Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 10, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News

01:48:08

20130110_Thu_NightlyNews

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's time for humanity to stand up in the end of the war.
	You want to fight?
	You want to believe?
	You can't win!
	Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
	I'm David Knight.
	It's Thursday, January the 10th, 2013, and here are our top stories.
	Tonight, on the InfoWars Nightly News, our inside source confirms that Alex Jones was under active surveillance by the DHS during his trip to be on the Piers Morgan Show.
	Plus, you have been warned, Americans never give up your guns, so says the Russian site.
	Then, a prominent rifle manufacturer mysteriously dies days after posting psychiatric drug links to school shooters.
	All that and more on the InfoWars Nightly News.
	Well, when the British moved against the colonialists in Concord to take their weapons, it caused the shot that was heard around the world.
	And when Piers Morgan moved to take our weapons, it caused the shout that was heard around the world.
	And I gotta say, this is the first time I've been on the air since Alex had the Piers Morgan interview, but I've never been more proud to work here.
	You know, it was something that I've heard a lot of people do, armchair criticisms of Alex.
	But if you're not in the arena, you just don't have anything to talk about.
	Look at what happened with the NRA.
	Was it a helpful thing for them to go silent for a week?
	Larry Pratt didn't, and Larry Pratt stepped into the arena, and he took some hits from Piers Morgan, but he held his own.
	In the same way, you know, people have criticized Ron Paul for not being forceful enough.
	They've criticized Alex Jones for being too forceful.
	But I think when you're looking at bullies, when you're looking at people that are trying to take our fundamental rights, things that are given to us by God as human beings, the ability to protect ourselves and our families, things that are recognized in the fundamental laws of our country, I don't think you can take that very lightly.
	I think it takes a strong response.
	You know, one of the first reports I did when I came here to InfoWars was talking about the EPA and things that were going on in the Smoky Mountains.
	And I recalled how I told my children, read them the insert, About how to handle wild animals, specifically bears.
	And they tell you not to run away from the bears, but rather to get in their face, to shout at them, to throw bricks and stones, whatever you've got, to throw it at them.
	And that's exactly what Alex did.
	He went full auto on Piers Morgan.
	And they just couldn't take it.
	Now, it's been confirmed that Alex was under active surveillance while he was in New York.
	In an interview today on Alex's radio program with Doug Hagman, he was told that a source within the Department of Homeland Security told Doug Hagman that several federal agents were assigned to follow Alex Jones during his visit to New York.
	They were told, bumper lock him, make it obvious, do whatever you can, just make sure he knows, handle him as a hostile.
	So I don't know how many agents were assigned to him, he said, and another fellow traveling with him, that would be Rob Dew, but I know that there was coordination between federal agencies and a private security concern.
	I've learned the assignment originated from pretty high up and was approved at multiple levels.
	This is supposed to be off the books, no records, and there was to be a complete denial if confronted, stated the source.
	Here's how Doug Hagman explained it on the Alex Jones interview earlier today.
	Your itinerary, Alex, your itinerary, as soon as you hit, as soon as the wheels were down in New York, you were under surveillance, active surveillance, by at least two federal agencies, one of the two being the Department of Homeland Security.
	Three-man teams of surveillance, now we don't know how many, I was not told how many total agents were involved in this, but you were under active surveillance.
	But not only just covert surveillance, because that's normal surveillance.
	This was a bumper lock type surveillance.
	I wrote a textbook on surveillance that's used for law enforcement training as well as college courses for Homeland Security.
	So I understand the different types of surveillance we're talking about, but bumper lock surveillance is where you make your presence known to the subject you're following.
	And the words from my source were this.
	The instructions to the teams were bumper lock him.
	Make it obvious.
	Do whatever you can.
	Just make sure he knows.
	Handle him as a hostile.
	Well, Which tells me that they wanted you to know that you were being followed, at least During part of the operation now from what I sense and what I had deducted from my conversation with my source There were a couple of different operations going on here.
	The first of all was the attempt to psychologically intimidate you.
	Now, from what I understand, and again, I don't know if you recorded it.
	I don't know what time, if it was live or whatever, but some of this happened before the surveillance happened, obviously before the interview as well as after the interview.
	But the bumper lock type of surveillance, the physical intimidation was especially before the interview.
	And I suspect that would be to destabilize you, to kind of take you, keep you off guard.
	and that's what that was But you had three-man teams, actually.
	Three-man teams of operatives following you around.
	Now, the other side of this story, and this is something that didn't shock me, didn't really surprise me, but alerted me.
	And I alluded to this in our interview the last time we spoke, was you were going to be set up, Alex.
	That's the long and short of it.
	You were going to be set up.
	It's important that you are to know that there was a woman by a Starbucks.
	And again, I don't know where you were.
	I don't know if you pass a Starbucks or if you're in a vicinity of one, but apparently you were to be accosted by or have some sort of physical altercation with a female in front of or near a Starbucks.
	Now, I know that they're prolific in New York City.
	I guess it wouldn't be a stretch, but nonetheless, if one was close to the studio or your hotel or whatever, I would imagine, or however, you know, if you pass by one.
	With the intent, Alex, to make you look, to embarrass you.
	In other words, this, and there was a video surveillance too, let me just reinforce that.
	In addition to the obvious overt bumper lock surveillance, there was video surveillance.
	So the intent of this female was to accost you in a way that you would have to push her off or do something to get her away from you.
	That would then be on videotape or on disk, on security camera, covert surveillance taking or surveillance of the footage taken covertly, and then used against you to marginalize you, to show that you were a violent man, to show that you were, that you're out of control.
	And the fact that it'd be a woman makes it even more hideous.
	Well, here's what Homeland Security needs to know.
	They're not going to stop Alex Jones by surveillance and intimidation.
	Or by dirty tricks.
	You know, they'll probably say Alex was paranoid, but it was Piers Morgan who said when he was in the UK that Tony Blair's wife was trying to get him killed.
	This is something we actually got on tape.
	And we also have other sources telling us that this was a deliberate plan.
	But here's what you and the viewing public need to understand.
	And that is that you are being surveilled.
	You are being intimidated.
	You are about to be disarmed.
	And you need to stand up and say, this is it.
	We're going to not allow that to happen.
	We're going to draw the line in the sand.
	And that's exactly what Ron Paul said in an interview with Alex Jones.
	We have this article on our site.
	It says, in it, Ron Paul said, I don't think the American people will turn in their guns, said Paul.
	He called it a line in the sand.
	He said, if a federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, give me your gun, give me your gold, I don't think we'll do that calmly.
	I think the American people will highly resent it and resist, said Paul.
	Will you turn in your semi-autos?
	Well, I might not even have anything to turn in for that purpose, but I don't think the American people will.
	I've always assumed that the line in the sand may well be drawn.
	If the federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, well, give me your gun and give me your gold, I don't think we'll do that calmly.
	I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.
	So you think I was right, then, telling Piers Morgan, if they try to confiscate the guns, it will start 1776, part 2?
	Well, I don't know whether I'd put them in the same words, but I think I said something very similar to what you're saying.
	He pointed out the hypocrisy.
	He said, if the government kills our children, or kills children, rather, not our children, but other people's children, if the government kills children, it's okay?
	How many of them are shouting and screaming about the children that our drones are killing on a daily basis?
	Yeah, those are the drones that are under the command of Piers Morgan's best friend and good buddy, Obama, as you see on the pictures that he likes to put on his website and Twitter.
	Now in another lesson from history, Russians warn us, a Russian writer warns us, Americans never give up your guns.
	And he says in this, his loyalties are essentially to the czarist Russians, the white Russians, who fought the red Russians.
	He says, this well-armed population was what allowed the various white factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918, and to wage a savage civil war against the reds.
	It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers, and merchants, protecting their own.
	And if it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
	One of the things I thought was interesting in his article was he says, and as for maniacs, whether it's nuts with cars, and he quotes attacks in New York City and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, that happened not too far from where I used to live.
	And in that situation there was a crazy guy who drove his car into a crowd of people.
	And that was not reported very widely by the media.
	They didn't try to use that to ban SUVs, which is what he used, but it was a devastating attack nevertheless.
	And along those lines, it's not only Russians that are warning us to do that, but Americans in Wyoming.
	Legislators, state legislators, ...are preparing to draw the line in the sand themselves.
	They're preparing to nullify any federal regulations that would ban semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines because, quite frankly, those are unconstitutional.
	And anything that's unconstitutional, the federal government does not have the legal authority to do.
	So, we're looking at another scenario here where state legislators are stepping into the brink here and doing what they're supposed to do, and that is exercising their Tenth Amendment rights.
	And we have a report on that from Aaron Dykes.
	Aaron Dykes for InfoWars.com here.
	I'm going to make this as brief as I can.
	The state of Wyoming is introducing legislation this week for a Gun Protection Act, a bill that would uphold the Second Amendment and refuse to comply with any unconstitutional gun grabs.
	It would further make it a felony to try to enforce so-called laws or policies that violate the Second Amendment.
	Under federal law, banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines, unenforceable.
	Now what's really exciting is this is the beginning of a slowly building movement, gaining momentum.
	Last week we saw a police chief at a small town in Pennsylvania come on the air.
	He announced publicly he was going to introduce a second amendment protection ordinance that says no, we're going to nullify any unconstitutional gun laws and we will not enforce them within our boundaries.
	What I'm trying to do is have our council in the borough of Gilberton recognize the Second Amendment, stand behind the citizens of the United States and the Second Amendment, and that they're not going to infringe on the Second Amendment regarding any state, local, or federal laws, rules, or regulations that may or may not come down.
	Now, what prompted you to do this?
	Everything that's going on right now in Washington.
	States, local areas, counties, sheriffs, they all need to stand up and say no to violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
	It's our American heritage.
	It was put there by the founders for a reason.
	It's an attempt to have a check and balance against tyrannical government to keep one faction from getting too much power and using it as leverage over the rest of the country, the rest of the peoples.
	We must learn about nullification.
	It's upheld under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
	It says that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people, and that's exactly what we need to recognize and uphold.
	We need counties, states to say, no, we're not going to violate the Second Amendment, and we're not going to cooperate with the feds.
	We need people to be patriots and stand up and be firm on this issue.
	And if enough people do that in enough areas throughout the country, the Feds will recognize, the Washington lawmakers will recognize that they've gone too far and they will back off from their attempts to curtail and outright violate and ban the Second Amendment.
	If we do that, we can stop this thing peaceably.
	We don't want a civil war in this country.
	And so we hope this kind of legislation at whatever level of government will spread virally throughout the country.
	You need to call your state lawmakers where there's still a lot of constitutionally minded people in those positions.
	You need to call your cities and try to influence them to do this.
	It will, of course, be harder in the megacities and the big urban areas, but especially in the rural areas where people still understand what this country is about.
	We need to make that message loudly resounded.
	We need to educate people about the Bill of Rights and Constitution and what is nullification.
	I recommend checking out InfoWars.com as well as places like the Tenth Amendment Center.
	Let's do this, people.
	We can turn this thing around before it's too late.
	Signing off for InfoWars.com.
	And let's remember when we talk to our elected representatives, our federal congressmen, let's remember that the Second Amendment isn't just about wholesale gun confiscation.
	Even if they stop short of that, if they infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is still breaking the Second Amendment.
	And we need to not fall for any kind of, you know, Feinstein is the master of misdirection and head fakes.
	What I'm very concerned about is the UN treaty for arms trade.
	And that is something that could, quite frankly, be a precursor to full-blown confiscation if they're not able to get it through at this point in time.
	I mean, if they can get it through, I'm sure they'll go for it.
	But I think what we're seeing here is a frontal attack And for the first time they're openly talking, everyone is openly talking about confiscation, not just a few people like Feinstein or Obama, but pretty much across the board we see calls for that and open confiscation.
	But they've also got more than one front that they've got planned and the UN ATT is going to be coming up again in March.
	And that's going to be something where if they're successful in the name of stopping arms trade across borders, they're going to be looking to register and identify guns to a far greater extent than they've ever done before.
	And that could be the actual precursor to full-blown confiscation.
	We don't want to think that we've won a victory if we just get a few more laws put on us and a few more of our basic freedoms infringed upon and they stop short of total confiscation because that is their ultimate goal.
	We actually need to roll back unconstitutional infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
	Now, Piers Morgan would like you to think that once they enacted a total gun ban in Britain, it created something of a Pax Britannia.
	But nothing could be further from the case.
	It's an article that's about three years old now, but things have not improved in the intervening three years.
	In the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, it says a culture of violence, gun crime, goes up by 89% in a decade.
	And what they're pointing out in this three-year-old article that was in the first decade after a total gun ban, firearm offenses actually increased from 5,209 in the 1998-99 period to 9,865 ten years later.
	That was an 89% increase.
	Sorry, peers.
	1998-99 period to 9,865 ten years later.
	That was an 89% increase.
	Sorry, Piers.
	89% increase in gun violence in Britain after they confiscated the guns.
	And in 18 areas, gun crime at least doubled.
	It says in the article, Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime with recorded offenses increasing from 50 in 98 to 349 in 2007 and 2008, which is an increase of 598 percent.
	Five hundred ninety eight percent.
	And it says, a number of people injured or killed by guns, the number of people rather, killed or injured by guns, has increased from 864 in 98 to a provisional figure of 1760 in the 2009 reporting period.
	Now if you haven't seen Piers Morgan's second interview with Larry Pratt, which was on CNN last night, you have to take a look at that because This time, Musket Morgan flies into a rage.
	Now, he started out the program by saying, uh, thanks for coming on a second time and last time you were on the program, this is what you made me do.
	And he actually showed the, uh, the clip where he starts, uh, screaming at Larry Pratt and, uh, with, uh, kind of infantile elementary school, uh, epithets, you know, calling him a stupid, stupid man, silly stuff like that.
	Uh, but, um, you know, in the, in the, uh, there was fireworks again last night in the interview.
	When Larry Pratt started to point out that the gun statistics that England keeps are not very accurate.
	The Daily Telegraph has pointed out that among other things gun crimes in Britain are not counted as gun crimes if a gun is not fired.
	So if someone is robbed at gunpoint it's not a gun crime according to the UK statistics if the trigger is not pulled.
	If a woman is raped We're at the point of a gun.
	It's not a gun crime as long as the trigger is not pulled.
	And they estimate that it's 60% higher than reported.
	Now, I gotta tell you personally, I've been to London four times in the last 40 years.
	I've stayed there from anywhere from three days to six weeks was the longest day that I stayed there.
	And from the seventies and eighties, when you had bobbies who were walking around in pairs, unarmed, or riding bicycles or whatever, and they were actually doing street patrols, which our police in big cities used to do when they were first created.
	But in the intervening years, what they've done is they've disarmed the population.
	When I went back in 2001, they disarmed the population, and they had armed the police.
	And they had taken them, from what I could tell, I didn't see anybody walking beets.
	They had them in cars.
	So they've gone to an American style of law enforcement where the police are distant from the people who live there, and they're distant from the crime that affects people.
	And that's reflected, you could really feel it in the attitudes of the people on the street from the early 1980s until 2001, from the 70s when I was there.
	Uh, and that's what these crime statistics bring out.
	And I gotta say, at the bottom of that article, that last article we had, there was a video that you really need to take a look at.
	It's by a guy, it's called Amidst the Noise.
	It's his Facebook handle.
	And he did an excellent job of looking at the statistics behind this.
	And what he showed was how crime has changed in both countries.
	And with the violent crime decreasing radically in the United States, he asked Why are no politicians taking credit for this?
	There's been a 50% reduction in violent crime and in murder over the last 20 years.
	You would think that politicians would be lining up to take credit for that.
	I mean, they're taking credit for it in England even though it's not true, right?
	But it's much more important for them, I think, to create fear.
	And he also points out that if you look at the data, the FBI, and he went to the FBI website and looked at the actual raw data that they have there.
	And sorry, peers, but that's exactly what it says.
	He points out that if you're looking at it, the FBI keeps these statistics on a geographical basis.
	As he points out in the video, urban hotspots are a big part of the crime.
	As a matter of fact, most of the crime is centered And it's in those areas that we've seen an increase.
	So if the government really wants to do something about crime, which, even though they're not really addressing the serious root causes of crime or really doing anything effective about it, because overall it's dropped 50%, but in these urban areas, these hotspots, it's actually gone up, in the places where they've done the most to try to control guns.
	That clearly isn't the way to reduce violent crime.
	As we said, the problem is not guns, but it's suicidal shooters.
	It's suicidal people with automobiles, or with guns, or with hammers, or whatever.
	And we need to ask the question that Alex asked peers, and that is, what makes these suicides, what are the links to these suicidal shooters?
	And of course, Alex brought that up, but he didn't get any response from Piers Morgan.
	Now, Mike Adams of Natural News did look into this carefully, and so did somebody else who is no longer around.
	A prominent rifle manufacturer posted a detailed link connecting psychiatric drugs to school shooters.
	This guy died in a mysterious car crash days after the posting.
	And Mike Adams points that out and he says, sure, that could be a coincidence.
	It might also be a coincidence that Feinstein just happened to have a detailed gun confiscation bill ready to release following the Sandy Hook shooting.
	It might also be a total coincidence that according to Google, the United Way Sandy Hook donation support page was created on December 11th.
	2012, a full three days before the shooting.
	It could also be a coincidence that NBC reported Adam Lanza's AR-15 rifle was left in his car, never used in the shooting at all.
	It could also be a coincidence that Bank of America slammed home an economic embargo against online gun parts retailer in the days following the Sandy Hook shooting.
	It could even be a coincidence that Facebook suspended or shut down the accounts of hundreds of prominent people who advocated the Second Amendment, including our accounts at Natural News.
	He says, And finally, it could be a total coincidence that police radio recordings seem to indicate that there were multiple shooters, multiple shooters, involved in Sandy Hook.
	What are the odds of all of these coincidences existing simultaneously?
	Virtually zero.
	Well, Melissa Melton noticed that the term that Alex used when he talked about pharmaceuticals involvement in making people suicidal, the term he used was mass murder pills.
	She noticed that that was trending on Twitter.
	So, to explore that further, she wrote an article, and we've got Melissa right here in the studio right now.
	Well, Melissa, what are mass murder pills?
	Well, that actually is a question I decided to look up because after Alex was on Piers Morgan, that began trending on Twitter.
	The fact that he said that he wanted to blame the real culprit in these shootings was the suicide pills, the mass murder pills, and CNN even decided to mock him in an article they posted yesterday, mentioning that that was a big conspiracy.
	But let's look at a few facts first, because what I found was actually pretty disturbing.
	Americans actually consume more psychotropic drugs than any other nation in the entire world.
	That's first.
	Secondly, antidepressant use has risen in this country by 400% just since 1988.
	So it's a lot of people, current figures that I saw, it's 1 in 10 Americans or 11% of Americans over the age of 12 are now on these kinds of drugs.
	And the side effects, let me just list some of these side effects for you because it can be pretty scary here.
	Confusion, hallucinations, anxiety, agitation, mood swings, impulse control disorder, paranoia, psychosis, and hostility.
	And a Canadian judge even recently ruled that a 15-year-old boy who stabbed one of his friends did that largely because he was on Prozac.
	So a Canadian judge recently ruled these drugs can actually cause children to commit murder.
	And in 2007 the FDA voted to update the black box warning on these antidepressants because they found in their own studies that young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 were committing suicide in much higher numbers than other people on these drugs.
	So they wanted to include increased warnings about that.
	And a black box warning is like the strongest warning that the FDA can give.
	actually a drug.
	And so I decided to look into that even further now in relation to these mass shootings.
	Mother Jones' website actually prepared a list of data from 1982 to 2012 of these mass shootings, and of 62 of them carried out by 64 shooters, a majority of them had mental health issues.
	41 of the shootings involved mental health issues and mental illnesses, and seven more that were listed as unclear had family members who said that they had mental health issues or were on So it was a pretty high number of them that had these kinds of issues.
	And as Dave Kuplian reported for WND, there's a gaping hole in media reporting on Sandy Hook Because, quote, it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on or just recently coming off of psychiatric medications.
	That's what he says.
	And another study done in 2010, actually, of the top ten legal drugs that are linked to violence, five of them were antidepressants and another two of them were for ADHD.
	So seven out of the ten were these types of drugs.
	And you had just mentioned the story from Mike Adams from Natural News.
	It's interesting.
	He was posting that, writing that, I guess, right at the same time that I was working on this.
	And John Noveske posted that list on his Facebook of over 40 incidents where primarily young people committed murder or suicide while on these types of medications.
	And as you recall, the FDA warning that I just mentioned, that was for that same age group.
	And the majority of people on this list were of that age group.
	I just want to read a few that I was able to go and verify from his list.
	Eric Harris, age 17, first on Zoloft, then Lovix, and Dylan Klebold, age 18, committed to Columbine, Littleton, Colorado shooting.
	They killed 12 students and one teacher and wounded 23 others before killing themselves.
	Klebold's medical records have not been released, so we don't know if he was on something or not.
	Jeff Weiss, age 16, had been prescribed 60 milligrams a day of Prozac, which apparently is three times the average starting dose for adults, when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend, and other fellow students at his school.
	Uh, Cory Badsguard was 16.
	He was at Wahluke High School.
	He had taken Paxil, other reports say Effexor, when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 of his classmates hostage.
	He reportedly had no memory of that after it happened.
	Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
	Kip Kinkle, age 15, was on Prozac and Ritalin.
	When he shot his parents while they slept, then went into his school the next day and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and injuring another 22, and that was right after he started his Prozac treatment.
	Jeffrey Franklin of Huntsville, Alabama was on Prozac, Ritalin, and Klonopin when he took an axe and murdered his parents and then went after his siblings.
	And that's just a few that I was able to verify.
	As you know, this list, this is part of that list.
	Here's another part of that list.
	And as Novesky's post ended, he asked, what drugs was Jared Lee Loeffner on age 21 when he killed six people and injured 14 in Tucson, Arizona?
	What drugs was James Holmes on age 24 when he killed 12 people and injured 59 in Aurora?
	What drugs was Adam Lanza on age 20 when he killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown, Connecticut?
	All within that same age range.
	And I decided to even try and look into it further and I found a website called SSRI Stories and I found this.
	Wow.
	My computer shut down twice trying to print this.
	What this is is 110 pages of stories from all over the world of people that have been on these drugs and either committed a mass murder, a homicide, a suicide, they've self-harmed or they've threatened to kill people on these drugs.
	And this first page here is all just school incidents.
	And it's not just shooting.
	Some of these are knifings.
	There's a machete attack on here.
	That's the thing.
	We can take people's guns away, but if we don't address root causes of a lot of these things, and that is psychotic behavior, people are going to use anything, including cars.
	I mean, you can kill mass amounts of people with a car, driving it through a crowd.
	Or an eye for a hammer, or... That's right.
	Exactly.
	But the correlation here cannot be overlooked, and the mainstream media is not talking about this.
	So while they're quick to judge Alex for what he said, they need to actually go and take a look at this.
	But instead, they're just jumping right on our Second Amendment, trying to take away our rights, pretending like these are isolated incidents.
	This is not an isolated incident.
	It needs further study.
	And all Alex had time to do was just to interject that in as a term, because they had strict, you know, he wasn't going to be given a chance to talk if he didn't shout at Pierce.
	He wasn't going to be given a chance to talk.
	And certainly, in the allotted, even if it had been a civil discussion in the allotted time that they had, they weren't going to have enough time to talk about this time in connection.
	Well, you see how Pierce treated Larry Pratt when he tried to be civil about this.
	It just doesn't work.
	Well, CNN is not going to talk about one of their biggest corporate sponsors, and that's the big pharmaceutical companies.
	Of course not.
	And they're not going to take a look at gun crime that's in the large cities.
	But the whole point is that the mainstream media is trying to create an atmosphere of fear.
	They're trying to get people afraid so they'll run to the government for protection and give up their rights, give up anything that they've got in order to have a sense of security.
	And that was another thing that Alex referred to very briefly when he started talking about sharks.
	Of course, he didn't have time to flesh that out.
	But, you know, the whole idea is the irrational fear of sharks, largely created by Jaws, other movies, and the media.
	Every time somebody gets bitten by a shark, it's international news.
	But your chances of dying by shark bite are extremely rare, even if you're swimming somewhere where there are sharks.
	Uh, but it's all about creating a climate of fear.
	And, uh, to counteract that climate of fear, a couple of guys, uh, in their early twenties, two men armed with rifles, did a walk through Portland in order to educate the people.
	And it's kind of interesting, these two young guys went around and they slung a couple of rifles over their backs, and they, uh, walked around Portland, Oregon, and the calls to 9-11 started coming in fast and furious to the police.
	And when they went out there, they found these two ...conceal carry permits, carrying their rifles openly on their backs, and they told the officers they were just trying to educate people about exercising their gun rights.
	Now what one of the guys said was what they really wanted people to do was to look at the person, to determine if the person was acting aggressively.
	And that's the whole point, isn't it?
	I mean, it's not the guns.
	The guns don't Uh, are not going to fire themselves, as Mike Adams cleverly pointed out in a very funny piece where he threw the gun on the ground and ordered it to shoot, ordered it to kill.
	It didn't do anything.
	Uh, their point, and they made it very well, was that we've gotten to the situation where people are just afraid of the appearance of guns.
	I mean, they call them assault rifles.
	Uh, you know, it's, uh, that's a very vague term.
	It doesn't really mean anything except that it's a rifle that looks scary.
	And even the appearance of a rifle is scary.
	So what he's saying is, look at the person, see if they're acting aggressive before you dial 9-11.
	Well, we had a couple of our own guys, Jakari Jackson and David Ortiz, walk around Austin.
	They weren't carrying guns, they were carrying cameras.
	And they wanted to see what people thought about the Second Amendment.
	Here's that report.
	not only talk about voting no on some of the legislation that is loosening up.
	I'm here to not only talk about voting no on some of the legislation that is loosening up Registration and re-registration of gun owners, but more importantly to ban all assault weapons.
	An assault weapon is a weapon full automatic.
	It is allowed only the military and police.
	It's only for the military and police and for a special trust where you can get where you can buy a class-free weapon.
	I don't think that taking away a person's right to bear arms is the answer, but I do believe that there should be restrictions.
	I have a clean record, so technically I could go to a gun show and purchase as many guns as I want to, have them in my house.
	I have a four-year-old daughter.
	Why should I have an assault rifle?
	A gun show?
	A shooting range?
	You never see mass shootings there.
	There's all kinds of ammo and guns and people walking all around them.
	Yeah, I don't support the assault weapon ban.
	What I do believe is a good alternative would be, like my colleague here mentioned, is stronger restrictions when it comes to evaluating the people's mental health.
	Psychiatrist exam or something.
	Now what about in China where a gentleman, I believe it was around the same time, slashed 20 children with a knife?
	What do you say to people who may bring that up?
	I can tell you that I'm a citizen of America.
	And in America, we're a civilized people.
	And as civilized people, we need to set our own rules in place to govern our country.
	What do you say to people who say, well, maybe the Sandy Hook guy had a gun, but this guy had a knife?
	A person with a knife is a lot easier to subdue.
	What do you think about gun-free zones at schools?
	Free massacre zone.
	Say the principal had a gun in her office.
	Would she have had time to even pull it out, take off the safety and use it?
	And to that extent, so I don't think that's a good argument.
	How long did they have to wait till someone got there to stop this guy?
	Because no one in this quote-unquote safe school zone or no gun zone was there to defend the children.
	Obama's kids, they go to a school with 11 guards.
	Now besides assault weapons, are you for any other type of legislation such as banning high-capacity magazines or certain types of ammunition, anything like that?
	Yes, but I think the core of it is to get rid of the weapons.
	People say they don't want you to have more than 10 rounds in your magazine.
	You know, it's just another incremental step.
	I mean, okay, is it ten rounds today?
	Is it five rounds next week?
	One of the alternatives I really, really would push for would be raising the price on bullets.
	Raising the price on bullets, raising the taxes on bullets.
	Okay, you realize that a deer rifle or an AR-15 are basically the same thing, just one looks spookier than the other?
	Well, it should be a weapon that shoots one bullet at a time.
	The federal government recently just spent, you know, just purchased $1.6 billion.
	I believe it was in the past calendar year.
	Well, if it's the federal government purchasing it, then it's probably going to go to our law enforcement.
	And I think that's something that our law enforcement people need.
	Not too long ago, the Empire State Building, where the police opened fire on one guy and hit eight or nine other people who were not their intended target.
	So, what do you say to that?
	Well, I mean, we can have no comment on that.
	Don't you want to defend yourself against tyranny?
	Yes, sir, I do.
	Somebody that wants you put down like this, wants to make you a slave, isn't that the freedom of the Second Amendment?
	No, as far as the Second Amendment, it has the right to a well-regulated militia.
	Do you think a well-regulated militia could use something like assault weapons?
	And the Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.
	And it also has for a well-regulated militia.
	That's also in there as well, miss.
	Well, it's our military is our militia, not our common everyday citizens.
	Now, sir, there are people out there that say, why do you need a semi-automatic rifle such as the one allegedly used in the Sandy Hook shooting?
	Well, just once again, it's not about my need.
	It's about my right.
	Miss, if I can ask you a question, talking about the blood of children on our hands.
	The Obama administration, and it went back to Bush as well, had something called Operation Fast and Furious, where they gave fully automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
	Now, they said it was a sting operation, but it was used to kill a border patrol agent, policemen, as well as other children.
	Do you think anybody should be held accountable for that?
	Okay, I'm not going to comment on that.
	When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
	And I carry a 1911 because the policeman's too heavy.
	Well, as you can see, there's a lot of different opinions about the Second Amendment, about the right to keep and bear arms, and it reminds us that this debate is something that we all need to take place in, take part in.
	It's not something, if we just leave this to the mainstream media, we're going to lose this.
	We all have to get involved, we all have to be informed, and we have to inform those people that we come in contact with, that are in our family, our circle of friends.
	That leads us to one of our quotes today from John Adams.
	He said, "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder as the opening of a grand scene and a design in providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth." That folks is what we're fighting for when we fight for our liberties.
	And we're going to go to break, but right after we come back from break we've got an interview with Francis Boyle.
	Now, Francis Boyle is a real civil libertarian and a lawyer.
	And we're going to talk about Alan Dershowitz, who just plays one on TV.
	And after that interview, we've got to stay tuned, because we've got an interview.
	Rob Dew is going to talk to Professor James Tracy, who's come under fire for some of his comments about Sandy Hook.
	Northwoods.
	Gulf of Tonkin.
	Gladio.
	Kent State.
	Ruby Ridge.
	Waco.
	Oklahoma City.
	The World Trade Center.
	The Pentagon.
	Shanksville.
	Hurricane Katrina.
	Fast and Furious.
	How many more?
	How many more?
	How many more false flags?
	How many more?
	How many more government buildings?
	How many more innocent people?
	How many more?
	How many more?
	What has been the number one cause of unnatural death in history?
	Democide or death by government has killed 290 million people on record.
	290 million people.
	Killed.
	Killed 61,911,000 people killed.
	Hitler's Germany, nearly 21 million people killed.
	Hitler's Germany, nearly 21 million people killed.
	Japan's imperialism, nearly 6 million people killed.
	Western colonization, killed over 50 million people.
	Pol Pot's Cambodia, funded by the U.S. government.
	government.
	Two million people killed.
	China's Communist Party.
	As many as 76 million people killed between 1949 and 1987.
	And the list goes on and on.
	So now you know the most dangerous thing to you and your family in the world is government.
	Because mass murderers agree, gun control works.
	Disarming citizens is democide.
	Disarming citizens is democide.
	Disarming people is democide.
	How many people have died because of Fast and Furious?
	No more false flags.
	Enough.
	Enough.
	It's enough.
	Now is the time.
	It's time.
	It's time to realize that when the government takes your guns, people die.
	It's time to realize the biggest threat to you and your family is government.
	It's time to recognize Government is the greatest killer of all time.
	It's time.
	Demand a plan.
	Demand.
	Demand a plan.
	Demand a plan right now.
	As a free human being.
	As an American.
	As an American.
	As an American citizen.
	As a patriot.
	For your children.
	Demand to know why you and your children are forced into gun-free zones while government officials, celebrities, and their children are protected by armed guards.
	Demand they show you the word "hunting" in the Second Amendment.
	Demand to know why the government shipped thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.
	Demand our government stops blowing up federal buildings.
	Demand that our troops stop protecting opium fields in Afghanistan and come home.
	Demand the government stop this phony drug war.
	Demand to know why the Department of Homeland Security bought more than 1.6 billion hollow point bullets with our money.
	Demand our government stop poisoning our food supply with genetically modified organisms.
	Demand that President Obama stops killing innocent women and children all around the world with his illegal drone attacks.
	Demand an end to these unconstitutional wars.
	Demand that the TSA stop groping our genitals at the airport.
	Demand that the NSA stop illegally spying on all of us all the time.
	Demand that toxic fluoride be removed from the water supply.
	Demand our politicians uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they swore to when they took office.
	It's time.
	It's time for our leaders to act like leaders.
	It's time for our leaders to read the Constitution.
	It's time for our leaders to obey.
	The Constitution.
	Because a well-regulated militia with ten round magazines wouldn't last very long.
	Demand an end to citizen disarmament.
	Government-sponsored terror.
	And democide.
	Democide.
	Death by government.
	Right now.
	We are sick and tired of our tyrannical government taking away our rights.
	Stop stealing our rights.
	Our rights.
	Our rights.
	How many more people does government have to kill?
	Enough.
	Enough.
	Enough already.
	Enough.
	Enough of the people laying down and letting government kill them in mass after disarming them as they've done throughout history over and over again.
	Enough!
	Enough to laying down and letting these criminals use us up like slaves.
	The End
	Christy Hightower here with a quick Planet InfoWars update.
	Good to see you all Patriots again.
	You're still talking on the site and we're still listening.
	And I just wanted to give you a quick little intro, I guess.
	There's a letter to peers, obviously, as you've all known.
	It's all across the media.
	Everyone's talking about Alex's V Pierce.
	Somebody wrote a letter to Pierce and it goes something like, I was glad to see you maintain the famous Brit civility.
	That was refreshing.
	Now before everybody overreacts, he goes on to say, fact remains, the dictatorship that is being imposed is by no means civil.
	When countries are taken over by dictators, Good people die.
	So go and finish reading that.
	I found it really interesting because when I first started reading it, that first sentence kind of made me mad.
	I think Piers is, you know, British.
	He ran away from some bad stuff, so he really shouldn't even be here, in my opinion.
	But then he goes on to just explain, like, hey Piers, you're taking it on one side, so go and read it.
	Leave your comments below, and I'll look forward to reading this.
	And the next two things I just wanted to give you an update about, we have two different missions.
	Now all the groups on the site I'm sure have their own missions, but we have one for the Dating Freedom Lovers with February 14th coming up.
	Obviously we want to make sure you guys find love or maybe have the option at least.
	So these two people, Eric and Samantha, are doing really well.
	I've been in touch with them.
	And what we're going to start doing is if you send us your picture and a quick little bio, now obviously nothing too vulgar, you know, like, come on, keep it decent, but if you send us your picture and a little bio, we're going to feature you in that top section where you just saw their picture.
	And if we get enough of them, we'll trade them out like every day or even every hour if we have that many.
	So just send them on in and we'll post those up.
	That's one mission.
	You can find that in the Dating Freedom Lovers group.
	Patriots, y'all are talking, and again, we're listening.
	Thank you for all you're doing.
	Well, when Alex Jones is on the Piers Morgan show Monday night, the third segment was supposed to be a debate with Piers Morgan and Alan Dershowitz against Alex Jones.
	Even with a stacked debate like that, they decided that they didn't feel comfortable having Alex represent himself.
	And that really shouldn't be surprising for anybody that knows the history of Alan Dershowitz.
	Even though he's billed as a lawyer, a civil liberties lawyer, and even though he is a Harvard law professor and a darling of the mainstream media when it comes to getting legal sources, Alan Dershowitz has exhibited, over time, a real antipathy towards people getting their due process, or even hearing out the other side.
	He's put out as a civil libertarian, as a legal expert, but, you know, a Stanford article, interestingly enough, back in a few years ago, when he was talking about torture, immediately after 9-11, they quoted this, and they introduced him this way.
	They said, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz One of the country's leading civil libertarians suggests creating a mechanism where U.S.
	judges could approve domestic torture warrants if they're convinced such tactics could thwart an imminent attack.
	Now, I don't know how you'd call somebody that advocates something like that a civil libertarian.
	But we have somebody here who is also a Harvard Law School graduate, who is an international lawyer, and who really is a civil libertarian.
	We have Francis Boyle on the line, and we're going to talk to him about some of Alan Dershowitz's perspectives and see who's a little bit more dangerous, whether it's Alan Dershowitz or Alex Jones.
	Francis, thank you for joining us.
	Well, thank you very much for having me on and my best listening audience.
	What did you think the other night about what Alan Dershowitz said about Alex Jones being somebody who was dangerous and the exhibit of somebody who ought to have their guns taken away?
	Well, first, I thought it was completely unfair that the brick twit nitwit, Pierce Morgan, did not permit Alex to debate Dershowitz as the event had been billed, and putting aside the fact that it was all stacked against Alex.
	Second, Dershowitz's call for Alex to be stripped of his guns clearly violated the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment due process clause, and effectively could constitute a bill of attainder against Alex in violation of the Constitution of Congress, or the President were to do something like that.
	Fourth, Gershowitz is well known in the legal profession, indeed notorious, as the foremost advocate for torture.
	So, in watching Dershowitz's comments, I thought, oh sure, he's happy to strip Alex of his guns in violation of the Constitution, and then torture Alex for disagreeing with him on this and other issues.
	No problem with that.
	Exactly.
	You mentioned torture.
	There was an article that Dershowitz wrote called Make Torture an Option.
	Let me just read a quick quote here from that.
	He says in it, the real debate is whether such torture should take place outside our legal system or within it.
	The answer to this seems clear.
	If we're to have torture, it should be authorized by the law.
	Does that make it morally or ethically right to authorize it by the law?
	Well, it can't be authorized by the law.
	I mean, it's preposterous, and Dershowitz knows it.
	He's just advocating torture and aiding, abetting, and encouraging torture.
	This is well known.
	And basically, any law professor advocating torture is a disgrace to my profession.
	And right now you have six of them on the faculty at Harvard Law School, including Dershowitz.
	One final point I wanted to make about this matter is that we all know Morgan is sort of a de facto agent of the British government, the British Empire.
	Alex took care of that.
	What people don't know about Dershowitz is that he works for the Israeli government.
	So you had two foreign agents on that program against Alex the Patriot standing up for the Constitution.
	Dershowitz admitted publicly that he is a member of a Mossad committee.
	That approves the assassination of Palestinians, which is a war crime in its own right.
	So basically, he works with and for the Israeli government.
	So effectively, Alex was sort of like Daniel going into the lion's den there, debating one agent for the British government, And another agent for the Israeli government, and standing up for the United States Constitution.
	That was my thought, and I did want to make this point.
	And in fact, I've locked horns repeatedly with Dershowitz.
	He does the legal hatchet work here.
	in the United States for the Israeli government and has done that since Gene Rostow died, his predecessor, who is at the Yale Law School, and I locked horns and debated with Rostow before Dershowitz.
	So we had two foreign agents there that Alex was up against.
	Yes, yes.
	And before we leave, before we leave... An American citizen and a law professor who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the law of the United States.
	I simply wanted to stand up with Alex against these two foreign agents as I see it.
	Thank you, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I appreciate...
	You're standing up against things like torture.
	Listen, this is from March 4th, 2003, and he was on CNN at that time as well, with Wolf Blitzer.
	And listen to what Dershowitz said about torture again, because this makes it a little bit more specific.
	Sometimes we talk about things in the abstract, but he makes it a little bit more specific, and he's comfortable with this.
	He says, I would talk about non-lethal torture, say a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate Geneva Accords, but, you know, countries all over the world violate Geneva Accords.
	They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did in Algeria.
	If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly, and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.
	So, evidently, he thinks that just by openly declaring that they're going to do criminal, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional acts, that somehow sanctifies it.
	That's the kind of arguments we've gotten from Dershowitz in the past.
	Well, they teach this at Harvard Law School now these days with six professors advocating torture and other professors advocating not only the kangaroo courts on Guantanamo, but that the kangaroo court system on Guantanamo be opened here in the United States of America and applied to United States citizens.
	It's a real disgrace what's going on at Harvard Law School, but Dersch has always been in the Yes.
	forefront of this at Harvard Law School after 9/11 and nationwide and indeed international.
	Yes.
	There's a couple other things I want to cover here too that Dershowitz has done.
	But what you just said here is very important.
	They're going to take these things that we see being done in Israel against Palestinians that violate human rights and the rule of law and justice and that sort of thing.
	They're advocating these policies, these actions over there.
	And they're getting the United States government to participate in it, these people who are Harvard lawyers or whatever.
	And they're going to bring that home to America, aren't they?
	That's correct.
	And if you have a look, for example, at the National Defense Authorization Act, and Obama was after me at Harvard Law School.
	He knows better.
	The National Defense Authorization Act from last year repeated this year.
	Obama insisted That U.S.
	citizens living here in the United States, let alone abroad, be included in the NDAA provision permitting the military to pick up and detain and disappear United States citizens into their gulag, whether here in Guantanamo or Afghanistan or who knows whatever.
	Second, we now see under Obama the massive proliferation of drones going to take place in American airspace.
	And we know for a fact that these droners have already practiced destroying cars on United States highways.
	It's clear what's coming.
	They're going to start to arm these drones.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Obama has his own murder list generated by Brennan, now he nominated to head the CIA, and authorized and approved by his lawyer, Harold Koh, going back to the Yale Law School, taking up Rostow's place.
	Uh, and this, uh, murder list, uh, he meets every, uh, Tuesday to decide whom he's going to murder.
	Uh, and then, uh, sets out and murders them, including now three United States, uh, citizens.
	Uh, this has had me on before, uh, to criticize, uh, President Bush.
	Well, even President Bush did not irrigate to himself the power to murder United States citizens.
	And Dershowitz is a big supporter of Obama.
	He is a big honcho in the Democratic Party.
	Indeed, Dershowitz publicly bragged that at the 2008 DNC convention, That nominated Obama to become president the first time.
	He, Dershowitz, prevented former President Carter from speaking.
	It was his doing.
	Because President Carter had criticized Israel.
	Now I know the last time they did let President Carter have a few words to say, but that was it.
	So Dershowitz has this influence and this power in the Democratic Party and with the Obama administration.
	So he's an extremely dangerous person.
	There's no question about it.
	And to be clear, the reason why he didn't want Carter to speak is because Carter is not to someone who, like Dershowitz, is an extremist Zionist who is really pushing these policies for... I mean, look at his opposition to Chuck Hagel, for example.
	He's come out to strongly oppose that because he doesn't think that Chuck Hagel is authoritarian enough on behalf of Israel.
	He just didn't see, you know, Carter giving a green light to anything that Israel wanted to do, so now he's opposing him even within democratic circles.
	I dealt with Senator Hagel for an hour on a matter, and I was impressed with the man.
	That doesn't mean I agree with everything he has to say or he has done.
	But what really impressed me was his Senate office was littered with pictures of his combat service in Vietnam, and I would think if he becomes Secretary of Defense, We will see some degree of restraint exercised on the outright war-mongers there.
	No other word for them.
	In the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency, certainly the State Department as well under Secretary Clinton, but I don't know about Kerry.
	You know, Kerry was a Vietnam veteran himself, and perhaps he will proceed to exercise some restraint.
	Well, Dershowitz certainly isn't a voice for restraint.
	Going back, you mentioned the NDAA.
	Here's Exhibit 2.
	This is from Homeland Security Affairs, which is a publication of the Navy back in October of 2008.
	And here's a quote from Dershowitz.
	He advocated, and the title of the article was, Preventive Detention in the War on Terror.
	Now this is three years before the NDAA, and this is how the article begins.
	No civilized nation confronting serious danger has ever relied exclusively on criminal convictions for past offenses.
	Every country has introduced, by one means or another, a system of preventive or administrative detention for persons who are thought to be dangerous, but who might not be convictable under the conventional criminal law.
	That pretty much sums up the essence of the NDAA, right?
	If you don't think that you can get a... you're suspicious of somebody, but you don't think that you can convict them, so, you know, you just basically preventively detain them.
	That's the essence of the NDAA, isn't it?
	Well, that's correct.
	And as a matter of fact, Dershowitz has publicly attacked me for my support of the Palestinians, so I'm sure I'd be near the top of his list to be preventively detained in violation of the Constitution.
	And now I'm sure that Alex is on his list as well.
	We have to understand Israel has engaged in this policy of preventive detention against Palestinians, clear-cut violation of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, a war crime.
	But Britain has as well.
	Speaking of Piers Morgan, the Brit, Britain had pioneered preventive detention.
	Including and especially in Northern Ireland, where the Preventive Detention Act is still in effect, though not being applied, but can be resurrected at any time.
	And we all know the massive abuses that preventive detention resulted in in Northern Ireland Including torture of Irish by British forces.
	I've been over there myself and have interviewed and documented torture victims, as I have Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who were preventively detained and Yeah.
	tortured by Israel.
	So Morgan and Dershowitz are two peas in the pod, the British Empire and the Israeli Empire, and they're Alex's standing up for the American Republic or what remains of it.
	Yes, yes.
	And it's not even strictly American what we're looking at.
	I mean, this even goes back to, you know, English law that preceded America.
	I mean, this type of indefinite detention without trial, that goes back to the Star Chamber that they had in England.
	That goes back and takes us beyond the Magna Carta and right to trial by jury.
	These are things that, you know, even people in Britain had a long tradition of before it came to America.
	It overturns everything that has basically defined a civil government.
	That is correct.
	At least going back to the Magna Carta and the Barons' deal with King John and Runnymede, who are correct.
	Unfortunately, after 9-11, and this has been documented by Amnesty International, headquartered in London, Tony Blair has effectively turned Britain into a police state.
	So, I don't think we need someone like Morgan coming over here and trying to promote these anti-American values.
	Yes, he does have a First Amendment right to speak under the U.S.
	Constitution, but he is being put on television, and television is regulated by the Federal Communications Act.
	So, I think someone should look into that issue.
	Can CNN put someone out there calling for violations of the United States Constitution under the Federal Communications Act?
	Now, the problem is Obama has effectively gutted any regulation of the FCC by the FCC because all the news media supports him.
	Yes.
	So that's the dilemma we are in.
	Yes, you do have a First Amendment, but when it comes to television, television is not like the print.
	And there are narrower rules and exceptions applied to television as opposed to print media.
	Well, and of course, in Britain, a lot of Americans are not familiar with Piers Morgan's past.
	In Britain, he kind of made a name for himself running kind of a National Enquirer type of tabloid paper.
	And their stock in trade was wiretapping, you know, illegally celebrities' phones and, you know, breaking into their answer machines and that sort of thing.
	So, you know, someone like Piers Morgan, who has that kind of a past, I'm sure he's perfectly comfortable with the kind of violations of civil liberties that we see Obama proposing and, in fact, doing with the reauthorization of FISA.
	and the Utah data center that's coming online I mean, they are doing wireless warrantless wiretaps on everybody, not just American citizens, everybody on the entire planet essentially.
	And, remember, Britain does not have a Bill of Rights.
	I mean, we fought a revolution against the British in part for that Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
	And torture is clearly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, which Dershowitz has called for.
	And as I said before, the British have certainly practiced in Northern Ireland.
	Exactly.
	And one of the things that, you know, one of the tactics of Piers Morgan and the people who are trying to destroy the Second Amendment at this point Is to show the bloody shirt, to show the grief of the parents, to show people who've had children that they've lost with these shootings.
	Yet they never show pictures of victims of Obama's drone assassination campaigns and the fact that they do double-tap raids, that they will hit an area, wait for people to rush in to rescue and then hit it a second time.
	I mean, they're not concerned about collateral damage, they're not concerned about the number of children that they That they destroy, that they murder and maim.
	And Piers Morgan is happy to have his picture taken with President Obama, but he thinks that someone who passionately defends our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, is somehow a dangerous person.
	Perhaps dangerous to his power base.
	And this is something I'm not sure if you're aware of this.
	Back in November 15th, this last November 15th, in the New York Times, Dershowitz authored an article called The Rule of Proportionality.
	Let me read to you from that quote here.
	He says, it's sometimes argued that targeted assassination should never be permitted because it's a form of extrajudicial killing.
	This view is absurd.
	And he says, the alternatives to targeted killing are either to allow terrorists free reign in targeting civilians, or to engage in under-targeted military actions that are likely to cause more casualties.
	Well, that's clearly not true.
	That's the false dichotomy that was presented to Ron Paul by Newt Gingrich and others who said, you know, you're either going to preemptively arrest and torture people or we're going to have a nuclear bomb in a city.
	And as Ron Paul has pointed out, as we all know, there have been people who have been accused of being terrorists who've had their day in court, they've been convicted.
	Other people have been accused of being terrorists, they've had their day in court and been exonerated.
	But they don't want us to have that sort of thing.
	They approve of Obama's targeted assassination list, which we see his longtime approval of, as you said, in Israel.
	Right, even MSC International has condemned the targeted assassination as extrajudicial executions.
	And as a matter of fact, and I spent four years on the board of MSC International USA, And then U.S.
	Army Field Manual 2710, the Laws of Land Warfare, that is still valid and binding on U.S.
	Armed Forces, including President Obama as Commander-in-Chief, prohibits assassination.
	And in fact, that prohibition in U.S.
	Army Field Manual today goes all the way back to President Lincoln's General Orders No. 100, Issued during the U.S.
	Civil War, prohibiting assassination outright and saying it was nothing better, it was nothing more than murder and pure barbarism.
	So if President Lincoln prohibited during the Civil War, and that has been U.S.
	policy since April of 1863, I think it's been in there for good cause, and it should be in there for good cause.
	And as I said, murder and assassination also violates the U.S.
	War Crimes Act.
	So we have Dershowitz advocating war crimes, and President Obama himself committing war crimes.
	And indeed, when war crimes such as this are widespread or systematic, and in this case they are both, and the latest figure is Obama's probably murdered 176 children, they become crimes against humanity.
	Which, in terms of severity, come after, at the top of the list, crimes against peace, then genocide, and crimes against humanity, just to give you an idea of the severity of this offense.
	And he's murdering U.S.
	citizens, and indeed, he sent his Attorney General Holder, who has just opted in, upped up for more time as Attorney General, out to Northwestern Law School to publicly advocate and support murdering United States citizens.
	And the faculty at Northwestern Law School knew full well that that is why Holder was coming out there to explain and try to justify the Obama policy of murdering USC citizens.
	They invited him out there to do this, and when Holder got at Northwestern Law School, even though they knew full well what he was going to say, they gave him a standing ovation before he spoke and after he spoke.
	Now, that shows you how rotten, corrupt, and despicable American legal education has become after 9-11, under the influence of people like Dershowitz and Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, which has just hired Harold Kobach, He'll be returning.
	He has justified the murder and assassination of drone policy for Obama.
	Indeed, Koh is the only lawyer for Obama who would publicly testify in favor of his unconstitutional war against Libya.
	No one else would do it, just Koh.
	And indeed, the Association of American Law Schools That represents every law school and law professor in America just had co-speak at their annual conference in New Orleans and gave their keynote address on globalization and the law.
	I didn't bother going.
	Why would I dignify listening to a war criminal who has justified Obama's drone strikes up to and including murdering United States citizens?
	It really is frightening.
	And as you say, these law schools, these professors who are advocating these types of any means justifies their ends as they define their ends.
	And I just want the American public to understand that people who have advocated this type of criminal activity abroad and carried it out, that they have absolutely no compunction about coming to the United States and doing the same thing against American citizens.
	We have now the people in suits and ties who are now advocating these types of criminal actions and calling themselves lawyers.
	We're going to see this type of thing come here and I just hope that people on the left Who value civil liberties, because there are a lot of people on the left who value civil liberties, but they just don't understand the Second Amendment.
	I would hope that they would understand that the same people who advocate torture, who advocate indefinite detention without trial, who advocate extrajudicial killings and murder lists and assassinations from the air, I would hope that they would not want to give a monopoly of force To the people who do this.
	You know, it was, in my understanding, the Second Amendment, and we can read the founders and see, they were afraid, as you said before, of governments that violate individual liberties.
	And, you know, the idea that the citizenry would be armed was set up to be a check against that.
	Well, certainly if you read the Second Amendment, that's what it says.
	Part of a well-regulated militia.
	There it is.
	And the militias were there to protect the peoples of the state.
	Indeed, at one point, there were 16 state constitutions.
	That guaranteed the right of everyone living in those states to wage revolution against the state government if they should become tyrannical.
	That is no longer the case today.
	The powers that be, given the Increasing conservatism of the American empire have slowly gotten rid of most of those state constitutions.
	But at one point, there were 16 states in the Union that did guarantee the right of the people to wage a revolution against their own state governments in the event that they became tyrannical.
	Yes, yes.
	And as you've pointed out, and others have pointed out, Alex Jones has said it, Ron Paul has said it, every empire eventually turns in on itself and destroys the Republic.
	And we have, under the advocacy of people like Dershowitz, who have advocated our imperial stances and our foreign policy and that sort of thing, We've seen all these kinds of human rights abuses, illegal activity.
	They've not only tolerated it, but advocated it.
	And now we're going to see that kind of thing happen here.
	And one of the few deterrents to that is an armed citizenry.
	And the armed citizenry does not have to, as Jefferson said, the beauty of the Second Amendment is you only need it when they come to take it away.
	And, you know, fortunately we have not had to use that.
	And they're a wonderful deterrent to force as long as the people own them.
	They're a deterrent, and I would hate to see that taken away.
	Well, we're out of time, but I really do appreciate you giving us a real legal perspective on real civil liberties, and I appreciate your standing and your advocacy for human rights, not just for Americans, but for Palestinians, for people all over the world.
	You know, when we give up on other people, we give up on ourselves as well.
	Well, that's correct.
	And one thing history teaches us is that if the United States government gets away of violating the civil rights, civil liberties, human rights of what we call aliens, foreigners, it's only a question of time before they turn it against the American people themselves.
	It's only a question of time.
	History teaches this.
	And so we have to stand up for ourselves as well as people in other countries who are Well, thank you.
	subjected to illegal and oftentimes criminal policies by our own government.
	And unfortunately, Dershowitz certainly has always been on the other side of these issues.
	Yes, you're absolutely right.
	Well, thank you, Francis Boyle, for being on the right side and for standing up and doing it with clarity.
	Thank you very much for being our guest today.
	Well, thank you.
	Please give my best regards to Alex.
	Will do.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	Well, we've got another interview coming up here with us This is Rob Dew talking to Professor James Tracy from Florida Atlantic University.
	Now, Professor Tracy has an interesting perspective on Sandy Hook and some things that he believes just don't add up.
	And we'll be right back after this quick break.
	I really enjoy it when the globalists try to poison us and, well, we resist them via a free market system.
	Hello my fellow info warriors, Alex Jones here introducing you to the ProPure family of gravity-fed filters.
	Now, you know that the globalists are filling our water with radioactive isotopes, fluoride, lead, mercury, arsenic.
	And one of the few systems that can efficiently and economically remove or reduce down to non-detectable levels these poisons are gravity-fed filters.
	And ProPure is the top of the line.
	Their filters are impregnated with silver, A natural antibiotic.
	On top of that, they're bigger, so they filter faster.
	You don't have to prime these the first time you use them.
	It's amazing.
	Go to InfoWars.com and click on the shopping cart link to see the entire family of these babies.
	Now, the fluoride they add to our water is so tiny that most filters can't cut it out.
	But ProPure has their system that will, again, reduce it to non-detectable levels.
	Almost get all of it out of there.
	That's also available.
	And if you look at the different systems they offer, the ProPure big brush finish is on a stand, so it's easier on a table or at your restaurant or wherever you have it to go up with a glass or a mug and fill it up.
	Then there's this big baby right here, the Pro-Pure King large version.
	Got a lot of different options that come with it.
	Also, they have the Pro-Pure Big, probably one of the best values out there.
	And of course, it's burnished stainless steel.
	And then, what I use on my RV, something that's great for your hunting cabin or the back porch, is the Pro-Pure Traveler.
	It's small and portable, but packs a huge punch, cleans out all that garbage.
	They also have glass site spigot, so you don't have to take the top off and look in the bottom area to see how much water.
	You can see how fast it's filtering with this optional system.
	The Globalist obviously are hitting us through our water.
	It's time to take control of our lives.
	It's time to not give our children and families these poisons.
	And these systems cut it down to non-detectable levels across the board.
	ProPure is the name.
	I only promote what I believe in.
	And I use ProPure in my home and my office.
	And I recommend that you check out the information on ProPure at InfoWars.com.
	We already have the lowest price at InfoWars.com on the ProPure gravity filter system.
	But when you add in the 10% off when InfoWarriors use the product code WATER at InfoWars.com, nobody can top it.
	So again, it's a win-win-win.
	Stop drinking the poison water.
	Checkmate the globalists when it comes to your health.
	And support InfoWars.com and the work we're doing here.
	You know, many revolutionaries rob banks and things and kidnap people for funds.
	We promote in the free market the products we use that are about preparedness.
	That's how we fund this revolution against the New World Order in our move to restore our constitutional republic and a spirit of 1776 worldwide.
	Check it out at InfoWars.com.
	ProPure, top of the line, number one, most powerful and effective and economical gravity-fed water system in the world.
	ProPure, available discounted at Infowars.com.
	Don't forget product code, water, to save 10%.
	It's the latest generation, years in development.
	Pro-Pure is the name. - Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
	Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
	Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
	We're going to show you some before and afters.
	Aaron, break down what happened.
	Your story.
	I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
	It just didn't happen.
	Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
	I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
	I wanted that nutrition.
	Didn't even understand I don't understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals, but the products did that for me.
	I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods, and they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
	I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to InfoWarsTeam.com, sign up as a distributor, and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
	InfoWarsTeam.com
	InfoWarsTeam.com Welcome back to the InfoWars Nightly News.
	I'm Rob Dew.
	You just saw David Knight doing the news and interviewing Francis Boyle.
	Well, I've been trying to get a hold of James Tracy for a few days now.
	He is author of several articles that you could go to if you go to memoryholeblog.com.
	He's got four articles there concerning the Sandy Hook Massacre.
	Mr. Tracy is the man who's come out.
	You might have seen the Daily Mail articles.
	He's basically disputing the events.
	In fact, here's the mail online.
	Newtown official furious after Florida professor makes outrageous conspiracy claims saying that Sandy Hook shooting may have not happened.
	I don't believe he's saying it may have not happened.
	What he's saying is that it did not It most likely did not happen in the way the media is portraying it, and we're going to go over some of that evidence now.
	He's going to be on Alex's radio show on Wednesday, so be looking out for that.
	He has a PhD from the University of Iowa, and he currently teaches at Florida Atlantic University.
	One of his courses is called Culture of Conspiracy.
	I would have definitely been taking that in the 90s when I was in college.
	And we turn now to James Tracy.
	How are you doing, James?
	Fine, thank you.
	Good to be here.
	Thanks for having me.
	Oh, yeah.
	Your recent post, Sandy Hook Massacre Timeline.
	I barely even got into this, although I see that you mentioned my report that I did last year.
	But what caught my attention was the Sandy Hook School Massacre Unanswered Questions and Missing Information, which starts off with a quote from Wayne Carver II, the medical examiner.
	Let's start there with that, and I actually have a video clip I want to go to.
	Which talks about the different guns that were found.
	But what can you tell us about Wayne Carver and what is so peculiar about his press conference that day that a lot of people have been putting on the internet and making issue of?
	I think this is one of the main things that one really has to scrutinize with regard to the Newtown tragedy.
	Here is an individual, the chief pathologist of the state of Connecticut.
	He has 33 years of experience.
	Highly experienced in his profession and yet he is at a loss with regard to actually being able to describe what took place in this mass post-mortem that he presided over on the night of December 14th and the early morning hours of December 15th.
	There are very simple things that cannot be answered by him, such as, for example, where the injuries, the bullet holes are on the bodies, how many bullets were recovered.
	What positions were the victims in that were recovered?
	He either hedged and could not answer these things or he deferred to the state police who were flanking him and accompanying him during the press conference.
	And I think that the reporters also became rather suspicious as well because as the press conference concludes, their questions become more and more simplistic.
	And he could not really respond.
	For example, how many boys and how many girls were killed?
	He couldn't answer how many boys and how many girls there were.
	There were 20, but he couldn't answer how many girls, how many boys, the proportion.
	So these were things that really made me wonder when I looked more closely at the footage itself and actually began to transcribe it.
	It became more and more odd, and again, I think that most likely the reporters were aware of this, but as is often the case, unfortunately our public discourse is determined to a large degree by sound bites, by headlines, and one of the things that came out of that press conference about the headlines was three to eleven bullets per victim.
	Well, he was talking about the victims that he was specifically examining, which were seven of the 28 victims overall.
	So even that is not accurate, and yet that is something that the national and international media took and ran with and made a fact when it was not really a fact at all.
	Right, and you made the point in your post that if that was the case, you average 7 bullets per individual, excluding misses, he shot about 182 times, or once every 2 seconds, and this with 30 round magazines, how many times is he changing those out if he was indeed the only shooter making that many shots, getting that many hits?
	Overall, a guy who had no military training, as far as we know.
	And he was in there, I estimate, about five to seven minutes.
	So we had to change those clips a total of five or six times.
	And it seems somewhat unlikely.
	That he would have been able to do that, that he would have been that proficient.
	There's also the matter, on a related note, of the amount of ammunition that he had on his person when he entered the facility, as well as the garb that he had on.
	Uh, this individual is only about 115 or 120 pounds, uh, and so is an awful lot of material to actually, uh, to actually have, uh, in order to, and to sustain oneself and to carry out an act such as that.
	Right, and I want to go to this video clip now.
	We have, it starts off with an NBC News reporter saying he got this information from the officials, several state and federal officials is what he mentioned, that they found four handguns on Adam Lanza's body and then it goes to the coroner saying all the shots are done with the long rifle.
	And actually, before that, it shows the cops at the back end of a car.
	They're trying to eject more shells out of it several times, but you actually see one shell come out.
	It's definitely not a shotgun, because they don't work like that.
	But let's roll this clip real quick, and then we'll have you comment on that.
	There is some new information this morning from a couple of federal officials and state officials.
	They say now that there were actually four handguns recovered inside the school, not just two as we were initially told.
	Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.
	We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had a assault-style, AR-15-style rifle that he had taken to the school that was in the car he drove there, his mother's car.
	But we've been told by several officials that he left that in the car.
	Everybody's death was caused by Everyone we've completed so far was caused by gunshot wounds.
	All the wounds that I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon.
	the long weapon.
	So the one that was the long rifle?
	Yes.
	So there the medical examiner says they were all caused by the long rifle.
	You've got the news reporter saying four handguns were found.
	And while he was talking, I actually put over that, because I made this video piece, the shot of the black car where the officer is pulling out a rifle and ejecting at least one cartridge out of it right there.
	So did you actually see that piece of video?
	It's kind of an overhead shot at night.
	Yes, I did.
	I did see that, and I think I included that.
	I may have included that in the timeline.
	I'm pretty sure it's been about a week or so since I worked on that.
	But I think I'm pretty sure that that is in fact included.
	And when the reporter at the press conference, I believe it's that passage that you played, when he asked, when he stated that the rifle was found in the trunk, The Paul Vance, Lieutenant Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police, interceded and said, that's not correct, sir.
	That's not correct, sir.
	So at that point, I believe that is when the narrative changed from the handguns to the rifles, the assault-style rifles.
	I believe that that may very well be what future legislation, gun control legislation, will target.
	And so, consequently, the narrative changed.
	Well, it became demonized after that.
	It was the Bushmaster that they were demonizing.
	So whose car were they removing this gun out of?
	This rifle that was supposedly used in the killings, but the guy killed himself in the school.
	So how did he get the rifle back into the trunk of his car?
	I'm confused at this point.
	I think that most everyone should be, and it goes right back to the major news media, why are they not scrutinizing these inconsistencies?
	That to me is a, well it's not a mystery, but it certainly is an indictment to a certain degree with regard to their complicity in weaving this overall narrative.
	Well, I was getting emails from a listener who said he actually went to the Starbucks where all the AP reporters and reporters have been hanging out, and he showed them the report that I did that you referenced in, I believe, your first writing, talking about the second and third shooter.
	How the little kid saw somebody on the ground, which I believe now was probably a father of one of the students.
	One of those guys has been kind of explained away as a father who was detained briefly in handcuffs.
	And then we go to the overhead video shot, and we do have that video, you can pull it up, and it's the cops around a guy in the woods.
	And then we have testimony of another witness who says they brought the guy out of the woods, he was wearing camo and black pants, and he's over there in the car, in fact.
	Look, right over there, and you know...
	Why don't the cameras swing around and shoot this guy, you know, and get a shot of him?
	Let's see, you know?
	Why don't they do that?
	They did walk a guy out of the woods.
	I saw him walk a guy out earlier with handcuffs.
	He walked by us and said he didn't do it.
	It was a grown man?
	A grown man, yeah.
	He's sitting in the front of the police car over there now.
	So, I mean, he didn't have a gun?
	No.
	I didn't see any gun.
	Just had him handcuffed.
	And he walked by us and looked into parents' eyes and said, I didn't do it.
	How was he dressed?
	Camo pants with a dark jacket.
	And not only that, but as you pointed out in that report, he was in the front seat of the cruiser.
	Yeah.
	So if he was a suspect, why would he be in the front seat?
	It made me question whether or not this may have been some sort of a drill.
	Or the equivalent.
	I mean, that's one way to explain it.
	Because I'm quite certain that he, at that time, identified himself to them to get that sort of special treatment.
	We don't know what took place also because of the audio from the 9-11 dispatch is scrambled at key points.
	And I believe they're at points where these individuals' names are identified.
	That's my theory.
	Yeah, with regard to the individual who was prone down in the parking lot as well as the individual up in the woods.
	Now also, there were a couple of individuals in the woods and there's a good YouTube video that actually points out how there was another individual You have to look quite closely, but it's in the upper left-hand portion of the screen where you see an individual who comes out from behind a tree.
	It's rather eerie, and it's difficult.
	You can't really make it out, but I'm quite certain that it's a human figure.
	And I believe there's another Paul Vance clip, Lieutenant Vance clip, where he says, you know, we're not going to talk about individuals that we may have found chopping wood in the woods or not, you know.
	And it comes kind of out of nowhere, because you hear a reporter ask one question, And there's a slight reporter, and I think he's looking at the other reporter, asking the question that you can't hear, and then he talks about the wood chopping incident.
	But what's interesting is that the listener at CMI Report went and asked the AP guy.
	The AP guy had no knowledge of it, and then a couple weeks later he sends him the article about the father.
	of one of the students who was there, which makes sense, you know, because at least one child saw that guy laid out on the ground.
	I want to go now to your timeline, which I haven't even really got through.
	I got through like three pages, and it's a long sucker.
	I mean, it's, you know, 30-something pages long here.
	The Sandy Hook massacre timeline.
	Why don't we go through this?
	What are the biggest things that jump out to you in this timeline?
	Well, it might be that many pages long because of the comments that have been left on it as well by folks visiting the blog over the past few days.
	I wish it were that detailed.
	I sat down to do something along the lines of what Paul Thompson did, you know, I think a wonderful public service following 9-11, when he created his 9-11 timeline that eventually became a book.
	Because really, the news media often do, they usually report important material, but they fail to put it in context.
	So I just thought to actually put things in context, attempt to do that, because there were so many conflicts in the information.
	And the overall narrative that came out was something quite apart from what the sum of, I think, the reports should have actually been.
	I can't think of any immediately off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to discuss any of them.
	I guess let's go to that picture that from the, was it the Newtown Bee?
	I'm going to go to this picture that was released.
	It's the kids holding hands.
	It's that famous picture that was put out 10.47am on December 14th.
	Famous photo taken by a Newtown Bee editor distributed via CBS and other national media.
	And you said you found testimony where she said she was taking pictures as fast as she could and yet we've seen, this is the only picture we've seen of hers.
	Yeah, I'm not sure if she was actually able to enter the building, but there was an exchange between her and the chief editor of the paper.
	I think his name is Frank Volkert, and he's the one that wrote the first story of the event itself.
	This individual that takes the pictures changes into her firefighter outfit and joins the first responders while the editor goes into the building and apparently supposedly interviews the principal of Sandy Hook, Don Hawksbrock.
	Who was already shot dead.
	Right.
	That came out in an initial report and then they had to retract it.
	And then a few days later, even more seriously, revised the report itself.
	That's something I don't believe that I included in the timeline, even though it would have been fitting.
	And a couple of readers actually pointed that out to me, but that is covered.
	In another article, but it's interesting how they're only that now she was taking pictures, she says, you know, constantly is she's following the police cruisers and so forth into the facility.
	So that's a long driveway.
	It's a big parking lot.
	So I would imagine she knows how to, you know, how to photograph.
	She must have taken maybe three, four, five dozen pictures.
	We only see two of them, one of which really makes the national, you know, the national spotlight.
	So that's rather odd at a time when the national news media, the international news media that are coming into Newtown are really, really hungry, voraciously hungry for imagery, right?
	There's no shortage of that with regard to the mourners and with regard to, I'm not saying the mourners, but those the pedestrians and so forth in the in the aftermath.
	those that were shocked and traumatized and so forth.
	But here's a very crucial point in time, you know, on the school grounds.
	We haven't seen really any photography of the school grounds.
	And we don't see it here with the exception of the parking lot itself and the evacuation of the students.
	Only 15 or 16 students, 16 students at the most, rather than the 600 or so students who are there.
	And even though there is aerial coverage, because that is what the The Associated Press aerial coverage captured the shooters, at least the one shooter, who had absconded into the woods.
	There is no coverage of the evacuation itself en masse from the school.
	So that struck me as being rather unusual because you would think an event of this magnitude, that chopper, if not more choppers, would have been in the air for the entire day or much of the day attempting to get footage.
	We do see footage of, for example, the SWAT team showing up and examining the grounds and things like that.
	SWAT team on the roofs of the school?
	Right, exactly, yeah.
	But it's as if they're, you know, they're running around a vacant building.
	Not saying they necessarily are, but there's little if any proof of that.
	And also something that I think some independent researchers had presented on a YouTube video, they were pointing out how the vehicles around the fire station were located, you know, to kind of get them all within the crop.
	And yet, there's not a great deal of activity outside of the fire station.
	You would think there would be an outpouring of people coming out of that fire station between 600 or so students and at least 600 parents.
	You're talking over a thousand people.
	I think that's got to be a fairly modest facility.
	It's just for the Sandy Hook vicinity of Newtown.
	So, you know, you're talking about maybe a couple of trucks maybe to be able to fit in there.
	Maybe a few more, but still, it's fairly modest, probably.
	Right, where are you going to put 600 students in that firehouse?
	Which, if you look at an overhead map, you can see where it is in relationship to a school.
	There's a long road, kind of a curvy road, that goes up to that firehouse.
	And you would think it would take a while to get 600 students up there.
	And if the media did have that imagery, they would be showing it over and over again, if it existed, if that event ever took place.
	And I've got another clip I want to go to.
	And it is of, what gets me there is an article that lands a blast his way through the front door.
	There's all this how he shot his way through because people were saying well there's a security system installed how did he get in?
	You know that was a big thing because they just installed this big security system that you know the only way to get in was through a key card or some way to get in to the building and he shot his way through yet we see no pictures of of this doorway that was shot shot up no broken glass no bullet holes nothing the only thing you get are aerial photos or diagrams which we saw a lot of diagrams during oklahoma city when they wanted to talk about a giant crater that this truck bomb created
	i remember that specifically in newsweek magazine which you can't find anymore on the web i searched for for a long time but there's a and the official report actually there's a diagram of the crater that the truck bomb left But no actual photos of any such crater.
	So we have the same thing with this mysterious doorway that was shot up that may or may not exist as well.
	On a related note, this is a brand new security system.
	Sandy Hook is quite an affluent area, and I would think that the people there in the school district would not, you know, they wouldn't think twice about spending and getting the best security system in the world.
	Now, such a security system has ubiquitous and constant video surveillance.
	That is captured.
	That is recorded.
	Now, where is that video surveillance?
	That's a very, very good question.
	And as is the point with regard to Oklahoma City, if the federal government would have revealed, would present that video evidence, a lot of questions would be resolved.
	Exactly, especially of a John Doe No.
	2.
	Have you had any other attacks other than what I've seen on the media?
	Have you been getting any threats?
	Well, I think that about, I would say about three quarters of the comments on the blog that I've gone through, and I can't read every one, but I do look at the tone and so forth, I think about 75% are positive, if not more.
	The same with regard to emails.
	I've gotten some emails from a handful of colleagues who have, you know, really sent their support and really appreciate, say they appreciate what I'm attempting to address here.
	So overall, I think that it's been positive.
	There have been negative ones, but that is to be expected.
	One has to question how many of those are actually paid trolls.
	who might be dispatched by one party or another.
	I don't really know.
	Some of them seem so illogical.
	But I include those as well because they illustrate, in fact, how silly questioning such an inquiry, a request for such an inquiry actually is.
	Well, and at the bottom line, let's see the footage of him blasting his way in.
	I don't need to see anything gory, but let's actually see this guy dressed up as a special forces soldier kicking his way in like Rambo.
	Let's just see that, and then... Yeah, I'm afraid that a good percentage of the public do not see this in a broader historical context.
	Pronouncements from political leaders and so forth, and even fairly noteworthy celebrities such as Bob Costas.
	This is within a larger sort of trajectory.
	We just can't look at Newtown in isolation.
	It's a tragedy, there's no doubt about it, but it cannot be looked at in isolation.
	If there's going to be a debate with regard to gun control, there needs to be a debate that is rational and that is not tinged by emotion or anything of the like.
	And I think that is exactly what is attempted here with regard to this incident.
	I totally agree with you.
	Thanks for joining us, and we will talk to you again next week.
	Okay, great.
	Thanks a lot, Rob.
	Alright.
	Well, you can check out his class at Florida Atlantic University, Culture of Conspiracy.
	It was Ph.D.
	James Tracy, and very interesting guy.
	He's, you know, got a couple of reports I did listed in his In his report so it's good to see that people are communicating on this level because you know the mainstream media is not writing anything about this they just would wish everybody take the narrative that they spoon-feed us and you know they show us the few clips over and over again and that we're just gonna take it and let them take our guns because you know
	One crazy person probably on meds went nuts, but time will tell and we'll see what'll happen.
	There's a few more things.
	I've been getting emails like crazy from people and I really do appreciate all your emails.
	I check them out.
	I can't verify or deny something so I don't go with it, but I do appreciate everybody sending stuff out and at least questioning the narrative out there.
	So with that, that's our show tonight.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, Please consider becoming a member of PrisonPlanet.tv.
	Right now we have a special $39.95 a month and you can share that passcode with up to 11 people at the same time.
	We've got plenty of Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones coverage on there, along with all the aftermath that's going on.
	It's going to be quite a year, I can tell you.
	It's already starting off with a bang, so to speak.

▲