All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2014 - InfoWars Nightly News
38:48
20140226_Wed_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm your host, Jakari Jackson.
It's February 26, 2014, and here are our top stories.
Tonight, surrender your firearms.
The state of Connecticut is now demanding that gun owners across the state turn in all unregistered firearms and magazines or face felony arrest.
Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.
It's positive that gun registration leads to confiscation.
Then, a new report reveals that the FBI had direct contact with Osama Bin Laden as far back as 1993.
A revelation missing from the official investigation into the September 11th attacks.
And the IRS is preparing to enforce Obamacare With hefty fines and fees.
All that and more up next on the Info Wars Nightly News.
And welcome back.
Our top story headline.
Surrender your firearms, Connecticut tells unregistered gun owners.
The law bans the sale of magazines holding over 10 rounds and quote assault rifles manufactured after 1994 and requires that residents who possessed either before the ban to register them with the state.
The letter breaks down the gun owners quote options including surrendering their firearms and magazines to the police, selling them to a gun dealer, removing them from the state or rendering them inoperable.
So this is what gun control looks like because these people have learned from the mistakes they did during Hurricane Katrina, going door-to-door, kicking in doors and knocking old ladies down who have little rusty A little rusty revolvers.
They say, no, we're going to make you destroy your own property.
We're not going to break it and steal it.
We're going to make you destroy it or sell it or give it away.
And some of these people, you may have an antique gun.
Maybe your granddad used it to fight in a war or something.
You don't want to get rid of that.
You don't want to sell that.
You don't want to destroy that.
So this is how they're going to take your guns.
Their ways, their methods have gotten more sophisticated.
They really don't want to go door to door because the police and military are smart enough to realize that they're going to meet some opposition, so they're going to force you to register your things.
And if you think registration doesn't equal confiscation or disarmament more accurately, this is proof positive right here.
And another proof positive source, FBI had a source in contact with Bin Laden as far back as 1993.
So let's look more into this.
In a revelation missing from the official investigation of September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the Al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States according to a court testimony in a little notice employment dispute case.
I think it raises a lot of questions about why that information didn't become public and why the 9-11 Commission or the Congressional Intelligence Committee weren't told about it, said former Representative Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican.
Regardless if you believe the full story of 9-11, I have many questions myself, such as a big jumbo jet back in 2001 pulled off a maneuver that would be difficult for most modern fighter jets to hit, flying down to the Pentagon.
And then you have all the missing footage of the Pentagon attack.
You have one camera with still images.
So I have a question about how that was possible and what happened to all this other missing footage.
Another question I have, the Bin Laden family, if You know, you weren't sure it was Osama Bin Laden from the get-go.
Why was the Bin Laden family allowed to get on a plane and leave the country before he was even officially a suspect?
So this says right here the FBI had their eyes on him as far back as 1993, which in my mind means that they could have did a little bit more to stop these attacks like they could have stopped the World Trade Center bombing back in 1993 when the FBI had their patches.
He cooked the bomb that blew up parts of the World Trade Center.
If you haven't heard that, you can go read that in the New York Times.
Now, as far as things that, you know, went boom, let's take a look at this.
Your rights are going boom in the state of California.
California's smartphone kill switch proposed nationwide.
So, this is a story.
A lawmaker in Illinois has introduced a bill that would mandate a kill switch in all smartphones, potentially allowing authorities to shut them off at will.
The legislation is a replica of a bill recently introduced in California aimed, according to lawmakers, at discouraging thefts of phones in black market trading.
So they're saying this is because of Apple picking, you know, when they steal your iPhone or steal your smartphone data.
We'll just have a kill switch so nobody can use your phone.
Okay, so let's say you're out and, you know, maybe this will become routine in a traffic stop.
They already want to download the information on your phone during a traffic stop.
Now they'll just turn off your phone altogether so you can't film them or some other event, whatever it may be.
You go into some type of big building, next time you go to a federal building, maybe they just kill your phone when you walk through the door.
This is what it's going to take.
I don't know why people would submit to these kind of measures.
I don't know what possible thing they could propose to make this seem reasonable to people.
Why would you want your phone to be killed?
And this is already built-in backdoor technology, just like they can spy on your phones.
They've been doing it for years.
These just are recent revelations, so they're trying to bring this thing to the forefront, to the public, to make it seem, okay, well, it's legal now, so we can just go ahead and keep doing it.
If you're in California, if you're in Illinois, reject this kicking, screaming, go jump on the couch like Tom Cruise if you have to.
Whatever you have to do to keep these people from getting into your life any more than they already are.
And another way you can do that is make sure the Supreme Court doesn't allow people just to run into your house.
Supreme Court ruling eases police searches of a suspect's home.
The court held a 6-3 vote that police can search a home without a warrant even if the suspect has objected.
As long as he is no longer at the scene and the co-tenant gives consent.
So which is to say if you know let's say you're investigated for whatever reason you leave in your roommate your wife or whoever the police come bang bang bang you know they're scared they got the black ski mask on and they're AR-15s and the dog barking We want to search the house.
Okay.
And they jump back.
They're scared.
They're freaked out.
They don't know what's going on.
So they come in and search your residence, find whatever they want to find, or maybe even plant something that's not like that's ever happened before.
And now all of a sudden you're going to jail, or if you just have a roommate who doesn't like you for whatever reason.
These things can come back to haunt you.
And I'm very much against these people just coming up to your house and taking whatever they want.
We see the no-knock warrants where even the police are being shot back and killed now, which I'm very happy that that gentleman in Texas wasn't charged for that.
Not saying I'm happy that the officer died, but I'm happy that at least sanity prevailed in saying you can't just bust into people's doors.
They expect them not to do anything about it.
Now, Obamacare.
They expected you not to want to do something about it, so this is what they're going to do.
IRS warns Obamacare tax must be paid with your tax return.
So this is what they're going to do.
This is how they're going to get their money.
They took a government issued product or service, they wrapped it up as a tax, and now you're going to have to pay for it.
President Obama's Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare health care tax tips, warning Americans that they must obtain, quote, qualifying health insurance, as defined by the federal government, or face a shared responsibility payment when filing their tax returns in 2015.
So the government is going to tell you how you qualify and what the situations and things are that's going to be in your package.
For example, myself, a single male with no dependents, must have maternity care for whatever reason because that's in the health care bill.
So, I don't understand this notion that they're going to tell me what's responsible, what's okay, what's decent, and then I have to pay for it.
I have a very big problem with that.
That's why I don't want Obamacare.
I'm not trying to pay these people any taxes.
But they're going to get you coming and going, whether you sign up for Obamacare and you have your rates go up, you maybe drop your plan in California.
Uh, Florida or other places, many other places.
If nothing else, you're going to have to pay out the wazoo as far as these taxes are concerned.
So this is just another reason.
You're talking about he's going to do more.
This is doing more.
He's going to take it straight out your tax return.
And another way he's doing more, immigration reform.
Obama eases penalties for businesses hiring illegal immigrants.
Now I've said this on the show many times and I still stand firm.
I have no issue with people coming here legally, naturalization, joining the military and so forth.
But when you have programs like Border Patrol and ICE and you say we're just going to award the people who can sneak past them, I have a very big issue with that.
Then why did people like Brian Terry have to die?
Why did he have to get murdered when we're just going to I'm not saying that all immigrants are collectively responsible for his murder, but when you endorse people, when you say if you sneak past the board and you make it to Texas you can get free education, I have a very big problem with that.
I'm from Oklahoma, I don't get free education here.
The Obama administration regularly cuts breaks for businesses who hire illegal immigrants, reducing their fines by an average of 40% from what they should be, according to an audit released Tuesday that suggests the government could be doing more to go after unscrupulous employers.
Once again, you want to come here legally, do the legal process, that's all good, but don't award people who sneak past the measures and then act like we have a border control crisis.
We have all this gun crisis in Mexico, even though the ATF's running guns down there.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Something that didn't make sense to me this past, I guess last month, when we went to California, is the excessively high levels of radiation.
And then this denial, oh it was climate change or whatever.
I don't understand that at all, how climate change has to do with radioactivity.
But it is, I guess some ways, the climate, the water, that brings this radiation over.
Because we went to California and we met people from as far north as Alaska.
And they said they saw debris from the Fukushima, well not necessarily the Fukushima, but from the Japan tsunamis.
And I said, how do you know this debris came from Japan?
They said, well, there's these big tankers and all these other things, these big piles of debris, and they have Japanese writing on them.
So my thought was, well, if the debris can come from Japan, why can't the radiation come with it?
And that's the article that we have here today by Paul Joseph Watson.
Researchers have announced that radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been discovered in seawater west of Vancouver off the coast of Canada, confirming predictions that the radiation would reach the west coast by early 2014.
So if you're on the west coast, this is real.
It never was a conspiracy theory, but people try to brush it off as such.
Research it.
Do whatever you have to do.
I'm not saying you necessarily have to evacuate, but at least take some steps.
Take the nascent iodine that we sell at the InfoWars shop.
Do something to protect yourself and your family because the government's not going to do it.
Because they're saving all the iodine and all the other things for themselves.
You can go see that report by Anthony Gucciardi.
We don't have the same overt oppression, but we have a very soft oppression of complacency and corruption.
And the American people, what you're seeing there, they need their own outlet for that.
But it is a warning.
That was a great tweet question, because it's coming.
A soft oppression.
That was from Pat Cadell.
And while I understand the point he was trying to make, I will disagree with that.
Because we live in a country where you can be kicked out of school for eating your Pop-Tarts the wrong way.
Or here in the city of Austin, Texas, you can be arrested if you jaywalk and just don't feel like giving your name to an officer.
So, I do disagree with his point and I think this is very much a hardcore oppression.
Now, NATO responds to Russian mobilization over Ukraine.
This article from Infowars.com on Monday recovered reports indicating Russia had bolstered its forces in Crimea and the Black Sea following the success of the Euromaidan coup in Ukraine.
The heightened military posture was officially confirmed on Wednesday when Russian President Vladimir Putin put troops in Western Europe on alert and the Russian military began combat readiness drills in Western and Central Europe.
So this is a very complex situation.
Many people in America, you're war hawks, are saying that we need military intervention in the Kiev-Ukraine area.
Also, Russia has numerous ports that they don't want to lose.
That's a lot of things at stake.
Meanwhile, you have, you know, I will say to an extent, well-meaning population who may have been duped into thinking that joining the EU is a good thing.
So we'll just have to sit back and watch how the situation develops.
And the development we've had here at InfoWars.com that you don't have to wait anymore to find out about is the Resist TSA, NSA Tyranny, and the winner of that is Dick Johnson.
So congratulations to you, Dick Johnson.
A number of great films, Joy Camp as well as many other people entered this contest.
We have some great films, also the Trendy TSA, those were your top three.
But Dick Johnson, you are the big winner.
So congratulations to you and hopefully we'll see more stuff from you in the near future.
Now we're going to break.
But after this break, we'll have a special interview with Eddie Craig because there's been a lot of talk about, you know, what do you do when you encounter the police?
So Eddie Craig of Rule of Law Radio is going to break all that down for us.
But first, if you like this broadcast and you would like to see it continue, stop by PrisonPlanet.TV and get yourself a free trial.
You can see the nightly news, the special reports, all that at PrisonPlanet.TV.
So stay tuned right after this break for Eddie Craig.
Thank you.
They are manipulating our genetics.
We are being targeted at every level by estrogen mimickers that lower our testosterone and other hormones and natural compounds that the body needs.
After consulting top doctors, nutritionists, pharmacists, and others, we have developed what I believe is the ultimate, non-GMO, organic, super male vitality formula.
Sourced from powerful organic herbs, and then concentrated for maximum potency, Supramel Vitality was developed to activate your body's own natural processes instead of using synthetic chemicals.
Supramel Vitality by Infowars Life is so powerful that I only take half the recommended dose for a limited time.
We are offering 15% off Supermail Vitality at InfoWarsLife.com to introduce you to this powerful supplement.
Visit InfoWarsLife.com today to secure your Supermail Vitality.
InfoWarsLife.com We're on the march.
The Empire's on the run.
And the InfoWars Army is standing strong.
Wake up your family, friends, and neighbors and break the matrix at InfoWarsStore.com.
Learn the truth and spread the message of liberty with the world's most comprehensive collection of books and documentary films.
Maintain a healthy metabolism and energize your body to perform at peak health.
With survival shield, nascent iodine.
Protect your family and be prepared with survival foods and emergency preparedness kits.
And now you can drink safe water with your own ProPure water filtration system, which removes fluoride and other harmful chemicals from your family's water supply.
Save 10% with the promo code WATER.
So join the revolution.
Infowarsstore.com.
And welcome back.
It's made national news how a jogger in Austin, Texas was arrested for failing to identify to an officer.
Was the officer justified?
What could the jogger have done different?
So Eddie Craig is going to be with us tonight explaining these things.
Eddie Craig from Rule of Law Radio.
Thanks for joining us, Eddie Craig.
Thank you, glad to be here.
Alright, so we saw the situation with the jogger last week here in the city of Austin.
So this is a young lady, she's jogging, she has her headphones on, she runs across the street jaywalking, you know, she's not expecting to be encountering an officer.
The officer comes up to her, whether it's in front of her where she could see or whether it was from behind and he grabbed her.
What should the young lady have done at that point?
Well, at that point, if she couldn't see him, she didn't know who it was, so saying that she committed a crime by jerking away from somebody that grabbed her, that's a bit of an overreaction in my opinion.
Now, once she noticed that it was a police officer, she should have stopped and asked, you know, what the problem was and so on and so forth.
The issue I found with it was the fact that the officers manhandled her the way they did.
And then of course the resulting arrest based upon failure to identify.
And I personally have some questions about exactly how that transpired as to what information was exchanged or not exchanged at that point.
Because Texas law does not make Failure to produce a physical form of ID, a violation of the law.
The law specifically requires that if you have already been arrested for some other offense, then you're required to give the officer three pieces of information.
Your name, address, and date of birth.
But there's nothing there that requires production of a physical form of ID.
So we're talking about a lady, she was stopped for, I think the charge was failure to obey a traffic instrument or something along those lines and then she was subsequently arrested for failure to identify.
So with the traffic offense violation, that's not an arrestable offense, is that correct?
Technically, if they're charging her under an ordinance, that's absolutely correct.
Despite what they want you to believe, ordinances are not actual binding law.
They can't be.
If they are construed as law, they're in direct violation of Article 3, Section 29 through 39 of the Texas Constitution on how laws exist and are passed.
And an ordinance doesn't qualify under any of those.
Now, if they were charging her under a state law, which jaywalking is in the Texas Transportation Code, But that raises a whole other issue.
Since the Transportation Code itself deals with commercial activity and drivers and operators, then the limit as to who can actually get charged under that statute exists the same as it does for who can get charged for operating and driving a motor vehicle versus traveling in their car.
So the issue there becomes they're still trying to charge her under a commercial statute and they have no evidence that she was engaged in a commercial activity.
If she crossed the road safely, whether it was at an intersection or a corner or anything else, there's nothing to charge her with.
No crime was actually committed because there's no injured parties.
But they want to enforce these ordinances and statutes under what they term as strict liability.
You're wrong and a criminal just because we wrote down a rule and you broke it.
That's a very interesting concept.
And of course she was drug away, kicking and screaming to the Austin jail.
It seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Well, in essence it was.
Since the only charge that my understanding was that they actually levied against her was failure to identify, without knowing firsthand exactly what was said by her in response to their questions, I can't speculate.
But if she did provide them with those three pieces of information and they arrested her based solely on her not producing a physical form of ID, those officers can be sued for that because the law does not allow an arrest for that purpose.
It has to be an arrest for some other offense that's an arrestable offense.
And even the jaywalking statute is a fine only offense.
So putting you under arrest and taking you to jail for that, that's not a viable option in my book.
Now Eddie, I want to talk about some other instances people may encounter on the streets of Austin, the streets of anywhere.
So let's talk about filming the police.
You know, I often go film the police, other people as well, activists, people involved in car accidents, whatever the situation may be.
So you're out there, you're filming, maybe you're filming your friend, he's drunk and he's getting involved with an officer.
So if you're filming, what can you can and not do?
Well, you're allowed to film in public regardless of who it is.
The police especially, because we're the ones that are required in a duty of our own to make sure our public officials are abiding by the law and doing what's right.
And the Supreme Court in a case referred to as Glick made that decision for us when they said that everyone has a right to film a public servant in the performance of his public duties.
Period.
And that's especially true on the streets where it's public anyway.
That decision has been in place for a long time, yet officers continue to threaten, intimidate, and arrest anyone that's filming them and what they're doing.
My opinion is that when an officer reacts that way to the camera, that's an officer that especially needs to be recorded because his fear of the camera leads me to believe He's used to getting away with doing things that he couldn't do if someone's recording it.
And so far, that has been proven to be pretty accurate.
When the officer's trying to get away from that camera, it's because he's used to being able to do things he shouldn't be doing.
Exactly.
So, the big gist by the police is that you're interfering with their investigation if you're filming them.
So let's say, you know, I'm filming an incident Twenty yards away.
You know, even as far away as across the street.
Is there any type of infraction on my part filming these people from across the street?
Absolutely not.
In fact, until you're within approximately 15 feet or so, they can't say that you're interfering.
Even in the case of Antonio Buehler, when he was filming the arrest of those two young ladies on New Year's Eve, They also arrested the woman that was in the passenger side of the woman taking the breathalyzer's car.
And they arrested her for interfering.
Yet, what she did, there was no legal basis for that arrest.
She can't interfere verbally.
There's plenty of Supreme Court case law on that.
They have to physically interfere with that officer's ability to do his job or they have to be in such close proximity as that would be an extremely potential result.
That they would be in an area where there may be evidence and they're destroying it by being there and so on and so forth.
But just to videotape them from across the street or 15, 20 yards away, no.
There's absolutely no viable method for them to make the claim you're interfering.
Let me ask you this, because I've encountered this situation.
How would I go about acquiring police footage?
You know, let's say if I was involved in a situation with an officer, could I go about getting their lapel camera or their dash cam footage?
Absolutely.
Texas has a public information request that you can send in to get that information.
Those are public records whether they wish to admit it or not.
However, one of the things that will be attempted in order to avoid providing it to you is the prosecuting attorney and the agency will make a claim that that is part of an ongoing investigation.
But the Public Information Act very specifically makes an exception to a defendant or defendant's attorney for the purpose of having that information to put on a defense against the charges.
Now there's one downside to Texas law that hasn't been corrected yet.
There's nothing in Texas law that requires a prosecuting attorney to turn over evidence that he's going to try to use against you in a court of law, even to convict you.
In fact, in many of the cases they haven't been required to produce it until the day of trial and your attorney has had no chance to view it, no chance to investigate it or verify it or anything else.
Basically it's one of those due process violations that Texas is notorious for when it comes to the courts.
Texas is very big on denying you of your right to notice and ample preparation.
They'll give the prosecution all the time in the world but they won't in any way shape or form provide that information to you except through discovery and then they will hide as much of it as they can.
Case in point, Williamson County where Anderson got convicted and sent to jail for all of 10 days after wrongfully convicting a man who had to serve 25 years in prison to prove Finally, through DNA, he was not responsible for the murder he was tried for.
And prosecutors in Texas have done that for God knows how many decades.
We have to move quick, but I want to get your final thoughts.
Let's say that you're driving and you get pulled over by an officer.
Regardless if you knew what the offense was for, maybe you think you're speeding, maybe you disobeyed a traffic instrument.
What should you do and not do when you encounter a police officer?
With your use of the term driving, that's going to change the aspect of what you do.
If you're driving, then you're in a commercial activity.
That's what driving relates to.
Same thing with operating.
Those are commercial activities.
Now, if you're traveling in your own private car, then there are things that you have every right to do.
You have the right to remain silent, the right to assistance of counsel.
You have all of these things.
The script that I mentioned in the presentation I made with you guys was very direct in the fact that invoke your rights, demand your rights, protect your rights.
Eddie, can you tell us about this document you provided us with?
Yes, we refer to it as the transportation script.
The purpose of the script is to basically give you direction on how to address an officer during any type of encounter, whether it be in a car, walking down the sidewalk, or whatever.
The purpose of the script is for you to practice and memorize it as much as possible.
But it helps you understand what your rights are in relation to what the officer is demanding from you.
An officer is not allowed to just walk up to you out of the blue and demand that you provide him with any information or answer any questions.
He's not allowed to detain you without some sort of reasonable suspicion or probable cause that either you have committed a crime or that you witnessed a crime and he needs that information from you.
These are things that if the officer would simply make the effort to communicate, he'd be much better off, but they don't.
They just exert their authority as if you must abide by it.
When in fact you have rights that you can invoke and they're not allowed to violate.
Nowadays it's a risk to invoke them and you're not going to get away from that because the officers today are of the mindset that when you won't cooperate you're hiding something so they're going to escalate the situation as much as they need to have their demands met.
They will bully, they will threaten, they will incarcerate.
But the goal there is to make them do that on record so that you have an opportunity to make them pay for it in the end.
Really the only way we're going to prevent them from doing and stop them from doing what they're doing is to take them into court and make them pay.
But the problem, once again there, is that they're never the ones that have to pay for their actions.
It's always the people, the taxpayer in general, that has to because any money they get sued for and lose, that's where they get it from, is the money they took from the taxpayers to begin with.
So, we need to have that changed, or the officer or the public servant, whatever they may be, is directly financially liable for commission of the crimes that they perpetrate.
And many of them do.
Whether they realize it, know it, or wish to admit it, more of them commit crimes than the people they're accosting.
And they're much more serious in nature.
Exactly, exactly.
Now Eddie, leave us with your final thoughts and also tell the people how they can get in touch with you and keep up with your work.
You can see us on Rule of Law Radio, listen to us over the internet at RuleofLawRadio.com or LogosRadioNetwork.com.
The scripts can be obtained by going to LogosRadioNetwork.com forward slash T-A-O, Tanga Alpha Omega, and the scripts are there to be downloaded and used.
My final thoughts on this is, folks, you don't have any rights you're not willing to fight for and exercise.
So, if you want to keep them, and you want the officer to understand that you're going to keep them, then you need to voice that.
You need to make a record of that.
That's what the transportation script is intended to do.
Put the words in your mouth necessary to protect yourself as you progress down the road.
Because they're making the exercise of a right into a crime, and we need to put a stop to it.
All right, Eddie Craig, Rule of Law Radio, thank you for your time, sir.
Thank you.
Well, that's it for this edition of the InfoWars Nightly News.
Definitely want to thank our guest, Eddie Craig, for being with us here tonight, and I want you to be with us tomorrow, 7 p.m.
Central, for the InfoWars Nightly News.
You can stop by InfoWarsNews.com, check out all the great things there, and be sure to join us again tomorrow night.
So stay tuned right after this break for more special reports.
We're on the march.
The empire's on the run.
And the Infowars army is standing strong.
Wake up your family, friends, and neighbors and break the matrix at InfowarsStore.com.
Learn the truth and spread the message of liberty with the world's most comprehensive collection of books and documentary films.
Maintain a healthy metabolism and energize your body to perform at peak health with survival shield nascent iodine.
Protect your family and be prepared with survival foods and emergency preparedness kits.
And now you can drink safe water with your own ProPure water filtration system, which removes fluoride and other harmful chemicals from your family's water supply.
Save 10% with a promo code WATER.
So join the revolution.
InfoWarsStore.com Black boxes installed in cars are one major privacy.
In the middle of one of the coldest winters in a century, Congress is trying to sneak through a provision in the farm bill that will tack a fee on home heating oil.
The fee will last for nearly 20 years, and then supposedly will siphon the money to the National Oil Heat Research Alliance to develop equipment that is cheaper, more efficient, and safer, and to encourage consumers to update their equipment.
The bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fee on to consumers, but taxpayer advocates say that's a sham.
Congress established NORA in 2000 to improve energy efficiency and lower heating bills at no cost to the U.S.
taxpayer.
But Representative Henry A. Waxman of California said in the past, NORA has used the funds it's collected to primarily run public relations campaigns.
Campaigns such as convincing the public that going green is vital to saving the planet.
Now tell that to folks in Washington State.
They are being taxed for going green.
Lawmakers there are edging closer to implementing the motor fuel tax.
A new system that will monitor and tax drivers based on miles driven.
Drivers could be charged three ways.
Either with a flat fee by having odometers checked or with an electronic device installed in cars to measure how many miles are driven.
In a dizzying twist of logic, the Commission and DOT blame the prevalence of fuel-efficient cars as the reason the state now needs a per-mile tax, arguing that the move to cleaner, smarter vehicles must be accompanied by a change in the way we pay for our roads.
The incentive for states to pursue this kind of program could build as cars become more fuel efficient, and especially considering President Obama wants new vehicles to get 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
So as these new technologies are created to burn less gasoline and save the environment, the states are now concerned about the loss in revenue.
The black boxes installed in cars are one major privacy concern because you're being constantly tracked.
But there are also other ways this push for efficiency is leaving us incredibly vulnerable to hackers, advertisers, and the NSA, as well as soaring fee hikes.
Smart meters are being touted as the innovative and advanced technology that will help conserve energy and, in exchange, lower energy bills.
Right, because energy companies really want to help you cut into their profits, so they can save Mother Earth.
A recent poll revealed that about one-third of people who had smart meters installed had experienced bill increases, and one-quarter of those had had bills doubled, tripled, or more.
They're complete lies.
The grid is not saving energy.
It's using more energy, in fact.
No pilot programs have been done where smart grids are saving any energy.
Also, it's creating a huge hacking vulnerability.
Even the former CIA director of the United States, James Woolsey, said, you know, what we think of, what we're being told is a smart grid is actually a really, really stupid grid.
And in addition to that, it's It's not giving us more control.
It's actually giving the control to big corporations, to utilities, and to governments who will be sharing in this data that is basically being extracted from the home in a very, very high level of detail.
Just as the global warming conspiracy theory is being pummeled with historically low temperatures, so too is the energy efficiency farce, which is proving to be just another means of taxation and control.
We're here at the spot where last week four Austin police officers were needed to subdue a single female jogger.
The original offense, jaywalking.
She was later on arrested for the failure to identify to an officer.
What happened to the Miranda right to remain silent?
What happened to the Fifth Amendment?
What happened to the First Amendment?
The freedom of speech.
Does that also include the freedom not to speak?
Let's find out what these students have to say.
Hi, excuse me.
Hi.
What do you think about the jogger who got arrested out here last week?
I actually think it's kind of funny because I cross the street all the time.
What do you think about the jaywalker who was arrested last week?
I don't know the whole story, do you?
I don't know the whole story, but with what you heard, do you have any opinion?
Because they say, well she was officially arrested for failing to identify to an officer.
It wasn't the jaywalking charge.
But just the police resources, do you think it's a good use of a police resource to be out here busting jaywalkers?
Just cracking down on jaywalking?
I don't know.
That's sort of like, you know, do you still beat your wife, right?
You can't really beat your wife.
You can't say whether you did or not because you'd be guilty either way.
I don't necessarily agree with his comparison to beating your wife.
I mean, busting a jaywalker is busting a jaywalker.
My thoughts are that's pretty ridiculous, but it was a white girl in a nice part of town, and if it was anybody else, it wouldn't have made the news.
If somebody gets hit from jaywalking, then that's their problem.
You don't need four cops involved.
Um, I think he shouldn't have got arrested or she shouldn't have got arrested.
Why is that?
Because she was just crossing the street.
Right.
Well, you know, the official reason given for her arrest wasn't so much that she crossed the street.
It was because she failed to identify to an officer.
So that means she didn't show her ID.
Is that the?
Well, she didn't provide the Austin Police Department with as much information as they desired.
I mean, are you familiar with your Miranda rights?
Yes, I am familiar.
Can you tell me one of the Miranda rights?
You have a right to remain silent.
There have been contradictory reports.
The police are saying that they were in the young lady's field of view when they tried to grab her.
There have been other reports saying that the officers approached her from behind.
Quintero doesn't think the officer did run up beside her, like Acevedo said.
I think he grabbed her slightly from behind, and it may not be from far behind, but enough to where she didn't notice who was grabbing her right away.
So if you were out jogging, you got your headphones in, you're a single woman alone, and somebody just grabbed you from behind, what would your reaction be?
I would have kept running.
Um, all I heard I read was that she didn't see them coming and they grabbed her from behind.
Whether or not he grabbed her by behind, it doesn't, it's not relevant.
At some point, she knows it's a cop.
If somebody was to grab you from behind for any reason, what would your reaction be?
Um, definitely do exactly what she did, you know, kick their ass.
Excuse me miss, you were jaywalking there for a second?
Okay, so she has to go to class and that's a good reason to jaywalk.
I just want you to know that you're arrested by the Austin Police Department.
Let me ask you about some comments that the police chief made.
He said that, you know, the big controversy of last week was that a jogger was arrested, you know, for failing to identify.
He says, in comparison, in other cities you have officers who are actually sexually assaulting people.
So does that concern you at all that the bar has been set kind of low?
He later came back and, you know, took back those comments.
But do you think that's a good place to set the bar?
No.
This has nothing to do with sexual assault.
You can't compare that.
Now, he has later come back and rescinded those comments, but do you think that's kind of a bad place to set your bar, your standard, that at least we're not out here raping people?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
That's totally uncalled for.
I can't believe they would say something like that.
That's ridiculous.
I think that's an awful comparison.
I mean, that's not a good standard.
In other cities, cops are actually committing sexual assaults on duty, so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in Austin, Texas.
Be careful, because they're rolling, they're hating, they're trying to catch you walking dirty.
I know.
As I jaywalk across the street, I can't help but think about the Austin Police Department.
The Austin Police Department who would shoot an unarmed man in the back, even though he doesn't match the description of a bank robbery suspect.
About the Austin Police Department who would show up to the wrong address, shoot your dog, shrug their shoulders, and walk off as if nothing happened.
Wouldn't these efforts, these police resources, be better served down at City Hall demanding that fluoride be taken out of the water, or demanding that GMO be taken out of food, or arresting the bankers who devalue our currency every day?
So if you come to the city of Austin, Texas, and you find yourself arrested, the situation initiating from a jaywalking response, you can rest assured that the bar has been set high.
At least you're not being raped by the police.
I'm Jakari Jackson for the InfoWars Nightly News.
Oh, hi.
Hi.
You ladies are all jaywalking right now.
Did you hear about the woman who got arrested last week?
Her initiation was a jaywalking incident?
No.
You didn't hear that?
No.
Well, you better be safe, because they're out here rolling the rollers.
They'll try to get you.
All right?
So be safe.
Be safe.
All right, and don't let anybody grab you from behind.
They like doing that as well.
You are watching the InfoWars Nightly News, which airs 7 p.m.
Central at InfoWarsNews.com.
▲
Export Selection