't happen, but obviously it could put a big pressure on the price of the pumps.
Even though there's plenty of alternative energies we could fund and develop without going crazy on the carbon sequestration and clampdown of American behavior, and without always being beholden to the oil companies that have ruled us for the past hundred years.
Is that so crazy?
I don't know.
You decide for yourself.
Now I'll turn now to our daily quote, which is apropos given all the attempts at gun control, unfortunately from the left and the right.
It comes from the socialists, the Fabian socialists, the top eugenicists, George Bernard Shaw, and even he recognized that criminals do not die by the hands of the law.
They die by the hands of other men.
And whatever he meant in the original context, that clearly applies to the idea that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens is what has the best potential overall to stop armed criminals.
Because police can't and won't respond to those crimes until after the fact in almost every case.
But if people are allowed to carry, as the Constitution clearly justifies, in places like Aurora, Colorado, don't go crazy in getting other cities to also adopt total gun control bans, we could police ourselves to a large extent, particularly when there's the unpredictable factor that a crazy criminal minded person may decide to try to shoot people up.
You don't know where or when that's going to happen, but we do know that a balance of power in the hands of other individuals is probably the best way to go.
At least that's my take on it.
I'll take your feedback through email and we'll be back after this with more on the InfoWars nightly news.
Thanks for watching.
Alex Jones here with a message to fellow freedom lovers.
The prognosis for the entire planetary economic system runs from bad to worse.
The globalist model is to shut down societies and starve patriots out until they acquiesce to the global takeover.
That's why we've assembled the most vital and important preparedness items at InfoWarsShop.com.
These are items that I did research on, that I personally use.
You've got the LifeStraw, so you can turn fetid water into safe water anywhere you go.
The KTOR Hand Crank Generator, to charge up key equipment during power outages or out in the field.
Strategic Relocation 3rd Edition by Joel Skousen.
When Disaster Strikes by Matthew Stein.
Therosafe, used by Homeland Security to protect yourself during any radiological event.
Hand-cranked shortwave AM FM radios.
Everything that we've researched and found to be the best is available at Infowarshop.com and your purchase makes our Infowar possible.
We're getting prepared.
Are you?
Infowarshop.com Sick of the globalist eugenicist control freaks adding poison to your water and laughing as you get sick and die?
Start purifying your water with ProPure.
My friends, I've done a lot of research, and the best gravity filter out there bar none is ProPure, and it's available discounted at InfoWars.com.
Its filters are silver impregnated to prevent bacterial growth.
There's no priming required.
It's NSF-42 certified.
Optional fluoride filters can reduce fluoride up to 95%.
Easy to set up and use.
Doesn't require electricity.
Purify water from lakes, streams, ponds, and wells.
This filter system leaves in beneficial minerals, which is key.
Save money by not buying bottled water, and avoid BPA that leaches from the plastic.
ProPure is the best gravity-fed filter out there.
It's what my family uses.
Infowars.com already has the lowest price on ProPure.
But if you add the promo code WATER at checkout, you get an additional 10% off at Infowars.com.
You can also call to order 888-253-3139.
We are back on the InfoWars Nightly News, and we're pleased to now be joined by Daniel J. Graber.
He's from oilprice.com and covers the geopolitical spectrum of what is behind our oil prices and energy costs overall.
Thanks for joining us, Daniel.
Thanks for having me.
So obviously we've got some tensions in the Middle East as always, but things are obviously coming to a head in Syria.
The Iran specter has sort of always been on the table for the past couple years.
That's not going away.
Get into how we analyze the oil prices and the other energy prices, and then let's break down some of the key factors.
I think in terms of Iran, you know, you look at early in February when they threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, there was a brief spike in oil prices.
As we watch the conflict in the Eurozone continue, we can see some of that price come down further.
Today, Iran said that they're going to keep the strait open as long as it serves their interests.
And it seems like, in some aspects, Iran would likely be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't de-close the strait.
Right now, there are some countries that have concessions with U.S.
sanctions and so forth.
Oil prices have kept relatively steady under the $100 barrel mark.
So I don't think long-term we're going to see any spikes in terms of Iran.
In terms of Syria, most of their oil has been shut out of the game for a while now.
One of the last oil companies left the country very early this year so it just really doesn't seem like there's going to be any physical disruptions in the market like we saw last year in Libya.
Do you think the fears themselves are likely to drive prices at the pump and that sort of thing or you think it's going to be a relatively neutral year?
I think it's going to be relatively neutral here.
You look at the reports coming out of the OPEC and that sort of thing.
They seem to suggest that there's going to be at least some level of stability long term.
For short term, we can see spikes here and there.
It seems like the second quarter is typically ripe for escalations and crude prices.
As a whole, it doesn't seem like we're going to be headed towards the 150-barrel mark we saw in the run-up to the recession.
Right.
So the whole Iran situation, as you mentioned, they've threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, but they've just recently announced that their plan to block the Strait of Hormuz has been finalized and it's on the table waiting if they basically get striked or if there's certain kinds of sanctions.
What will that do if they were to block the Strait of Hormuz?
Well, there's always, you know, strategic petroleum reserves.
The IEA last year called on member states to release their strategic reserves because of the conflict in Libya.
There's always more Canadian crew.
BP today suggested that they were going to build a rail system to get around some of the logistical elements inside the United States.
So I think, I mean, if there is any sort of tension in the Strait of Hormuz, A, there are U.S.
military assets in the region to protect that strait, and B, like I said earlier, I don't think that Iran would necessarily go ahead and close it off unless it were severely backed into a corner by way of some action by Israel or economic collapse on their part.
But if the prices were to skyrocket over this kind of scenario, who does benefit from the decrease in supply and the overall increase in price?
Well, if there is a decrease in supply, obviously it's going to be the market that's going to benefit from that, because obviously if you look at the analysis of gasoline prices, bulk of that is weighed on crude prices, so actually trickle down to the consumer.
It just all depends on what sort of government reaction we can see coming out of that in terms of tax relief or any sort of administrative decisions that would be in response.
So to predict that we're going to see $8 gallon of gasoline or $2 gallon of gasoline depends on a variety of factors apart from any potential military escalation.
So inside the United States, obviously around the world, we've got the dollar issues as well.
The economy's tanking, the Federal Reserve's printing a lot of money that kind of deteriorates the overall value, and there's all this politics over whether or not there's going to be the U.S.
oil dollar in the future, whether or not that's weakening.
What do you see on that front?
It's hard to say.
A lot of that depends on, as you said, politicking within an election year.
It's really hard to get any sort of assessment on the future of the U.S.
economy given the back and forth that you see in Washington in terms of Romney's stump, Obama's stump, and that sort of thing.
So I think any sort of long-term analysis that you get on the factors in the United States depends on a lot of direction.
You know, advocates on one hand will say advancing the Keystone Pipeline would have certain benefits, whereas others say that opens up the U.S.
markets to vulnerability, to potential oil shocks, where we could be embracing more things like wind energy.
Or any variety of the other green initiatives on the table.
So a lot of it depends on who's sitting in the White House come 2013.
Do you have a good handle on why it's taken so long for us to divorce from oil?
Obviously there's the robber barons and various interests who keep us tied to it, try to keep that marriage together.
But do you have a long-term sense of why more alternative sources of energy haven't reached at least the mainstream levels where we could begin to use them, have them in our homes and our vehicles, etc.?
Well, I think it's a lot of it's a mindset.
I remember having a conversation with some players involved in the renewable energy sector earlier this year, and they expressed that it took a hundred years to latch on to an oil-based economy, so we can't expect You know, 40 years after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring or however long it's been to have windmills in everybody's backyard.
There's infrastructure involved, you know, LNG is just starting to take off, the electric vehicles, and that sort of thing.
So there's a whole mindset that has to change in order to break from a oil economy to one that advocates wind or solar, you know.
Again, on the East Coast, there's some groups who are complaining they don't want wind turbines off their coast because it spoils the view.
There's infrastructure involved.
And of course, there's always the political situation where you have folks on one side of the aisle advocating a more oil-intensive economy, whereas others want to make the break from that to embrace more green energy initiatives.
There's always the tax benefits that expire at the end of the year.
Well, it's a real pickle because you've got Obama and the EPA shutting down all these coal plants across the country.
building a better automobile before we break that relationship with the fuel economy.
Well, it's a real pickle because you've got Obama and the EPA shutting down all these coal plants across the country.
And yeah, there might be an environmental argument there, although I think it is up for debate.
But when you close those plants, it is kind of a sanction on the prices themselves.
And there's been a lot of areas of the country where the energy prices are completely spiking because of that or because voluntarily taking on CO2 restrictions and that sort of thing.
That's going on here in Texas big time because we're one of the biggest coal states.
What do you see on that front?
I can't speak specifically on coal, but in terms of the prices, you know, it always strikes me as odd when they look, when they track retail automotive sales, track a lot different when gasoline is $4.50 a gallon in the United States than it does when it's $2.50 a gallon in the United States.
I think the Ford F-150 might still be the best-selling vehicle In the United States, is it the most economical?
Probably not.
So again, it all boils down to what does the consumer do?
Where are they driving?
I teach part-time college classes and a lot of the university sentiment is that they kind of take it for granted.
They don't weigh it as The hot issue that it was in the 1960s because it's in their face.
I think there's kind of, you know, this put it aside and it just doesn't seem like it's that big debate.
Rio didn't produce much this year.
So it depends on more than just saying this is going to happen.
You know, you have to weigh a lot of factors in terms of price and the reaction to that price.
And do you think they're keeping the prices of the pump down politically because it's an election year?
Because it was a major factor in the 2010 elections.
There's been a lot of noise about it, you know, from both sides of the aisle.
But you don't see that as an issue in an election where the overall economy is such an important issue.
Well, I think, yes, gas prices are sort of a political bellwether, but you also have to factor in the international aspects of the oil markets, where it's not just a single issue like a Chicago refinery closing or that sort of thing.
Oil is an international commodity, and because gasoline prices are based on that commodity, The U.S.
political system is at least partially removed from the actual debate.
Certainly Obama could release strategic reserves and that could slump prices and tax reliefs and so on, but I think it's a broader issue that extends beyond election year politics.
So break that down.
What do you think is the overall important way to look at this topic?
The price of gas?
Sure, I mean it's something you cover a lot and, you know, the overall geopolitics of oil and the whole scheme of things.
In terms of price, I think that a lot of it depends on what happens coming out of Syria.
If Syria collapses, obviously there is concerns raised with Russia, a major energy player in its own right, Iran, which has come to the aid of Syria before, and a lot of the factors going on in the Arab regime in terms of what are those major oil-producing states going to do once they start moving away from The Saddam era of the Middle East towards the more democratic model.
In terms of the United States, again, a lot of that depends on where the elections head.
If we have President Romney in 2013, obviously projects like the Keystone XL are going to factor into the global aspects of the energy sector but then again we have incidents like last week's spill in Wisconsin from Enbridge which is going to put a black eye on crude oil pipelines that carry Canadian crude oil.
So you know there's a lot of what-if scenarios that make me reluctant to say at this time next year we're going to be having a conversation about $200 oil and $5 prices at the pump where economically speaking
It doesn't look like we're in for the rough ride that we've been experiencing for a long time, but then again, I'm not exactly an economic expert, so... Well, why did we see in Iraq all the talk about how we're going to have an overflow of oil, all this cheap oil, but once they actually got down to the dirty, those companies closed off production and suppressed it in many cases?
In Iraq?
Right.
I've commented before and there's an analysis out today from the International Crisis Group saying that a lot of Iraq's problems are Iraq's problems, meaning they still don't have an effective way out of their own internal oil crises.
You have the Kurdish government sending oil up through Turkey.
Baghdad says, no, that's not the way to go.
And it just seems like it's handicapped itself.
Now, the International Crisis Group says today a lot of that is because the United States was unable to meld everyone together in the same room so that they could chart their own forward path.
Iraq has vast unexplored resources that do potentially make it a major oil player, but that all depends, as it does in the United States, on how well they can navigate their own political deadlocks.
What's your take on the Alaska issue?
There's people saying, drill, baby, drill.
There's people saying, don't do it for environmental reasons.
I've talked to Nick Begich.
He's basically from a Democratic family, real tied to the politics up there.
And he explained the vast level of resources in gas, but also the surface coal is just untouchably huge supply, all kinds of other resources.
Is that our answer geopolitically out of Middle East conflicts?
Well, I think Alaska's an interesting case because there is, as the global warming phenomenon, however you want to characterize it, evolves and we see melting sea ice and that's exposing, you know, major oil and gas reserves that were previously inaccessible.
There is the potential for Alaska to re-emerge, but it hasn't happened yet.
Shell's been sitting In Dutch Harbor, off the coast of Alaska, waiting for the lanes up north to clear so that they can get at the oil and gas.
If you want to look at, say, Greenland, Caron Energy had a pretty ambitious exploration plan up there, but they came back empty-handed.
So, yes, the potential is to tap into that market, but is the technology there yet?
To really make it a game changer right now.
Right now everybody seems to be looking at North Dakota as opposed to Alaska.
Alaska does have the potential, but the potential as far as I can see hasn't been exactly proven yet.
Right.
Well, that's true with the natural gas too.
It's all there, but they don't know how to distribute it.
Correct.
So what's the takeaway here?
Because it is a complex issue.
There's all these foreign countries and geopolitics involved.
What should we be keeping our eye on?
What's the ball?
I think what we should be keeping our eye on is long-term.
If markets are doing anything after the recession, it's that they panic.
One day the Dow is up 200, the next day it's down 300.
We need to look at the long term.
Obama's or whoever's president during the first quarter is likely to react to whatever economic situation they're handed at that time, and that factor is going to change.
These things fluctuate.
They do more so after the recession than they did before, it seems.
So the take-home message, I think, is don't panic.
Daniel J. Graber, tell us about your website, OilPrice.com.
What kind of coverage can we find there?
At OilPrice.com, we have a variety of analysts.
I like to cover geopolitical aspects, some of the pricing trends, and how those relate to pipeline politics.
That also extends to overseas.
We also have people engaged in the fracking debate, the clean energy debate.
You name it, we cover it.
Oh, that's a good point.
Talk about fracking real quick.
Fracking, I think, it depends on who you ask.
You know, ten years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation, so there's a way to go yet.
It seems like, yes, I think T. Boone Pickens described the United States as the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.
I think with anything that's relatively new, there is going to be Opposite polls making equally valid claims about that sector.
Time will tell.
I think we're still studying that in terms of a scientific point of view.
Is it fracking?
Is it the depth of the wells?
There are a variety of factors before we throw a dart at the natural gas sector and say, it's fracking, that's the problem.
The opportunity is certainly there.
Well, how serious do you think the actual practice is in terms of physically disrupting wells and other systems that are underground?
Well, it doesn't seem to me to make good business sense to not take it seriously, especially after the 2010 disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
It doesn't make good sense to be frivolous about something that has the potential that shale does in the United States.
Absolutely.
Well, we'll speak to you in the future, and we'll all be keeping our eye on these geopolitical events.
Daniel Graber, oilprice.com, thanks for joining us and letting us pick your brain.
Thank you.
Enjoy your day.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection