All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:38:49
20121214_Fri_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening and welcome ladies and gentlemen.
This is the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Aaron Dykes.
Today is Friday, December 14th, 2012.
Tonight on the InfoWars Nightly News, Aaron Dykes brings you the latest in the Newton School shooting.
Then, gun grabbers prove you don't need a firearm to kill, as they threaten the life of the NRA president.
And TSA says this little girl is death on wheels.
All that and more coming up on the InfoWars Nightly News.
The nation is obviously still reeling tonight after the school shooting in Connecticut that has left at the last count.
I heard 28 dead, including at least 20 dead children, most of them aged 5 to 10 years old, Obviously a horrible national tragedy.
But it's the aftermath of the tragedy we have to pay attention to, the government's response in their quest for more power.
Meanwhile, we've seen an immediate response from enemies of the Second Amendment via Twitter, many of them calling for the death of NRA President David Keene in the wake of the shooting, as well as the death of NRA shooters.
Melissa Melden has the story, and she has amassed a large number of tweets, people saying that if you belong to the NRA, you should shoot your own kids, that a terrorist should shoot up an NRA meeting, that we should, quote, murder every NRA member, and all kinds of other tweets murder every NRA member, and all kinds of other tweets along those lines, while celebrity gun grabbers are calling for further Second Amendment response.
Restrictions of course.
Michael Moore is in the game and Piers Morgan has tweeted at least five tweets explicitly calling for gun control saying we should have a strict national gun policy in America.
No assault weapons whatsoever for civilians.
Then the British twit on CNN called for Minimum of three references, detailed vetting, over six to eight weeks to own a gun, as well as safety and training courses that are mandatory, as well as banning all guns for any criminals or anyone with any mental health whatsoever.
And I may remind you that mental health is increasingly a wide net that has almost anyone potentially in its grasp.
Piers Morgan has also called for banning all guns for people under 25, even though at 18 years old and in many cases 17, You're old enough to serve your country in war with a gun and put your life on the line.
Then the British twit, Piers Morgan, called for a huge incentivized gun amnesty and that no American should have more than one firearm under the Second Amendment.
They are going all out for these guns.
Obama himself gave a supposedly heartfelt speech today in the wake of that shooting.
Curt Nemo has the story on Obama's fake tears in the performance that assuredly would not win him an Oscar, where he shed no tears but appeared and pretended to wipe them away.
Expressing grief for the children.
Kurt points out that he's expressed no grief for all the children and innocent men and women who've died in his drone strike campaigns in Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.
Has not expressed death for all kinds of other innocent victims.
But when it serves his gun control agenda, well he's there with the fake tears.
Alex has more in this special report on Obama's crocodile tears.
I told you it was coming.
The state-run media in the last three weeks has declared war on the Second Amendment.
They know that areas where they restricted the guns, like Chicago and New York, have the highest crime rates.
They know that police with guns go and respond to the bad guys.
They know that guns are used 80-plus times on average more often to stop crime than they're used in crime.
They know mass shootings are flat over the last 20 years, but they don't care.
America is being collectivized.
It's being taken over by globalist corporate interests who've declared their New World Order.
And now Barack Obama is using the tragic Connecticut shooting with at least 20 dead children with a masked man in the classic MO we've seen before.
to come out and say for these children we've got to do something and CNN and MSNBC and Salon and all the government-funded state-run media that Ron Paul is exposed is coming out saying ban guns take them all now is the time we have the articles posted at InfoWars.com and PrisonPanda.com but when I saw this I had to say something.
We're going to go to this video in a moment.
Barack Obama did this fake crying bit where he would take a tear out of his eye.
We've blown the video up.
There are no tears.
This is a guy who got the Peace Prize in his bombing eight countries where they say it's okay to kill 200 innocent people at a wedding to get one bad guy and they're violating international law to do it with Predator and Reaper and Global Hawk drones.
This is the guy who shipped tens of thousands of guns into Mexico with his Attorney General to blame the Second Amendment that killed thousands of people on their side and hundreds on ours.
It's pure bull.
Our so-called government's been caught doing lethal experiments on little children over the last 80 years.
These people are cold-blooded globalists.
Remember Obama saying, I won't sign the NDAA, so don't worry, let it pass.
Turned out his lawyers wrote it.
Then he said, don't worry, I won't sign it.
Then signed it on December 31st, 2011.
He said he would legalize marijuana.
They tripled the raids in California.
Okay, it's all about how he's hip and cool.
All you liberal idiots out there, you're not liberals.
You're authoritarians.
I don't support Mitt Romney and the Republicans.
They're controlled by the same interests.
But you people are fools!
Hitler was for gun control.
The first gun control laws in this country were by the Ku Klux Klan.
But that didn't stop the Fox Sports reporter saying the new Klan is.
The NRA.
Ladies and gentlemen, look at this video.
He does it three times on it.
This is where, just about an hour ago, he starts fake crying, talking about children.
This is pure exploitation of a corrupt ruling class that wants to disarm us.
It is elementary, and he said he may use executive orders to ban guns if Congress won't do it.
And that will cause a civil war, folks.
I have been dreading this.
The latest issue of our magazine is on this subject.
I knew it was coming.
Just watch this exploitation and how disgustingly fake this is.
This is unbelievable.
Graduations.
Weddings.
Kids of the room.
Among the fallen were also teachers.
Yes.
Men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.
So our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost.
My hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well.
Oh he's so sad.
For as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children's innocence has been torn away from them too early.
I mean this is pure garbage ladies and gentlemen.
I mean, he's a worse actor than Glenn Beck with Glenn Beck's fake crime.
Okay?
I mean, this is disgusting.
And it's sick how everything is about the packaging in this country.
This guy is a bigger warmonger than George W. Bush because they gave him a Peace Prize.
It's okay.
He lies incessantly.
There's never been a bigger liar.
He makes Bill Clinton look honest.
And the thing is, he's selling us out to the globalists, and they're now coming after our guns.
They're saying they want to physically ban all semi-autos.
He said that in the debate.
That's what all these groups are calling for.
There's total election fraud going on nationwide.
Obama really wasn't elected.
I interviewed Bev Harris, top election fraud expert.
She said she's never seen so much fraud.
And again, it's not that Romney was good either.
It's that the fix is in.
And the globalists are bringing this country down.
Bloomberg reported yesterday that they're doubling health care premiums in this country.
Yeah, because the insurance companies wrote the health care laws.
They wrote the health care laws.
Think about this.
They wrote it to make you buy their product.
So now, of course, it doubled in price.
And now they're going to bankrupt the system completely.
It's a collectivist takeover of America.
And now we've got an Oprah Winfrey president.
I'm so sad about kids when I'm not launching Predator drones or carrying out Fast and Furious.
Did you know Obama took the federal government blocking off of abortions for Africa when they basically force African women to have abortions?
Look that up.
But people say, hey, I don't care.
You know what?
It's okay.
Because he's trendy, he's liberal, because he's got a little bit of pigment in his skin.
It is so sick.
Folks, they're coming for your guns.
America is being imploded.
They've set up homeland security with 1.6 billion bullets.
They want to start this civil war.
People are not turning their guns in, you globalist frontmen.
The megabanks Look at this.
I have this giant stack of articles.
and brag in our article that we have dozens of links to where they say that they've taken over this country.
World government's being announced and they're coming after our guns and notice these shootings are happening so opportunist.
Look at this.
I have this giant stack of articles.
We're going to do a second video with mainstream news over the years admitting Sirhan, Sirhan and other events were mind control operations.
I don't know if this one is, but I sure know they're not letting a good crisis go to waste and they're exploiting this in a state that has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country.
And I'm sick of it!
Alright folks, that's it.
Ring the alarm bells everywhere.
They're coming after our guns.
They want to ban them.
They want to fully make us their slaves.
Alex Jones signing off for InfoWars.com.
Now get this video of the fake crying out to everyone you know.
Meanwhile, details about the actual shooting in Connecticut, that horrible tragedy that again has left at least 28 people dead, including the alleged gunman, continue to pour in.
Many of those details have been conflicting.
We've seen the story change throughout the day.
For instance, notably, Ryan Lamso was initially identified as the shooter.
They now say he was not involved, but he's in custody for questioning.
Meanwhile his brother Adam Lanza, aged 20 years old, is now accused of being that shooter.
It's reported that he's autistic or had some other kind of mental disorder, which apparently ties in with the Second Amendment agenda, as they They try to attack it.
There's conflicting details about where his mother was.
Adam allegedly shot his mother in the classroom.
Other reports say that there's an unidentified dead woman at the home that he shared with his mother.
So we'll figure all that out as it comes in.
But was there another shooter?
We have to watch for that because they've got another potential person of interest or suspect in custody.
Someone they found in the woods in camouflage.
They're also looking for a shot up minivan.
Apparently the windows taken out and other questions that are still emerging in this horrific shooting.
But one we must point out showed up in CBS News about the new safety protocols at this elementary school.
They had a new policy to lock the doors at 930 a.m.
potentially preventing anyone with ill intent from entering and it is estimated that Adam Lamsa entered that school at approximately 941 a.m.
If so, how did he get in if the doors were locked as they were supposed to be?
If they didn't follow the procedure, what can they do for safety?
Well, none of those teachers are allowed to be armed, probably not the principal either, and look at what happened in the wake of that.
It's terrible, but we've got to pay attention to these details.
Was it a false flag?
Are there indications of another shooter?
Is there more that we need to learn in the alternative narrative you won't be hearing on the mainstream news?
Alex Jones has some of those earmarks, analyzing the overall pattern of these shooters and how they're used to exploit tragedy.
Throughout history, every authoritarian system has sought to disarm its serfs.
And the same thing is happening here in the United States.
There are only a couple countries where people can own guns.
And in every case, governments have used school shootings in England, in Australia, in New Zealand, to restrict and then finally ban guns.
And Obama and his controllers have said in the last few months he may use an executive order to physically ban all semi-autos and the ATF is attempting to ban most shotguns right now.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is outside of congressional law.
They're trying to do this and within Minutes of the shooting beginning in Connecticut this morning, when they didn't even know if anybody was dead, they were on the news.
The state-run media saying, time to get rid of the Second Amendment.
You see, they're desperate.
Courts have been ruling there is a Second Amendment.
People have been buying guns by the millions a month.
All these women's magazines, liberal magazines, show women buying guns and getting into protecting themselves.
The state doesn't want you to protect yourself.
They want you scared.
The state wants a monopoly of force.
The United Nations is calling for banning guns worldwide and they're about to have a treaty come up in March.
So Obama is moving forward with this and they're using every tragedy to go after our Second Amendment.
Mexico has a total gun ban for the citizens.
And the last three years, more than 55,000 people have been killed by guns because only the drug cartels and the criminal government has the guns.
The highest crime rates in this country are in Chicago and New York with total gun bans.
Connecticut is the fourth highest gun control state in the Union.
Very hard to get a gun.
You're never going to stop psychopaths from going and doing bad things.
You notice That it was the police that came with guns to stop the guy.
I thought guns were causing the crimes, like fat people are becoming obese because of spoons, not because of their bad behavior.
Are we going to ban dogs because Michael Vick used pit bulls?
Are we going to punish all dog owners?
No, you punish people when they do wrong things.
And we do have a lot of degenerate psychopaths in this country And that's why we have a Second Amendment.
Bob Costas came out and said, men 20 to 30 shouldn't be able to own guns.
Saying all men are criminal and bad.
What an incredible statement of discrimination against men by another man.
The establishment is a crime syndicate.
And they want you disarmed.
Just like bank robbers, when they come in a bank say, hands up to the guard, give me your gun.
Or when people come in your house to rob you, they tie you up and say, where are the guns?
It's simple.
We have a predatory, out-of-control group.
Now, I played this clip earlier, but I want to play more of the clip.
of Obama in the worst acting job I've ever seen.
The guy that shipped the guns into Mexico to kill thousands, including children, with Fast and Furious.
The guy predator-droning sometimes 200 innocent people to get one, quote, terrorist, they claim.
The guy launching wars everywhere in NDAA and extending Patriot Acts and internment camps in the new Army manuals.
I mean, a total globalist.
Fake crying over children, doing his Oprah Winfrey bit.
They are coming for the guns and they're saying you're a member of the Klan, like the Fox Sports writer, if you don't turn your guns in.
Folks, it was the Klan that got the first gun laws passed.
They are making it the new civil right to turn your gun in.
So being a slave is your new right.
Here is part of the disgusting fake pausing and the fake crying and no one is calling this guy on it.
He's really crying because his foreign banker masters haven't been able to disarm the American people and these control freaks hate it.
Here it is.
Here is Obama's clip.
Beautiful little kids between the ages of five and ten years old.
It's totally fake.
Look at this fake pause.
Learned that from Oprah?
Oh my gosh.
Oh my gosh.
They had their entire lives ahead of them.
Birthdays, graduations.
Oh, look at this.
Talk about fake, and it just goes on and on.
This is the guy that got the funding reinstated for basically forced abortions in Africa.
He's probably, if he really was able to summon tears, too bad we can't get all the babies killed before they're out of the womb.
I mean, this is incredible.
And the fake crying goes on and on.
Let's go over some of the news articles now that are at InfoWars.com, because these are so incredibly important.
And do what you'll do as you'll edit this, okay?
Look at this at InfoWars.com.
Gun grabbers call for murder of NRA President supporters in wake of mass shooting.
All over the place.
They already said, the Fox Sports guy said, you know, they're all the Klan.
Obama wipes away fake tears.
Nemo's written about it.
We posted the video there.
2012.
Doomsday secrets revealed.
Special report breaking down.
Now that's a hoax.
Celebrities demand outrageous gun control laws following Connecticut shooting, even though they all have armed guards and bodyguards.
I've been out to Hollywood a lot, folks.
Some of the biggest stars' houses, believe me, they're armed.
Michael Moore calls for strict gun control after school massacre.
This is the incredible exploitation Of these tragedies, not letting a good crisis go to waste.
Let me show you some more of these articles right here.
Go look at these.
Notice, that's men with guns coming to stop the guy that had the gun.
And hours later, hundreds of SWAT teams grandstanding showing up.
They're reporting multiple shooters there, just like the police said Sirhan Sirhan didn't ever hit RFK and it was CIA shot him in the back.
Look, that's even Communist News Network telling you that.
Look at this.
Knife-wielding man injures 22 children in China.
And it's a part of an epidemic of children being attacked at school by men with knives.
They've banned guns there, but in Japan and China, massive deaths.
I've seen cases of more than 15 kids killed in these schools by men with knives.
Going to ban knives?
Actually, they're talking about it in England.
Look at this.
MSNBC's Alex Wagner.
Get rid of the Second Amendment.
And she even goes ahead and says, we've now got the political capital.
Let's ban the Second Amendment.
It goes on and on.
Salon coming out and saying it's time to take the guns.
And oh, just like we told you, inmate James Holmes told me he was programmed to kill by evil therapists.
Turned out he was in a government mind control program.
You can't make make this stuff up.
Murder under hypnosis, the James Holmes story, takes a familiar turn.
Turns out Discovery Channel and History Channel are doing special reports on mind control, and now the CIA says they're training their people to have other personalities to where they don't know the passcode.
They have to be given a code word to then release the passcode.
That's mind control.
They create an alternate personality.
Look at this.
This is a real science.
They've been caught doing it over and over again.
That's why we bring this up.
James Holmes behaving like Sirhan Sirhan.
Dark night shooting to be exploited for political grist.
Discovery Channel documentary proves mind control assassin conspiracy.
That was new articles out this week about the Pentagon and all of this.
Attorneys for RFK convinced killer Sirhan pushed second gunman argument.
Again, they're saying that's what's happening.
Attorneys for RFK, convicted killer Sirhan, push second gunman argument.
All of this.
Look at this!
CIA torturing and sodomizing innocent citizens.
Black sites, torture sites, torturing children at these sites.
The medical experiments on children that have been done, killing thousands of them.
Of course the government would stage a shooting like this.
I don't know if they staged this one, but the same familiar telltale signs are now coming out.
And I want to take you in here real quick.
Let's go in here.
I forgot to show you this.
We told you, right here, in the issue of the magazine, the December issue, this man wants your guns and they are coming after your guns.
We told you this was happening.
We told you they've blown the bugle.
They're coming.
He says he'll use executive orders to take it.
To make us like Mexico, a narco-terrorist state run by the mafia government with the citizens disarmed.
1776 started when the Redcoats came to take our guns.
Texas Independence in 1836 came when Santa Ana came to take our guns.
It isn't happening, you offshore New World Order bankers.
You know the gun culture is starting to kick your butt, so you're panicking.
Well, let me tell you something.
You're not going to win and you're not going to succeed.
Everybody, this is an illegitimate criminal government that probably staged this event, but undoubtedly they're going to exploit it.
So get out there and warn everyone you know.
We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals, crazy people, and this corrupt foreign occupational government.
I'm Alex Jones reporting for InfoWars.com.
And if you're watching this transmission, you are the resistance!
They've taken the guns from everybody else worldwide.
Now the globalists are trying to conquer us!
Again, we have reported that the enemies of the Second Amendment will exploit the Connecticut shooting.
It's not just your favorites in the Obama administration or the Michael Moores and Piers Morgans of the controlled corporate media that are basically just state media, as Alex frequently points out.
It's Mayor Bloomberg, it's governors of Connecticut, it's all kinds of people who are looking to play up this pattern of shooting and use it for whatever kind of gun control they will pursue in Obama's second term.
They've announced that they want to do something on the Second Amendment going after guns.
It's a question of what?
Will it be policies?
Will it have to do with mental disorders, PTSD?
Will it be new registration?
Will it be trigger locks?
We're going to find out, but you can bet they're going to exploit this, as they have every school shooting, never looking at the pharmaceuticals, never looking at the other indicators, only at the weapon, which As you know, is just a weapon.
When you control the Second Amendment, that's a monopoly on the power by the state.
It's taking away the individual's right and it can only lead to greater tyranny.
In fact, we have this shirt right here pointing out, it's available at Infowars.com, all the dictators who loved gun control and used it ...to further their tyranny and their horrible dictatorships on the back.
Politicians love disarmed peasants.
We cannot let that happen.
So arm yourself non-violently in the Infowar.
Get this shirt.
Let the gun grabbers know that you know that they're just murdering dictators.
And yes, the state has blood on its hands.
That's what they always do.
And when they take guns throughout history, or any other weapons, because they did it with knives, swords, you name it, They want more blood.
They're not doing it for your safety.
It will never create safety.
It creates a monopoly of power that just makes the blood run in the streets.
You don't let them do it.
Here's Alex with an update just breaking down how murderous the government apparatus really is.
I don't want to call liberals liberal anymore.
We know about the establishment warmongering Republicans and their illegal spying and the Patriot Act and all the rest of it.
But when you look at the Democrats, Obama is bombing eight countries.
He passed the NDAA to secretly arrest Americans.
But he's a Peace Prize winner, so it's okay.
And he said back during the campaign, hey, I don't want to come after your guns.
And the Democrats were like, oh, no, we never want to do that.
And now they're exploiting every tragedy as a pretext to disarm 310 million Americans.
Statistically, mass shootings aren't even up, but they don't care.
They get up there and fake cry and everything else.
And it is so incredibly cynical.
Let me ask you moron, and I mean moron, Obama support or something.
You're like, hey, you're just mad your guy lost.
No, that's not what this is about.
I wasn't supporting Romney, you idiots.
There's more choices than Obama and Romney, both run by the same megabanks that want us disarmed so they can rob the daylights out of this country.
Do you know that almost every other nation in the world has been disarmed and enslaved?
Do you understand authoritarians always try to take the guns?
Do you know about the UN treaty coming up in two months to openly restrict our Second Amendment?
Do you understand what's happening?
Remember they'd say, these crazy gun owners are all out buying guns, 2, 3, 4 million a month, saying they think Obama's going to come after their guns, while they're conspiracy theorists.
We don't want your guns, don't go buy those!
And now they're all over.
MSNBC, CNN, Salon, Newsweek saying, get rid of the Second Amendment.
Search that term, get rid of the Second Amendment.
It's all over the news.
Within minutes of the shootings.
These are disingenuous authoritarians.
Stop calling yourselves liberals.
You're disgusting, race-pepping, social engineers that want to domesticate the American people.
You're disgusting state-run media, and the reason you're panicking and wanting our guns is your ratings are plunging down to almost zero.
These shows have almost no viewers.
You're an echo chamber, and you know the sleeping giant is awakening.
You even said that you've lost the gun control debate.
Liberals that I know are all out buying guns, webinar, learning how to defend themselves, learning about real empowerment!
Listen to me, you little turds!
You little bastards!
You're not getting our guns and you're not destroying this country like you did the Soviet Union when you took over and murdered all those people.
Just like Harry Belafonte said, put us in re-education camps.
I've had the communists tell me that's your plan.
You're gonna fail and you're not gonna get our guns, you pieces of trash!
You probably staged the damn murder!
You probably staged the mass shooting!
You stayed fast and furious!
You're the number one suspect!
Pieces of trash!
You want American filth?
Go to North Korea!
And go to hell!
I hate you!
You scumbag authoritarian murderers!
Running your drone attacks worldwide!
Jacking our vaccines with cancer viruses!
I see you and I know what you are!
You murdering authoritarian trash!
You'll never get our guns!
And you know the Republic's rising!
And the red blood of the American people across the board is awakening!
Meanwhile, on the TSA front, the TSA has called in a bomb specialist on a wheelchair-bound 12-year-old girl, detaining her over an hour after she was randomly, quote-unquote, selected for an explosives test, and they declared it to be a positive.
When it easily could have had to do with the fertilizer that comes from their chicken farm or anything off the ground picked up on the wheelchair.
They didn't even bother to check the actual wheelchair.
They just basically harassed this girl with a degenerative genetic bone disorder.
And keep in mind the TSA promised at least three times, I'm aware of, to stop groping children 12 and under, to change their policies, and to back away from molesting Americans of all stripes and ages at the airport, and yet they just continue to harass everyone.
Having not yet ever caught any terrorist.
This dovetails with the monolithic intelligence agency collecting info on every American to quote predict crimes.
The Wall Street Journal is now reporting on something InfoWars warned of nine months ago.
Dealing with the National Counterterrorism Center and how they have declared the right to keep records on all Americans without any restrictions or oversight for up to five years.
They seized this power shortly after the 2009 Christmas Day underpants bomber debacle, the attempted bombing of Abdulmutallab, who, as we have extensively revealed, was led onto the plane by a handler.
The State Department cleared his visa, even though he wasn't wasn't traveling with a passport.
And indeed, if they were trying to collect information on just such a potential terrorist, well, they did nothing with the fact that his father, the banker, warned them that his son was up to no good.
And he did call authorities in the United States, but was handily ignored.
Something to keep in mind.
On a different front, we've heard about the apocalyptic doomsday predictions for 2012, specifically December 21st, the final day in the Mayan calendar created so many years ago, which heralds a new age, a restarting over.
But why have they hyped up this threat?
Well, once again, it's just to get you into an escapism authoritarian model where you look to the government to be your daddy once again to save you from an external threat so you'd never think about changing the power dynamic of that actual authority.
Here is Alex Jones' powerful video on the 2012 hoax.
We have been told the end of our world will occur on December 21st, 2012.
As 2012 draws to a close, will it be the end of our species, the end of our world, or just the beginning?
In case you haven't heard, the world is going to end in 2012.
December 21st, 2012.
The Mayan calendar basically predicts that the world will end in 2012.
The world is not going to end December 21st, 2012, coming up in just a few days.
It is a hoax.
It is a premeditated fraud.
No Mayan scholars, no archaeologist have ever come out and looked at the Mayan prophecies in the Mayan calendar and said that it states there's going to be an end of the world.
The whole thing is a 30 plus year manufactured hoax.
A total and complete scam.
And we're going to break down exactly who is behind it and why the mainstream media has been peddling this for decades.
Did the Maya think the world would end in 2012?
No.
The Mayan people are fighting back, saying that the idea of the world coming to an end in 2012 did not come from their calendar.
But where do we find the modern, end of the world, 2012 cult beginning?
New Age thinkers like Terence McKenna.
And Robert Anton Wilson launched what has become the 2012 Doomsday Hubbub in the 1970s.
They simply used the Mayan date to launch a kick-off of the New Age scenario to garner attention to their other Illuminati New Age writings.
Robert Anton Wilson, in his book, The Cosmic Trigger, said that there would be a scientific quickening, similar to what Ray Kurzweil says, that the singularity would begin to happen on December 21st, 2012, and he used the Mayan date As a symbolic trigger for all of this.
But there were countless other new age gurus and establishment connected types who came out over the next few decades and continued to push this idea that the world would either physically end on December 21st 2012 or that a new age would start at that point.
And that is exactly what we are seeing being promoted and being pushed right now.
This end of the world business is a reoccurring theme throughout history.
And it gets people to cop out and to not be involved in their daily lives.
It makes you have a feeling of powerlessness.
And governments at different institutions have always been happy to promote this.
The establishment for hundreds of years has gotten Christians to not be politically involved, because going back to the time of the Gnostics, they always believed the world was ending next week.
It is a total system to cop out.
It is a manufactured superstition.
Just as Christians are given the rapture as a reason to stand down and not fight back against corruption and evil, The New Age crowd, or the hippies, the trendies, people that didn't believe in God, they needed a reason to not be involved.
It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that's what the whole 2012 hoax is about.
A artificial superstition to make people turn control of their lives over to the globalist technocrats.
Strangely enough, we find the answer to our current superstition in ancient cultures like the Mayan.
And I don't just want to pick on them.
This was system-wide throughout all human cultures that you would see the rise of a priest class who would say, if you don't give us the best huts, the best temples, the best food, and finally human sacrifices, the greatest thing they could demand from the general population, The giant titan god will swallow the sun, or the snake god will swallow the sun or moon, and it will be the end of the world if you don't give the priest class total control.
And that's basically what politicians in Hollywood are doing again today.
It's the end of the world with terrorism.
It's the end of the world with the economy.
If you don't give us more control, we're going to go over the fiscal cliff.
You remember Karl Rove when he told the New York Times that it doesn't matter if we lie to people, it doesn't matter if we change the political narrative tomorrow, up is down, down is up in a 1984 fashion, because we in the governing class are history's actors now.
And you the public are in such a coma, you will just accept whatever the new reality is.
So sit down and shut up.
And that's what these prophets of doom are doing.
They are stealing the future.
They are prescripting what it's going to be and then we just fall into line and believe it like they're God.
Don't let these people dominate and control the future.
In conclusion, I want to cover some real threats that could not just destroy the human species, but could destroy this beautiful planet itself.
Many top physicists and scientists are on record saying that these giant cyclotrons and superconducting supercolliders like the Hadron facility in Europe are engaged in experiments that could possibly destroy this planet.
By switching on a $10 billion machine in an attempt to recreate the Big Bang.
But critics are worried it will create a black hole which could swallow the Earth.
Interestingly enough, CERN goes live on December 16th through the 21st.
Many scientists have warned that nanotech could get out of control and create a self-replicating manufacturing system that would overtake the service of the globe in just a matter of days.
In hundreds of major studies, GMO crops that have been eaten by Americans for decades cause near total sterility, brain damage, and deformities in the different rodents that they've been fed to.
Major universities for decades have been stampeding each other to publish things like the mouse pox recipe that can be redesigned for humans very easily and inexpensively and kills more than 90% of mammal species that come in contact with it.
And then, of course, there's the good old-fashioned threat of nuclear weapons.
More than 60,000 of them held by governments right now on board aircraft, underwater submarines, missile cruisers.
Back in the 1960s, many nuclear physicists believed that high-altitude detonations of hydrogen bombs could blow a hole in our atmosphere and that the planet could become dead.
Still, the military went ahead with the test.
Teak, with a yield of 3.8 megatons, detonated nearly 50 miles above the surface of the Earth.
The detonation created a violent magnetic disturbance in the atmosphere.
And the point I'm getting at here is that the mad scientist technocratic elite that runs our planet always engages in the most destructive reckless behavior while lecturing us that we need a world government to keep rogue states from developing dangerous chemical, biological, and radiological weapons.
The seeds of our destruction may have already been sown.
It is imperative that we have a serious debate about the real threats facing us and not raptures and 2012 end of the world garbage.
There is no way that our society, that our civilization is going to survive if people don't start really getting wise about the real threats we face.
If you are listening or watching this transmission, you are the resistance.
And we turn now to our quote of the day.
It is, of course, dealing with guns and the Second Amendment.
Gun control means control.
It means control for the government, and the government starts controlling the people.
That's a quote from Luke Scott, the athlete, and very true words.
You better think about that.
You better figure it out.
That's all for our news portion.
We'll be back after this.
With an interview with Larry Beecraft and Joe Bannister.
We're going to analyze the Constitution and the state's power grab.
Stay tuned, InfoWars Nightly News.
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 InfoWarStore.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.
Christy Hightower here for a Planet InfoWars update.
I know it's been a little while.
I apologize.
We have moved studios, we've expanded, there's been a little bit of a shift going on.
So I just want to make this real quick.
We've had several contests, actually, starting with the Bob Costas, thinking that he is, you know, end-all to end-all.
Saying that the Second Amendment should be restricted.
Well, the mission, actually, that I want to talk to you about is a Planet and Fours mission in the Resistance Group.
And guns causing crimes is like spoons causing you to get fat.
So the mission is for everyone to send a letter to Bob Costas and send him a spoon.
And the contest actually is videotaping yourself writing a letter Now, obviously, there's a little humor in here, so I hope to laugh, I expect to laugh at some of these, and send him a spoon, because we just want him to have piles of spoons, how ridiculous his comments on the Second Amendment were.
So go take that, go take that and make me laugh.
And then the next, actually, that I wanted to talk to you about is in the InfoWar video reports.
And this we had here in Austin, Texas, the Drone Mob, where we used the hashtag on Twitter, Drone Mob.
And basically, if you were there and you filmed, we want you to go and edit your video.
It doesn't even have to be that long, but whoever has the best drone mob video is going to win $1,000.
So both of these are video contests.
Both of these are just you getting active.
I apologize if you couldn't make it to Austin, but hopefully we'll be getting to do more cool events like this in the future.
And also, there's actually on InfoWars.com, there's more about the drone mob contest.
And exactly, the deadline is the 21st, and I want to say it's at midnight.
So go check out those details.
And get those awesome videos in because people need to know what we're up against.
The drones are not a joke.
This isn't going away.
This is an awareness campaign.
So keep that in mind as well.
And lastly, on a little lighter note, this has kind of been an ongoing romance experience.
I've actually mentioned these two before.
Um, Herbick07 and Lady Liberty are both Planet InfoWars users and, um, they sent me their picture!
They actually have visited each other several times now and, um, I want to say probably six months or so.
And they actually met in the Freedom Lovers group there on Planet Infowars, so it can happen to you, and since we're all moving into the holidays, and it's cold, you want somebody to cozy up with, especially people that understand and believe and are aware like you are.
So go check that out.
It's not a dud, I promise.
You can find love in this patriot world.
So thank you again, Planet InfoWars users, for all you're doing.
Hopefully we'll get an Ask Alex segment here soon.
Keep up the great work and keep talking, because we're listening. - 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 want to challenge our radio listeners to go to Infowarsteam.com.
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
InfoWars Nightly News.
We're joined now by two guests who, by any stretch of the imagination, are uncovering the unconstitutional system our country here in the United States of America has developed into.
We were, of course, set up as a constitutional republic.
Things have transformed quite a bit from that point.
Joining me is Larry Becraft, a lawyer who knows so much about all the unconstitutional laws, as well as Joe Bannister, who used to be in the IRS and has had his own adventures with them over the years.
That's an understatement, of course.
Thanks for joining me, guys.
Our pleasure, Aaron.
Thank you, Aaron.
So, why don't you both just introduce yourself and some of the important cases you've worked on, and then let's get into the issues here.
Well, Larry, you've been at it longer than me, so you go ahead.
Okay, I'll go ahead, Joe.
I grew up in Alabama.
I've lived in Huntsville, Alabama, virtually all my life, since I was about three years old.
I went to a small Baptist school in Birmingham, Alabama, graduated from there in 1975, you know, after I went to law school there, too.
At the same time, that's when I ran into people involved in the John Birch Society and related type of organizations, and I was kind of spoon-fed that type of stuff, so my objective when I was going through college and law school was to, number one, learn what's going on in the world, and then develop the tools that I could use to bring about favorable change to the American people and for the world at large.
I got admitted to practice law in 1975 and have been practicing ever since.
My primary type of work is I'm engaged in criminal defense, primarily in federal court.
I've been involved in some real important criminal defense cases.
For example, in 1991, we started about a five-and-a-half-month trial in Memphis involving 17 defendants.
I represented Franklin Sanders as the lead defendant in the case.
And, you know, on July 9th of 1991, the jury came back and ran off 52 not guilty verdicts.
And we had a giant party right after that.
But, you know, I've represented Tommy Cryer, Bernice Kugelin, a bunch of other people.
But, you know, I'm deeply involved in two things that really interest me.
Number one, the money issue.
You know, the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, the detrimental effect that that has upon any society.
And especially here in America, you know, the American Society.
That's one of my interests.
Another one of my interests involves the federal income tax.
I've made a lot of material available for that.
The entire United States Statutes at Large.
You can go over to our Truth Attack website and you can download all the whole volumes of the United States Statutes at Large.
Plus you can download old tax regulations and old tax acts.
And there's a world of things to learn about these two points, the monetary system and the tax system that if we would get a lot of people really studying the truth of the matter, then I think it would be beneficial for every American.
And of course our country transformed in 1913, 1914 respectively, you know, away from the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, which just in a common sense fashion was set up to at least attempt to stop guard tyranny, to separate powers, because naturally any position that has power leads towards corruption.
So you want to try to have an individual bulwark, you want to have, you know, the different branches.
You mentioned 1913.
1913 is a real important year.
You know, that's when the 16th Amendment was ratified.
allegedly bill benson uh... came up with some information but engaged in a project that lasted a year long where he discovered you know that there's actual documents to demonstrate the sixteenth amendment wasn't really properly and legally ratified that's that's one thing that happened in 1913 another thing that happened in 1913 is you know about this time of year christmas eve in 1913 the powers that be got together in washington d_c_ while most of the congressmen were absent from washington d_c_ and uh... adopted the federal reserve act
And that's the adoption of the Federal Reserve Act was the creation of, let's call it what it is, a monopoly of the finance credit industry.
That's an understatement.
When you use paper money, fiat, credit, you use that as a medium of exchange, it is beneficial for the elite who operate that system, and it's detrimental for the populace at large.
That's an understatement.
I mean, that's the big enchilada, of course.
It is.
It's the power structure here in America and across the world.
But it goes hand in hand with the setting up of the IRS and the income tax and all that stuff, right?
Well, you do have to have a method, you know, when you're acquiring power.
By means of issuing credit.
That's what we use today.
There's been a history.
We've moved from specie coin, gold and silver coin, and the financial industry has been interested in pushing out that as a medium of exchange so that now today we use paper and credit.
In times of the past, back in 1913, you didn't have the banks and demand deposits.
They weren't as important as they are today.
So they moved us away from paper and now we're on credit.
We'll use that as a media exchange and it's detrimental for us.
And of course InfoWars and the whole Alex Jones organization has been critically important in getting this word out to the rest of the American people.
Well, we're trying to expose the truth, but of course it's complicated, especially when we get into the legal terminology.
Joe, why don't you go ahead and introduce your background, talk about, you know, where you've been with the IRS and how you got to this point.
Thanks, Aaron.
Well, I'm going to be almost 50 years old, born the last century, just like My colleague here.
But as you can see from hearing Larry, there are a lot of very knowledgeable people about the history of how the income tax came into being, how the Federal Reserve came into being, how our fiat monetary system came into being.
And I came through the typical middle class upbringing, born and raised in San Jose, California, and decided that I wanted to get into law enforcement.
And chose the FBI and the IRS to apply to, to get into federal law enforcement.
The FBI had a hiring freeze, and so I wasn't able to work there.
However, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division contacted me in 1993.
and asked me to be a special agent with the IRS and the IRS has about three thousand criminal investigators that work for for the agency and they do a very similar job to an FBI agent or secret service agent uh... as far as the government's concerned it's the same position but an IRS special agent a criminal investigator will investigate uh... money laundering and tax crimes primarily so uh...
I wanted to pursue law enforcement.
In 1993 I was hired with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division and expected to spend a good 20-year career working for the IRS.
I actually had a lot of family members and friends who were in law enforcement and government service.
My entire family is made up of government servants.
Two police officer brothers and a firefighter brother.
My father worked for the city of San Jose for an entire career.
So we weren't an anti-government kind of family or anti-tax by any stretch.
So that was my mindset, going to work for the IRS in 1993.
And it wasn't like the auditor kind of guy or gal for the IRS.
We were issued badges and guns and we would do actual law enforcement.
Investigations with a focus on tax and you know money laundering type crimes well Contrary to my expectations to just spend a whole career being a criminal investigator about three years into that career I was listening to a talk radio show and there was a lady named DV kid and she actually is a colleague of Larry's and And she was talking about the income tax and how, in a nutshell, that it was a big scam.
She's that fiery redhead, right?
The fiery redhead.
She'd been on the program before.
So I was listening to this lady, and I was literally that day driving around in my government car doing my work, and hearing this lady talk about my income tax system that I was enforcing.
So I wanted to check out what she had to say, get her literature.
I did.
And I spent the next two years after hearing her on the radio, on evenings and weekends, trying to poke holes in this claim that she made on the radio that day.
That the income tax wasn't legit, and everybody was required to pay it, and that she had to be wrong.
Because if she was right, then what I was doing was wrong.
I was helping an agency to basically steal from the American people.
My parents didn't raise me to steal or help other people steal, so I wanted to get down to the bottom of her claims and her assertions.
It took me about two years, and I was still going to work every day as an IRS criminal investigator and just doing this little personal investigation on my own time.
And at the end of that two year period I concluded, and you know Larry's a small snapshot of the kind of credibility that's out there of people that have researched this information and already vetted it to see that it is legitimate and true.
And so I began to encounter people like Larry.
People with advanced degrees, attorneys, CPAs, tax researchers that had, you know, black letter law showing that the way the IRS does business on a day-to-day basis is a fraud in many cases.
The IRS has some legitimate functions, but it's like if you draw a little circle, you know, that's their legitimate functions.
And then if you draw a really big circle, That's the extra stuff they do that they're not justified in doing.
So it was kind of a, it hit me like a Mack truck to have come to this information, these truths, and see that that meant that I had to do something about it, or else keep silent.
And I just couldn't keep silent about it, so I presented some of the evidence that I had encountered, some of which came from Larry's own research, and presented it to my supervisors at the IRS, and I asked them basically for their Input for them to show me the error of my analysis if there was any and Rather than talk with me show me where I might have gone wrong They told me to resign Without any answer whatsoever.
And so I resigned in 1999 after about five and a half years with the agency.
And ever since then, you know, I don't make a living at it, but I certainly have a story to tell that's unusual.
That I took the time to look into these arguments and positions that the IRS claims are bogus.
And I found that they were quite supportable.
And actually the IRS's positions in many cases are not supportable.
But the public, you know, largely is not geared up to do that kind of research, so they don't know who to believe.
And my position is that they should at least take a listen to people like Larry, Tom Cryer, you know, bless him, he's passed away.
There are just a ton of researchers out there and people who have the truth and I would submit to the American public that they ought to take a look And not just believe what the IRS says, because in my opinion, the IRS is absolutely lying to the public.
I know it's a complicated issue, but you refer to the legitimate powers they have and the wider net of illegitimate powers.
Let's lay down some ground rules.
Where are those legitimate powers for the IRS?
Who does the IRS apply to, you know, with jurisdiction, and who do they not apply to?
Well, I think I'll tell you just briefly about that, but then I'd like to segue to have Larry explain a little more.
But basically, I found internal IRS documentation.
They have a manual that they use called the Internal Revenue Manual.
And it was quite clear in there that the legitimate functions of an IRS special agent, a criminal investigator like I used to be, would be to investigate an American that was, let's say, working abroad.
Would go over to Germany or Italy or some country and do some work over there, yet they would retain their US citizenship.
There would be implications to pay the federal income tax in a scenario like that.
Compare that with just, you know, a guy who's working at the grocery store here in America.
He's an American, he works in America, and he has no foreign connection anywhere.
You find that then the laws don't explicitly apply to that domestic person working domestically.
So that really concerned me, that the IRS's own internal manuals supported the contention that the average American working in America is not subject to the federal income tax.
Yet, if that American worked abroad or in some unusual circumstances, then the income tax would apply to them.
So maybe Larry can talk a little more detail about why that is.
The United States Constitution represents a compromise between the feds and the states.
The states were getting most of their revenue from direct taxes back in 1620.
So when they met in Philadelphia, one of the things that was going to be put into the new Constitution was a different method of financing the federal government than what existed at the time, which the federal government was being financed at that time with contributions by the states.
So the federal government was going to be given a power of taxation But it wasn't going to invade the resources of the state government, so they ensured that this scheme Would happen the way they envisioned it because they wanted the federal government to operate off of these indirect excise taxes.
And the rule for imposing federal taxes was that they'd simply be uniform.
However, in order for there to be some type of protection against the federal government invading the revenue sources of the states, the Constitution said, well, you know, we'll let The federal government imposed some types of direct taxes, but they have to be apportioned, which is extremely difficult.
It's a rule for imposing certain types of taxes.
So you had two rules established within the United States Constitution.
The indirect taxes had to be uniform throughout America.
The direct taxes had to be apportioned, which is extremely difficult.
Now, there had just been, by the time you get up into the 1890s, before there was an income tax imposed by Congress, there had been not a lot of litigation They went all the way to the United States Supreme Court to lay out the parameters for the taxing powers of the federal government.
There was one case that came about, the Pollack case in 1894.
The United States Supreme Court was required to make a decision about the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax, and in that case they said it's unconstitutional.
It violated the requirement for direct taxes set forth in the Constitution.
They had to be A direct tax had to be apportioned.
So, finding that the 1894 income tax was a direct tax, and finding also that Congress had imposed it by means of apportionment, the Supreme Court found it to be unconstitutional.
You know, in order to understand the scope and application of the federal income tax, you know, a lot of people are required to study some of the major Supreme Court decisions that relate to this point.
Uh, and in a minute I'm going to get around to, you know, dealing with Social Security because I think that that has a, by means of comparison, when you take a look at Social Security and you see how that really operates from a constitutional viewpoint, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, then you can spring back over and take a look at the income tax in the same way.
Well, I may as well go ahead and do that right now.
You know, in 1934, there was a lot of international interest in establishing a social security scheme throughout countries around the world.
And so, since there wasn't any real power on the part of the federal government to impose any type of social security program, it was connected, that legislation was connected to those engaged in interstate commerce.
So if you were involved in interstate commerce, like the trucking companies and the railroads and companies like that, there was this federal scheme to impose taxes and benefits for the workers engaged in interstate commerce.
Well, that went to the United States Supreme Court, and in May of 1935, the Supreme Court came out with this Alton Railway case and said, hey, look, all of this is unconstitutional.
Sure, you can benefit and confer benefits on an interstate worker.
providing with free food, free schooling, free housing, free medical care, retirement benefits.
But all of that didn't have the slightest relationship to the regulation of interstate commerce, so the Supreme Court came out in this case in May 1935 and held it to be unconstitutional.
Well, by August of 1935, there was no amendment to the United States Constitution, but in any event, Congress comes along and passes a second round of Social Security legislation.
That went to the United States Supreme Court in 1937.
And there's two real important cases, Helperding Against Davis and the Steward Machine Company case.
And when you can sit down and take a look at those, the Supreme Court justified the second round of Social Security cases.
But I have this very interesting question.
You know, the very first case, this 1935, May 1935 case, this Austin Redway case, has never been reversed.
I mean, what the Supreme Court said in that case was incredibly powerful.
And so if that case has never been reversed and wasn't even boistered or, you know, touched in these three cases that justify the second round of Social Security legislation, you've got to take a look at all of it combined.
Both of them together.
You just sit there and take a look at the latter cases and then overlook the former.
The only way that you can justify taking into consideration what the Supreme Court said in four cases, you know, the only conclusion you can reach is that, you know, how in the world can Congress, if they can't establish Social Security by using its strongest power set forth in the Constitution, It's power to control and regulate interstate commerce.
If they can't do it there, then how can you come along and say, oh, well, you know, later on, with no change to the Constitution, no constitutional amendment, how in the world now can it apply everywhere when it can't apply to interstate commerce?
I mean, not to mention too, just at a common sense level, how do we get from limited powers for federal government, generally for common defense, to now we're providing for economic safety net.
Now, now in 2012, we're providing for healthcare?
I mean...
These were not expressed in the Constitution, or implied, or... In fact, the federal government was limited in so many respects, and the states and individuals were the ones who had the reserve powers, the unenumerated powers.
You know, these are just a few on paper, there's so much more.
And the Supreme Court recognized those limitations.
Absolutely.
You know, there's not a whole lot of cases on the point, but when you do sit down and catalog them, it's enough.
The United States Supreme Court has said, you know, that Congress doesn't have any authority to control and regulate the packets of medicine inside the states.
So we need to sit there and take a real cold hard look at, you know, these powers of Congress that relate to both Social Security, providing welfare benefits, providing some type of retirement, even taking over the entire United States medical industry and the whole system.
You know, where does it apply?
And you know, I'm just going to throw out right here and now, you know, I happen to read and study and believe what the Commissioner of Internal Revenue said back in 1935 about what I think is the proper application of Social Security.
And so I really think that what he said is, you know, Americans are not affected by all this.
The people that are subject to Social Security back in 1935 are aliens that are coming into this country that are working for an alien employer.
And of course, an alien coming into this country, you know, is not exercising a fundamental right.
He is not exercising his right to earn a living, for which we have a ton of cases.
It's a real privilege for an alien to come into this country.
It's a real privilege for an alien employer to send somebody into this country.
So, you know, I make the argument that there's a real good basis for contending that's the reaching scope of Social Security.
And then since Obamacare is nothing more than an extension of those fundamental principles, you know, I think it's really unconstitutional for the federal government to come along and sit here and say we're taking over the entire medical system.
True, they can sit there and provide benefits to aliens that are coming into our country, but it better not affect us.
And while I'm on this roll, can I bring up a little bit different problem to address, Obamacare?
Oh yeah.
You know, we got a real problem with Obamacare.
Aaron, let me ask you this.
Weren't we educated?
Weren't we informed?
The system, the news media, was sitting there and telling us that, you know, the reason why we have to have the entire takeover, the federal government's got to take over the entire medical industry, is because we have some people who are uninsured.
And this segment of American society that's uninsured is causing a giant problem.
Am I right, Joe?
Is that the reason why we get it?
Makes sense.
Well, you know, that's what I heard.
You know, so I've got this real interesting question to ask.
You know, if we have drug drivers out on the highways, am I correct, Joe?
You know, there are drug drivers out on the highway.
And there's a way that you can enforce laws to deal with the problem that they cause.
But, you know, if you went out and tried to solve the problem caused by drug drivers, And your solution to solving the problem of drunk drivers meant requiring some type of, you know, imposing some type of regulation on everybody, you know, to solve the problem of drunk drivers, we have to deal with everybody.
Now, that, you know, on a fundamental basis, you know, that just rubs people the wrong way.
Wouldn't you think, Joe?
You know, how in the world can you have a problem caused by a segment of society and then say, well, everybody in society must chip in and do something about the problem caused by a minority?
Now, this example about drug drivers, that's a direct analogy to what I see in reference to Obamacare.
We have, according to everything that I saw, and what I've seen in print, the system's sitting there, oh, we've got to take over the entire medical industry, and the reason for that is because we have this problem with the uninsured.
Their solution to the problem of the uninsured was to impose a tax on them equal to the amount of an annual premium.
You know, that's the only important part of that piece of legislation, if you want to solve a problem created by a segment of society.
But then they use this little problem here to say, oh, well, we've got to take over the whole industry.
Well, you know, the problem I see with doing all that is it violates principles of equal protection.
You know, when you have a social problem, Uh, you know, if you're in state legislation, you've got a problem.
So look at that, Idaho, you know, just to pull something out of my recent memory, you know, they, uh, they brought in a whole bunch of wolves up there, you know, and they're going to reintroduce the wolves into Idaho and now they're causing a problem.
Uh, you know, if you have a problem with wolves in Idaho, you know, you address that problem.
Uh, but you don't go around and say, no, now we got this problem with wolves in Idaho.
We're going to, we're going to regulate.
All animals.
They did that.
They had a problem with wild pigs in, what was it, Michigan?
And they started killing domestic pigs.
This is the reason why I think that, you know, a knowledge of some real important fundamental legal principles is really beneficial for the American people.
You know, if you're cognizant of these legal principles, then you can see them in action.
And this equal protection argument that I'm getting ready to expose you to is something I see on a routine basis.
It's a problem everywhere.
And here we have Obamacare, but that's just one example of what I consider to be a real fundamental equal protection problem.
Here's the way I look at Obamacare.
You know, we have a, let's call it 10% of the population is causing a problem to the medical industry because they're uninsured.
Well, that means 90% of the American people aren't causing the problem.
Well, why in the world should you impose requirements on them to solve a problem created by a minority?
Well, you don't.
You know, when you do that, You're violating principles of equal protection.
You know, equal protection, which is a provision of the, you know, the 14th Amendment makes equal protection applicable to all the states.
Well, you know, the 5th Amendment due process clause encompasses, you know, an equal protection component.
So, equal protection is applicable.
It's a constitutional principle that applies to the states and the federal government.
Now, when you're looking at a piece of legislation from an equal protection perspective or a viewpoint, then you've got to analyze legislation and you've first got to determine a piece of legislation.
What does it address?
What was the problem that caused this bit of legislation to come into being?
And then you've got to see, you know, is it broader than the problem or is it more narrow than the problem?
You know, like for example, to use our DUI analogy, you know, let's say that out of all of the DUI problems that are created by all the drunk drivers in the state, you pass a law to affect only half of them.
Well, you know, from an equal protection perspective, That is called an under-inclusive class.
You know, you've got to design legislation to address a specific problem.
Okay, so somebody that was affected, you know, in our little class here involving, you know, drunk drivers, you know, if you only affected a part of them, that would violate equal protection.
But then, you know, if you're dealing with the drunk drivers and you then go out and say, I'm going to affect, I'm going to solve this problem by addressing the entire driving public, Well then, you know, the entire driving public didn't create the problem caused by drug robbers.
And so that would be called an over-inclusive classification, you know, when you're talking about equal protection problems.
So, you know, you can have legislation that doesn't address the problem or only addresses a part of the problem, but then you can have legislation that, you know, apparently addresses the problem, but it's broader than that.
And when you take a look at Obamacare, you know, the thing that I don't like about Obamacare, you know, this is not something that's been the subject of a lot of, you know, talk on various networks.
I'm using this opportunity to expose what I think is a real problem with Obamacare.
You know, you've had a takeover of the entire medical delivery system and that is being done because a small segment of American society Created that problem, allegedly.
Unless I'm going to assume that there is a problem, it needs to be addressed.
But why affect me?
Why affect Joe?
Why affect the rest of America that's not causing the problem?
Why do you regulate and control their access to medical care?
It just doesn't make sense.
And from my perspective, the entirety of Obamacare Well, what do we do about it?
Because you got the late Aaron Russo, you were in his film, Freedom to Fascism, analyzing the IRS issue, makes a very strong case that it's, you know, doesn't apply to most people, unconstitutional.
But then, at the end of the day, he kind of says, well, they're a mafia, and like any mafia group, You might want to think twice before not paying because they also might come and break your legs, you know, or something worse.
And so you're coming at it from a court perspective.
We've got the Supreme Court who've already looked at it and said it's a tax.
I'm sure that's fraudulent in many respects, but what do we do?
Do we non-comply?
Do we protest?
Do we try to nullify these laws at the state level?
Do we try to take back our power economically and decentralize?
Do we decouple?
Do we restart this, you know, entire compact?
Well, Aaron, from my perspective, I've been involved since 1979 with the Organized Freedom Movement, so I've learned a lot of lessons.
I've seen a lot of things come and go.
From my perspective in building a movement, trying to get something accomplished, to me there's three aspects to our movement.
We have to go out with PR.
PR is real important, public relations.
Information is real important.
And I'll tell you this, you know, InfoWars and the job that y'all are doing here, waking up millions of people across the world, is just a demonstration of that one aspect, that one prong.
And I will say this, I will clap.
Y'all are doing an excellent job in carrying out the public relations problem of our movement.
But then, you know, you have, you know, you can do things legislatively.
You know, the people that are concerned here in America with the problems that confront us all, you know, the constitutionalists, the concerned people, you know, PR is real important, but we need to go out and try to do things legislatively.
Well, our movement doesn't do that.
But then there's a third area that requires attention.
There's things that we could do, and we can do it in the legal arena, going into court.
And I would say that a lot of people want to sit there and say, well, gee, that's a lot of work.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I have listened for years and years and years to people sitting there saying, well, all we've got to do is we've got to sit there and try to convince our friends and neighbors And you know, just by our thought processes and who we talk to, over time we're going to build up a large number of people.
Well, you know, I've got three decades under my belt.
When has that succeeded?
To me that's a long road.
But you know, so that means that litigation can be important.
And I sit around and I'll just point out for you one thing that I think is real important.
You know, if you'd asked me about 15 years ago where we would be with the Second Amendment issues, you know, today in 2012, I would have said it would be far different than what we're actually looking at.
You know, in fact, just this week, you know, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit in this Moore case, Moore against Madigan, December the 13th, I think, is the date of the decision that the 7th Circuit came along and shot down Illinois' gun control laws.
That all started when Dane Von Breikenbrueghart with the U.S.
Bill of Rights Foundation and Dick Heller, who was his landlord, they got together and said, hey, let's do something about the D.C.
gun control laws.
And then they banded together with some other people And ultimately they brought about this, you know, when Heller against D.C.
was in its germination stages, and I was listening to Dane, you know, I had him on some programs, you know, I said, whoa, where's this thing gonna go?
Well, I had no idea it would go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
And I had no idea, you know, if I had been betting on it, I wouldn't have betted for that outcome.
My outcome, my expectation, well, gee, you know, why are we giving the Supreme Court a chance to, you know, say something about this?
But look what happened.
You know, just with the gun control issue, you know, just for the Second Amendment advocates, they sat down and they planned.
And they carried out a course of litigation.
Look at where we are today.
And that Seventh Circuit case from this week relied on, at least in part, on Heller.
And the McDonnell case also.
It keeps on growing and building in the right direction.
So, you know, there are things that we can do.
But I think we have three areas that we need to focus in on.
And I'm not asking people like the Infowars and now Jones community to sit there and do anything more than be involved in that one prog of waking up the people.
I make my contributions to the money bomb.
But I think other people...
Well, we appreciate that.
You know, I want other people to make contributions to the money bomb, but I mean, you're the most effective for this movement.
To me, you're the most effective at carrying out that.
Well, it's a practical world, too.
We've got to go grocery shopping, take care of our kids and family, and we've got to do other things, but we've got to do our part.
We've got to find an area where we are effective.
You got the legal expertise.
But let's talk about the enemy's attack.
Second Amendment's a great example.
You explain how, through commerce on the interstate issue, they whittled away at the tax issue.
Well, they're doing that with the Second Amendment.
They say, well, of course you have an individual right to bear arms, can't be infringed, no problem.
But...
Well, these a-holes always got a butt somewhere in those sentences, because then it's an issue because it's going across state lines, you know.
Now it's the Mexican cartel, so you have a right to bear arms, you know, American citizen, blah, blah, blah.
But, you know, this is going across state lines, so now we've got to do something.
Now we've got to go to these southwest border states.
Now we've got to go to the inner cities, because we've got this handgun crime and people are going crazy, you know.
Can you talk about their attack on that front?
Go ahead.
Shootings in Connecticut.
Yeah, it's tragic too.
Oh, are you posing a question to me?
You want me to say something?
Well, if you just want to address the general area, rather than being a specific question.
Well, you know, Aaron, I got this real interesting question.
You know, when you sit there and take a look at the Second Amendment and read what it says, you know, Yeah, the militia powers, the right to keep and bear arms, and not be infringed.
Oh, but you heard Obama.
Yeah, there's a right that can't be infringed.
But common sense legislation, though, you know, common sense restrictions.
Well, you know, there's a limit to the legislative power of both Congress, and there's a limit to the legislative powers of state legislatures.
And, you know, the courts repeatedly have said that, you know, the limits of legislative action ends where constitutional rights begin.
Doesn't that make sense, Joe?
And so, you know, I think there's a real problem in reference to federal gun laws.
You know, I think that the federal gun laws can never be unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment because the people that are protected by the Second Amendment aren't encompassed within the scope of any federal gun laws.
That's how they keep it constitutional, is by not actually targeting the citizen.
Bottom line, it's jurisdiction loopholes.
Could be, yeah.
That's another way of looking at it.
Well, do you want me to say something about that?
I'll be more than happy to talk about my views on the Second Amendment.
Yeah, please.
You know, when you get back into There are these presidential proclamations that start with Grant and that time frame right after the Civil War.
And there's something that's real important when you take a look at those proclamations.
They sit there and their proclamations cover a wide variety of matters, but they'll sit there and say, I hereby implore every citizen of the United States and every person Okay, in that context, citizen and person are two different things, and in the context of these proclamations, a person is an alien.
If you look at the growth of federal legislation that relates to controlling firearms, one of the things that I have a disagreement with a lot of constitutional experts out there on the Second Amendment issues because there seems to be an ignoring of what's happening at the international level.
Well, if you start looking at what's happening at the international level in reference to gun legislation, you see a new picture.
Like treaties.
Yeah, treaties.
And my personal opinion is I'm going to kind of shorten this.
You know, you can see the growth over a period of time, you know, 1890s, 1900s, World War I, man, that was real important.
Post-World War I, you know, when the European countries were real interested in ending, you know, what they had been through, you know, a world war, which involves guns and firearms.
Uh, but you know, in my perspective, when you consider all of that history, you know, looking at what was happening at the international level in reference to guns, you come up to, you know, 1930, we had a Pan-American Treaty, the rights and duties of states in the event of civil strife.
You know, to me that's real important.
And from my perspective, you know, that treaty, in addition to what was happening in 1934, is real important in bringing about the very first federal gun control law, you know, where they imposed a tax.
The reason why we had the 1934 Federal Gun Control Law is because the European powers were meeting in Switzerland at that time and they were wanting to do what they'd been working on for a decade and a half by that time.
What do we do about ending war?
And they had a convention in Geneva, Switzerland, so I think the Congress Came out and threw a bone to the international community and said, you know, right in the middle of, you know, their meeting over there in Geneva, they're coming out and said, oh, well, now we're doing something.
The United States, the biggest arms manufacturer in the whole world at the time, you know, we're going to throw a bone to the international community.
We're going to do something about guns.
And, you know, that's the beginning of what we have today in reference to, you know, federal gun laws and federal gun control laws.
And, you know, I think when you really sit down and analyze that, That piece of legislation, and all subsequent similar legislation at the federal level, has no effect upon somebody that's protected by means of the Second Amendment.
It applies to people who have absolutely no Second Amendment protection.
And one of the reasons for that is the limits of the power of Congress, the limits of the state legislature, it's reached when you start approaching a constitutional right.
Which we have in America.
Worldwide, it's been a different story with the United Nations treaties, I'm sure you know.
A lot of pressure internationally on the U.S.
since we have the most protected right, even though it's diminishing over time.
A lot of pressure to give up our guns.
Don't do it.
Remember back there in the summer, everybody was fearful of this new treaty that was going to come about?
You know, the United States shot it down.
You know, we didn't go along with it.
Small weapons treaty.
You know, here's something that's also real important, I think, for patriots to understand.
When you're dealing with treaties, you know, internally inside of a country, a treaty has no application.
The proper subjects of treaties are the relationships between nations.
And, you know, a citizen from France coming over here to the United States could be protected or regulated by means of a treaty.
An American in France would be the proper subject of a treaty.
But, you know, the courts have said, you know, not that there's a whole lot of cases on the farm, but the courts have said, you know, hey, domestically, treaties have no application.
And I tried to this past summer when everybody was talking about the small weapons treaty.
You know, hey, I think we're overblowing it.
I really think that a lot of people were overblowing the effect of the Small Weapons Treaty.
I would contend that as a matter of law, the Small Weapons Treaty wouldn't have any effect upon me at all.
It wouldn't have any effect upon Joe at all.
It wouldn't have any effect on Aaron Dykes at all.
It has no domestic application.
Wouldn't you say that the typical way that the media and the powers that be want to cultivate progression towards more tyranny Is to convince the public that something is necessary, mandatory, that the law requires it.
Without the public ever taking a look to see well exactly what does that law require?
What would it require?
And so I think I would advise people or suggest take a look a little deeper than you normally do and you'll probably find that what they claim is this you know ironclad law requirement might not be so.
I mean I was looking into the Obamacare some of the enforcement like let's say you don't want to pay the tax And my understanding of the logistics of the law is that they don't actually have any enforcement authority to come after you for this tax, that they have this mechanism for you to pay.
Well, we're talking about policies, like they can do Agenda 21 at the United Nations, has no effect in the United States, but that doesn't mean the federal government isn't going to say, what a great idea, we're going to allocate grants to implement basically the same policies.
Same thing with guns.
It doesn't apply here, but we're going to start to do ATF regulations and policies.
I mean, what is a federal agency?
What is it not?
I mean, are there any limits?
Did they ever conceive of having just endless alphabet agencies, each with their own rules, each with their own task force, hundreds of thousands of people in some agencies?
Well, I can tell you, having worked for the IRS, that there's a mindset that's in these agencies whereby They're going to pretty much, if their boss or their coach or their field training officer tells them what to do, they just do it.
They don't look to see, is this actually legal?
Do I have the authority to do this?
And if you think about, you know, that concept of the blind leading the blind in all the alphabet soup agencies and with the hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees, that's a lot of rights that are getting violated.
That's a lot of property that's getting stepped on and taken because you have bureaucrats who don't know the limits to their authority.
And so it's, that's why the citizen, and I think Larry would agree, the courts actually tell the citizen, if you bother to read the cases, you have a duty to determine what the limits of the authority is for these agents that come into your life.
And if you don't exercise that duty, if you don't know what those limitations are, they're going to walk all over you.
They're going to put their boot right on your neck.
And only you can stop them.
That's why the Bill of Rights is the solution.
We have to recognize it.
And I agree, we have to talk more about what those limits are and recognize them.
But can we talk about the other side of the system?
Who are the globalists who set up the United Nations, who set up the Federal Reserve, the big banks who own the real shares in it?
How does that interact with the illegitimate way they've proposed, you know, put the tax on the people through the IRS?
Who are we really collecting this money for?
Reagan's investigation found that it doesn't pay for the budget, it doesn't pay for our debt.
Well, Joe, you want to answer that?
No.
You do a good job at explaining, well, you know, over and over again throughout history that happens.
This is why I think it's real important.
We're talking the money issue, and that's the reason why I wish a whole lot of people would sit down and study it.
You know, I'm thankful we have some videos out on the Internet that people can look at.
But what we're fighting, you know, the global elites, you know, they get their real power from, you know, I don't want to say anything more than what it is.
This is a giant scam.
You know, biblically we have to have honest weights and measures.
And, you know, until these globalists get their power from violating, you know, that and more biblical principles.
Where, you know, they get their power through the monetary system.
You know, they can print... You've seen this.
If you went out on an island and you acquired this, you know, let's say there are a hundred or a thousand people living on an island.
And you had the power to issue, print up the money.
You would soon be the controlling, you know, you'd build whatever political structure you want, you'd build whatever army you want, you know, if you were the source of the medium of exchange.
That's understandable.
And that's exactly what has happened over time.
You know, we have, there's always been this war, you know, you go back into, you know, as recent as, you know, the Middle Ages, you know, the 1600s, 1500s, 1700s.
You know, we were actually using gold and silver coin as a medium of exchange.
But, you know, then the banking industry got its start and got people to start using what they issued, banknotes.
And, you know, from my perspective, the globalists have acquired their power Because, you know, everybody continues to use their, you know, their money, but then again, you know, they've done their dirty tricks to ensure that their industry, the finance industry, has continued, you know.
You know, there are instances in which, you know, not only have bribes been used to secure favorable legislation, but, you know, I think that it goes, extends to more than just bribes.
You know, I think that there are people who are eliminated Uh, you know, legislative people who are eliminated.
Oh, there's no question.
Yeah.
Proving the details case by case can be a headache.
But it's one of their tools.
You know, the power that they have, you know, they can assassinate people.
Okay, but I guess the thing that confounds me about the system is In the 20th century, more or less, we've been forced onto collectivism systems, which is bad enough, you lose your free will, etc.
But, you know, if the social security system actually worked, if the healthcare rationing system actually would work, that might be one thing.
It's, you know, inconvenience, it's a loss of rights, but if it actually worked in a practical matter, You might go about your day.
But it's not.
It's part of this fraudulent system.
It's a Ponzi scheme.
I mean, the money isn't where it's supposed to be in the social security systems.
Pension funds, especially when it's part of a state government system or a regional government system.
We found out in the financial crisis that stuff has all been traded away on the derivatives market.
Nobody has that lockbox.
What was Al Gore talking about that?
Or John Kerry?
It doesn't make any difference.
The point is, the money isn't where it's supposed to be for that collectivized system, and it's being run by the same people running it as a Ponzi scheme.
It's a very complex issue.
It's a double whammy.
Well, in reference to address that, back during the Bush administration, you remember when those questions were coming up about, well, where are all the funds for the Social Security Trust Fund?
And they have these five-minute segments on the major media Uh, you know, they had a little piece about somebody went into an office in the Social Security Administration.
They actually opened up a drawer and they showed these printed bonds.
You know, maybe about that much bonds.
You know, I'm sure that there were, uh, one bond was probably for a hundred billion dollars or not, you know.
The only thing that's in the Social Security Trust Fund are those pieces of paper, which are just bonds.
Congress has come along and spent it all.
And in order to fund Social Security, you know, they have to use present revenues to fund current benefits.
That's what you were talking about.
So all of that's a giant scam.
You know, there's no big reserve out there that, if we did have a big capital reserve, you know, from an economics viewpoint, savings equals investments.
And investments in an economy is real important for a society and an economy to grow.
But we don't have any of that.
In lieu of that, we have a bunch of debt laying around, just like that example.
What's in the Social Security Trust Fund?
These printed bonds.
I think it shows that, and another kudos to the Infowars crew, the whole team, because you're planting seeds in people's heads that, you know, number one, maybe I should care about my neighbor.
Maybe the government doesn't solve people's problems, even though they claim that they will.
So there's a group thing, there's a mentality out there in the public that we keep buying into these empty promises.
You know, like they talk about Satan and all of his empty promises, and the government and all their empty promises.
And so, you know, that's why I'm Yeah, I commend all you guys and gals at Infowars because you're actually planting seeds in people's heads and making them think, wait a second, maybe these things that we've been promised all these years not only aren't working, but they're leading us towards, you know, FEMA camps and, you know, having no rights and having no property.
So I think, you know, that PR part of things to open people's minds There's such a dearth and absence of that in society, and so you guys are a breath of fresh air, you know, to make people think about what they're missing.
We appreciate you too, Joe.
Well, closing comments, guys, but at the end of the day, it basically boils down to the individual rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights are completely in correlation with a good economy, with small businesses that are able to grow.
When you centralize that power, It put anyone in the regulation power that everything must pass through the centralized point.
Of course things are going to grind to a halt and be inefficient, but worse than that it's going to be corrupt, it's going to be schemes, it's going to be scams, it's going to be fraud.
And so we really just need to recognize the way this country was set up and how we were supposed to be and try to get back to that.
And that's going to decentralize the power, that's going to decentralize the economics, that's going to bring back life to the small economy that You know, we pretend to praise in this country.
That's right.
And you have to, you know, in order to decentralize, that means that more people, more individual people, have to come into the picture.
And that means that each and every one of us have to redouble our efforts to bring more people in, to wake more people up.
And, you know, that's what we're trying to do.
You suffer the cause of liberty every day.
You know, make sure that you put it on your agenda.
When you get up in the morning, this is what I'm going to do.
Even if it's just, you know, sticking a bumper sticker on your car.
Broadcasting a message.
But you know, the more important thing is, I think people, my personal position is, is I think the American people need to band together in their own communities, form their own little groups, patriot groups.
You know, like for example, right here, this, my little local patriot group recently published this book, Anger to Action.
But you know, there's, there's, you can educate your friends and neighbors, and if you're in a local group, you're going to be effective.
And I'm just encouraging people to form their own little groups, educate yourselves, and then see the big picture, and then contribute to the big picture.
I agree.
People have got to take action where they are.
But if people do want to find your website, read about the materials, learn about these legal concepts, and start to understand that, because I'm sure it's not going to happen in one hour or one evening or one week, where can they find your work, and what do you recommend?
What path should they go on?
I'll tell you two websites that I'm involved with.
I have my own, Dixieland Law Journal, but then I've been putting a whole lot of information over in the TruthAttack Law Library, truthattack.org.
That was an organization that Tommy Cryer, a former client of mine, that I defended.
We both started that organization, TruthAttack.
If you want information, Dixieland Law Journal, which is my website, and then the TruthAttack website.
Go there.
And Joe, you have a website as well, right?
Agentfortruth.com.
And I would highly recommend the law library section of truthattack.org.
There's so much free information out on the internet.
I was just talking to one of your crew members who said that he learned a lot of his skills for free on the internet.
So, I mean, it's amazing what's out there for people.
Just take a look and maybe look a little less at the ESPN and the Dancing with the Stars and a little more at InfoWars.
Yeah, let's hope so.
Thanks a lot for joining us.
Our pleasure, Aaron.
Take care.
And that's all for tonight's InfoWars Nightly News.
We'll be back again next week.
But for now, go to planetinfowars.com.
Start your fight, locally or globally, in the InfoWars.
Fight it your way.
Also, check out the InfoWars magazine.
This issue is This Man Wants Your Guns.
Our next issue will be coming out soon.
And you can subscribe for $59.95 a year.
Get them mailed to your house.
You can get bulk subscriptions.
You can get the free online version and send that to all your friends and family.
And of course, there's PrisonPlanet.TV.
You can share those memberships as well.
Check it all out at InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.TV.
▲
Export Selection