All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
39:55
20121113_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Aaron Dykes.
Today is Tuesday, November 13th, 2012.
Tonight, on the InfoWars Nightly News, the eugenicists are in full force.
They want your children, water supply, and a Green World Order.
Aaron Dykes speaks with Twyla Braze about the global database created to categorize a newborn's DNA.
Plus, Florida fluoride politicians are scent packing.
Then, markets nosedive as a congressman predicts economic riots in America.
All that and more on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Tonight in the news, stocks tumble as congressmen predicts economic riots in America.
Kurt Nemo has the article.
Stocks tumbled again today on fears of the rapidly approaching fiscal cliff in the United States and a failure by Eurozone finance ministers and the IMF to decide how Greece will resolve its sovereign debt payoff.
Anything to remain beholden to the bankers.
In the U.S.
they'll talk about raising the debt ceiling, perpetuating the debt, Anything to keep it going while at least one congressman, Rep.
John Fleming from Louisiana, says it looks like we're going to have to go through the same or similar pain as Greece to get real reforms as they look towards the IMF riots.
Yes, it could happen in America.
You better believe, FEMA and Homeland Security are getting ready for something, and we learned in the past weeks that is not for hurricanes like Sandy, it is for collapse in this country.
Meanwhile, why Obama wants your guns and the rest of your freedoms.
Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones have a special report on how the Second Amendment is in the crosshairs.
We did a special report video on this last week as well, and it's really not debatable.
Obama, at the debates with Romney, said he was trying to bring back the assault weapons ban that was enacted into law under Clinton, and all the minions from both administrations have given their quotes.
You heard Eric Holder in 1995 saying we have to brainwash people about guns.
You've heard Sarah Brady saying we need to get rid of all the guns.
You've seen Dianne Feinstein celebrate the gun bans in San Francisco, the city she was mayor in, and throughout the country.
Now she has new legislation fresh for this lame duck session or Obama's next term to ban as much as she can.
Pistol grips, high-capacity magazines, eliminate grandfathering and and ban the sales of weapons in possession, all of it eroding her rights.
You've got Obama's record as a state senator, later as a U.S. senator.
He's just in favor of practically all kinds of bans.
It's all on the record.
And you saw 18 months ago Obama talking to the Brady senator.
The report came out he wanted to attack the Second Amendment, quote, under the radar.
Shortly thereafter, we saw the Fast and Furious scandal emerge and one of the major responses to that was bureaucratic red tape through the ATF.
to impose new restrictions on gun shops, particularly in the southwest states, on things like more than one semi-auto.
Also an encouragement to spy on the customers and just more paperwork all around.
You also see these ridiculous regulations on shotguns attacking and essentially banning anything with more than two cartridges.
That's almost everything.
And it just fits in with the larger picture of disarming the population.
It's gone on throughout history.
Whenever tyranny crops to the top, and no, this is not about Obama, it's about a system out of control, over-concentrated in Washington.
They go for the guns, they do anything to dispower the citizens.
Here's the voice of tyranny right here.
Adolf Hitler in 1938, the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms.
History shows that all conquerors who've allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
They're trying to keep power for themselves and keep it away from you.
Meanwhile, Adon Salazar has the article, citizens from 34 states petitioned the White House on their website to secede from the US Obviously, this is not going to have teeth and Obama's not going to lay down.
But on the other hand, it's a very iconic expression of the frustration in this country, the unrest that's brewing over the fact that we've been disenfranchised.
Our candidates have been selected for us, sold through the media, and then we could have no faith in these electronic voting machines, all the shenanigans going on throughout the primaries and the elections.
It's no wonder that yesterday, 20 states were talking succession, that is, citizens from those states.
Today, it's 34 of those states, and many of them have reached the threshold of 25,000 petition signatures that would require an official response from the Obama administration.
Texas and Louisiana, the leading states there.
Many others reaching the threshold as well.
Now, of course, they'll just spin that as racism against Obama and his administration.
Folks, Obama doesn't represent ordinary black people any more than George W. Bush and Mitt Romney represent ordinary white people.
They are elites in service of the banks, in service of the global agenda that's empowering entities like the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF to take you over and control you through the collectivist system.
And that's why I want to shed light on Black genocide, on the real eugenics, the real racism, because we came across clips throughout this campaign of black people speaking out against their own interests.
And this is not just about race, this is about people buying into their own enslavement, buying into their own destruction.
Just take a look at this shock.
Obama supporter says abort quote ugly ass nappy headed kids.
And again, this is an African American woman who is in favor of the fact that Fifty-two percent of blacks were never born, that there's this unspoken genocide going on.
This film right here, we carry at Infowars.com, is a powerful weapon.
It's going to wake you up if you don't know about this.
It's MAFA 21.
It focuses on the black community.
It's got experts, including Pastor Clennard Childress.
From within the black community, exposing how at the end of slavery the system changed to focus eugenics on the targeted populations it didn't want to see grow, that it wanted to make sure it controlled.
And you see this through the whole ward of the state mentality as well.
And how between the periods between slavery and the legalization of abortion, they were just trying to do anything they can to get birth control into the black communities.
Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, created the, quote, Negro Project to recruit black pastors to convince their flocks to accept this birth control, to later accept abortion, you name it.
And it's just disgusting.
Let's roll some of these clips right now.
Eugenics organizations began calling for the U.S.
government to add birth control chemicals to the nation's food and water supply.
It was even suggested that this strategy could be specifically targeted at urban neighborhoods.
This idea was widely embraced in the eugenics movement, and taken seriously enough by the government to be discussed at a 1969 meeting at the United Nations.
Under the plan being considered, a couple could apply to the government for permission to have a child, and if approved, they would be given an antidote to the population control chemicals they had ingested in their food and water.
Interestingly, the idea that governments should have some sort of licensing agreement to regulate who would and would not be allowed to give birth was not a new one.
In 1934, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger had proposed that the U.S.
government implement a system in which women would not have the legal right to have a child without a permit from the government, and that these permits would only be good for one baby.
And this is a small clip from a very powerful film.
Of course, I want you to pay attention to the fact that they were talking about putting birth control supplies in the water supply.
Do you really think that just affects one particular ethnic group?
That's going to trickle down to everyone.
We're going to get back to that, but first I want you to look at some of the modern-day people buying into their own enslavement, their own hate, celebrating the abortion of the black community.
Can we please roll that?
He f***ed this country all the way up.
But you expect Barack Obama to fix it in four years?
It don't work like that, motherf***er.
It don't work like that.
Then you want to get rid of, uh, you want to make abortion legal.
That don't make sense, motherf***er.
What we gonna have all these little ugly-ass, nappy-headed kids running around here hungry for?
That don't even sound attractive.
Why would you get rid of... Come on Mitt Romney, you need your ass whipped.
Look, I've known a lot of black people.
I grew up next door to a black family.
I had a lot of black friends in school, a lot of other acquaintances that weren't my friend.
Some bad people who are black, but different people all around.
Everyone's unique, including in any ethnic group.
We're all people.
We can all flourish under individual freedom, under the enshrinement of the Bill of Rights.
We want to try to bring everyone up to that freedom, not reduce all of society to a dependent class by a centralized government.
What if the real racism is these cramped urban centers they're fitting everyone into?
Yesterday it happened to minorities in these tightly compacted cities, that horrible dependency you see in big inner-city situations.
Tomorrow it's going to be Agenda 21 trying to cram everyone, including the yuppies, into those centers.
What if the real racism is turning your back on the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms?
Excuse me, some of the first gun control laws in the U.S.
were aimed at blacks who had been freed after slavery.
What if this is all about control?
Well, let's look at this memo.
It's from 1969.
It's from Bernard Burleson.
He's the president of the Population Council, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
It is sent by Frederick Jaffe, who comes from Planned Parenthood.
World population.
These are dyed in the wool eugenicists.
Both received Margaret Sanger Awards.
And here's what they have in 1969.
Proposed measures to reduce U.S.
fertility.
And it shows in this document that I know we have a graphic of.
I hope we can show that.
How they wanted to encourage homosexuality.
How they talked about fertility controls in the water slide.
Just like you saw in that documentary.
But look at this.
They wanted to discourage private home ownership.
I thought it was a burden to the taxpayers, all these extra people, all this overpopulation.
No, they want to discourage private home ownership.
They want you part of their collective system so they can control you, so they can enact the other stuff on this list where they want payments.
To encourage abortion.
Payments to encourage contraception.
They want compulsory sterilization if you have more than two kids, except for a few who they prefer.
They want to confine childbearing to only a limited number of selected adults.
And they want all kinds of other benefits reduced and tied to how many children you have.
This has happened.
It's documented in MAFA 21.
It's documented in books like War on the Weak by Edwin Black, which covers the eugenics tragedy in detail.
And this is just part of history, but look at this.
1969, again, this memo comes out.
Only a couple years later, Roe vs. Wade becomes law.
They talk about policy for abortion and sterilization on demand.
Just a snapshot of how they control everyone, starting with some of the most underprivileged and targeted minority groups first, because they're vulnerable populations.
But again, this is about everyone.
Just as Jesus said, what you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.
If you put sterilants in the water, it's going to trickle down.
And that brings me to the modern-day example.
The Detroit columnist, who earlier this year in February called for sterilants in the drinking water to curve poverty numbers.
This guy, Nolan Finley, really disgusting from the Detroit News, writes, Since the national attention is focused on birth control, here's my idea.
If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime, and bring down our embarrassing dropout rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan's drinking water.
And unfortunately, this is part of the larger belief that you can control things from the top down and engineer society.
It's only going to cause a spike in the cancer rate.
It's going to spread to everyone.
White populations, you name it.
These gender-bending compounds.
It's going to trickle down the pure evil that it is.
And then you've got these bioethicists who we're getting to in just a minute.
You've got the Oxford professor bioethicist who said, fluoride's not enough.
We need to have cognitive enhancers in the water of all kinds.
We need to add lithium next to control the population and other drugs down the line.
You've got another bioethics professor from New York University arguing we should mass drug the population to make them more environmentally conscious.
Meanwhile, we should start genetically engineering smaller babies so they reduce their carbon footprints.
Does that sound like a society you want to live in?
You've got, of course, the bioethicists who argued that newborn babies can be allowed to be killed.
Saying that both fetuses and newborns are not actual persons.
They don't have the same moral status as regular human beings.
And that killing a newborn up to age three should be allowed anywhere where abortion is allowed.
And you see how they ratcheted that in over the years.
It's not as if that was accepted.
Some time ago in this particular society.
You've also got the same Julian Salvesco bioethicist arguing that engineering ethical babies is a moral obligation and they just want to use the emerging genetics, the new sciences to create greater control.
Which brings me to the article I published today.
The system announces it will use DNA stolen from babies.
This is part of a larger controversy where for decades and decades they were secretly taking those blood samples when babies are born in hospitals and putting them in a database so they could compile the genetic info, study you, and lead to a paradigm where they could control your actual genetic makeup.
And so now you've got bioethicists after lawsuits were filed and they were forced to destroy much of the blood sample records and start informing parents that they were actually taking the blood.
Now you've got these bioethicists arguing that parental rights and privacy concerns aren't good enough reasons not to collect this blood, not to study it.
And they're saying that it needs to take a backseat to the genetic treasure trove that researchers have in collecting, without your permission, without your knowledge, without your consent, the blood of your newborn children and put into these databases.
We're going to get into that in detail on the other side of this break with Twyla Braze.
She is from Minnesota and has fought this issue heavily.
Only Minnesota and Texas have really owned up to this issue and we'll get into that momentarily.
But who are these bioethicists?
They're nothing but neo-eugenicists.
I've studied the issue in depth.
It goes back to the people who brought us eugenics proper in the late 1800s.
Charles Darwin, who wrote the theory of evolution, or who popularized it.
His cousin, Sir Francis Galton.
And his bulldog, T.H.
Huxley, the grandfather of Aldous Huxley and of UNESCO founder Julian Huxley.
And they believed, it's a trickle down from this elitist belief, that you can ethically, in a biological sense you see, you could bio-ethically replace inferior beings with superior beings.
And that is a morally righteous move.
And it's just a little piece of what all of this eugenics is about.
Speaking of substances in the water, the population has been waking up to fluoride.
We've seen citizen movements across the country lobbying their local governments to take out this toxic sludge that comes from aluminum production, byproducts from nuclear waste production, which is incredibly damaging to thyroid, to IQ, to all kinds of systems in the body, to bone structures.
And just last year we had an activist, an InfoWars listener, and a Tea Party activist named Tony Cosso who got fluoride removed in a huge victory in Pinellas County, Florida, with over 700,000 residents.
He got them to vote four to three in favor of taking that fluoride out.
Now in this latest election, they have run out those politicians who voted to remove the fluoride, and they blame their losses specifically on the fluoride issue.
Two of the four were removed in this election in Pinellas County.
The third, Norm Roche, said while he did favor removing the fluoride, he's seen the light.
He'll not be talking that way again, and he's ready to endorse putting the fluoride back in as soon as possible.
Within about two weeks, they say, when they have their first session.
And you've got the people replacing them just cheering on fluoride.
Cheering on any kind of population control.
Paul Craig Roberts has an interesting article on the whole affair over General Petraeus and his sex scandal.
He writes, while evil continues to envelop America, the public is focused on CIA Director General Petraeus' resignation.
The FBI spied on him and found that he was having an affair with his biographer, a woman 20 years younger than his 60 years.
What is it with Americans and sex?
Why is an illicit affair the only reason for removing someone from political office?
Why is it that political governments, presidents, vice presidents can violate U.S.
statutory law, torture people, spy on Americans without necessary warrants?
Murder U.S.
citizens without due process, confine U.S.
citizens to dungeons for life without evidence or due process of law, start multi-trillion dollar wars on the basis of completely contrived allegations, with no basis in fact, by the way, murder civilians in seven countries, overthrow legitimate governments, and none of this is a good enough reason to remove any of those politicians from office.
Only a sex scandal can do it.
That brings us to our quote of the day.
Every dictator is an enemy of freedom, an opponent of law.
Words to think about from Demosthenes.
We'll be back on the other side of this break again with more on that baby's blood scandal, how they're databasing DNA.
Stay tuned.
This is the InfoWars Nightly News.
We need your support in spreading this message so we can turn things around and save this country.
Insider billionaire investors like George Soros and John Paulson have recently made massive moves into gold, purchasing what Bloomberg News described as gold hordes.
Soros alone doubled his holdings in a single day.
Russia's Vladimir Putin has doubled down on gold.
Increasing the country's holdings by over 100%, with $1.8 trillion under management.
The bond king, Bill Gross, the world's preeminent bond fund manager at PIMCO, has warned investors of the dangers of QE3 and inflation.
And what's he betting on?
You guessed it, gold.
Friends, this is Alex Jones for MidasResources.com.
For more than 15 years, I have exclusively used Midas Resources for all my precious metal needs.
Whether it's bullion or collectibles you're looking for, Midas Resources is simply the best.
I own my gold as a hedge against inflation.
This Federal Reserve fiat currency could go the way of the Deutsche Mark and the Weimar Republic any time.
In these historically dangerous times, it makes sense to physically hold gold and silver.
Midas already has some of the best deals in the industry.
But if you give them a call and mention the radio special, they will give you a list of the day's super specials.
Midas brokers are standing by to answer all your questions at 800-686-2237.
They also have a lot of informative free literature explaining the opportunities and risks of holding precious metals.
They are ready to answer your questions at 800-686-2237.
at 800-686-2237.
Again, that's 800-686-2237.
As we saw in Katrina, and as we are watching now in New York and New Jersey, the federal government can't and won't help you in a crisis.
FEMA ran out of water and MREs in days.
Electricity is still off to over 1 million people.
The Red Cross, who is quick to beg for money, is now slow to react.
Don't put it off any longer.
Get prepared today.
The Info Wars shop is the largest distributor of ProPure water filter systems.
And now, get 15% off your ProPure order with the promo code WATER15.
While you're on InfoWarshop.com, check out these other great preparedness items.
The Aquapod Kit lets you store up to 65 gallons of water in your bathtub.
Pocket Socket provides you with manual electricity for small electronics like your cell phone.
The LifeStraw is great for your bug out bag.
And check out our complete line of inner food products for great tasting and nutritionally dense foods that have a great shelf life.
If you are looking to secure your home in a crisis, you can order Strategic Relocations The Film, a great companion to the book Strategic Relocations Third Edition, and The Secure Home by Joel Skousen.
When the time to perform arrives, the time to prepare has already passed.
Get prepared now, so if a crisis strikes your home, you and your family will be secure.
Go to InfoWarsShop.com and don't forget the promo code WATER15.
Go to InfoWarsShop.com and don't forget the promo code WATER15.
We are back on the InfoWars Nightly News and we covered in the last segment how bioethicists are arguing for the right to steal newborns' blood for the Global DNA Database.
And to further flesh out that issue, we're bringing up one of the experts on that issue, is Twyla Braze.
She's head of the Citizens Council on Healthcare, CCHB.
You're also involved in so many other citizens' health issues.
Thanks for joining us, Twila.
She's been exposing this issue for years as there have been lawsuits in Minnesota, Texas, and other locales over the privacy rights, the parental rights, and the right to not have the state claim they own your DNA.
You're also involved in so many other citizens' health issues.
Thanks for joining us, Twyla.
Welcome.
I'm glad to be here.
So we've got the latest journal paper here.
So...
We've got the latest journal paper here from these bioethicists, and they're really complaining about all these lawsuits, the movements by parents who say, no, you don't have a right to automatically take my child's blood, without consent by the way, and store it in a database, study it, research it, and do whatever kind of testing and screening you're going to do, without proper disclosure, without the right process.
They don't even have a legal statute, as I understand it.
Can you tell us more about this?
Yes, every state, in every state, every child, well almost every child, about 98% of the 4.3 million children that are born every year are tested and it's called newborn screening.
It used to be called PKU and it's when the hospital comes in and they prick the heel of the baby and they take several drops of blood out of the heel and put them on a special filter paper.
Now what a lot of people don't understand is that that filter paper does not go to the hospital lab for testing.
It goes directly to the state health department and a lot of health departments have decided that this is very valuable information, the DNA of the child, and they are keeping those cards with the special filter paper for the purpose of genetic research and other research in the future.
And a lot of parents don't have any idea, first of all, that the screening is even happening.
Second of all, that it is actually a genetic testing process that the government is doing.
Or third, that it's not the hospital at all.
It's the government that's finding out this information about their child, entering it into a database, and then keeping the children's DNA.
So that's the process that's going on across the country.
It's been going on with the PKU since the mid-60s, but newborn screening really started to advance in 2001 when they added a whole bunch of new conditions in 2002 and 2003.
A lot of new conditions beyond the PKU test and eventually Excuse me, eventually researchers really want to look at the possibility of doing a full genomic scan of every baby at birth, which means their entire genetic profile, part of a government record, as well as perhaps part of a medical record of that child.
All without really the parent's knowledge and in the future, of course, this child grows up to be an adult who doesn't and didn't know that their entire DNA has been opened up by the state government at birth.
It's incredible, and you said it in that statement.
Alex has covered it for well over a decade.
This has been going on for many decades.
People didn't know about it.
There was a lot of denials.
Finally, because of a lot of lawsuits going on, they had to admit and they had to, in many cases, institute genetic privacy laws.
But tell us what happened once those laws got on the books and how the system tried to get around it.
Well I guess what I would say is we discovered this issue in 2003 just kind of by happenstance here in Minnesota and we started going after it because we realized that parents had no idea about the screening and then we discovered the DNA warehouse and we knew parents had no idea about that but it took us eight years to come to the point where we successfully got this to the Minnesota Supreme Court and ruled in favor of the parents.
And previous to that, because of our work, Texas had also discovered, actually a Texas reporter had discovered this on her own after listening to what was happening in Minnesota and did several articles, and several lawsuits have been filed down there.
And 5.3 million of those special filter cards had to be destroyed in Texas.
And the ones here in Minnesota are soon going to be destroyed as a result of winning the case a year ago.
So, but now what you have to understand is this is only two states out of 50.
Several states, as a result of our efforts, have changed their laws to allow consent or what we call dissent.
And the researchers really want it to be dissent.
Which means that they can use and share and store your child's DNA, the baby's DNA, unless or until the parents actually take action to stop them.
They call that opt-out consent, but it's really not consent at all.
Consent is what happens when the individual or the parent actually writes on the dotted line that the state can do something.
But if they haven't written on the dotted line that the state can do something, the state can do nothing.
That's what consent is.
You can't do anything without the actual signature.
Dissent, which is what the states want, it's what the researchers want, it is where they can do anything that they want.
Unless you take action and write on the dotted line that they can't.
And so that's really what's starting to happen around the country as the DNA of children is being looked at as valuable.
And this latest report that came out from these bioethicists, really they look at the DNA and they call it a valuable resource.
A treasure trove.
A treasure trove, a national treasure.
And so what they're saying is that your DNA, which is the most personal and private thing about you, actually, a lot of people don't want to know what their own DNA says because they're worried about how it will impact their life.
And yet we have researchers and state officials who say that the DNA should be property that is used for the good and for the health of the nation, of other citizens.
But that really Denies you your right to your most personal property and information that you don't want to know necessarily and you certainly don't want somebody else to know or be able to use perhaps against you.
You know, we have no idea what will happen when everybody I mean, if that would happen when state officials, when cost controllers, when politicians realize that they can find out who's going to be expensive and who isn't.
Or they can find out things like who's really the parent and who isn't.
And parents, you know, parents don't understand this, but there's a bunch of diseases that are found through the child's DNA that say about a condition or a genetic trait that the parent has that the parent doesn't even know about.
And so there's a lot of things that can happen in newborn screening and can be done with the blood that parents aren't thinking about.
And parents need to know about and be given their full consent rights, their fully informed consent rights before they move forward.
And they need to think about their child.
Because this child might be just two days old when this happens, but 18 years later they're going to be an adult.
And at some point they're going to realize that their entire genetic code has become public property.
We don't think this is a very good idea at all.
Well, just to reiterate what you've already said, this is a fundamental civil rights issue.
These are our inherent rights as individuals.
It's enshrined in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and yet they've taken this DNA material without ever telling us.
Then when they were caught, they've argued that they have a right to own it and have kind of reluctantly agreed to destroy it in some cases.
How do we even know they're living up to that part of the bargain?
I tell people that I would be rich for every parent who says exactly that thing to me.
They say they are going to destroy it because there are laws here in Minnesota, for instance, which says that the parents can ask for the destruction and the department has to say that they did it.
And parents have said to me, but how do I know that they did it?
And I can't tell you how many parents have asked that question.
So, in Texas, they actually took away those 5.3 million in two and a half semi-truck loads in the dark of the night.
One of the agreements with the court was that they wouldn't have to announce when it was happening.
Now, we hope to have something different happen here in Minnesota.
And in every other state, it really should be part of what happens in the public's eye when they destroy this so that Parents really understand that it really happened and that their child's genetic information has been protected by the virtue of the fact that the state doesn't have it anymore.
Now, the bioethicists themselves here are arguing that the greater good, the state's right to research, the scientific community's right to understand the genome, trumps parental rights.
It trumps individual rights.
But they're part of all kinds of slippery slopes.
And yes, there's arguments individually.
Is it right to bring a child into the world if you know it has Down syndrome?
All these other conditionalities.
But overall, they're weighing in on abortion, end-of-life care, rationing of health care.
They're talking about artificial insemination.
Cloning issues.
These bioethicists have been arguing that you should be allowed to kill infants up to age three.
I guess if they're deemed unworthy for, you know, the rest of their life.
They've been weighing in on putting lithium and other psychotropic drugs into water supplies to control the populations.
I don't know if you've seen these articles, but what is this field?
What is bioethics, really?
Well, I have not seen all of those instances that you are talking about, and I don't know that the bioethicists in this particular article have promoted any of that, although I do know that there certainly are some bioethicists who really want, like Peter Singer, for instance.
He really believes that a child isn't really a person until they're 30 days old, and that they don't have a conscience, and so that it's okay to kill them.
And when you hear that sort of thing, you really find it unbelievable.
But that has been reported far and wide, what Peter Singer said.
And Peter Singer cannot possibly be the only person who And he is the chair of a Princeton department or something.
And so here is someone from a very well-established university and yet he is saying these things and has said them.
When you think about bioethics, a lot of people think, well, this is a good thing because we're talking about bioethics.
But unfortunately, a lot of the bioethicists that are out there are talking about things that are in violation to many people's values of life and individual choice over when it starts and when it ends.
And so I think when you start looking into bioethics, you'd like to find something else.
You'd like to find people who would maybe support you at the end.
It's awfully amoebic.
end of life or supports you having a disabled child, support that kind of decision.
But all too often, we find bioethicists that actually don't.
Now, there are those that do, but it's important to understand that bioethics is a little bit about what they think, what their ethics are.
And it's all under the rubric of bioethics, but it's awfully amoebic.
It's awfully, you know, it can be what they want it to be.
Well, my research shows it goes back to eugenics and it's part of the brave new world, the kind of stuff we see in films like Gattaca of the emerging ethical debates in the years to come.
But can we tie this in with socialized health care?
It's a huge debate, very partisan issue, of course, in America.
Everyone has their own opinion.
But stuff like taking a baby's blood without informed consent at birth, Making decisions on who has the right to health care.
Where is this going?
Is it going towards a totally collectivized system where the individual loses most of his rights?
Are you talking about the DNA particularly or just the health care reform in general?
Just in general, yes.
Okay, in general.
Well, I think that when we look at health care reform, there are so many things in the law that are of deep concern to us, including the fact that health plans, if they don't like, if they don't consider that a doctor is giving quality medicine and they get to determine what that definition is, Then that physician can be delisted, can find themselves not being able to access any patient.
So that's, you know, and that is just probably like eight or ten lines of the bill.
There are lots of sections in that bill where it gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services control over what kind of coverage we will have.
And what kind of care we will have.
It requires doctors to report to the federal government about their quality and it's according to the measures that the federal government determines.
And quality often simply means compliance.
Compliance with how the government wants the doctors to do medicine.
So if we just wrap this into the baby DNA issue, what we see is the possibility that if your genes look like you're going to be a very expensive individual either as a baby or as a child or an adolescent or an adult, It could be that there are things that are going to be available to you and other things that aren't.
It could actually mean that there could be the possibility of pressure to do some kind of genetic manipulation in order to try and keep these things that your genes say might happen from happening.
So, you know, when the government gets that much control over doctors and they get that much control over what happens in the exam room and what happens at the bedside, which is what the federal law is going to do, then we look at everything that's taking place in health care, including the taking of DNA at birth, with concern because the whole plan here is to contain costs.
And this is not the way to contain costs.
The way to contain costs is actually to give people their own money and have catastrophic coverage that's only for catastrophes.
And this will bring prices down and it will put the patient and doctor back in the driver's seat.
But that's not where health care reform is going.
Health care reform is taking the patient and the doctor out of the driver's seat and putting the government and a whole cast and crew of bureaucrats into control.
Right.
In closing, can you tell us about your website and how you're fighting these battles in the days to come?
Of course, again, you've been involved in the baby DNA issue since 2003 when you discovered it.
You were involved in these lawsuits.
And clearly, this paper, to me, tells me the system is not happy with that.
They're trying to take back that power.
So tell us what people can do, how they can find your website, and how we can spread the word about this issue.
Sure, and it just reminds me that there are two papers that came out within the last month that talk about the need for consent, not only for screening, but also for the storage and use of DNA.
And they haven't gotten very much coverage compared to this particular paper that asks for the DNA to be available as a public resource.
Now, regarding our website, it is www.cchfreedom.org.
That's like Citizens Council for Health Freedom, which is what our organization's name is, so cchfreedom.org.
And in particular, on the baby DNA issue, we have a special website, itsmydna.org.
We also have a weekly publication called the E-News that talks about this issue, health care reform, Obama's exchanges, which are the federal takeover centers, which we're trying to stop in every state around the nation.
And that's where you can get all the information I think that you will need and certainly can contact us by phone at 651-646-8935.
Twyla Brays at cchfreedom.org and itsmydna.org.
Thanks very much for joining us and I hope people check out your website.
Thanks so much.
And that's all for the InfoWars Nightly News.
We'll be back again tomorrow but I want to remind you, PrisonPlanet.tv where you can support this broadcast but also share the wealth of information and knowledge with your friends.
You can share the passwords with up to five other people.
You can also start your own account, FightTheInfoWar, your way at PlanetInfoWars.com.
And of course, our bold and bad new InfoWars magazine coming to you monthly.
You can get yearly subscriptions.
You can buy it in bulk.
Check it all out at InfoWars.com.
▲
Export Selection