All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:05:35
20130207_Thu_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight, and it's Thursday, February the 7th, 2013.
Now we have some breaking news out of Los Angeles.
We don't have all the facts, but it's going to be developing.
We'll be covering it at InfoWars.com, but it appears that a former L.A.
police officer has allegedly shot three other police officers, I believe one of whom has died, and there is a double homicide.
Now, there's a couple of aspects of the story that are kind of interesting.
One is that in the zeal to try to find this guy, the L.A.
police have shot up two vehicles that match the description of his car.
In one of these incidences, two women were shot.
And he published a manifesto sent to the press saying that in August of 07, he reported an officer for kicking a suspect using excessive use of force while assigned as a patrol officer in L.A.
And he claims that he has broken the supposed blue line, and because of that, the other officers are out to get him.
We don't know if that's true.
As we said, this is just still breaking.
It is something that sounds kind of like things that have happened before with Serpico, but it just may be a deranged officer.
But at this moment, we've had two incidences where cars matching the description of his vehicle have been shot by the police in essentially what is a reckless manhunt.
Now in other news today, we've had confirmation hearings begin on John Brennan.
Now, he's the Deputy Director for Counterterrorism in the Obama Administration.
He's President Obama's pick for the new Director of the CIA.
Now, leading up to this, we've had a lot of memos be leaked this week.
Memos talking about the legal justification for drone assassination strikes, as well as information about extra renditions and torture, as well as information about secret military bases that the CIA has used in these drone assassinations.
Now, at the nexus of all this torture and assassination is John Brennan, former CIA officer.
He is an apologist for the American policy of torture.
He is also someone who has coordinated drone assassinations.
Now, in April 2012, he was the first Obama administration official that would publicly acknowledge that these strikes were going on in Yemen, in Pakistan, Somalia, other places.
And in his speech, he argued that they were legal, moral, and effective.
And this week, a memo was leaked from the Department of Justice, Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
And in that memo, John Brennan wrote, these strikes are conducted in full compliance with the law.
He said that rigorous standards were applied to the program, and he said that civilian casualties caused by the strikes are exceedingly rare, much rarer than many allege.
Not exactly.
There have been about 2,500 people killed by these drone strikes, so they are pretty widespread.
But he maintains that they're legal, ethical, and wise, and that's what was repeated by White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday when this memo was leaked.
So the question is, are they wise?
Well, CNN reports that General Stanley McChrystal, who's a former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, noted recently that what scares him about these drone strikes is how they're perceived around the world.
He says, the resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes is much greater than the average American appreciates.
They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who have never seen one or seen the effects of one.
Now, what General McChrystal is saying here is essentially the same thing that Ron Paul has said about blowback.
And blowback is actually a term that was coined by the CIA.
These types of strikes, and especially if you've seen one, many of these are double strike, double tap strikes.
And what they do in those strikes is they'll hit an area that they believe is someone that they've characterized as a terrorist or an enemy.
They will wait until rescuers come, and then they will come back and hit that same site again.
That's where many of these civilian casualties are happening.
And because someone comes in to help, that doesn't mean that they are associated with that terrorist, if he is in fact a terrorist, as the administration maintains.
I mean, basically, human nature is that if you see somebody injured in an automobile accident or whatever, you're going to rush in to help them.
So, there have been a tremendous number of civilians that have been killed in these double-tap raids, and it's creating a lot of visceral hatred for America and for our military, as McChrystal said.
Now the question is, are they legal?
That's another question.
And Representative Tom Graves, a congressman, posed that question to the FBI Director Robert Mueller about a year ago.
Now listen to this exchange.
Graves asked him, he said, so I guess from a historical perspective, does the federal government have the ability to kill a U.S.
citizen on U.S.
soil or just overseas?
So he's assuming that the government has that capability to kill American citizens overseas.
And this is what the FBI director said.
Director Robert Mueller said, I'm going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.
Can you believe that?
I mean, it's not clear to him that that's not legal.
And Eric Holder, who is head of the Department of Justice, said there are no limits to the geographic scope of our ability to use force.
So basically, he says, yes, we can do this in America.
So this is not something that is just limited to U.S.
citizens abroad.
This is something that can be done in America, as far as they're concerned.
They believe that they have the legal right to do that, or they maintain that they have the legal right to do so.
I can't really say if they could honestly believe that.
And what about the court?
So the court's going to stand and oppose that.
We see in an article from Antiwar.com entitled Leaked Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Targeted Killing of U.S. Citizens.
It says, last month, a federal judge rejected the New York Times bid to force the U.S. government to disclose more information about its drone war, and specifically its legal justifications.
Now listen to what this judge says.
It says, although she threw out the case, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon noted that such government disclosures could help the public understand the, quote, "vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we've been engaged for well over a decade at a great cost in lives, treasure, and at least in the minds of some, personal liberty." Yes, we believe a lot of personal liberty has been lost in this.
She went on to say, I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.
She went on to say, the Alice in Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me.
Referring to the nightmarish wonderland in which people are sentenced to death before a verdict from a jury is in.
Well, think about what she says.
She understands that on the face of it, this is a clear violation of the Constitution.
But, on the other hand, she thinks that because of pronouncements by the Justice Department, or by the Executive Branch, or even maybe laws that were passed by Congress, that somehow those invalidate the Constitution.
A judge should understand that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
That any pronouncements made by the executive, any laws made by the Congress that are contradicting that Constitution are null and void.
That's what a judge is supposed to do, but not in this case.
Now, look at Congress, for example.
Look at what's happening in Congress.
Marco Rubio, who is on the cover of Time Magazine today as the great hope of the Republican Party, supports this, as does the senator from South Carolina who says, you don't get a lawyer, Lindsey Graham.
They support all of these drone assassination attacks.
And the few people who are opposing it are some civil liberty-minded Democrats.
But their opposition is extremely weak.
Listen to what Ron Wyden said.
Now, he's one of the senators who has opposed this and who wants some more restrictions and some more guidelines as far as what the administration is going to be allowed to do and their kill lists for drones.
But listen to what he says.
We should be concerned when the White House is acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
Said Noreen Shaw, a lecturer at Columbia University.
She said, there's no one outside the White House who has real oversight over that process.
And what's put forward here is that there's no role for the courts, not even after the facts.
And Ron Wyden says, the questions need to be answered.
Questions like, how much evidence does the President need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?
Does the President have to provide individual Americans with an opportunity to surrender?
Can the President order intelligence agencies of the military to kill an American who is inside the United States?
These questions need to be asked and answered in a way that is consistent with American laws and American values.
And he says that this memo that was leaked this week from the Justice Department doesn't answer those questions.
Well, the problem is that Senator Wyden is saying that we need to know what the policies of the President are going to be.
Because this executive who is acting in a dictatorial manner and outside the rule of the Constitution, we don't even know what his parameters are.
So he basically needs to tell us, is he going to assassinate Americans inside the United States?
If so, please tell us so we'll know.
You know, he's not going to oppose him.
There's no real opposition, even from the few Democrats that are opposed to this.
And the Republicans are basically cheering this on.
They like these attacks.
They've argued that these attacks are saving American lives.
Well, they're not saving American lives if you look at that by winning the war for people's hearts and minds in Islamic countries.
Because of what it's doing, just as General McChrystal said, it is creating blowback, animosity towards America.
And if you really want to save American lives of soldiers, that this is the claim that they're making that these drone attacks are basically sparing soldiers from having to go in and capture these people, perhaps we need to look at this war that has already gone on for 10-12 years and kind of examine what we're really doing there.
Maybe those soldiers shouldn't be there.
Maybe our drones shouldn't be there either.
So, basically, we're left then, we don't really have a legal basis for this.
It's not effective.
And the final question is, is it moral?
Consider back to the beginning of World War II.
Think about the fact that the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor.
And everyone characterized that as a day of infamy, because that was a preemptive strike.
We had not attacked Japan at that point.
But now the administration is saying that we can not only preemptively attack people who have not attacked us, but we can do it just based on association.
Look at the way that this has played out.
First they said that they were going to be able to assassinate Americans who were involved in a particular terrorist attack.
Uh, now that was done without due process.
That was done without those people having the right to defend themselves in a court of law.
That American citizen having a right to defend himself in a court of law.
He was simply put on an assassination kill list.
Now that was very distressing, but then they took it one more level.
And what they said was they were going to be able to, they felt that they had the legal justification, the moral justification, to go after people who were planning an attack.
But that's not what this leaked memo says.
This leaked memo says that they're going to go after people who are not accused of having done an attack, not accused of having planned an attack.
But they're going to go after people who are merely associated with an organization that they characterize as being a terrorist organization.
So they're saying that there doesn't even have to be an imminent plan to do something, let alone something that was actually done, let alone proving that something was actually done.
And this should really concern us because it's not just something that's going to be limited to foreign areas.
As we heard earlier, Eric Holder believes that that applies everywhere, including inside the United States.
And it's not something that's going to be just limited to people who are Islamic.
In an article on Infowars today, the Southern Poverty Law Center has inspired attacks against conservative groups.
Now, in this article it says, groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center routinely demonize conservative political activists as violent right-wing extremists.
The fact that a left-wing extremist used the group's material as an inspiration for plotting an act of terrorism is chillingly ironic.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has worked closely with Homeland Security to issue, quote, threat projections, unquote, over recent years, demonizing gun owners, constitutionalists, and libertarians as terrorists.
Now, in this particular case, it was the Family Research Council, a Christian group, who had spoken about homosexuality.
The Southern Poverty Law Center characterized them as a hate organization.
And this inspired this man to go in and try to shoot the place up.
Fortunately, it was stopped before very much happened there.
But what the Southern Poverty Law Center has done over and over again, as this article states, they've worked with the Department of Homeland Security to characterize people who are conservative, constitutionalist, libertarians as terrorists, as right-wing extremists.
And understand that all that's required, as far as the Obama administration is concerned, and as far as Republicans who support these policies, and that is all of the Republican Senators, essentially.
There's only three Republican Senators who have opposed this, and eight Democrat Senators.
But essentially, other than 11 Senators, it is supported that people who are merely associated with an organization that is labeled as terrorist may be killed.
That's an amazing stretch of the law.
To think that it is totally arbitrary.
You don't have to have an actual terrorist event.
You don't even have to have a plan to commit terrorism.
Now there was another major leak this week regarding John Brennan and things happening at the CIA.
The Washington Post was forced into finally revealing a secret drone base.
Now for a year they had been keeping, they knew about this, but they had been keeping it secret at the request of the CIA.
This is the Washington Post.
This is why we say mainstream media needs competition, not only from other mainstream media, which are in the control of and working with the government, but they need competition from alternative media, like InfoWars and others.
For more than a year, the paper refrained from disclosing the location of a secret U.S.
military base in Saudi Arabia from which CIA drones were launched, and it did so at the request of the Obama administration.
Just understand that monopolies in the media, as we used to have, with large newspapers, a few large broadcast television stations, those kinds of limited access to information basically kills freedom of the press.
And it turns those organizations into propaganda arms for the government.
Now the other thing that's interesting about this is that this base is the base that they used to attack Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.
citizen who was the first U.S.
citizen to be assassinated by Obama's drone assassination policies.
Now, what he did, what this did was it set a precedent for assassinating American citizens, but his assassination was justified by the feds on the grounds that he had been involved with the underwear bombing and the shoe bombing.
So let's take a look at a report that kind of shows how all these dots are connected together.
Now I'd be interested to see, is there a passport?
Won't the FBI please show us a passport, if there is one?
They won't release the videos from Amsterdam.
I mean, this is suspicious.
Oh yes, I think it's beyond suspicious.
It's a clear case of a patsy.
So he's a controlled asset.
And of course, it's not a matter of failure to connect the dots.
We're hearing all about the unconnected dots.
No!
This is the desired outcome.
Let me just point out a couple of other things here.
We're told that this alleged bomber, right, the Knicker bomber, whatever they call him, Uh, he was in contact with his character, Al-Laki, in Yemen.
And of course, this Al-Laki, I call him Al-Laki the CIA lackey.
Al-Laki the lackey.
And remember, he's a CIA lackey.
He's a double agent, a triple agent, if you want.
He is used as a kind of beacon to recruit patsies across the world.
And they can only sheep-dip somebody, like Major Hassan.
If they want to say, you're linked to Al-Qaeda, they just have you exchange a few emails with this al-Laki.
And that's what he's good for, right?
He goes back to 9-11 and Hani Hanjour.
So this guy, he's a U.S.
agent under whatever layers of garb that he's got.
The other thing is, how was this young Patsy, Omar Farooq Muttalib, how was he radicalized?
And I think we're getting some pretty good indications that it's this Brixton Mosque, Finsbury Mosque, Patsy's in London, the school for Patsy's, the British Patsy's Patsy's.
Which by the way, six months ago, I remember it, you predicted we'd see plane bombings out of that mosque.
This is not so hard to do.
Remember Richard Reed?
Richard Reed, mentally retarded vagrant who was sleeping on the floor of Brixton Mosque, I think.
He was given the same PETN explosive by somebody, so that's what this Omar Farouk was given then, allegedly, once again in Yemen.
So you can see it all fits together and it all comes from these same places.
There are reports today that the Christmas Day body bomber met with an American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
He's believed to be living in Yemen.
Al-Awlaki is.
He's not only been linked to Al-Qaeda in the past, but he reportedly exchanged emails with the suspected Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, before that shooting massacre in Texas.
I would also point out that the security company at Shqipol Airport is ICTS, which is a Israeli-owned firm.
They were the same firm that allowed Richard Reid to shoot bomber to board the flight, the American Airlines flight to Miami.
Same Same explosive material was found in his shoes as was found in Mr. Moutalib's underwear.
They ignored the threats on purpose, obviously.
We had a lot of people sitting at home over the Christmas holidays.
Families gathered around a television set.
Another terror attack.
Huge problems for travel now.
So just as Brennan is at the nexus of torture and drone assassinations, Anwar al-Awlaki is at the nexus of all these Patsy bombings.
Many of which we believe were false flags that are used to justify what the TSA is doing, violating our constitutional rights.
And then Al-Awlaki is assassinated and that is used to set a precedent to kill American citizens.
Someone who had been at the Pentagon multiple times, Al-Awlaki had been a frequent guest at the Pentagon.
And on the basis of emails sent back and forth to him, he is labeled as the controller of all these different terrorists.
Now, let's look at an eyewitness account from Kurt Haskell who actually saw the underwear bomber.
We'll be right back.
I'm Kurt Haskell.
I'm an attorney in Michigan.
And I was on the flight with the underwear bomber on Christmas Day, 2009.
Passengers describe a terror attack and the arrest of a suspect who tried to blow up a plane as it landed at Metro Airport.
We heard a loud pop and a bit of a smoke.
Sounded first like a balloon being popped.
All of a sudden heard some screams and flight attendants ran up and down the aisles and Everything's crazy.
People are screaming.
There's fire on the plane.
There was a lady shouting back and she was saying things like, what are you doing?
What are you doing?
And at that moment, I was sure I was going to die.
And when I was at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on Christmas Day, my wife and I were coming back from a vacation we had in Africa.
And this was our connecting flight back to Detroit.
And there weren't two seats together to sit at while we were waiting for our flight, so we sat by the gate on the floor playing cards.
And when we were playing cards, I looked up and what caught my eye was a pair of men walking up to the counter.
And one looked like a wealthier Indian man to me, and the other looked like a poor African.
I thought he was a teenager, but apparently he was a little older then.
But he looked like a poor African teenager.
He only had on jeans and a white t-shirt in the middle of winter.
And, you know, I thought they were an odd pair, so I just kind of watched them as we were playing cards.
And they went to the counter together.
And the Indian-looking man spoke, and what he said was, this man needs to get on the flight, referring to the African teenager, but he doesn't have a passport.
And then the girl working at the counter said, well, you have to have a passport to get on the flight.
And then the Indian man said, well, he's from Sudan.
We do this all the time.
And that's an exact word-for-word quote.
And she said something along the lines of, well, you know, I'll have to refer you to a manager or something like that.
And I think she did something on her computer, and then she sent the two of them down a hallway, and they walked down the hallway together, which was in a restricted area.
And they walked down there without an escort, and then, you know, I quit watching at that point.
At the Amsterdam airport, I didn't really notice anything that rose any suspicion with me.
You know, I saw what I did, but at the time it didn't mean anything to me.
I'm just thinking, oh, here's someone that's not going to be boarding our flight.
So, you know, if you think of it how I was looking at it at the time, it really didn't mean anything.
It meant so little I didn't even tell Lori about it until it became important later on.
We're coming in for a landing into Detroit, and the pilot came on the loudspeaker and said, you know, flight attendants, take your seats.
We're going to be preparing for landing soon.
And just a few seconds after that, a flight attendant walked by my chair, by my seat, and I could hear mumble, something smells like smoke, something along those lines.
And I looked up, I had been looking at the monitor on the back of my seat to see our approach, and I looked up and I could see smoke coming from the pilot.
The left side of the plane and there's a bit of a skirmish going on.
This was a plane that had two aisles, so this was occurring on the left side of the left aisle and I was on the right aisle.
So I ran up the right aisle to get a better look.
And, uh, the smoke didn't last too long and then a fire broke out and a man was being hauled away into the first class area.
There really wasn't a fight going on or anything, just someone grabbed him and hauled him away.
So, um, I didn't know at this point if it was a terrorist attack or what it was.
I was more concerned about the fire that was spreading real fast.
It spread to two seats and then the floor and then up the wall.
And, you know, I went back to my seat and Lori asked me what was going on.
I said, the plane's on fire.
And, you know, we watched as it was continuing to spread and passengers were jumping on it, patting it down.
And a flight attendant grabbed the fire extinguisher and ran over and put it out.
You know, maybe the whole thing lasted a minute or two.
It wasn't real long, but it was enough.
You know, where we thought that was it, that our plane was going to go down in flames.
A passenger aboard this plane arriving in Detroit was planning to blow up the aircraft, but the explosive device apparently failed.
A Delta spokeswoman says the passenger was immediately subdued and was being questioned Friday evening.
Authorities initially believed the passenger had set off firecrackers, causing some minor injuries.
Flight 253 was carrying 278 passengers and was inbound to Detroit from Amsterdam.
When we landed, it was interesting for a few reasons.
First of all, I thought we were just going to stop, the emergency chutes were going to open, and we're all going to jump out.
But that's not what happened.
We landed, we taxied right up to the gate, Uh, several officers came on board, you know, and I don't know who they're with, if they're TSA, Detroit Police, FBI, I don't really know.
Uh, and they all, or a couple of them started yelling, saying, sit down and shut up, you're not getting off the plane, get back in your seats, that kind of thing.
And, they all went into the first class area.
And after maybe 20 minutes or so, the underwear bomber, who he's known as now, obviously we didn't know who he was at that point, got escorted off in handcuffs, and he stood in the front of the left aisle for maybe 20 seconds or so, and I got a good look at him then, and that's when I made the connection that it was the same person I saw in Amsterdam before we boarded.
And I turned to Lori and I said, holy cow, you know, I think I maybe have seen something important.
They took him off the plane and then there was a powder all over the place by where he sat.
We got our carry-on bags, which to me I thought was another mistake.
Being an attorney, I thought, You know they're destroying a crime scene here and not knowing if there's an accomplice another bomb or whatever and we all kind of trampled right through by where he was sitting you know right through this powder that was all over the place again destroying the crime scene but nobody seemed to care about it and then we're taken into the terminal
And we were held in a baggage claim area that had been evacuated and just passengers from our flight were there.
And we were told to stand along this wall.
We couldn't make any calls.
We couldn't eat anything, drink anything, text anyone, use the bathroom.
We couldn't do anything.
We weren't really given much information except we were told to stand here.
And after about an hour or so, Some bomb-sniffing dogs were brought in, and one of the dogs caught on a smell of the bag of another Indian man who was standing maybe 20 feet away from me, you know, with the group of all his passengers.
So I would say most of the passengers saw this happen, not just me.
The dog sat down and one of the officers came over to the man and took him into a side room to be interviewed and they were in there a long time maybe an hour and then he came out of the room with an officer and was handcuffed and then they took him away.
At the same time A different officer came up to the rest of us passengers and said something along these lines.
I can't remember exactly word for word, but it was something like, I'm sure that you saw what just happened.
You're not safe here.
For obvious reasons, we're moving you to a different area and out of here.
And then we were all escorted out of this badge claim area and into this long hallway where we were at for a few more hours.
During this time, Again, we still weren't able to use the bathroom or make calls or eat or anything like that.
And after a few hours, the person I would say was the lead investigator came up and said, We now have those responsible for this in custody.
Those plural, not the man or him.
And then he went on to say, we're going to be doing quick interviews of all the rest of you, and then you'll be free to go.
And then we're escorted back into the larger area, baggage claim area, where we initially were.
And then we had to stay in the line to do interviews before we could leave.
And that's when I told the FBI what I had witnessed in Amsterdam for the first time.
Well, if you'd like to see the rest of that report, you can watch it on Prison Planet TV, if you're a subscriber. you can watch it on Prison Planet TV, if you're Now, listen to what he said.
He talks about a man who was, the bomber, was assisted in getting on the plane with a man who was dressed up, a sharp man, who kind of went through back channels to get this guy on.
They talked about other people possibly being involved, but the other part of this story that's interesting that was not in that report Is that the government went to great lengths to keep this lawyer Kurt Haskell from telling what he saw at trial.
Basically, his testimony was used as part of the plea bargaining, I think, by the defendant.
Uh, who is basically a patsy.
Uh, and they used that to reduce his plea, but then it looked like he was going to be able to testify for a while, but then they just said, well, we've reached a plea bargain, so you're not going to be testifying.
Now, what we see here is, and what happened at the Christmas bombing, if you recall, they were ready to roll out these x-ray scanners right after that attack.
So, uh, you know, these things were already prepared, set to roll out, and you have a Patsy doing a staged attack.
This is a Patsy who is connected to Anwar al-Awlaki, someone who has visited the Pentagon many, many times.
And then they also tie him to a shoe bomber, and then they conveniently assassinate him.
Another part of the phony narrative is tied to a memo that was released this week as part of the lead-up to the Brennan hearings.
And that is that more than 50 countries helped the CIA to outsource torture.
A new report from the Open Society Foundation details the CIA's efforts to outsource torture since 9-11 in excruciating detail.
Known as Extraordinary Rendition, the practice concerns taking detainees to and from U.S.
custody without legal process.
Think of it like an off-the-books extradition, often entailed handing detainees over to countries that practiced torture.
The Open Society Foundation found that 136 people went through the post-9-11 Extraordinary Rendition, and 54 countries were complicit in it.
Now this is something that was, again, John Brennan was involved in this.
And he has been an apologist for torture, saying that it is justified.
And again, if we go back and look at the moral case, let's not forget, as we, you know, last night I heard Sean Hannity trying to make a case that torture was okay, but assassinations were not.
And he was talking to a Democrat, and the Democrat was making just the opposite case, that assassinations were okay, but torture wasn't.
It's pretty ridiculous to see how these guys are basically torturing not only the law but moral principles.
Remember that waterboarding really is torture in spite of what Sean Hannity and some people at Fox News say.
After World War II, Japanese officers who had waterboarded American soldiers were tried as war criminals.
It is a war crime.
Everybody knows that.
Just as preemptive strikes, when you've not been attacked, violates the just war theory that has guided Western nations since about 300 A.D.
Now the other thing that's interesting about this article, this leaked memo about 54 countries helping the CIA with extraordinary renditions, the other thing that's interesting about that is that it involved many U.S.
adversaries.
And we've been told that we had to go to war against Libya to kill Qaddafi.
We were told that Hosni Mubarak had to go out of Egypt.
We're being led to believe that we've got to go to war against Assad in Syria and Ahmadinejad in Iran.
But guess what?
All four of those countries, all four of those leaders were partners with, you guessed it, the CIA in terms of torturing people.
And the CIA, our government, is at the center of a scandal now that is rocking countries all over the world.
But it's our government that is at the center orchestrating all this.
Not only in the United Kingdom, but in places like Sweden and many other Western countries like Poland and Greece, they've been involved in that, as well as a lot of third world countries.
The man at the nexus of all of this, the man at the nexus of the torture by the CIA and the assassination drone lists that have been drawn up by the Obama administration, is President Obama's pick.
For the next director of the CIA.
That should concern all of us.
Well, there's not much good news there, but right after the break, we're going to have a story about a victory in the Infowar.
Stay tuned.
If you are receiving this transmission, you are the resistance. - Fellow freedom lovers, Alex Jones here with the biggest contest announcement we've ever made.
This is so incredibly exciting.
We are launching Operation All Revere.
What did Paul Revere do?
He rode through the countryside in New England saying, to arms, to arms, the Redcoats are coming.
Oneth by land, toeth by sea.
And all that evil men and tyrancy deflourish is that good men and women do nothing.
Let me officially announce Operation Paul Revere.
A $100,000 cash First place winner to be judged by, yours truly, Alex Jones.
The film can be three minutes, it can be up to two hours.
It can be fiction, non-fiction, documentary, drama.
It's got to promote liberty and freedom and expose tyranny and oppression.
And it's not just people in the U.S.
that can enter.
It's folks worldwide.
The rules, the details are at InfoWars.com forward slash contest.
You have to read the rules and officially sign up for this because it's a $100,000 prize first place.
$100,000 prize, first place. $10,000 second place. $5,000 third place.
But just as I did last year with a reporter contest, we are going to crowdsource from the pool of incredible talent out there and hire several official crews to be directors and writers and camera people.
Ianinfowars.com produced major films and documentaries that will be put in movie theaters and on cable, and I've got all the connections to get it done.
Together, we're going to really give the New World Order hell.
This is extremely exciting.
I've made over 20 films.
One of them alone has reached more than 40 million people on YouTube and Google Video.
The Obama Deception, Endgame, Fall of the Republic, Road to Tyranny.
Films are the most effective thing I do, but they're very time-consuming.
And so I want to turn the power of We the People loose here.
And your art, your research, your ideas are unstoppable.
We're officially kicking the contest off.
This Friday, and you've got a little more than three months until April 30th.
Just a little more than three months to produce your documentary or your film and get it out.
And it will absolutely reach tens of millions of people.
Our normal contests get about 500 entries.
That's what $10,000 prize is.
This is 10 times that.
$100,000 for first place.
That's one of the biggest contests out there.
In fact, it's the biggest next to Doritos that has $100,000.
This is huge, ladies and gentlemen.
$115,000 in cash prizes and a shot to have your film produced and financed by InfoWars.com.
Edit it, upload it to YouTube and one other alternate public video site and send your entry to PaulRevere at InfoWars.com.
The animating contest of liberty that Thomas Jefferson talked about is happening right now.
The modern battlefield is in the mind more than ever.
We use truth, the globalists use lies and deception.
The corruption and oppression and high-tech police state is in our face.
But the controllers are scared.
They intended to use the internet to dominate and control humanity and surveil us.
But we've turned their system against them.
This is a historic crossroads that we have reached.
And I ask you to ride in the year 2013 just as one of the founders of this republic did back in 1775.
I'm calling you to arms in the Infowar because the pen and the video camera is mightier than the sword.
Let's go in there and rescue humanity and awaken them and set brush fires in the minds of men and women everywhere.
Be part of this contest.
You've got three months.
Put your hat in the ring.
Be part of the solution to the corruption and oppression.
Be part of the resistance to tyranny.
We're looking for the Paul Revere's that will drive a stake through the New World Order's wicked art.
Pro Pure is introducing Pro One.
All of your filtration in one system, portable, on the go.
This is the ProOne by ProPure.
You wanted it, you got it.
No more do you have two or three filters to just reduce sodium fluoride.
You have a system that cuts out the sodium fluoride and up to 95% of hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Advanced manufacturing technology combines silver impregnated white ceramic with new Aquamedics advanced media for removal of fluoride and other heavy metals all in one filter element.
It cuts out the acid derivative of fluoride.
It is the only one that does it and out of the gates we have it discounted at 10% off with promo code water.
This is the only system that in one unit helps reduce or remove pesticides, herbicides, chloramines, ammonia and chlorine, hydrofluorosilicic acid, the most common form of fluoride not covered by other fluoride filter brands, and sodium hexafluorosilicate.
This is a revolution against the tyrants.
They love putting the toxic acid base of fluoride into your water.
They love the fact that it's an adjuvant supercharging the trace Prozac in the water and the hormones and the other chemicals.
By cutting out fluoride, you cut out the turbocharger in all the poison being artificially introduced into your body.
This is what I use.
It's a win-win.
You get a high-quality product at the lowest price.
You support the Infowar.
Get your Pro Pure with the new Pro One filter today at Infowarsstore.com or by calling 888-253-3139.
Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
We're going to show you some before and afters.
Aaron, break down what happened.
Your story.
I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
It just didn't happen.
Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
I wanted that nutrition I didn't even understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals, but the products did that for me.
I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods, and they don't even advertise it as weight loss!
I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to InfoWarsTeam.com, sign up as a distributor, and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfoWarsTeam.com.
Well, folks, I've just got to reiterate.
Look at this Operation Paul Revere contest.
Now, remember the Dorito Super Bowl commercial contest that was held this year?
They only paid out $125,000 total.
$115,000 is up for grabs in this contest.
$100,000 to the first place winner.
Now, by doing that, you're going to be doing something more than just selling chips.
up for grabs in this contest.
$100,000 to the first place winner.
Now, by doing that, you're going to be doing something more than just selling chips.
You're going to be selling liberty.
So anything that you do with that is going to be a win-win situation because, as Alex said, it is an info war.
And as part of that effort, Natural News reports that today we've had a huge victory in Australia.
Nearly 200,000 Australians have been released from medical slavery that is artificial water fluoridation, thanks to a major governmental policy change.
The Liberal National Party, government of the Australian state of Queensland, has not only cut 14 million dollars of funding that had previously been used for fluoridation, but has also decided to allow local councils to decide for themselves whether or not to fluoridate.
A move that has already prompted the northern city of Cairns to end its water fluoridation program.
Now think about that.
That's 14 million dollars that's being spent for fluoridation.
That's forced medication.
You know, medical tyranny didn't begin with the Obama administration's Obamacare.
It really began with fluoridation.
This is not like chlorine, which is a disinfectant.
No, it's sold on the basis of helping people with their dental health.
And there's a lot of questions about whether it really does that or not, but there is no question that it is unsafe.
One issue, you know, fordation is something that I was very late to wake up to.
Primarily because I grew up with well water, where I lived as an adult we had well water, so it really wasn't something that caught my attention.
And the other thing that kind of inoculated me against it was the way Hollywood propagandizes.
Stanley Kubrick's film, Dr. Strangelove, if you remember, there was a real funny scene where General Jack D. Ripper, who is essentially the one who launches a worldwide nuclear war, and he does so under the delusion that fluoride is destroying his natural bodily fluids, as he puts it.
They made a lot of fun of people who opposed fluoridation.
But the reality is, is that it is a very real threat.
Just as we're talking about the power to change minds with this Operation Paul Revere, just think about the fact that Jaws could make people have an irrational fear of sharks.
And in the same way, Dr. Strangelove could keep people from really looking closely at something they very much should be afraid of, something that really did present a real risk to their health, and that is fluoridation.
Now, in July of this last year, 2012, a Harvard study was conducted that looked at a couple of different cities in China, and it looked at the effect of fluoridation on infants.
And what they found was that at levels that were only 60% of the maximum allowed by the federal government in America, at only 60% of that level, They had a difference of, in the two cities, between a controlled city that had no fluoridation and another city that had fluoridation added to the water.
They had three times the number of children that were characterized as mentally retarded.
And, by the same token, the city where the children did not have fluoridation, they had three times as many children characterized as bright in that city as in the city that had fluoridated water.
So, pretty clear evidence from this Harvard study that the effect of fluoridation on children is to lower IQ dramatically.
The NYS coalition that is opposed to fluoridation, the president Paul Bieber, said that even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health?
It's time to put politics aside and to stop artificial fluoridation everywhere.
And even the New York Times reported that for decades the issue of fluoridated water remained on the fringes.
But as more places like Fairbanks and parts of Canada take up the issue in a more measured way, it is shifting away from conspiracy toward the mainstream.
And so in other areas, other than the United States, here in the United States we're not having as much luck in terms of getting these things turned off.
But in other countries, like you see in Australia, as well as cities that don't fluoridate their water throughout Europe, like Amsterdam, Barcelona, Basel, Switzerland, Berlin, Copenhagen, Florence, Frankfurt, Geneva, Glasgow, Helsinki, London, Montreal, Oslo, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Tokyo, Vancouver, Venice, Vienna, and Zurich, None of those cities fluoridate their water.
Do they know something that we don't?
I believe they do.
Now, if you investigate the history of fluoridation, you'll see that it is not a communist plot, as General Jack D. Ripper of Dr. Strangelove said.
No, it is actually a corporatist agreement between large corporations and the government to get you to not only pay for their toxic waste out of the aluminum and nuclear industries, but also to drink it.
Now we've got a report coming up here.
This is Dr. Paul Conant.
He's an authority on fluoridation and he has more information about that.
I think the most important thing to recognize about fluoride is that it's extremely toxic.
It is very active biologically, interfering with many basic biochemical processes.
Enzymes, G-proteins, hydrogen bonds and so on.
So it shouldn't surprise us that there's a wide range of health effects that are attributed to fluoride.
But the bottom line is that fluoride is extremely active biologically, that the first opponents of fluoridation going back to the 1950s were biochemists, including scientists like James Sumner, who won a Nobel Prize for enzyme chemistry.
And incidentally, there is no doubt that fluoride damages health because millions of people in India, China and parts of Africa have had their health ruined by fluoride.
The people have been crippled by fluoride and many other health effects.
The argument As far as fluoridation is concerned, is there an adequate margin of safety between the doses which cause this known harm, and incidentally, documented in this report by the National Research Council, published in 2006, here in a fairly independent, balanced panel, looked at the literature for three years,
And in this 507 page report, and 1100 references, indicated that the EPA safe drinking water standard for fluoridation, for fluoride, is four parts a million, it's not safe, it's not protective of health, and needs to be lowered.
But before I get into the health effects, let me explain my first concern, which remains my top concern.
The level of fluoride in mother's milk Mother's breast milk, baby's first meal, is extremely low.
It's .004 parts per million.
That means a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community in the United States, where we fluoridate the water at one part per million, is getting 250 times higher dose of fluoride than a breast-fed baby.
And that is extremely disturbing.
This is a hazardous waste.
No question about it.
It's not only hexafluorosilicic acid, but it's a lot of crap that Neil was talking about.
It's got lead and arsenic and mercury and radioactive isotopes, mostly trace amounts.
They can't dump that into the sea by international law.
They can't dump it locally because it's too concentrated.
But wait for it.
If someone buys it from them, you take away the label, hazardous waste, and it becomes a product.
Becomes a product.
And who's going to buy this stuff from them?
Oh, our water department!
So the water departments buy this hazardous waste, it becomes a product, and now they put it in our drinking water.
And now, let me go through the list of health concerns.
Some of them are more certain than others.
Let me begin with the certain one.
Dental fluorosis.
Fluoride causes a discoloration, mottling of the tooth enamel.
When this practice began in 1945, the promoters of fluoridation thought they could limit dental fluorosis to 10% of the children in its very mild form.
And the very mild form has little specks of white opaque patches on the cusp of the teeth, up to 25%.
And they thought that only dentists would notice this.
And was an acceptable trade-off with what they thought would be a lowering of tooth decay.
Well, in November of 2010, the Center for Disease Control told us that children aged 12 to 15 in the United States, 41% of them now have dental phorosis.
And not only the very mild, but the mild, which impacts up to 50% of the tooth surface, moderate, which impacts up to 100% of the tooth surface, and severe, where you not only have the whole surface impacted, but indentations, chipping of the teeth, and so on.
And 3.6% of children aged 12 to 15 in the United States have either moderate or severe dental fluorosis.
So that trade-off between lowering tooth decay and producing dental fluorosis but holding it only to 10% clearly was a failure.
We have four times more dental fluorosis as intended and as desired.
Our attitude is that when you see this dental fluorosis, it means the child has been overexposed to fluoride, and the question is, what other tissues have been affected?
So let's start with the bone, because the teeth are a window into the bone.
In fact, the teeth actually grow out of the jaw, the jawbone.
And by the time the permanent teeth have come out, the jawbone has been loaded up with fluoride.
And so, if you can see the damage to the growing tooth cells, what did the fluoride do to the growing bone cells during this 8, 9, 10 period?
In fact, the first study that was published on this in 55 indicated that the children in the fluoridated community, which was Newburgh, New York, had twice as much cortical bone defects As the children in the non-fluoridated community.
Now the cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone.
And that's the layer, it's a lamellar structure.
And that part of the bone is meant to protect against fractures.
And so the concern then is whether we're increasing bone fractures in children.
Well, we had to wait until 2001 before someone investigated this, and researchers in Mexico found a linear correlation as the severity of dental furosis went up.
Meaning the amount of fluoride the child had been exposed to before the permanent teeth had erupted.
As that went up, so did bone fractures in the children.
And it was quite striking.
When you go from no dental fluorosis to very mild dental fluorosis, it doubled.
The bone fractures doubled.
Very mild to mild, doubled again.
Mild to moderate, doubled again.
The next concern about bone is that the first symptoms of bone poisoning in an adult are just like arthritis.
Stiff joints, pains in the joints, pains in the bone.
In the United States, we have one in three adults now with some form of arthritis.
And if you ask a doctor what's causing it, they will say, well, we don't really know, but we think it's got something to do with aging.
Well, what also parallels aging, of course, is the number of years you spent in a fluoridated community.
10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, eventually 60, 70, and so on.
The next concern is, as the fluoride continues to build up in the bone, and I should say that up to 50% of all the fluoride that we take in each day accumulates in the bone.
The fluoride is bioaccumulative.
The bones get more brittle.
And another major concern is increased hip fractures in adults.
The studies done in China, as documented in this National Research Council report, and we further elaborated in our book, The Case Against Fluoride, indicates that levels as low as three milligrams per day, that's three liters of fluoridated water per day, may increase hip fractures in the elderly.
Now, my major concern is not the bones, although I think that's significant.
My major concern is the brain.
Because when the baby is born, the blood-brain barrier is not fully formed.
We think the blood-brain barrier keeps fluoride out of the brain most of the time, but for the first half year of the baby's life, the fluoride can get into the brain.
And this is not the time, in my view, and the view of many other scientists, that a baby should be exposed to fluoride at 250 times the level in mother's milk.
There have now been over a hundred animal studies which show that fluoride damages the brain.
There have also been 23 IQ studies, most of them from China, but one from India, one from Iran, and one from Mexico, which show an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children.
And I actually visited the villages where one of these studies was done.
It was a very good study.
They controlled for lead, they controlled for iodine, Most of the two villages were almost identical, except for the fact that their well water was different.
And the author of this study estimated that the IQ would be lowered at 1.9 parts per million.
And that offers no adequate margin of safety for children drinking Water at one parts per million when you consider the massive range of sensitivity to any toxic effect and the fact that once you put fluoride in the water you can't control the dose.
Another concern which many of us have had for many years is fluoride's impact on the thyroid glands.
For between the 30s and the 50s, doctors in Argentina, France and Germany were giving patients with hyperthyroidism, overactive thyroid gland, sodium fluoride tablets to lower thyroid function.
And the doses that they were using were between 2.5 and 4.5 milligrams per day, which is exceeded by many people drinking fluoridated water.
For example, the Institute of Medicine actually advises people to drink 3 liters of water a day.
So clearly then they would be in the range for lowered thyroid function.
And once again, as in many of these other issues, the fluoridating countries, including the United States, are simply not doing the studies.
They're not investigating to see if there's a relationship between fluoridation and lowered IQ, fluoridation and arthritis, fluoridation and hyperthyroidism.
Key health studies have not been done in fluoridated countries.
If you don't look, you don't find.
They would like to imply, because they don't see anything, there's nothing wrong, but if they're not looking, they won't find.
You often hear the promoters say things like, oh, we've been doing this for 60 years, if there's any problem, we would know about it by now.
Oh no, you wouldn't, unless you were doing the studies.
Another issue that came out in 1997 was a researcher in England found that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland.
And the pineal gland is a little gland between the two parts of the brain, the two hemispheres of the brain.
It's not protected by the blood-brain barrier.
It has a high perfusion rate of blood and it also is a calcifying tissue like the teeth and the bones.
And so this researcher hypothesized that fluoride will be attracted to this ...tissue, this little gland, like a magnet.
And sure enough, when she investigated, the average level of fluoride on these little calcium hydroxyapatite crystals was 9,000 parts per million, up to 21,000 parts per million.
Which means that this little gland has a higher concentration of fluoride than any other tissue in the body, including the bone.
This researcher, Jennifer Luke, also did animal studies, and in the animal studies, she found that fluoride lowered the production of melatonin, the hormone that this little gland makes, and incidentally, it only makes it at night, the hormone of darkness.
This pineal gland reacts to light.
Descartes called it the seat of the soul.
Not only did it lower melatonin levels in these animals, but also shorten the time to puberty, which is absolutely consistent.
Melatonin is thought to act like a biological clock, involved with timing.
Timing of puberty, timing of aging, timing of jet lag and sleeping patterns and so on.
It controls all kinds of things.
And what we think happens with a child at birth, the melatonin levels are high and with childhood they gradually lower and at a certain point the lowered melatonin levels trigger the production of the sex hormones leading to puberty.
Ironically, that first study that was published, which I already referred to in The Bones, also recorded that the young girls in the fluoridated community, Newburgh, were menstruating on average five months earlier than the young girls in the non-fluoridated community.
Now, they didn't think that was significant at the time.
Now, with Jennifer Luke's work, it is clearly... takes on a new perspective.
Kids now are reaching puberty 7, 8, 9.
It has people very, very worried.
But once again, the Floridating countries have made absolutely no effort to reproduce Jennifer Luke's work.
And it's not difficult, they could have done it easily.
The Department of Health and Human Services has adopted to this, quote, sacred policy of fluoridation, is to deny, deny, deny, critique the methodologies, but don't attempt to reproduce the studies.
If you don't look, you don't find.
And they're using the absence of study as if it was the same as the absence of harm.
Which is absolutely ridiculous, utterly irresponsible.
So now they're giving every indication, particularly the Center of Disease Control that avidly promotes fluoridation around the United States, and around the world for that matter, The impression that they give is that it's more important now to protect this practice than to protect the health of the American people and our babies and our children.
It's almost as if the teeth have become the most important tissue, the most important organ in the body, instead of our brains, instead of our thyroid glands, instead of our pineal glands, instead of our kidneys. - Well, as instead of our kidneys. - Well, as Dr. Connett said, if you don't look, you won't find it.
Well, still less than a year ago, Harvard did look.
And to repeat that study finding, they found that in a city where there was fluoridation, they had three times the number of children who were characterized as mentally retarded than they did in the non-fluoridated city.
And the non-fluoridated city had three times the number of bright children.
As the fluoridated city did.
It's a very important study, and it's something that is part of the Infowar.
If you understand what is involved here, you still have the capability to opt out of this forced medication.
You do that by buying a filter.
And there's some very good filters available, even at Infowarsstore.com.
Our quote for the day is from Daniel Boone.
He says, all you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife.
From Daniel Boone.
Well, I certainly would agree with him on a good wife and even on a good gun.
I would say today what you need is some good horsepower.
Maybe in a good car.
That's it for tonight.
Join us tomorrow night at 7 p.m.
Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
▲
Export Selection