All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:29:25
20120815_Wed_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's time for you to stand up in the info room.
You want to fight?
You better believe?
You've got one!
You better believe?
Good evening, and welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Rob Dewin.
Today's date is Wednesday, August 15, 2012, and here's a little look at what we have coming up.
Tonight, the U.S.
Army unveils 21st century robotic airships.
The seven-story football-sized Surveillance Zeppelin is an unmanned hybrid airship to be used for surveillance missions.
Then, are eggs more dangerous than Al-Qaeda?
A new so-called study challenges the health benefits of eggs.
No yoke.
Plus, the Arkansas police released the video of the handcuffed man who shot himself in the head.
But wait, it's a reenactment video.
And the police chief says it's easy to shoot yourself while being handcuffed.
And finally, when you get What do you say and what do you do to protect your rights?
Eddie Craig joins us in studio with sound advice on how to survive the system.
All that and more up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, it seems 1.4 billion bullets wasn't enough for the Department of Homeland Security.
In fact, they're still buying more.
So our top story, DHS classifies new ammo purchases following controversy.
And what do they mean by classifies?
It means they're blacking things out.
This is from Paul Joseph Watson.
It came out today during the show.
During the radio show earlier today, despite the fact that documents are only supposed to be redacted if authorized by Congress or for national security reasons, a solicitation posted on FedBizOpps website yesterday concerning ammunition purchases made by DHS on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, that's ICE, contains numerous blacked out sections and we'll show you those in a second.
The solicitation explains how the contract put out by the DHS to purchase the ammunition was not subject to full and complete competition.
A process justified by what DHS claims was an unusual and compelling urgency to acquire the bullets.
Noting that there's a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation which could cause substantial safety for the government should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.
And there's the blacked out sections you can see right there.
So, you know, it's all for our safety.
This is all supposed to be above the board type stuff when they're buying these types of ammunitions.
They just put in an order for 750 million rounds back in late March.
There was 450 million rounds of hollow point .40 caliber.
We've discussed other agencies buying ammunition and spreading it out all over the country.
And now, It's not the Forest Service, it's not the FDA, it is the Social Security Administration.
Has purchased 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets.
Of course for target practice, because that's what we use hollow points for, is for target practice.
I guess in the government they do that.
The Social Security Administration, oh this by the way was on Drudge, thank you Drudge once again for putting out the real news.
The Social Security Administration is set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations across the country.
A solicitation posted by the SSA on FedBizOpps' website asks contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of .357 SIG 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.
The synopsis to the solicitation adds that the ammunition is to be shipped to 41 locations within 60 days of purchase.
A separate spreadsheet lists those locations, which include the Social Security headquarters in Baltimore, As well as major cities across the country including Los Angeles, Detroit, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Seattle.
Sounds like places that are all going to have riots when everything collapses and that must be what the urgency is noted for in the previous Paul Joseph Watson article.
So now we have these guys over a billion and I guess we could say a billion and a half bullets now are being ordered.
They're going to be delivered.
And initially, there's another interesting point in this article.
Despite initially asking the bullets to be delivered to the National Weather Service, NOAA claimed this was a clerical error and insisted the ammunition was for the Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement.
But why would they need powerful hollow-point bullets to tear apart internal organs that are normally used to tear apart internal organs when these are only needed for paper targets, as they say?
In their purchase order.
So that's very interesting.
Why are they buying all these hollow point bullets?
Are they trying to keep us from getting them?
Are they going to buy them and then destroy them?
Or are they going to be using them to shoot American citizens in the back, in the face, wherever they might be, in the backs of police cars, while they're handcuffed?
We'll get to that story in a little bit.
Well, let's move on.
In fact, here it is.
Arkansas police released suicide reenactment video of handcuffed man who shot himself in the head.
This was a story that came out a couple weeks ago, maybe not even a week, maybe about a week ago, of a guy who was handcuffed in the back of a police car.
The cops were questioning somebody and all of a sudden they noticed this guy slumped over, dead.
He's got a small caliber handgun with him in his seat.
How did he shoot himself in the back?
They went ahead and released a video, and we can roll some of that video.
They showed, you know, different officers getting in, getting double cuffed, and that's supposed to be so they can't pick the lock.
They get in the car, you know, you have a quote here from the police chief, it's very possible and it's quite easy to shoot yourself in the back of a police car while handcuffed.
And what I think is interesting, and this is coming up here, the guy gets in, And then, okay, he doesn't have the gun in his pocket, he's got it hidden somewhere in the car.
So apparently what they're saying is he stashed the weapon in the car at some point, and then pulled it out after he was searched twice.
Not once, but twice.
And, oh yeah, see, look, everybody's able to do it.
I mean, the cops can do it, you know?
Is it dark?
What were the situations that he got stopped at?
But now there he is.
And they show, you know, other people doing it, getting in.
Here's a lady getting in.
She's a little smaller.
They show a six-foot-two guy.
And I want to go over a couple things that the family said before we get into the meat of this article.
The family says, I think they killed him.
My son wasn't suicidal, said Carter's mother, Teresa Carter.
She also noted that Chavez was shot in the right temple, yet he is left-handed.
Carter also points out that Chavez called his girlfriend while pulled over and assured her that he would contact her again when he got to jail.
So that sounds like a guy who's about ready to kill himself.
He's making future plans.
He's not suicidal.
He's happy.
And so we go to the story here.
This is from Steve Watson.
Arkansas police released suicide reenactment video of handcuffed man who shot himself in the head.
The story hit headlines earlier this month as officers claimed that 21-year-old Chavis Carter killed himself after being searched on suspicion of possession of marijuana.
Officers double-locked the handcuffs, making it harder for the lock to be picked, but claimed that Carter was able to pull out a hidden gun, raise it to his head, and pull the trigger while they were temporarily away from the car.
Moving on, it says, as part of the investigation into his death and perhaps in response to the claims of foul play, yeah, police released a video depicting several officers of different heights and builds being cuffed and still being able to raise a concealed replica gun to their heads.
I don't know.
I call BS.
I mean, that's really all I can say.
I find it very hard to believe that they searched the guy and did not find a gun on him.
They searched him twice and did not find the gun on him.
And the fact that they say this guy would shoot himself in the head, this just stinks to high heaven.
So hopefully there will be an official investigation that doesn't involve the police, it's outside sources, and we do get to the bottom of it.
But I think the community is doing the right thing by being out there protesting and saying what's on their minds and especially the parents.
Because, you know, when somebody dies and they say it's suicide and nobody else that knows the guy says he was suicidal, It's murder.
But we'll see what happens.
We'll see what happens here.
Moving on to more police state news.
Unblinking surveillance stair.
Army's seven-story flying football field sized blimp.
And this is by Miss Smith out of Network World.
And we link to it.
The Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle, or the LEMUV, is almost the size of a seven-story football field.
It's meant to fly at speeds between 30 and 80 knots without ceasing for 28 straight days while providing an unblinking eye of surveillance.
Northrop Grumman has a $500 million contract to build three of these 21st century robot airships for the U.S.
Army.
And, uh, very interesting story.
And it takes me back to this book that Aaron's had in his office for a long time.
It's called, uh, Future Government, and it shows a little triangular Spaceship with the words United World Federation on it.
And it talks about how things are going to be different in the future.
This book was published, let's see in this book, 1980.
Wow.
That's before I was even in grade school.
And I was in grade school a long time ago.
So let's go to the future weapons section.
One weapon of the future that will be used a lot, if wars continue, is pilotless drone planes.
And then you flip the page.
Control planes will be able to stay up in the air up to 24 hours without having to land to refuel.
They'll be most important serving as decoys to draw anti-aircraft fire away from the real planes.
They could also be used for suicide missions.
And they could also be used to kill American citizens without warrants.
They didn't add that in there.
That's interesting.
The drones, as they recall, can also carry bombs, short-range missiles deep into enemy territory where it would be too dangerous for a conventional bomber to go.
And it goes on from there.
But very interesting, they've been talking about this for years, so this is obviously stuff that's been in the works.
It is not there for our safety, and these are going to be for the Army, but they're going to be used for, we know eventually they will be used for domestic purposes.
That's always the case.
They roll things out with the Army first to see if they work, and then after that, it's time to bring them here, and they'll be won over every city.
Looking at you, staring at you, a giant unblinking eye, tracking every move you make, and if you get caught by the cops, well, you're just going to commit suicide in the back of a car, because that's the way it works.
Moving on to another piece of propaganda.
The Mail Online reports, is the U.S.
sending SEAL Team 6 to capture top drug cartel kingpin?
American military plotting military mission similar to bin Laden mission.
And this is an interesting piece.
And, um, it's a very interesting piece here.
So they mentioned, you know, it mainly seems like a big propaganda piece, talk about the drug war.
It mentions SEAL Team 6 in the article twice.
And they don't say who's saying that they're going to be sending SEAL Team 6.
They're not quoting any government official.
They're just saying, you know, will they send it?
And they talk about this guy, El Chapo, who escaped from prison in 2001 and he's been on the run and he's head of the biggest drug cartel.
It's a $1 billion drug empire and is accused of firing the first shot in the bloody cartel war that has killed nearly 50,000 people.
Very interesting.
What I find most interesting is, towards the bottom of the article, they go to this photo.
We have it right over here.
There it is.
There it is.
This is the fake Bin Laden room video.
There's Hillary.
She's got her hand over her mouth.
There's Obama, not looking at the same place that everybody else is looking, which is very interesting.
He seems to be looking above where everyone else is looking.
So they put that in there along with some propaganda about, you know, a member of SEAL Team 6 shot and killed Osama Bin Laden during the elite squad's raid during his compound in Pakistan.
So I don't know why MailOnline would put this in here.
I just want to ask them a couple questions.
Do they not see our article May 5, 2011, which states, by Paul Joseph Watson, staged White House Situation Room photos, part of Bin Laden fable?
And the photos were described by many as having historical significance and forming a captivating record of Obama's greatest success and his defining moment in his presidency.
We're also told by the media that the leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the eye!
U.S.
President Barack Obama along with his high-level team watched coverage in the White House as commandos gunned down the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, via a video camera fixed to the helmet of a Navy SEAL.
Along with this crumbling official narrative of the operation to kill bin Laden, it has emerged that Obama, Clinton, and the staff saw virtually nothing whatsoever of the mission that allegedly led to the assassination of bin Laden, because according to the CIA, Director Leon Panetta, there was a 25-minute blackout of the live feed, which was cut off before the U.S.
Navy SEALs even entered the building.
So let's go back to this photo real quick.
Why was Hillary Having her hand over her mouth.
Is it possible that she saw the helicopter crash?
That top secret helicopter?
That was seen in the compound?
That's possible.
In fact, it says the situation room is actually unfolded.
They had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound and that was reported by the London Telegraph.
So we're learning a little lesson in how the propaganda trail works.
You know, a big newspaper puts out an article Talking about SEAL Team 6, trying to get people into, you know, they're going to help us out with the drug war and go down to Mexico and get El Chapo.
Let's go to the Army Times and see what they had to say.
Administration won't release Bin Laden records.
And this is from March 15, 2012.
Ain't going down there.
The Pentagon told the AP this month that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing Bin Laden's body.
It also said it could not find any images of Bin Laden's body on the Navy aircraft carrier where the Al-Qaeda leader was taken and later buried at sea because that's Muslim tradition.
Oh wait, it's not.
The Pentagon said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification test for Bin Laden.
Because, you know, when you put out the most daring rescue and the most daring kill mission in the world in the history of all terrorism, you know, you don't take pictures.
You don't do any of that.
You just, oh, we don't know where it is.
We put him out to sea.
We don't know where he's at.
Well, let's continue.
I'm getting a little mad here.
I'm sorry.
Pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of Bin Laden's body if he were killed.
It said it search files at the Pentagon U.S.
Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida and the Navy Command in San Diego that controls the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson used in the mission.
So nobody has files of this.
The Defense Department told AP in late February it cannot find any emails about the Bin Laden mission or his Geronimo codename that were sent or received in the year before the raid by Vice Admiral William McRaven, head of Joint Special Operations Command, who organized and oversaw the mission.
It also cannot find any emails from senior officers who would have been involved in the mission's planning.
It found only three such emails written to then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and a consistent 12 pages sent to Gates, summarizing news reports after the raid.
Wow!
So the greatest, the most amazing, daring, SEAL Team 6 mission ever undertaken where they went into Pakistan with helicopters, one of which was experimental and crashed.
They managed to get in there, shoot bin Laden in the eye after he was cowering in front of one of his wives.
Well, wait, no he didn't.
He had an AK-47.
No, wait, he didn't have that.
He was in his underwear.
Yeah, he was in his underwear and we shot him in the eye and we carried him out and we took a bunch of tapes and stuff and now we're releasing photos that he wanted He liked Obama.
I mean, there's all kind of just crap out there about this raid.
And yet, we're still talking about it.
Organizations like MailOnline is still putting out that fable that it's still true.
People are putting out this image that's been already proven to be fake many times over, and they're trying to keep selling you that narrative.
That's all they want to do is keep the lie going.
And if you're too stupid to realize that, I'm sorry.
I feel for you.
Take some Prozac and some Ritalin.
Moving on to our final story, guess what's more dangerous than Al-Qaeda?
It's, it's, what did you call it?
Al-Egg-Hida?
Al-Qaida, I'm sorry.
Now eggs are more dangerous than terrorists out there.
That's right, the Los Angeles Times is reporting Al-Qaida No yolk, eating the whole egg as dangerous as smoking!
I can't believe they printed this.
Just as you're ready to tuck into a nice three-egg omelette, comforted by reassuring news that eggs are not bad for you, here comes a study warning you that those over 40, the number of egg yolks consumed per week accelerates the thickening of the arteries almost severely as does cigarette smoking.
For those whose consumption of whole eggs was in the highest 20%, the narrowing of the carotid artery was, on average, two-thirds of that of the study's heaviest smokers.
Well, we've had Dr. Wallach on this show.
He eats four eggs at every meal.
He's in his 70s.
He looks like he's 50.
And today, Oh my God, that scares me every time I see Bin Laden poking out of the egg.
Today we have Ben Fuchs on the show talking about the Ingevity family of products, which you can get at Infowarsteam.com.
But Alex also brought up the hogwash on the eggs out there, so we're going to go to that and let's check out that video now.
It's pretty funny.
Why are they attacking Eggs and even whey protein.
I guess they don't want us healthy.
LA Times says eating whole eggs is dangerous as smoking, but then our brain is mainly made out of these good cholesterols.
Is it true that we should be on a low-fat diet?
Well, even Ancel Keys, who's the father of the so-called fat and cholesterol hypothesis, has come out saying that we've known all along that dietary cholesterol has nothing to do with the amount of cholesterol in your body.
This whole thing on eggs, I'm going to talk about this on my program tomorrow, this whole thing on eggs is absolutely tragic.
If anybody listens to this silliness that's coming out of this It's very, very unfortunate.
First of all, if you look at the numbers, and you've got to be very careful with how the press reports things, if you look at the numbers right out of the study, as it turns out, people who ate the highest amount of eggs had exactly the same cholesterol.
Higher cholesterol levels than people who ate less eggs.
So this whole idea of eating egg yolks and causing cancer, this is just a bunch of hooey.
The egg yolk is nature's richest source of nutrients next to human mother's milk.
And not in the white.
The nutrients are not in the white when it comes to an egg.
They're in the yolk.
And I'm talking vitamin A. I'm talking the B-complex.
I'm talking vitamin K. I'm talking essential fatty acids.
Magnesium, calcium, vitamin D, copper, iron, manganese, selenium, zinc.
These are all in the yolk.
Well, they even tell people that have epilepsy, eat more eggs because it's been associated with helping the brain.
I mean, this is known.
So why are they...
I mean, if they're going to put taxes on cigarettes, I guess now they're saying eggs are bad.
Bloomberg wants to tax salt.
He wants to tax soft drinks.
Again, making themselves the good guys while ignoring all the real problems.
Are they doing that?
Knowing they're killing us with an anti-state so that they can selectively take control?
Yeah.
You know, that's a point that's well taken, but you know what?
We've got to take the control back.
This idea of nutritional supplementation is one of the best ways that you can take charge of your health and not depend on the doctor.
And Alex, what's going to happen if we end up with this Obamacare thing, with managed care, government mandated managed care, government mandated HMOs, this is going to be an Unmitigated health disaster and our best protection is to understand how to use nutritional supplementation.
And by the way, as far as this study goes on, egg yolks, look to see who the scientists who came up with this study, Dr. David Spence, the Canadian authors, David Spence and David Jenkins and Gene Davignon, see who these guys get paid for, and guess who you will find is writing the checks?
So you heard it from Ben Fuchs, it's a bunch of hooey.
The drug companies that make the cholesterol.
Sure, they want to say it's the cholesterol that's bad, not imbalances in the body.
And at the same time, they want to put statins in the water, even of children.
So they're creating this world where the building blocks of our body are listed as evil so they can tax them and regulate them and control them, not letting us have access to it.
So you heard it from Ben Fuchs.
It's a bunch of hooey.
All right.
Oh, there is again that.
Al-Qaeda is in every egg now.
We've got to be afraid of eggs.
And that's what they're going to go after.
They're going to start regulating eggs and getting rid of the family farmers who grow natural eggs, who don't feed their chickens antibiotics, who let them run around and eat the bugs and grass and things on the ground, which is what chickens are supposed to do.
That's why they call it chicken scratching, because they scratch the ground.
They eat the bugs in your ground.
I have friends who have chickens.
And they're great, and they have eggs every day, and they're fresh eggs, and there's nothing better.
Let me tell you, there's nothing better than fresh eggs.
You can taste the difference between eggs that you get from a farm and eggs that you get from the grocery store.
So be afraid of your eggs if you want to be a lemming and a slave and unhealthy.
And with that, we're going to go to our Daily Quote, which is from one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.
So, the New World Order out there wants you to think eggs are bad, so they're going to tell you what they wish.
They wish those eggs were bad.
And they wish you believed that SEAL Team 6 took out Osama Bin Laden, and then a month later, all those members were killed in a helicopter crash after flying with the National Guard, something that they never do.
And now, they're going to have you believe that they're going to go down to Mexico and take out El Chapo, who's part of the giant drug war that we proliferate by keeping drugs illegal.
So we're going to go to break, and when we come back, we're going to have Darren McBreen sitting down with Eddie Craig, who is a former Nacogdoches Sheriff's Deputy.
And man, this guy has got all the knowledge.
I listen to his radio show a lot when I'm driving home.
The man knows what he's talking about.
He has studied the law up one side and down the other.
He has lawyers asking him for advice.
Get your pen and paper ready and get ready to take notes because this is going to be another informative edition of InfoWars Nightly News.
Now, if you're watching this on YouTube and you're wondering, wow, how can I watch the whole thing without being broken up into little sections?
Well, there you go.
You can join PrisonPlanet.tv.
You've got a 15-day free trial.
We can bill you monthly or you can pay by the year.
It's about $5.95 a month.
It gets you the nightly news, the special reports, Alex rants, the daily show, plus every movie that Alex Jones has made, which is over, I think we're up to 22, 23 documentaries that he's made.
Plus, we have millions of interviews.
I can't tell you.
I started working here in 2009.
I've probably went on At least 50 to 60 interviews with some of the most leading alternative researchers out there.
And I mean it is a treasure trove of information.
You know, we should just play, take a week and just play those interviews back-to-back because they really are interesting from all sides of the spectrum, left, right, people who just aren't buying what the system's saying.
So I tell you, Prison Planet TV is a great deal for the money and it supports everything we do here.
It puts the lights above us, puts the TVs behind us, puts the news in our hands, puts our reporters out in the field, does everything that you see here.
So, if you're not a member, please consider becoming a member or get a membership for a family member.
And, you know, we let you use the passcode for up to six people.
Six different computers can be on at the same time.
So, we do give you that.
So, one passcode is worth six.
And, you know, get a card.
You can send it out.
Christmas is coming up in a few months.
And send that out.
It's a great gift.
It's really a great gift you can give to people.
It's been churning along and it's becoming more popular.
It's PlanetInfoWars.com.
It's our social network.
You can ask Alex questions.
We've done almost 10 of those segments so far where people just send in questions to Alex and he answers them.
Another great treasure trove of information.
We put those on Prison Planet TV.
So we're giving you all kinds of stuff.
You know, we're not funded by George Soros.
We're not funded by General Electric.
We're not funded by warmongering people.
We're funded by you, the common citizen out there who believes in liberty, who believes in truth, who believes in freedom.
And that's what it's all about.
And that's why we're here.
That's why I'm sitting in this chair, because I believe everything I'm saying here.
I'm not fooling you.
And that's going to be the section of the news right now.
We're going to go to break.
We'll come back with Darren McBrain.
It's Rob Dews signing off.
Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
We're going to show you some before and afters.
Aaron, break down what happened.
Your story.
I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
It just didn't happen.
Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
I wanted that nutrition.
Didn't even understand I don't understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals, but the products did that for me.
I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods, and they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to InfoWarsTeam.com, sign up as a distributor, and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
I really enjoy it when the globalists try to poison us, and, well, we resist them via a free market system.
Hello, my fellow info warriors.
Alex Jones here, introducing you to the pro-pure family of gravity-fed filters.
Now, you know that the globalists are filling our water with radioactive isotopes, fluoride, lead, mercury, arsenic.
And one of the few systems that can efficiently and economically remove or reduce down to non-detectable levels these poisons are gravity-fed filters.
And ProPure is the top of the line.
Their filters are impregnated with silver, a natural antibiotic, On top of that, they're bigger so they filter faster.
You don't have to prime these the first time you use them.
It's amazing!
Go to InfoWars.com and click on the shopping cart link to see the entire family of these babies.
Now, the fluoride they add to our water is so tiny that most filters can't cut it out.
But ProPure has their system that will, again, reduce it to non-detectable levels.
Almost get all of it out of there.
That's also available.
And if you look at the different systems they offer, the ProPure Big Brush Finish is on a stand, so it's easier on a table or at your restaurant or wherever you have it to go up with a glass or a mug and fill it up.
Then there's this big baby right here, the Pro-Pure King large version.
Got a lot of different options that come with it.
Also they have the Pro-Pure Big, probably one of the best values out there.
And of course it's burnished stainless steel.
And what I use on my RV, something that's great for your hunting cabin or the back porch, is the Pro-Pure Traveler.
Small and portable but packs a huge punch, cleans out all that garbage.
They also have a glass site spigot so you don't have to take the top off and look in the bottom area to see how much water.
You can see how fast it's filtering with this optional system.
The Globalist Obviously, you're hitting us through our water.
It's time to take control of our lives.
It's time to not give our children and families these poisons, and these systems cut it down to non-detectable levels across the board.
ProPure is the name.
I only promote what I believe in.
And I use ProPure in my home and my office.
And I recommend that you check out the information on ProPure at Infowars.com.
We already have the lowest price at Infowars.com on the ProPure gravity filter system.
But when you add in the 10% off when InfoWarriors use the product code WATER at InfoWars.com, nobody can top it.
So again, it's a win-win-win.
Stop drinking the poison water, checkmate the globalists when it comes to your health, and support InfoWars.com and the work we're doing here.
You know, many revolutionaries rob banks and things and kidnap people for funds.
We promote in the free market the products we use that are about preparedness.
That's how we fund this revolution against the New World Order in our move to restore our constitutional republic and a spirit of 1776 worldwide.
Check it out at InfoWars.com.
ProPure, top of the line, number one, most powerful and effective And we are back.
Thank you for joining us.
This is the InfoWars Nightly News.
Available, discounted at Infowars.com.
Don't forget product code WATER to save 10%.
It's the latest generation, years in development.
Pro-Pure is the name.
And we are back.
Thank you for joining us.
This is the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm Darren McBreen.
And I have a question for you.
How do you feel or what do you do when you see a police car in your rearview mirror?
Do you feel safe or do you feel threatened?
And what were you to do if a police car were to pull you over?
Do you know your rights?
And we're joined now by Eddie Craig from Rule of Law of Radio.
He's going to break down some of the do's and don'ts, what you can and can't say or what you shouldn't say when you're pulled over or confronted by law enforcement.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Glad to be here.
Let's start from the beginning.
Flashing lights in my rearview mirror, getting pulled over.
What are my rights at that point?
Well, your rights don't ever change.
Whether you're being pulled over or not, the rights we have are inherent, unalienable rights.
They belong to all of us.
What we have to do is know what they are and when to invoke them in the presence of our public servants.
When this police officer is initiating a traffic stop, he is operating under certain presumptions.
One, that you are actually engaging in a regulable activity known as transportation.
He got that premise based upon the fact that you have inspection stickers and license plates on your car.
Because of that, he feels he has the authority to enforce these transportation regulations against you as a matter of course.
Now, when you're pulled over, the last thing in the world you want to do is engage the officer in conversation.
He is not your friend.
That's not to say he's a bad guy, but his job is to gather information and evidence for the purposes of his criminal investigation.
And if he can engage you in conversation and get you to willingly and knowingly divulge information in a voluntary manner, And he is free to use that information against you later in a court of law.
And do they try to trick you into that as well?
I mean, they know that better than you do, so they try to get you to divulge as much information as possible.
Absolutely.
That's exactly why it is a very fatal mistake, as far as your case would be and your defense would go, to engage in loose conversation with the officer.
He is trained to interrogate.
He is trained to ask questions that will make them seem innocent enough that you see no harm in answering them, when in fact exactly the opposite is true.
A good example would be the terminology they used to describe what you were doing.
I noticed that your vehicle was being operated at an excess speed.
Right there he has attempted to get you to admit on the record that one, you were operating a vehicle.
Those terms are specifically related to the acts of transportation, which is a commercial activity.
And what he's doing is he is leading you down the rosy pathway of admitting that you're engaging in the activity, even if you aren't.
But since most people take words and phrases with which they are readily familiar and presume that they understand their meaning when they hear them, no matter the source, their mistake is that presumption.
A term or phrase used in law will almost never have the same meaning that you or I are commonly familiar with.
In fact, it's a 100% guarantee that if a word or phrase is defined in statutory law, then it absolutely is not being used in the common and ordinary manner.
If it were, there would not be a reason or need to redefine it, now would there?
Well, okay, what about this though?
But they start asking you questions, the first thing they ask May I see your license, registration?
Do you ask them, am I being, am I suspected of a crime?
Or do you have the right to say, why did you pull me over?
Well, there are several things you can say, and in my classes I teach people to basically, until they learn the concept, they are to ask three questions and three questions only.
The first one being, what is the emergency and how can I help?
The reason for that question is very simple.
The officer has activated his MARS lighting system, which I say stands for More Annual Revenue System, but he uses that to declare an emergency reason for why he's stopping you.
So our question is innocent enough because we're not going to presume or assume that we did anything wrong.
We didn't.
He's trying to enforce a statute against us that only applies to certain classes of people in a regular activity and we're not in that activity.
So his attempt to regulate us is out of hand anyway.
So we didn't violate anything that we should feel guilty about.
So that first question is asked to set that tone.
The second question you ask is, am I under arrest?
Now the reason for that is, is you want the officer to tell you whether you are or you aren't, or you are or aren't under arrest.
And the reason there is simple enough.
The courts say that these officers can pull you over for the purpose of an investigative detention.
Well, I don't see that in the Fourth Amendment anywhere, but that's how they want to do it.
So, going by the court's declaration, we then come to the point of asking, am I under arrest, to get the officer to attempt to give him an opportunity to admit that we are.
Texas law is very clear.
Chapter 543 of the Transportation Code calls these traffic stops a warrantless arrest, and that the officer may only release the person arrested from custody If the person will sign a promise to appear on the citation.
So there's no question the officer is lying to you and he says no, you're in an investigative detention.
And most of them know they're lying.
Now the third question is, am I free to go?
The officer should never be able to give you the same answer to question two and question three.
They're a complete contradiction.
You can't be not under arrest and also not free to go.
The main reason we ask that question is to set the stage to prove on the record that we are actually in a custodial arrest.
The courts have ruled that when a reasonable individual feels that he is no longer free to leave of his own volition, that constitutes a custodial arrest.
So we're trying to establish those facts in the record.
Now the fourth thing you can ask is very simple, or the fourth statement actually.
Officer, is there a recording being made of this incident?
And generally, they're going to tell you yes.
And say, okay, then for the record, what I would like to tell you is, one, I am not engaging in transportation or commercial use of the highways in any way, shape, or form.
Two, I absolutely do not consent to being stopped for those purposes or any other purposes unless you can show that I violated some law other than allegedly a transportation law.
By doing that, we're actually setting the stage for the argument that the officer was fully informed that he was attempting to regulate me in a manner that was inappropriate.
I was not acting in the regulable activity of transportation or commerce, therefore his authority to act under those statutes didn't exist.
It's very much like someone trying to hold you accountable under a commercial fishing statute when you live in Iowa and you've never been to the coast to commercially fish in your life.
Well, in your experience, I mean, I would imagine this would catch a lot of officers completely off guard, and by surprise, are they more likely to listen, and do they get more angry, or do they listen to you?
That actually entirely depends upon the officer.
Nowadays, you just don't know.
That's why I asked.
I would imagine some of them would get a little... Yeah, some of them will get agitated.
They'll get downright angry in some cases, simply because you are attempting to enforce your rights.
They're going to start making demands.
I told you I wanted your license, registration, and proof of insurance.
But again, officer, one, I believe I'm in a custodial arrest because I'm not free to leave.
Two, is any of that information that you can use to either further charge me or use against me in a court of law?
Now, the officer's going to just, he's really going to explode at this point, at least as far as an attitude, simply because he's used to being obeyed without question.
That's what they want you to be.
They want you to be submissive.
They want us to be sheeple.
And I decided a long time ago I was no longer going to be that.
What about when they ask, they always want permission to search your vehicle?
Again, use of the term vehicle, I would not recommend.
Search my car, search my conveyance, automobiles, sure.
But not a vehicle.
Again, vehicle is a commercial term related to transportation.
But as far as the power to search, again, this is a warrantless arrest, therefore it would be a warrantless search.
What is the officer's articulable probable cause to conduct that search?
The courts will allow the officer to search the what they consider to be the passenger compartment of an automobile if you're inside the car to ensure that the officer is safe from any attack by a weapon you may have hidden.
Which is my general rule and reason for when I'm pulled over, I immediately look for a private parking lot, a private driveway, somewhere other than the shoulder of the road to pull over.
That serves multiple purposes.
The first one being it does not give the officer the authority to tow the automobile.
The only way he can tow the automobile is if he can show that it was obstructing the public traffic or was being seized for evidence.
Let me ask you this.
What if it takes you a while to find that point when they accuse you of running from the police officer?
I turn on, if I know I don't have a place where I can pull over immediately, then I will turn on my flashers, I will decelerate my car to a point where there's no question that I'm not attempting to evade anyone.
I will wave in the rearview mirror and acknowledge it, and I'll be pointing off the side of the road to let them know that I'm just looking for a safe place to pull over.
Sounds good.
If you do that, then they're going to have a very tough time saying that you made an attempt to evade the police.
Sure.
And of course their dash cam will show that Yeah, you're not going 80 miles an hour around the corner.
It'll show exactly what the speed is because the camera's recording all that.
It will also show that you are waving acknowledgement to the officer and that you signaled him that you're going to pull over.
So, they're going to have a very hard time with their own video proving that you made no attempt to evade.
Okay, speaking of video, more and more people are taking cameras with them.
They're driving with cameras or their cell phones and they're capturing the police officers, you know, conducting their searches and they, often enough, they will tell you, hey, turn off that camera.
You can't have that camera on.
What do you say to that?
I'd say if this is a public place, you are conducting an official duty and I have every right to tape you in the performance of your official duties.
And they've got their dash cams, you know, recording and other recording devices recording every moment.
That's evidence they can alter later.
If you have possession of evidence they can't touch, they can't fix that if they screw up during the stop.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, let's move to on foot.
You're walking across the street, you're on a street corner, an officer comes up to you and starts questioning you.
What's your name?
What are you doing standing around here?
Now what?
Officer, what's the purpose of this interrogation?
Am I under any lawful obligation to respond or answer your question?
And let him know right up front that this is not going to be just an easy mark of, I want you give.
What if they want your identification and you don't have it and they tell you that it's law and you're supposed to have identification with you at all times?
Then the officer is intentionally and knowingly misstating a law and he is abusing the authority of his office.
There are penal code statutes against that in Texas.
They are abuse of official capacity, official oppression, and official misconduct.
And they can in some cases Uh, result in the officer being prosecuted for felony acts.
The abuse of official capacity, especially because the level of the offense is actually charged based upon the monetary value of all of the equipment he is using to commit that crime.
So once he passes $1,500, it becomes a state jail felony.
And we all know that police cruiser is way more than $1,500.
So, he runs the very serious risk of committing crimes even when he doesn't know it.
But we need to know it so we know how to make the charge.
So you're actually using their own laws against them.
I mean, later.
This is something that once you record everything or you know the proper things to say, this is evidence that we could use later in court.
Because I'm thinking, a lot of times, what do we do once we receive a summons or that we get ticketed and then where are our rights at that point?
Well, our rights at that point are one to know whether or not we've been lawfully summoned.
We also need to know what the ticket does and does not create a duty upon us for.
The ticket is not a summons.
A summons by definition is a judicial process and a police officer is an executive officer.
He has no authority to issue a summons.
What it actually can be considered to be is simply an agreement that, hey, I will let you go if you will promise to appear in front of a judge later rather than forcing me to take you right now, which is the mandate if they do take you into custody.
They're required by law to immediately take you before a magistrate.
They normally will not do that.
If an officer takes you directly to jail and there is no particular reason for him not to act with due diligence, such as an ongoing riot, an ongoing natural disaster, things of that nature, he is duty-bound to immediately take you before a magistrate because the officer never has the authority to incarcerate.
He only has the power of arrest.
Only a magistrate or judge can issue a commitment order ordering the incarceration of an individual in Texas and pretty much any other state.
Wow, wow.
I wanted to talk a little bit more about the unconstitutional, all the checkpoints that the federal agents have all across the country now.
And a lot of these are border checkpoints, but they're 100 miles inland, or they're 100 miles away from the border itself.
So you come driving up, and then they ask you, they want to know if you have any fruit or vegetables.
They want to look in the trunks of your cars.
And they want to search your vehicles, you know?
So, what do you do at this point?
You pull up to a checkpoint.
They ask you where you're going.
Where I'm going does not appear to be any of your business.
And then they want to search the trunk of your car.
Permission denied.
I will not consent to a search unless you can give me articulable probable cause and you have a warrant.
Now we have seen some examples.
There was a pastor from Phoenix, Arizona.
He was driving through Southern California and he was stopped several times and he videotaped himself.
And he gave a pretty sterling example of how to protect your rights.
And he reacted just exactly what you're saying right there.
And they eventually let him go.
But there was an instance, and I don't know what city it was in, but they actually had a standoff for two hours.
And they demanded that he would exit his vehicle.
He refused to do so.
And it got to the point where they broke the windshield, drug him out, tased him.
He cut his face up on the concrete and on the broken glass.
And now he has a lawsuit.
So what do you think about that?
Have you heard about that?
Yes, I have.
And that again goes back to what we discussed earlier about you never know the type of individual you're up against.
You need to take very careful precautions in the people that you're dealing with wearing these uniforms because they are literally looking to staff law enforcement agencies with psychopaths.
There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that.
They want people with no morals, no conscience, no ability to question.
Follow orders because we enjoy the result of those orders, which is to inflict pain and harm upon others and control them.
And they're really really in a lot of areas they're weaning out the officers that would resist the urging of the higher-ups to do those sorts of things and replacing them with those that will do so unquestioningly.
I know most folks aren't very much as far as At least the ones that tend to listen in the Patriot community.
A lot of them are atheistic in nature and don't believe in God.
But I do.
And I'm one of these people that I'm watching the book of Revelations unfold before my eyes at every opportunity.
Because everything it tells us is coming.
You can see it.
Absolutely.
And people are not recognizing it for what it is.
They think it's just people being bad to people, when in fact it is the epitome of we fight not against people, but against powers and principalities.
And that's really what's going on in this world.
And because of that, those powers and principalities are looking for those that support it without question.
And so these earthly offices that we've developed for these people, they're going to use those.
And I've used to teach in my Bible study class at the homeless shelter, and I get out just where I'm from, that everything in Revelations will be brought about through the guise of world politics.
Everything.
And we're seeing the result of that right now.
Well, speaking of hell on earth, I wanted to talk about the TSA.
They have announced that they are expanding their Viper program.
It's now going to include bus terminals, train stations, and even roadside checkpoints of commercial vehicles.
So now we're actually at the point in America where you could be, you know, it's the time where you're going to take your family To a bus station, you're going to want to get on a bus, and they're going to want to grope you and your kids before you get on a bus.
I mean, what are you prepared to do?
How do you tell them, no, there's no way I'm going to get on that bus and allow you to do this?
Well, again, we only have the rights we're willing to fight for.
And fight not being a literal usage in this case, but to stand up and have recognized You say it's a VIPER program.
I would say that actually stands for Very Invasive Procedures Exercised Relentlessly.
Because as long as we let them, they're going to continue to expand this method of operation.
Absolutely.
But there's absolutely no lawful authority for it.
The federal government cannot create a power they never possessed.
And they certainly can't create one we did not give them.
Can you sue a TSA agent individually?
You can.
So you touch my kids, I'm going to sue you.
You can.
The problem you have is how the Congress has set up the ability to do that, such as in Jesse Ventura's case.
Alex originally asked me about that the first time I was on the show, and I hadn't got to research it as thoroughly as I should have before I responded to him.
But the point is that when they filed suit in Jesse Ventura's case, his lawyer actually filed it in the wrong court.
Congress has set up a very specific jurisdiction for these suits to be filed in.
It has to be filed in one particular court.
And unless it is, which as in Ventura's case occurred, the court can only say we have to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which they also did in Ventura's case.
And it's simply because it was never filed in the proper court.
But these courts are specifically designed pretty much like tax court is for the IRS.
It's no longer a question of what rights you have before you got here, it's a question of what rights did you give up and how can we penalize you for it.
So by the time most people get to the point of taking and filing this suit, they will have already unintentionally waived so many of the rights they didn't know to protect.
And again, that's a problem I have with our public servants saying that an unalienable right can be knowingly or unknowingly waived.
Because waived by definition is surrender.
And we're given in the definition of unalienable that these rights cannot be sold or traded away.
They can't be surrendered.
So the courts have attempted to create this false waiver saying that we can if we don't exercise and demand that they be enforced at a particular place and time.
So how we do it is in numbers.
An individual in these particular instances stands no chance of enforcing his rights.
But a bus terminal full of people?
Why don't the transportation companies themselves say, look, we're not going to partake in this.
The airlines could solve this whole problem by refusing to fly if the TSA is anywhere in the airport.
Or some of them are hiring private security.
Exactly.
And the thing is, is that the federal government has no real lawful authority to force these programs down the throats of the states or the people of the states.
It is only by our For lack of a better word, our apathy, which is mostly being apathetic individuals, that's pathetic individuals for short, we won't stand up for ourselves.
We've gone so long expecting someone to do it for us that we no longer have the will, desire, or knowledge to do it for ourselves.
And we knew this was going to happen as soon as they announced the TSA.
We knew it was transportation.
It stands for transportation.
It doesn't stand just for airports.
So we knew it was going to expand.
You know, I've even heard of high school prom that they hired the TSA to check students before they entered a prom.
So who knows just how far this is going to go.
It'll keep going.
It'll just keep going and going unless we stand up to all this.
That's true.
That's extremely true.
No one is more willing to protect the rights of an individual than the individual to whom they belong.
And as long as they can keep us thinking that they're the ones that holds the power instead of us, People will continue to lose their rights.
They will continue to think there's no point in trying to keep them and enforce them.
It's only by numbers that we're going to make a difference.
And hopefully shows like this one will get the word out and get people asking questions.
Even if it doesn't give them all the information they need today, it will get them asking questions to seek the information they need so that they may have a better tomorrow.
I want to switch gears just for a second.
I want to talk about, I have a journalist question for you because sometimes I'll go out as a reporter and I'm denied to ask, I can't ask questions because I don't have a press pass or I'll have a press pass but they say I don't have the proper credentials.
I'm not with CBS, NBC or any of the mainstream media so sometimes they will deny us our ability to ask questions.
What do you say to that?
Well, again, I say that's a violation of our exercise of free speech and the ability to You know, get answers to questions that we need from our government.
To air our grievances with them, to be in the know about what they do.
What they're doing is they're selectively allowing the media that they know will not cast them in a bad light or feed misinformation.
Exactly, because I did have a press pass, but it was from InfoWars.
We're at, it was called Decker Lake, and they were unveiling these new armed patrol boats.
And we actually were there months earlier, and we got to talk to the law enforcement officials, got some great interviews.
I think what happened is they ended up seeing the YouTube videos, found out we were with Infowars, and then they said we did not have the proper credentials.
And my thing is, you know, if I was a high school kid, you know, doing a story for the high school newspaper, I should be allowed to go there and ask questions.
Well, technically speaking, any member of the public should be able to do that, pass or not.
The courts have ruled in relation to these officers charging people with unlawfully wiretapping and recording them even in a public place using their cell phones or some type of camera that every member of the general public has now more or less become a freelance member of the media.
It would be no different than the actual mainstream media hiring a contract photographer to go out and take pictures for them.
He's not really a member of their cabal, but he's being paid to operate on their behalf.
For them to limit the access of non-mainstream media is to basically limit who gets to report what on who.
And again, that's a complete deprivation of our free speech rights and our right to know what our government is up to.
Yeah, they'll even pretend like they'll have a list, and they'll say, well, we don't see you on the list, but you're on public property, so, I mean, that's ridiculous.
But again, there's also no law preventing you from making yourself an NBC or a CBS or a Fox News or a badge of that nature and just Using it anyway.
So you can impersonate a Fox News man if you want to?
Exactly.
There's no law against that.
Because those are not official licenses to be members of the press.
There are no official laws regulating that particular activity.
And the fact that they're attempting to segregate the media based upon who will report favorably and who won't.
Is exactly the problem of censorship that we don't want them to have access to.
So by doing that... Well, I think the time is coming when they're going to try to make it where you have to be a licensed reporter or a licensed investigator.
Right, which would again violate court rulings on the subject.
But the way the courts are going, that probably won't remain for long.
Well, even if it's not against the law, they'll just say that it is.
Well, sure they will.
But then again, if you know what your rights are and what your power to do what you're doing is, and where they're actually attempting to misapply and misuse the law yet once again, then when they get through, you simply counter-sue for malicious prosecution.
And even the prosecutor and the judge have no immunity under a malicious prosecution suit because they were acting without jurisdiction and coming after you in the first place.
And that is the actual Achilles heel of these judges and these prosecutors that are creating these bogus precedents and these bogus case law decisions that appear to violate everything that we hold dear as a right.
And that is that the person they're doing it to does not realize or he Unknowingly relies upon the advice of an attorney whose real job is to make the deal and ensure that your rights are protected during the deal only to the degree that he doesn't have to defend them.
And they rely on that advice and don't know that they have a case to sue.
That they have a way to make that decision go away and hold that judge and prosecutor accountable.
That's what I was going to ask you, yeah.
How do we hold, can we indict the prosecutors, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys?
Well, the indictment would have to be handled by the grand jury.
In which case, you would have to have an actual criminal accusation against these individuals to present to the grand jury.
Now in Texas, the law is very clear.
Any reasonable, credible individual may present information to the grand jury and presents not actually the correct word, but to give them information regarding any crime that they are aware of.
So we can actually give information to the grand jury.
We can actually make verified criminal statements and send those to the grand jury or ask to be allowed in to present them to the grand jury against these individuals.
The problem is that most county and district attorneys will attempt to interfere with our access to the grand jury because they don't want us that know what's going on and how to present it in there getting them indicted.
I mean, how good does that look to find out that the person who's responsible for upholding the law in the county is actually one of the worst violators of law in the county?
And that would be true of almost any of the county and district attorneys that I've encountered.
They all have skeletons in the closet.
Some of them look like mass burial sites, in fact.
Simply because they will violate more laws to get a conviction than the person they convicted ever broke before they got sentenced.
So the key really is having informed people, informed citizen on the grand juries.
That's true.
The more they know about what the law is, what the individual rights of all of us are, the better they're able to see that what they're being presented is being cast in an unfavorable light outside of those rights and the law.
which is what most every county and district attorney or prosecutor of any kind counts on, is that the jury does not understand the law.
The jury does not understand the rights of the accused or their own, for that matter.
Sure, sure.
Well, let me ask you this.
There's a lot of lakes and streams and rivers surrounding Austin, Texas, and I've seen this for myself.
The police have actually been coming in, and if your dog is not on a leash and he's in the water, Or I've seen people get ticketed for smoking cigarettes, right?
And I don't know if they were caught maybe throwing a butt in the sand or what have you, but they're ticketing them from smoking cigarettes for not having dogs on a leash, and of course they want to know if you have any open containers and that sort of thing.
What are their rights when it comes to that?
Well again, what's going on here is they're attempting to regulate every activity we engage in.
In this case, they're almost always acting under city ordinances.
Now, what very few people will admit to that are in the powers that be, and those of us in the general public that haven't educated ourselves on the subject, tend to think that an ordinance is the same thing as a law.
And that's absolutely not true.
For instance, here in Texas, it's very easy to prove that fact simply by looking at the state constitution.
You have Article 3, Section 29 through 35 of the Texas Constitution, which tells us very clearly that any law has to have a particular statement being enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas.
Before that bill can have the force and effect of law, it has to be discussed over three several days on the floor of each house.
And so on and so on and so on.
And eventually, that bill, if it's passed, becomes an enrolled bill and sent to the governor for the purpose of getting his signature.
Then and only then does it become law.
That power to create law was given specifically and entirely to the state legislature.
It is a non-delegable power.
They cannot delegate law-making power to the counties or to the municipalities.
Alright, but, okay, so if I'm sitting in my inner tube and I've got an ice chest full of beer and I'm drinking one or two and the police officer, he's on the shore and he's like, you know, get over here, you know, how much you had to drink today?
Well, the question there is what can they really do and what do they actually do?
As long as you don't know your rights, they can do whatever they want.
Exactly.
When you do know your rights, they're still going to do whatever they want until you make them accountable for what they did.
And that's where we have our largest failing, is knowing how to make them accountable for what they do.
When an officer enforces a law that clearly violates a right, then that is not a law.
In fact, it's void on its face according to Article 1, Section 29 of the Texas Constitution.
Is it illegal to drink beer floating down the river?
Not that I'm aware of.
Who does it hurt?
Again, as Thomas Jefferson said, our legislatures are not apprised of their own level of authority.
Their authority is and has always been limited to, and I'm kind of improvising here, this is not a direct quote, but it's along the same line, that their authority is specifically limited only to the creation of laws That prevent the harming of individuals and their rights.
Everything else is outside of their authority.
That's right.
So any law they create by definition at the legislative level has two areas.
There is general law, which is law applicable to the general public, and there is private law.
The private law are those rules and regulations associated with governmental function.
They are internal to the administrative agencies of the state And any political subdivision of the state.
An ordinance, by definition, is not law.
In fact, most people are not aware that Texas law specifically defines a municipality as any incorporated city, town, or village.
Well, incorporated means corporation.
They are a corporate entity.
And a corporate entity can have its own internal rules and regulations.
But if you work for McDonald's as an employee, do those rules and regulations apply to you?
Yes.
But do they apply to you as McDonald's customer?
No, they do not.
So you don't have to care at what temperature the fries have to be cooked and for how long.
You don't have to care what the cleaning crew is required to do at the end of a shift as the customer.
You only have to care as the employee or the person contracted with that corporation.
So an ordinance is no different.
It's an internal rule that governs the employees and the contractors to that corporation.
That's all it's ever been.
Sure.
So an ordinance regulates those employed by the city.
It doesn't regulate the people of the city.
They're completely different things.
Okay, my girlfriend's employed by the state school in Abilene, Texas.
She drove to work yesterday, in fact.
Huge long line in front of her workplace.
They were checking for a valid driver's license.
And there was police there at the gates.
And they were handed a brochure or a notice, I should say, that said that it is a state law that everybody has a valid driver's license and insurance.
And they were checking every employee's records before they were allowed to enter the state school property.
I mean, and she was naturally very upset, but she's afraid to kind of make a big deal out of it because after all it is her employer.
And that's what they count on.
They count on putting you in a position where You have little choice but to agree with their acts.
That's what they count on most people to acquiesce under is the fact that they can't afford to lose their job, they can't afford to make ways because they're in trouble for something else and they think it'll go badly for them when they fight one and let the other have a deal cut or whatever.
They're always looking for ways to put the screws to us and force us down the path they want us to go.
She was absolutely within her rights to say, unless you can give me articulable probable cause as to why I should produce anything for you, let me through.
I have to get to work.
She's perfectly within her rights to do that.
But, as we all know, the odds of them overreacting to that are extremely high.
But, when people look at me and say, well all you're going to do is wind up getting yourself arrested, for me that's not such a big deal.
I actually I kind of look forward to it, because when I go to jail on something this stupid by these people, I'm basically sitting there going, one hour, $1,000.
Two hours, another $1,000.
Because when this is all done, there's going to be a lawsuit at the end of this.
And there is case precedent that will let me win that lawsuit.
Because what they're doing is they're putting you inside of a regulable activity that you're not engaging in.
The statement that these people are making that state law requires everyone to have a driver's license.
Well, that statement says every blind man has to have one.
That statement says everybody with vertigo has to have one.
People that can't get a license because of a medical condition, a physical condition, an age thing.
How are you going to enforce the broad statement, everybody has to have one?
That's idiotic.
And believe me, that's where most of these people excel, is at idiotic.
Because they will make unqualified statements they cannot in any way support with any real law.
And once you realize that what's being said, and what law backs it up, don't agree, then you become empowered.
By becoming empowered, you now have a route you can take.
Because you know, well this was a lie.
What if this is a lie?
Oh wait, there's the law.
That's a lie too.
And you keep on down the road, and they start compounding lie after lie after lie, and you manage to know how to gather that information, gather that evidence, and get it into a court of law, and properly apply it, then you can actually make them pay for what they're doing.
And that's what we need to start doing.
Oh, absolutely.
And tell us about your radio show, Rule of Law Radio.
How long have you been doing it?
And I understand you take calls.
And, you know, educate people just like we're doing now?
Yes, in fact, I am probably the newest of the three co-hosts on the show.
There's me, Randy Kelton, and Deborah Stevens.
I actually became a member of the show upon invitation by Randy.
I had actually called in because of some issues that I was going through dealing with the state comptroller's office.
So you started as a caller?
Actually, I did, yes.
So you were probably a frequent caller to the show, and then they just said, hey man, you better just get in here.
Actually, I was for about two weeks.
This all started when the state comptroller's office was attempting to force me to be a licensed tax collector on behalf of the state without compensation, and I refused.
Most people aren't aware that a sales tax permit is nothing more than a license to act as a tax collector on behalf of the state.
Well, I didn't want that job.
No one can make me take that job.
And they wanted me to use my computer business to act as a tax collector for the state, and I refused.
So they SWAT rated me and everything else several different times, came in and shut my business down several different times, all in an effort to compel me to accept this permit and become licensed to collect their taxes.
And I still refused.
To the loss of my business, I refused.
It was not so important to me to lose the business as it was to stand up for what I knew to be right.
So I actually went through and researched all of the statutes relating to state sales tax and what I found was astounding.
Everything I had been told, everything most people are told is a complete and total lie about what the sales tax is, who it applies to, and why it exists in the first place.
So I took that information and they allowed me to make a presentation of it on Rule of Law.
And I'd called in a couple times a week for about three or four weeks total.
And then after my last call and presentation, Randy called me about a week or two weeks later and asked me if I would be a co-host.
How'd all that research work out for you in the court system?
I actually did not know enough at the time on how to take it through the court system like I do now.
Had they done then with what I know now, that would be a whole different ballgame.
But when this is all said and done, I may actually take it upon myself to just initiate a whole new business, call them up directly and say, hey, I'm collecting sales taxes, locate it right here.
Come and get me.
Come and get me is exactly right.
And this time I will document everything they do.
I will be ready for them.
Wow.
And folks, that's what we have to be, is ready for them.
If we choose to remain ignorant, In what our public servants can and cannot do, we should not be surprised when they take advantage of that ignorance.
Alright, I wanted to ask you about a ticket that I got a couple weeks ago.
And first of all, let me just say that I have the most spoiled dog in the world.
His name is Bandit.
He's a great Pyrenees.
And, you know, it's hot as hell outside, but he's in the Pathfinder with me.
And, you know, I've got the A.C.
running, I'm with my son, and we were actually stopping in H.E.B.
to get dog treats and dog food, right?
Pull into the parking lot, and it is hot outside, don't get me wrong.
And I knew, I said, look, we've got to hurry up, let's get in there and let's get out.
But the vehicle was nice and cool when we got there.
Parked, cracked the windows down, ran in, and it took us longer, you know, it took us about 10 minutes.
As soon as we came out, my Pathfinder was surrounded by police officers.
And I knew right away.
You know, I was like, oh my God.
And I was a little embarrassed because if they only knew how spoiled this dog is and I would never put him in any kind of harm.
Well, I approached the officer.
I said, hey, how you doing?
And she's like, do you know how hot it is in there?
And I said, look, I've just been in there for about 10 minutes, you know, and I know I'm out here.
He's in no harm.
I haven't been in there very long.
And, well, immediately she started scolding me.
You know, she sees that cute face, you know, she's, you know, this poor dog.
But somebody had called, and I believe it was the, well, I know it was, it was the guy, it was the HEB security guy driving around in the parking lot on his little two-wheeler people mover.
And I've actually seen this guy peeking in people's cars before.
You see him driving in and he'll be looking around in their back seats and all that.
So he was nearby.
He had a cell phone.
He saw my dog, called the police.
They got there immediately and I was issued a ticket.
It was worse for him.
I had to wait a half an hour for them to issue this ticket for me.
Meanwhile, now he's really getting hot, you know?
I was so nervous that I told my son, get my dog out of here and meet me at 7-Eleven, you know?
And so he took him.
And because I thought, what are they going to do, take my pet from me, saying that I endangered him?
So what should I have done both, you know, what should I have done at the time?
And now that I have this ticket, do you have any advice for me?
Uh, the first thing I would have done was say, look, I know how long my dog has been here.
You don't.
Okay.
First off, my dog was in no danger because I was meticulously aware of how long he'd been out here and my attempts to get in and get out in order to provide him with food and things.
But at the same time, you're endangering him further by standing here and arguing with me over something that you can't prove has even happened.
One, my dog is in no danger.
I am aware that my dog is in no danger.
Potentially, if I'd stayed in the store all day, maybe.
But since you have no clue how long he's been in there, my recommendation is either write the ticket and let us go, or don't write the ticket and let us go.
Now, again, that's not engaging the officer in conversation, that's simply stating the facts.
And I understand, there needs to be a law.
I mean, I imagine some people would neglect their animals, and that would be a horrible thing.
In fact, I even heard about some police officers that were inside a bar, or they're watching a football game or something, and their German Shepherds died in the squad car.
But, um, you know, so the law needs to be there.
And, uh, but the thing is, I was very nice and it was like, Hey, look, you know, I mean, you know, you've only been, they couldn't have been there more than 10 minutes because that's as long as I was in there.
When the pathfinder pulled up, it was almost cold inside.
So he wasn't in any danger.
Sure, you can fight it.
The only problem you have is what you may or may not have done at the scene that would make it more difficult.
Again, what are they charging you under?
disgusting you know she just you know so it was kind of embarrassing at the same time what what can i do now that i have the ticket can i uh can i fight this i mean he was not in any danger i guarantee you can fight it the only problem you have is what you may or may not have done at the scene that would make it more difficult uh again what are they charging under a state law or are they charging you under an ordinance well it looks like it's a citation and this is actually what This is a warrant notice, because I failed to appear.
I was busy at work that day.
So, you know, I am going to eventually address this issue.
But what about warrant notices?
Well, a warrant notice is simply that.
It can't constitute anything more than just a notice of, hey, here's what we're planning on doing.
But what they're actually used for is scare tactics.
As you can see, it talks about More money than anything else about this.
There's not even a specification in there as to what offense you're being charged with, what you're being charged under, a state law or an ordinance, and so on and so forth.
The problem with all this is, of course, is that these things are engineered specifically as administrative procedures designed to eliminate your right of due process.
And they count on people being more afraid of having to pay the extra money than to understand what's being done to them so that they'll just pay and go on and let the city take it.
And that's what they're doing here for the most part.
Even though we do have these rules and regulations that we need to have to maintain a polite society, The officers have no real authority to enforce an ordinance on a private citizen.
Again, as we spoke of earlier, the difference between public law, general law, and private law.
Private law cannot be applied to the general public.
Private law involves a specific class of people doing a specific class of thing.
And that is not the general public.
In this case, this law would be appropriate as what we talked about on the break with the police officers that left their police dogs in their cars and they died of heat exhaustion.
This would apply specifically to them because if it's under an ordinance, that ordinance is written to govern city employees.
That would apply to them in this case.
I'm just trying to think how they gauged the time because, you know, it was only 10 minutes and the vehicle was nice and cool when I arrived.
I'm sure it was getting hot.
We were running through the store, you know, trying to get out of there.
There would probably be, other than the security cameras, if they actually got footage that was time stamped, there would be no specific, determinable way for them to say it was this long and this amount of time.
They count simply on making the assertion that it was too long.
The police officer, she was angry.
She was, it's 120 degrees in there!
And I said, do you have a thermometer?
I mean, how do you know?
I mean, it can't be that hot because it was borderline cold when we pulled in.
They're making assertions without any facts to back up those assertions.
They're using their intimidation tactics that they're trained to use to attempt to escalate the situation.
This could have been much worse.
Had you actually allowed yourself to be intimidated and got angry because of it, and actually started defending your rights and yourself, who knows what they would have wound up charging you with on the spot.
Sure, yeah.
But the best thing to do is just stay calm, collected, and say, look, you're the one that's endangering my animal by holding us here.
Okay?
The longer we sit here arguing about this, The longer it's going to be and the temperature's going to rise.
In which case, you're going to attempt to prosecute me further when you're the one causing the harm.
Yeah, that's exactly what was going down.
So, in this instance, either write the ticket...
Or don't write the ticket.
But I need to go because my animal does need to be kept.
Okay, there's another thing.
When they pull you over, it takes forever.
You know?
And how can they keep you for so long?
It's like, you know, I don't know what they're doing in there.
You know?
Technically, they can't.
They can only, in the case of a traffic stop, for instance, they can only hold you for the amount of time that would reasonably constitute the effort to issue the citation.
They can't Just keep you there so that they can keep doing searches and searches and call in drug dogs and have them go around your car.
All of that constitutes false imprisonment.
And there are numerous cases all over the U.S.
and tons of it in Texas, that when that officer is acting to deprive you of your ability to move about, and he has no lawful authority for doing it, or the officer has issued the citation but won't let you leave, then he is guilty of false imprisonment in those actions.
Well, I'll tell you what, I come from a law enforcement family.
My stepfather was a police officer.
My mother was a police officer.
One of the first times, when they first started allowing women to become police officers, 1967 in Orange County, she was amongst the first dozen of female police officers.
And so I grew up in a law enforcement household.
But I have to admit, you know, as these years go by, I'm just getting to the point where I don't trust them.
I do feel threatened when I see a police officer in my rearview mirror.
And with good cause.
Exactly, with good cause.
And to me, they seem like redcoats.
You know, they remind me of redcoats or just revenue generators for the city.
I mean, what has happened?
The mindset is what's happened.
The courts have basically empowered the police to literally get away with murder.
No one can hold these people accountable.
If you catch them in the middle of a criminal act, and you try to testify against them in a criminal act, or even get them charged in a criminal act, they are protected by the very people that we would have to go to.
They're protected by the prosecutors.
The prosecutors rely on law enforcement to help them build their case.
They rely on law enforcement to be the enforcement arm of the judiciary.
Basically, that whole attitude has devolved in the different departments of government requiring to stay separate and each one being a check on the other.
They have now been melted down into one huge ball of, we will use all of our power collectively to make sure that we maintain control of everything that goes on.
I can't prosecute my enforcement arm because that would take away from my power.
And that's really truly what's going on.
And do you notice that it seems to be the older law enforcement officials are more aware of our constitutional rights?
Absolutely.
And it seems like this younger breed, these young recruits now, they're the ones who are being abusive and aggressive, don't you think?
Absolutely.
I remember when I was in school, I was taught a lot more of the Constitution than anyone in following generations has been.
I was taught a lot more about What my rights are as a human being, how to think for myself, how to critically think and analyze things, those were taken out of schools long ago.
The education system has been designed to prevent us from developing critical thinking skills, to prevent us from understanding that this country is based on individual rights.
They're not collective.
They've never been collective.
Every right is an individual right.
The only thing collective about them is when we act collectively to protect those individual rights.
Thomas Jefferson said that it's a complete fallacy to presume that we give up any of our unalienable rights simply because we gathered together in a social community.
None of our rights were taken away simply because we formed cities or towns or villages of any kind.
There are no collective rights.
And what they have tried to do is to institute the idea that all rights are collective.
That's a socialist mentality.
The rights are what everyone should have if we decide to let you have them.
That's not how we're designed.
We're not a democracy.
We're not socialist.
We're not communist.
We are individual sovereign republics.
And we need to remember that.
Republic is built on the idea of individual rights and freedoms.
That's right.
Man, I've got to listen to your radio show more.
I'd love to go to one of your seminars at Brave New Books.
Can you tell us more about that?
Yes, I teach a class every Sunday from 2 to 5 down at Brave New Books.
We do tend to go sometimes upwards of 6 p.m.
The purpose of these classes is to teach people law, teach you court procedures.
We use traffic law because it's what most people will encounter in their day-to-day life and have to be familiar with.
But if you can take the concepts that you learn in the laws relating to transportation stops and the court procedures there, you can adapt them to virtually any type of judicial proceeding, civil or criminal.
But we do delve more into the criminal side of things, because that's where they tend to place transportation citations and citations of the sort that you've got.
They attempt to criminalize everything, even when they can't prove an injury, which is up until, you know, the late 60s, mid to late 60s, you could not have a criminal act without an actual harm.
Now they create them simply as Possible harms, or probable harms, or potential harms in order to classify these as criminal acts.
It's no longer a requirement that you be able to have evidence of a corpus delecti, which is the harmed party, the body of the crime.
And so, they've basically turned us into accepting the loss of that right.
The right to be able to have someone prove we caused the harm.
Just like these officers with your dog, they can prove no harm.
They're simply asserting the potential possibility or eventuality of a harm occurring.
Yeah, because I could easily just send them and pay the ticket, but it's like, I don't want to.
I mean, I did not, he was not in any harm.
I want to fight it.
Right.
Well, the first thing they would have to do in order to do anything was to file a valid criminal complaint.
And without checking the court records you'll never know if that even occurred.
99 times out of 100 they will not file the complaint.
They will simply wait for the individual to decide to pay.
And then only if the individual decides to pursue and fight Well, they make any attempt whatsoever to create that criminal complaint.
The problem that creates for the court is this.
Without that criminal complaint and an accompanying charging instrument in the form of assigned information, and it must be signed by a county or district attorney, it cannot be signed by a city attorney.
Without those documents, there is no jurisdiction vested in the court.
So everything the court is doing in the line of these cases, it's doing completely without jurisdiction of any kind.
And none of them have immunity when they're acting entirely without jurisdiction.
This goes to where if you know that fact, you can now sue them for acting without jurisdiction.
Awesome.
Well, I would imagine that it would be, I imagine a lot of people would do this if they have a police officer, you know, a friend that's a police officer or a neighbor.
Do they drag attorneys and law enforcement officials to your seminars?
I've actually had several attorneys come to my seminars on occasion.
In fact, one of my students is engaged in a case right now where he actually convinced his attorney to come down.
And we talked over the case and everything, and there are several legal issues the attorney was not aware of in this case.
I've even had attorneys ask me if I would represent them in a court of law on their traffic tickets, simply because I knew the procedure and the law surrounding that citation better than they did.
And I've spent so much time studying it.
It's because this is what I've decided is my purpose.
My purpose is to educate the public on things they need to know just to survive in our society right now is from a legal standpoint because that system is what's being used to oppress us more than any other the legal system and the fake criminal charges that are being placed on us under the form of contrived view of it actually being law that's applicable when it absolutely is not.
Well, now Patriot has the courage and conviction to say no You know, for the greater good of the people.
And you, sir, are definitely a patriot.
I'm definitely going to have to come check out one of your seminars.
Start listening to the Rule of Law Radio.
I recommend everybody do the same.
It's been great having you here.
Thank you.
And I look forward to having you again on in the very near future.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
All right, that's going to do it for tonight's broadcast.
The InfoWars Nightly News will return tomorrow, Lord willing, 7 o'clock p.m.
Central Time.
Until then, have a blessed evening.
▲
Export Selection