All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
50:26
20121211_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Transcription by CastingWords
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Tuesday, December 11th, 2012, and here are our top stories.
Tonight on the InfoWars Nightly News...
Super Humans and Super Cities, the NWO's vision of 2030.
Then, the Pentagon plans to build laser-equipped drones within the next five years.
And transit authorities admit they record your conversations.
But I'm sure you have nothing to hide.
All that and more coming up on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, if there's any doubt that Big Brother is watching you, take a look at this next story.
Public buses across the country are quietly adding microphones to record passenger conversations.
Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses that would give them the ability to record and store private conversations according to the documents outlined by a news outlet.
This raises serious questions about eavesdropping without a warrant.
Cities that have installed the system or have taken steps to procure them include San Francisco, California, Eugene, Oregon, Traverse City, Michigan, Columbus, Ohio, Baltimore, Maryland, Hartford, Connecticut, and Athens, Georgia.
Now this was stopped temporarily in Boston as civil liberties groups raised concerns about this and they just decided that they would put up warning signs and continue on with it anyway.
Now, putting monitors on buses and light posts and cameras everywhere doesn't get your attention.
If that's not enough to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the government to watch everything that you do, take a look at what they're doing now.
They're extending this to getting access to private cameras.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police want to now monitor private cameras.
In a bid to expand its surveillance network, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police want to connect to private businesses' cameras, which would allow officers to monitor malls, gas stations, and banks across the country.
These cameras would also collect more images of people who haven't done anything wrong, and they would store the video on police servers for weeks.
The cameras, the automatic license plate readers, and a gunshot detection network known as ShotSpotter Give 21st century crime tools to these people.
Now, these are the same people that don't want us to film even the outside of their buildings.
Take a look at what Alex Jones has to say about that.
Why don't you decide to join the Republic?
Why don't you decide to join the First Amendment and stand with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson instead of trying to intimidate Americans one by one that we don't have the right to come here?
Police arrest folks all over the country for filming them in public no matter how many times state and federal courts say it's constitutional.
And federal buildings, they'll say, don't videotape.
Even if it's the middle of downtown Austin, like, we're terrorists.
It's ridiculous.
You could go to Google Earth or Google Street View and see all of this.
It's all about teaching you that you're bad, and that you're a suspect, and that you've done something wrong.
It's all an act of domination by an out-of-control government.
It's like telling black folks to sit at the back of the bus, or the TSA sticking their hands down your pants.
So, we've sent reporters down to the NSA.
They take other reporters' footage.
They didn't take ours.
We told them about lawsuits, and they knew about them.
You know, they knew they'd been losing lawsuits.
And it's the same thing with these guys.
We have to exercise our rights.
And to make a long story short, Molly was out getting photos last week for Infowars Magazine of just different government buildings and satellite equipment and cameras and things for the Big Brother edition that we've got coming out in a few months.
And they came over and said, you look shady, get out of here.
She said, but it's America.
And they said, we don't care, get out of here or we're going to basically grab you.
So we're going over there now because we don't like bullies who think this is North Korea.
Here we go.
Hey, where is it?
So I was right at the corner.
You see all the surveillance cameras?
The part of the building right here?
Yeah.
And I came over and said, you look shady.
Yes, they said it's illegal to take pictures of any fed building, especially if you're taking pictures of security.
And that is total, absolute bullshit.
And again, this is the federal government that's on record shipping the narcotics into this country for the last 50 years.
This is the federal government that's using Al-Qaeda.
Even the McClatchy newspaper and LA Times now report against Libya and Syria and giving them missiles.
But we can't film them because we might be terrorists.
No, you work for the foreign banks that are the terrorists.
So here we are.
Here we are.
I mean, we're not a little lady out here.
Of course, they monitor us as well.
They know I've said I'm coming down here.
Here we are in America.
No, no.
They'd rather corner American citizens and turn this slowly into North Korea, intimidating each person, having a chilling effect on people.
By the way, you really believe all this terrorism crud?
You could drive by here all day and videotape.
You could go to Google Earth and look down into their back courtyard.
You could go to Street View and other services and see everything right here.
No, no.
It's about coming out to her and saying, You're not in America anymore.
You don't come here and you don't videotape your god, your king.
You're supposed to kneel down and beg the federal government to take all of your liberties.
That's what you're supposed to do.
It's unbelievable what this country's turned into and how the federal government, run by foreign banks, thinks it can intimidate the press in this country.
Well, that's over!
Because the spirit of 1776 is rising worldwide!
Now your security crew came out here and told my reporter and my photographer that she wasn't in America anymore, that she was in North Korea!
And that she could be disappeared if she dared come here and show this facility!
How dare you tell people it's illegal to film your cancer centers!
To film your foreign banker occupation command centers!
And I for one am not going to stand here idle!
While you tell us that we don't have a First Amendment!
And while you lie!
While you lie!
The federal government is run by foreign banks.
The federal government ships in the narcotics.
The federal government runs the white slavery and child kidnapping rings.
All you are is a collection agency for private banks.
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, crime syndicate.
The so-called president shipped guns into Mexico to blame the Second Amendment!
We are sick of it!
We know the truth!
And we know you're spying on us illegally!
And because you know you're committing crimes, the wicked flee when none pursue!
And so we are here telling you now!
Don't you ever try to intimidate women and children and tell them that they don't have a First Amendment!
You are attempting to convert our country into a open tyranny!
And on behalf of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all of our veterans that fought and died for supposed freedom, I issue you now on video a cease and desist.
We know your controller is Stage 9-11.
We know you work for narcotics traffickers and money launderers.
Do not be on the wrong side of history!
The answer to your 1984 tyranny is 1776!
You are Al-Qaeda!
This building is Al-Qaeda!
On record!
And there are the federal marshals and FBI in there peering down on us.
It was a federal marshal sent me the Homeland Security report where you say returning veterans are the number one terrorist along with gun owners.
So I know you're not all bad.
But to your controllers, they are bad and we're calling them out.
I wanted you to come out here today In your drama queen garbage, and act all put out, and act like we're criminals, and act like we're bad, and act like we're dirty, so that I could show people how ridiculous it is, and show them news articles admitting, you run Al Qaeda, you ran them in 1980, you ran them in 2001, and you run them right now!
And your own FBI Deputy Director O'Neill said that before he was killed!
So you're not all bad, but we need to see more of you speak out.
Hey!
How's it going?
Hey, how you doing?
I'm Alex Jones.
Hey, Alex.
Hey.
She was here last week just getting shots around the city for my magazine, one of my reporters, and you guys told her it's illegal to film your federal building.
Really?
Yeah.
Was it?
Come on over here, Molly.
Was it one of these guys?
Um, no.
He was not in his security uniform.
But he came out of that door?
Oh, it's a business suit?
Is that one of the federal marshals or one of the FBI guys?
If they're in a suit, it could have been one of the marshals.
We just wanted to tell you, and we can email it to you if you'd like, the Supreme Court's ruled Uh, there's been hundreds of state rulings.
You can film federal buildings, NSA buildings, TSA, as long as you don't interfere with the internal operations of it.
And it's called the First Amendment.
Like in North Korea, they come and arrest you if you film a building.
And last time I heard, I'm not in North Korea.
Right, right.
Well, I'm actually a listener, by the way.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
You might get in trouble saying that, buddy.
Well, listen, I know there's a lot of good people, because I've had federal marshals give us, you know, great tips on things.
My issue is, a guy came out in a suit, and she didn't even know this was a federal building.
We said, go get some shots of the Capitol, get some shots of, you know, cameras and stuff.
And she's over here, ooh, finally, a shot for a Big Brother issue.
And they come out and say, hey, you look shady, we can arrest you.
And so I said, you know what, we're going to come here, because if we don't defend the First Amendment, we're going to lose it.
Well, you have every right to do so.
Um, if, uh, if you guys want to speak to one of the, uh, employees, one of the, uh, marshals, then, you know, you can go over there and talk to them.
Sure.
Molly, you want to go tell them what happened to you?
What did he look like?
Come give us a description, Molly.
He was about, I'd say, in his mid-sixties.
And he was wearing a business suit with a tag.
He went back into the building.
That was the court security.
There should be a representative over there.
Okay, so that's court security.
Sixty years old.
Tag.
Suit.
What color was his hair?
It was, like, pepper.
And then what was he?
What description?
Was he black, white?
No, he was white.
He was white.
And he was about... What color eyes?
Um, I don't remember.
He had glasses on, actually, now that I think about it.
Well, because of the fact that I'm not a federal police officer and I'm a security officer, I can't take your complaint and send it through you guys?
No, I know, but he came out and told her it was illegal.
Okay.
Am I correct?
Yes, you can.
Well, if you would like, I mean, feel free to go in there and talk to him.
You got about 30 minutes before they close.
Is that the guy right there?
Hey, how you doing?
I'm Alex Jones.
This is Molly.
Honestly, we're evil Americans.
This is Occupation Force.
I got it.
But listen, all I'm saying is she... Okay, so it's not illegal for her, as a journalist, to take photos of this building?
Okay, okay.
Because I had to sit there and explain to her that she's not going to go to jail.
What's the moral of the story?
What comes out of this report today?
The federal government more and more is trying to intimidate people and tell them they can't photograph police in public, they can't videotape federal buildings.
Just like all the other despotic regimes on the face of this globe.
And that we, the people, have to stand up and take our towns, our cities, our nation back, or we will be like Communist China or Soviet Russia.
We will become Mexico or Nigeria if the people do not exercise their liberty.
It's like muscles.
They atrophy.
But it's also paramount for people that work for the government to realize the Bill of Rights and Constitution belongs to them as well.
If we lose the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which is beginning to happen, you notice they're now raiding private and public pension funds.
You notice the foreign mega-banks are now bragging that they've conquered us.
When you get rid of due process and checks and balances, it's bad for everybody but a very tiny criminal elite.
So the people in government need to understand that it's their liberties and freedoms as well that are at stake, and to protect their oath from enemies foreign and domestic.
But it's also important for we the people to stand up and exercise these rights or we'll lose it.
I came down to the federal building because they tried to intimidate our reporter and we had to reclaim those rights.
It's important for you to fight for every inch of freedom you can get or just give in and be overrun and live in a despotic tyranny.
The choice is up to you.
Liberty or slavery.
And never forget what George Washington said.
Government is like fire.
A dangerous servant and a fearful master.
And if you don't control it, it will take control of you and your life.
If you act like a nation of sheep, you will be ruled by wolves.
So it's up to all of us to stand up against this 1984 takeover.
And to restore the idea of human liberty and freedom.
1776, not just here in the United States, but worldwide.
So remember, if you're watching this transmission, you are the resistance.
Well, the next domain of warfare is the human brain.
That's right, they've added yet another area of warfare.
Not content with the land, the sea, and the air, they added space, cyberspace, and now the brain.
Inner space, I guess you could call it.
In this article it says it's been fashionable in military circles to talk about cyberspace as a fifth domain for warfare, but this brain attack is about involuntarily penetrating, shaping, and coercing the mind in the ultimate realization of Clausewitz's definition of war, and that is to compel an adversary to submit to one's will.
The most powerful way to do this is the brain-computer interface, BCI technologies.
They even have an acronym for it.
How long before we harness the power of mind control, weaponized drones?
The new Battlespace is not just about influencing hearts and minds, it's about involuntarily penetrating and coercing the mind.
The article says, we need to prevent BCIs from being disrupted or manipulated, and we need to safeguard against the ability of an enemy to hack an individual's brain.
Now this is exactly what MKUltra, Blackbird, Operation Artichoke, all these different things that they were doing in the 1950s and 60s with the CIA, that was the purpose of these programs.
At that time, they wanted to make sure that people could not retrieve information From their agents, but they also wanted to be able to control the enemy's minds or to control the minds of Patsy's who would do their will.
This is exactly what we were talking about last week when we talked about after the the murder of Frank Olson now 60 years after that his family has filed a lawsuit against the government to try to get more information about that.
And at the same time we see things like the shooting in Aurora, Colorado that have all the hallmarks of these types of operations.
People look at you, and I'm sure if you've talked to people about this, you get kind of wild, wide-eyed looks from people when you talk to them about mind control.
Well, this is something that was really going on and has been researched for 60 years, and it's at the point now where they're openly talking about it in many different ways.
Here's another place where they're talking about it.
Why, the only secure password is the one you don't even know that you know.
In Stanford, they have developed a computer program that can implant passwords in a person's subconscious mind and retrieve them subconsciously as well.
The technique could make it impossible for, say, a high-security government agent to reveal his password.
The agent wouldn't actually even know the secret code.
Now, these kinds of attacks, what they're worried about, they have all kinds of cyber security and cyber analysis to prevent hacking of systems.
But the one thing that they are worried about is what they call the rubber hose crypto analysis, which is basically a fancy way of just saying they're going to beat it out of you.
Now, to keep that from happening, they want to make sure that people don't actually know that they know these codes.
And what they've demonstrated is that they can implant, subliminally, passwords into people, and then retrieve those passwords by having them play a game.
As you see there on the screen, it's a sequence of typing characters, and it's not just the characters that they type, but the timing and the spacing of when they type those characters.
So, basically, they plant that into your subconscious, so that you're able to repeat actions and do things.
Yeah, kind of like the Aurora Colorado shooter.
Now, this is also something that's gone back to, again, it's the same thing that we saw with Operation Blackbird, Operation Artichoke, that sort of thing.
Well, another thing that people will be very skeptical of, is when you talk to them about the singularity, and that's Ray Kurzweil's idea that Humans are going to merge with machines and technology, that sort of thing.
This article, Superhumans, Supercities, Supercomputers, the U.S.
intelligence community's vision of 2030.
Now things, according to the article, are about to get a little weird.
According to the National Intelligence Council, which is a U.S.-based coalition of spy agencies, they've released predictions for what's in store for the Earth in 2030.
The NIC released on Monday Global Trends 2030 Alternative Worlds 140-page report that brings together the best brains within the intelligence sector to find out what we might expect a few decades down the road.
Now here's what they say.
They think that people, for example, may choose to enhance their physical selves as they do with cosmetic surgery today in 2030.
And they predict at which point the replacement limb technology is expected to be prevalent.
They also talk about brain-machine interfaces.
Brain-machine interfaces could provide superhuman abilities, enhancing strength and speed, as well as providing functions not previously available.
And some of those functions just might be hacking you into some kind of a matrix control grid.
Well, the Rolling Stones have been around for a long time.
They're not gathering any moss.
In fact, they're writing new songs.
And here with a review of their latest is Darren McBreen.
After 50 years in the rock and roll business, the Rolling Stones, who are the heavyweight champions of rock and roll, well, they've released a new greatest hits package, and it includes a hard-hitting anti-establishment song called Doom and Gloom.
Just in time for the apocalypse, Doom and Gloom proves that these guys can still deliver by sticking to their roots.
I mean, it looks and sounds like vintage stones.
And when it comes to pseudo-political awareness, well, they haven't lost their edge.
Lost all the treasure overseas war Just go to show you don't get what you pay, though The music video depicts the destruction of the American empire as perpetual war and greedy bankers cast the population into an economic abyss.
This is the Scream.
There's lots of symbolism in this piece, from the increase in poverty to the overcrowded prison system and even the poison in our food supply.
Hey, can GMO make your head explode?
That can't be good.
The Rolling Stones at 50 are no strangers to political controversy.
In 1991, their song High Wire deconstructed the build-up to the Persian Gulf War and criticized the politics behind it.
We're selling missiles, we're selling tanks.
Give them credit, you can call the banks.
It's just a business, you can pay us to prove.
You'll love these toys, just go I don't know who's the left.
We act so greedy, make me sexy.
In 2005, they released Sweet Neocon, which was highly critical of the Bush administration.
You call yourself a Christian.
I think that you're a hypocrite.
You say you are a patriot.
I think that you're a crock of sh**.
Another line from the song reads, It's liberty for all, democracies our style, unless you are against us.
Then it's prison without trial.
Which was no doubt a lyrical jab at the Patriot Act, and needless to say, the song never made a big bang on Clear Channel.
And now, with the release of Doom and Gloom, it looks like the Stones have thrown themselves back into the political spotlight.
Now, I originally wanted to give the song five stars, but I had to take a point away just knowing that a few years ago Mick Jagger got knighted by the Queen.
Come on, Mick, what were you thinking?
But look, regardless, the song rocks.
I give it four stars and applaud their effort on political awareness.
You know, one of the reoccurring themes of the music video is a group of victims who are holding up question marks, as if to say, if the economy collapses, question the origins of that disaster.
And according to Doom and Gloom, you're not going to get the answers on your television sets.
This has been an InfoWars Nightly News Music Review.
I'm Darren McBrain.
Well, from the Rolling Stones, we have a daily quote from Jim Morrison.
Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
That's true, isn't it?
They can tell us that it's a good thing to have mind control, I guess, once they start doing it.
I don't think I'm going to believe that.
Well, in another front, the misuse of technology, the Pentagon is hoping to arm drones with laser weapons inside five years.
This company hopes that the laser, which will supposedly be able to take down an aircraft, will be small enough to put on a drone within just five years.
Current drones, like the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, can fly missions lasting from up to 40 hours before refueling, but they have to reload after firing their payload of two Hellfire missiles.
Now, the person who wrote this article and analysis says that even if drone lasers are realized, the primary problems of drone warfare remain.
Some legal scholars and military officers assert that drone killings are too easy to order.
That they're illegal.
That they shouldn't be conducted in secret by the CIA.
And at the end of the day, they generate a dozen terrorists for everyone that's killed.
The real problem, of course, isn't a lack of hellfire missiles.
The challenge is knowing where to aim them.
And swapping hellfires for lasers won't change that.
That's exactly why we held the protest of drones this last weekend in Austin.
The drone mob.
And if you weren't there to see it, here's some of what you missed.
- What's your take on the growing surveillance training?
I think it's going to easily get out of control if we don't get a handle on it quickly.
I just personally feel like our privacy is being really invaded, especially with Google Maps when they come around to your house and they're taking pictures.
I mean, I don't like that people have an aerial view of my home.
I think it's horrible.
I think we have to do everything we can to stop it.
I think we've got to fight it at every turn.
I think we've got to sue them.
We've got to file lawsuits against these people.
We've got to file criminal charges against them.
We've got to bring them in front of grand juries.
We've got to do everything we can to stop it.
Or it's just going to keep getting worse and worse.
I just don't like it.
And it's more and more signs of tyranny.
And what are your thoughts on Alex's show?
The Alex Jones and Infowars.
What are your thoughts?
I listen to Alex Jones Monday through Friday every day.
And he exposed me to a lot of ideas that I would have thought were irrational five years ago.
But I watched the Bush elections and the Dimple Chads in 2000 and 2004.
I was horrified by what I saw.
And it was amazing when I watched 9-11.
I didn't believe 9-11.
And Alex Jones was the only person out on the media who was pointing out the truth.
And because of him, I've been reading a lot of books by a lot of authors and I've been exposed to a lot of ideas.
It feels good to be awake.
It feels good.
Speaking of being awake, do you think the public's asleep to this?
Pretty much, and Alex and his show Infowars just wake me up six years ago.
And I came from another country and I lived through this illusion.
America the freedom and greatest country and I start realizing this is not much that freedom because if we are afraid of police and afraid of government workers This is not that much free country.
And what's happened next, I just accidentally saw the show and opened my eyes.
And I am very thankful for what you guys are doing on this show, because this brings me the freedom of my thinking.
If the truth hurts, let it hurt.
You know, it's just like a good Reiki session or massage session, you know, with rolfing, like some rolfing session.
You know, sometimes the truth hurts and it's going to put you back in alignment and your energy is going to start flowing and you're going to start feeling better.
You know, who likes to drink wheatgrass?
Well, drink wheatgrass and, you know, your cancer might go away.
You know, look at some of these institutes like Ojai, Alternative Health Institute.
You know, people that are putting information out, They're heroes.
Alex, I call him the cowboy that hung out with the Indians a little too much.
You know, Alex can make these subjects palatable to the society, the empire, that is mostly masculine-based and hooked on violence and guns.
He can talk to the football crowd and the cops and get along with them.
you know, none of the peace activists were able to make peace with cops or veterans.
Well, Wired magazine is cheering the police state and torture.
Yes, in their review of Zero Dark Thirty, which is yet to be released to the general public, Catherine Bigelow's new film about the decade-long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden begins with an unsparing, nauseating, and frighteningly realistic look at how the CIA tortured many people and reaped very little intelligence.
Never before has a movie grappled with post-911 torture the way Zero Dark Thirty does.
The torture on display in the film occurs at the intersection of ignorance and brutality, while the vast, vast majority of the intelligence work that actually does lead to Bin Laden's downfall occurs after the torture has ended.
So, basically, there's been a lot of talk back and forth and film reviews.
It hasn't been released to the general public yet, but some early reviewers have seen it.
Some of them are really criticizing, just like in that review I had there, they're really criticizing the introduction of torture, showing it as an acceptable means to an end.
And Wired Magazine, unfortunately, came to the defense of the movie and said that they didn't really think that it was featured that much, that prominently.
But that's where we are today.
We're really kind of at the juncture where it doesn't matter what the legality is, it doesn't matter what the morality is, we're just concerned about whether or not something is effective.
Does it achieve our ends?
Or, more specifically, does it achieve the government's ends?
And of course, we aren't really to consider whether those ends are, in and of themselves, legal and moral.
But we're going to be talking about something that is exactly along those lines when we come back from the break.
We're going to have an interview, and the topic of that interview is going to be the NDAA, which is exactly that type of discussion.
What is legal, what is moral, and what is constitutional.
We're going to talk about that right after the break.
Recently, the Harvard School of Health looked at more than a dozen scientific studies concerning fluoride and confirmed what countless other scientists have been documenting for decades.
Sodium fluoride in the body reduces IQ and increases cancers.
You see, the aluminum industry and the fertilizer industries would have to pay to store all the toxic waste they produce.
But instead, they get our counties and cities to pay to put the poison in our water.
It's not just fluoride we're getting, but lead, mercury, arsenic, the list goes on and on.
And a lot of this toxic waste comes from China.
Unfortunately, fluoride and its derivatives are only one of hundreds of toxins being added to our drinking water.
We're battling the globalists on so many fronts.
Health is an area where we can all take control of our lives.
And it all starts with that basic building block of water.
It is time to purify our family's water.
The ProPure filtration system with added fluoride filters is the best system from my research to protect you and your family.
Infowarsstore.com already has the lowest prices on ProPure water filtration.
But until December 10th, we are going to offer 15% off The already lowest price.
I know what I'm giving my family this Christmas.
ProPure.
Go to infowarestore.com and get 15% off the already lowest price out there with the code WATER15.
Water 15, Water 15, and you get 15% off at InfoWarsStore.com.
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.
I didn't even 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.
InfoWarsTeam.com
A Yale Law School graduate, a former U.S.
Army paratrooper, and a former staffer of Congressman Ron Paul.
But most importantly, we've got someone who respects the Constitution and the oath that he took to it.
We've got Stuart Rhodes.
Stuart, how you doing?
I'm doing fine, thank you.
A couple of the things, you know, you've got ten points on your website about oath keepers and orders that they would refuse to obey based on their oath to the Constitution, and the NDAA, indefinite detention provisions, contradict directly at least two of those.
What do you think about the recent developments of that with the Feinstein-Lee amendment that passed in the Senate?
Um, I think it's just empty words in smoke and mirrors.
All it really says is that you can't detain an American citizen unless an act of Congress expressly authorizes it.
Well, the Supreme Court in the Hominy decision in 2004 already interpreted the 2001 AUMF, the Authorization to Use of Military Force, as authorizing military detention, because military detention is part of the application of military force.
And so the fine synonym does nothing.
And also in addition to that, the NDA of 2012 expressly authorizes military detention of U.S.
citizens.
I mean, this is all totally unconstitutional.
Exactly.
Let me read that so the audience knows exactly what was passed here.
This is Senators Feinstein and Mike Lee sponsored this bill.
This is the amendment that it says right here.
An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize a detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the U.S.
apprehended in the U.S.
unless an act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
That's exactly what you just said.
So, it basically is meaningless.
Well, also, Congress has no authority to authorize detention without a grand jury indictment or trial.
So, Congress is purporting to have a power of no where granted in the Constitution, and then is saying that unless we, Congress, authorize this, you can't do it.
Well, Congress already authorized it, and it's already been interpreted to authorize it twice now.
So, it's just empty smoke and mirrors, make you feel like everything's fine, go back to sleep, Yeah, that's exactly it.
Justin Amash of Michigan, the congressman up there, said, at best, it's a constitutional fumble that gives powers to Congress that they didn't already have, which is what you just said.
And they said, at worst, it's a head fake.
rosy language intended to distract you from efforts to oppose NDAA detention powers while only continuing the practice but affirming others at the same time.
As some people have pointed out, this Feinstein-Lee amendment does nothing about posse comitatus and it changes the wording of the Constitution from protecting persons to something that just protects citizens or lawful residents, right?
Well, actually, I mean, her, right, yeah, it does do that.
But But the basic problem with it is it's making the same argument that was made back in 2004 during the Homdie case.
In that case, the ACLU and other groups out there said, well, Congress hasn't authorized this.
The argument was only over whether Congress would give an authorization.
The argument should have been about what the Constitution mandates.
And the Constitution mandates very clearly in the treason clause of Article 3, Section 3, that any American accused of making war against his own country, whether a citizen or a lawful resident who owes allegiance to this country, any American accused of that must get a jury trial for the crime of treason.
And that's the bedrock threshold we should be standing on, not arguing about whether or not Congress says it's okay.
And that's all we argued about in 2004.
and the Supreme Court in Homie case said, well, we find that Congress did say it's okay.
In the 2001 AUMF, Congress authorized the President to use such force as he thought reasonable against any person, group, or nation that had anything to do with 9-11.
So that's an authorization of military force, and the Court ruled that military detention is part of the application of military force.
And so that left the ACLU dead in the water in 2004.
And here you got the left, you know, Feinstein, committing the same errors.
They don't want to argue about the Constitution.
They don't want to challenge the absurdity, the absurd notion that the U.S. military could ever treat an American citizen or lawful resident the same as a foreign enemy in wartime.
And so they refused to challenge Supreme Court precedent from 1942, the Ex parte Quarren case, which all this is built on.
That's where the original sin was.
That's where the original mistake or willful disregard of the Constitution occurred.
But no one wants to challenge it.
They just want to talk about whether or not Congress gave authorization.
So you've got the Senate basically doing something that doesn't get us anywhere.
Now we've also got courts that basically dropped the ball on protecting our rights on this as well.
Chris Hedges challenged it back in January, I believe, right after it was passed.
In May, they got a stay, and then in October, you can fill in some more details on this, we had a three-judge panel basically say, effectively, that the statute does not affect the existing rights of U.S.
citizens or other individuals arrested in the U.S.
What about our right to trial by jury?
What's the problem is that they'll say, this is why you have to watch out for language that says something like, nothing here shall affect the rights of U.S.
citizens in an article-free court.
Well, the only rights they recognize currently in the Supreme Court is a habeas petition to challenge your designation.
Well, that's not the same as a grand jury indictment.
It's not the same as a jury trial.
It's just saying you get a chance to argue to a judge you're not an enemy combatant.
Then the judge will say, well, the government says you are, and here's your evidence, and I'll make a decision about whether you are an enemy combatant or not.
So you bypass jury trial.
It's this truncated, minimalist due process of just a habeas review of whether your military attention is properly authorized or properly being done.
So, you know, you're already way outside the Constitution and this new twilight zone where the Supreme Court, as it goes, will make up a new system.
And that's where we are right now.
So unless someone is standing on your absolute right to a jury trial for the crime of treason, they're missing the boat.
So what they're offering us, instead of a trial by jury and a grand jury, instead of an indictment process, what we call the due process, an indictment and then a trial by jury, what they're offering us is something that goes back to, I guess, the Star Chamber, except maybe less, because at least in the Star Chamber you had multiple judges, now I guess you just get one judge to determine whether you have habeas corpus or...
Well, you get a military judge.
Under Section 1023, I think it was, of the 2012 NDAA, it's a military judge who will determine your status if you challenge it.
The Supreme Court has made noise about you having a right of habeas corpus to an Article 3 judge.
But at the very most, it'll be a military judge will determine that your detention is authorized in the military system, and then you may get a petition to a civilian court to an article 3 judge.
I'm challenging it, but the Article 3 judge is going to look at that and go, okay, I'm going to decide whether or not you got minimal due process and whether your detention, or the determination by the military judge is proper.
And you can expect the civilian judges to give great deference to the determination by the military judge.
And even if they didn't, even if this judge is a wonderful guy, even if it's Judge Napolitano, It's not the constitutional remedy.
You're supposed to get a jury of your peers.
And that is what the Founders fought for.
This is one of the consequences of arms, the American Revolution was denial of jury trial.
And there's a reason it's there.
They learned the hard lessons of history.
That's why they fought over that.
And here we are again with the government once again trying to strip us of our right to jury trial.
Yeah, exactly.
It's something, you know, our rights basically are being taken away by panels of judges and we're supposed to believe that those same panels of judges are going to give us a fair hearing when we go before them instead of a trial by jury of our peers.
But, you know, most people, you know, we're not standing up, I think, most people don't realize how much they've lost because we've essentially given away trial by jury, right?
Most people plea bargain And don't trust their fellow jurors, because in most cases, judges are telling the juries that they're just turning it into a kangaroo court.
They're not telling them that they can judge the law as well as the facts of the case, and they punish anybody, any lawyer who tells that to the juries, except in a few notable cases in New Hampshire, I guess.
We've had a couple, and we've had some people who defended themselves We had the New Jersey weed man who based his entire defense, his self-defense, on jury nullification and he was acquitted unanimously in New Jersey of marijuana charges.
But it's a very powerful thing when you've got your jury of your peers judging not just the facts, but whether or not they agree with the law.
But people in America have had that taken away from them for so long they don't really realize what they've given up.
They don't know what they have.
I mean, it's kind of normalcy bias.
They don't understand what they're losing because they're ignorant of their own history and their own heritage.
And so what there is, I think organizations like FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, are certainly correcting that ignorance.
And this is why, I believe, the elites want all the more to get rid of jury trial.
And this is their most effective way to do it, is to say, well, this is not a criminal system.
This is a law of war system we're now dealing with.
And they just sidestep the entire Bill of Rights.
Right, right.
But here's the big point also, is you may never even get a trial.
You may never even get a determination of your status because the president just kills you with a predator gun strike.
That's right.
Under the same logic of the laws of war, he doesn't have to detain you at all, he can just kill you.
That's right.
Well, so we can see that all the branches now, the federal government basically have had a say-so, and they're all in favor of this militarization and the loss of our due process.
What about the states?
We just had Michigan, at the end of last week, pass 107 to nothing.
Unanimously, they passed an anti-NDAA bill.
That still has to pass in the other house there in Michigan, and the governor has to sign it.
Virginia has passed an anti-NDAA bill.
That's completely passed there.
And we've got a bill that's been drafted here in Texas that will come up next year that's pretty good.
How do you feel about that?
Well, that's exactly what has to happen.
This is a parallel to what happened back in 1789, or 1798, I mean, when you had the Alien Sedition Act.
You had a resistance in the states.
Back then, it was the same kind of problem.
You had the federal government dominated by oath breakers.
It was a fellows party back then.
Both Congress and the Presidency and the courts at that time agreed that the Alien Sedition Act was just fine.
And so Thomas Jefferson and Madison went to the state and said, you have a duty and responsibility to stand up.
Well, the same thing is happening now.
The federal government is so corrupt and so outside the Constitution that your only possible rescue, as far as legality goes, is going to come from the state standing up.
And so I think nullification is the proper remedy.
And I'm glad to see that the Tenth Amendment Center has done good work on this.
I've helped to write some draft legislation as well.
And so we're doing what we can in the states to resist, and it's good to see that some states are standing up.
That shows you the difference between the federal government and the states.
You can still get state legislators who understand the Constitution and do the right thing.
I would agree with you.
There are some state senators that aren't going to do the right thing, though, and don't get state nullification.
You have an article on your website.
Chris Ann Hall, who is a former prosecutor and attorney who supports the Tenth Amendment, had some correspondence with a state senator there.
Actually, he's the state Senate president.
Don Getz, if I pronounce his name correctly.
Tell us a little bit about that.
You're right.
Christine Ann Hall wrote him a letter about nullification against unlawful congressional action, and his response to her was rather shocking.
In response to her, she says, like you, I believe Obamacare is unconstitutional and a long-headed policy.
I consistently voted in the legislature against it, blah blah blah.
As an application, he says, I tend to favor the approach used by Florida's first governor, Andrew Jackson.
It is said that one evening while he was president, General Jackson was interrupted in his reading in his bedroom by an alarmed military aide who breathlessly reported, Mr. President, the nullifiers are in front of the executive mansion with torches and guns.
They are screaming that each state has the right to decide for itself which federal laws to follow.
They threatened to burn us down if you will not agree with them.
Without lifting his head from his reading, General Jackson said, shoot the first nullifier, touches the flag, and hang the rest.
This is what this state senator is quoting.
He says, I have sworn an oath on my father's Bible before Almighty God to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and government of the United States, and that's exactly what I intend to do.
Count me with Andrew Jackson, Senator Don Getz.
Well, he's not really defending the Constitution, because his Constitution doesn't have a Tenth Amendment in it, right?
Well, even more basic than that, his oath is not to the Constitution and government of the United States.
He doesn't even know what an oath was.
His oath was to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Florida.
And the one thing, if someone was trying to overthrow the Constitution and say, we want to scrap the Constitution and we want to violate the Bill of Rights and do a military coup or something like that, what we're talking about here are people who are defending the Constitution against unconstitutional action By the U.S.
Senate and by the U.S.
Congress.
For example, the NDAA.
The NDAA, I think, is treason.
It's making war against the American people, applying laws of war to them, the same as if they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And so when you're qualifying against that, what you are doing is defending the Constitution.
This guy's got it completely backwards.
Yeah, the NDAA is not only a war on the American people, it's an undeclared war, officially.
I mean, unless the NDAA is their declaration of war.
I guess we could take it as that, perhaps.
Yeah, I think he could.
But like you said, though, in his mind, there's no Tenth Amendment, there's no duty of the states to resist federal tyranny.
When it was made very clear from the very beginning in the Federalist Papers, for example, that it was a responsibility of the states, and that's where your focal point of resistance would be, is in the state legislatures, hopefully.
Well, Stuart, is there anything else that's on your mind here that you'd like to tell us while we've got you on the line here?
Well, we're doing, the next thing we have coming up is a Liberty Tour.
We're doing a concert with Jordan Page and also with Rebel Inc., an awesome band, right outside of Fort Hood on January the 18th.
And so folks can go to our website, and what we're asking people to do is to buy a soldier a ticket.
You know, if you pitch in $10, it buys one troop from Fort Hood a free ticket into the concert.
So please go check that out.
That's a great idea.
Well, thank you very much.
It's a great website.
I really support what you're doing.
We all do.
Oathkeepers.org.
I suggest everybody go there and support that concert.
Do what you can to support the organization.
Well, Stuart, thank you very much for joining us today.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
And if you'd like to support InfoWars, we've got a brand new site for you on Prison Planet TV.
It's Operation Wake the Sleeping Giant.
It's a great new look for the website.
Everything is a lot easier to find, a much cleaner look.
And if you'd like to buy a membership, you can share that with up to 10 people.
At least 10 people can be streaming simultaneously, so you can actually share it with more than that.
But it helps to support our operation.
It helps to get the information out to other people.
And so, check out the new look at Prison Planet TV.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow night at 8 o'clock Eastern and 7 Central.
▲
Export Selection