All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2015 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:09:42
20150106_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Tuesday, January 6, 2015.
Here are our top stories.
Tonight.
Feds say they have every right to hack your phone in public.
Then, Anonymous talks internet censorship and Republicans throw Boehner to the dogs.
That's next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, we've heard of the dirty dozen.
It turns out there's two dozen with clean consciences in the GOP.
They did the right thing, even though they knew there would be punishment, even though they knew they wouldn't succeed.
We had 25 Republicans who did not vote for John Boehner.
Only 24, though, however, really voted against him.
Here's what the other guy did.
Babin, who is from Texas, voted present.
And what that did was that actually lowered the threshold for the number of votes that Boehner needed.
And as this article from the Daily Signal points out, voting present lowered the threshold he needed to win the speakership.
He took the easy way out instead of voting for someone.
See, that's the most spineless thing I think that anybody did.
And of course, what that tells us is that we've got just under 10% of the Republicans who want to do what they said they would do.
The other 90 plus percent are going to side with Boehner.
Why is that a problem?
Well, there was a lot of anger, and we're going to talk about why people are angry with Boehner.
You probably know if you're watching this broadcast.
As Kit Daniels pointed out yesterday, there was a hashtag that blew up on Twitter.
They said that on Twitter, the number of tweets that were tagged hashtag Fire Boehner surged from 2,200 to 7,600 in just two hours last night as voters were demanding to get a new House Speaker.
And of course, as Kit Daniels points out, one of the reasons that people are upset with him is because he's obviously self-interested, making a lot of money out of Obamacare.
That's why he's not opposing it.
And he's been Obama's silent partner in crime on a number of issues.
The IRS persecuting people politically.
No comment, no action from Boehner.
Benghazi, fast and furious, a false flag to take down the Second Amendment.
On and on, we've got open borders, we've got illegal immigration, illegal amnesty, done illegally, done with executive order.
No comment from Boehner.
And of course, as I pointed out, he's not going to oppose the unaffordable health care that he's making a fortune from.
Now, it wasn't just the tweets.
World Net Daily had a campaign for people to write their GOP congressman, tell them not to vote for Boehner.
They got over a half a million people pay $30 to send that in and complain about it to other GOP.
And as Pat Buchanan is pointing out, it's not just the self-interest that he has in terms of his investments in Obamacare industries.
Of course, Boehner is trying to do the bidding of corporations who want to have cheap labor as far as amnesty.
Those are two of the biggest issues in the last election.
More Republicans got elected and pretty much 90 plus percent of those Republicans said, we don't care why you voted for us.
We're going to do what Boehner says and what the corporations tell him to do.
Now, there was one aspect of it that was interesting.
There haven't been very many challenges to the Speaker.
This makes what these two dozen congressmen did all the more important, I think.
In an article from the Washington Post, they point out that the last time there was an election for Speaker that even went to a second ballot was nearly 100 years ago.
It was 92 years ago in 1923.
It took nine ballots for him to get through.
There was a block of voters in his party that would not vote for him.
Eventually they gave up and on the ninth ballot he wound up winning.
And they said that for 50 years, between 1945 and 1995, not one vote was cast for anyone but the two major party nominees.
That's why it's all the more important that these guys who know that there are going to be recriminations taken against them if they stand up for principle, they did it anyway.
They did the right thing.
Now we've seen with the pushback against police brutality that no matter how egregious the individual actions of a cop are, we see that the police union will always defend them.
This is true even when the police chiefs or the sheriffs fire an individual who did something excessive or did something criminal.
In many cases, the union will get him reinstated.
We saw in New York where the man was shot by a rookie cop.
Not doing anything.
Just entered a stairwell.
He was shot in the chest.
Didn't have a gun.
Didn't do anything.
He just walked into the stairway and the rookie cop shot him as he was bleeding out.
At the man's feet.
He spends, I think it was 15 or 20 minutes, talking to the police union.
Not calling for help, not doing anything to assist the man himself, but calling the police union to make sure that he gets off.
Now here's the police union's solution for what we see going on.
They say they want cop killings to be included in federal hate crimes law.
This is the National Fraternal Order of Police asking for a congressional hate crimes statute.
To be expanded to include crimes against police officers.
This is a union with more than 300,000 members nationwide.
And of course the problem with hate crimes are that it comes, I think, uncomfortably close to thought crimes to pre-crime.
Certainly, if you understand somebody's motive, that's an important part of solving a crime where it's not obvious who was involved.
It's also important to be able to distinguish between something, say, premeditated murder and manslaughter.
But when you start making hate a separate crime, now you're going to start intruding on people in terms of free speech.
The other thing that we've seen from New York is that the police department there, is trying to punish the mayor and City Hall by not writing any tickets or making any arrests.
And so the BBC asks, is the New York police virtual work stoppage a boon for their critics?
They point out that 94% drop in tickets and arrests that the New York police have done.
And they said that they're only going to ticket and arrest when it is absolutely necessary.
Quote, absolutely necessary.
In other words, what the New York Police Department is telling you is that 94% of what they do on a daily basis is absolutely unnecessary.
They are essentially meter maids with a license to kill, and that's why people are upset about this.
This is what some of the people are saying.
They say, the police showdown, according to Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, shines a light on the use of police officers to make up for tax shortfalls using ticket and citation revenue.
He says it's wrong to put law enforcement in the position position of having to make up for budget shortfalls with parking tickets, it's even more wrong to ask officers to soak already cash-strapped residents of hotspot neighborhoods with mountains of summonses as part of some stats-based crime reduction strategy.
And they asked, the Atlantic's Matt Ford asked, what if these latest developments show the New York police can safely cut arrests by two-thirds?
Because overall that is what it's down two-thirds.
For writing tickets and things that are minor violations, it's down 95%.
And remember, Eric Garner was choked to death for one of those minor violations that now they're only enforcing five or six percent level that they did before.
He says the implications are immense.
Fewer people could be arrested and sent to prisons that often have brutal conditions.
But if they did that, what would happen to the profits of the private prisons?
That would be horrible, wouldn't it?
We couldn't have that.
See, the issue is really that the government thinks that there are no restraints on what it can do.
And nothing illustrates this better than this next story.
The FBI says there is no expectation of privacy.
From Stingray snooping devices in public.
Now understand the Stingray devices are things that they put on fake cell phone towers.
They're sold by Harris Electronics.
They have a non-disclosure agreement with Harris Electronics.
The FBI is telling local and state law enforcement that if anybody including judges in a trial If it's a FOIA request, don't give them the information.
Contact the FBI, they say, immediately.
Tell them, notify them in writing, notify them by phone.
They want to make sure that nothing, nothing gets out about this agreement that they have with Harris.
You see, these agreements that they have with the corporations are far more important than the law.
They're far more important than the Constitution.
They're more important than a court order, than a FOIA request.
We have to understand that this is, the Stingray situation here, is the convergence of the police state with the surveillance state.
And it shows that they're both being run by bureaucracies for corporations.
Listen to what they say about this.
They say city council members, this is Mikhail Phelan's report yesterday, and he points out that city council members in some of these places who initially approved departments acquisitions of Stingray were told by the police That the device was simply for, quote, detecting IEDs, improvised explosive devices.
See, that's why they have to have the MRAPs, and that's why they have to have the cell phone spying towers to look after us.
They ignored the device's main purpose regarding cell phone data.
And he says, finally, and this is a good conclusion McConnell has, despite the federal government's best attempts to hide its surveillance from judges, the public, the legislative, Legislature, Americans for the first time are beginning to realize the scope of the U.S.
surveillance state.
And they're also beginning to understand that we have a secret, hidden government that is accountable to no one.
Not even the Senators.
Who are elected by the people can know what is going on with this Stingray program.
They want to know.
They're told you can't know.
Just like the trade agreements that are being created by massive multinational corporations.
Our elected representatives are not allowed to know.
Certainly we aren't allowed to know.
Have a voice in it.
Make a decision about that.
It's a hidden secret government.
Now, one of the things that illustrates this is the Obama administration's war on journalists, having arrested more journalists under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all previous administrations combined.
Twice as many, in fact, as all previous administrations combined.
Now, one of those, Cheryl Atkinson, not directly targeted, but she believes that she had her computer hacked by the government, and she is now filing lawsuit.
This is reported by Fox News.
They say former CBS News correspondent Cheryl Atkinson has sued the Justice Department over the hacking of her computers, officially accusing the Obama administration of illegal surveillance while she was reporting on administration scandals.
In a series of legal filings that seek $35 million in damages, Atkinson alleges that three separate computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2011.
She says, I just think it's important to send a message that people shouldn't be victimized and throw up their hands and think there's nothing they can do and that they're powerless.
Precisely.
How do we respond to these attacks from our government?
How do we respond to a government that continues to go with a false narrative about the Sony hack so that they can scare the public into accepting CISPA, which has been rejected multiple times, even when cyber security experts come to the FBI and the naive
attitude that the FBI is just mistaken, that the FBI isn't the one plotting this false narrative, and show to them carefully how this is not North Korea, this is an inside job, and there's nothing that points to North Korea.
How do we respond to that?
Well, we've had Anonymous, a large group of Anonymous, a collective of people who coalesce around ideas, around particular operations, information.
It's a nebulous organization.
We don't really know too much about it.
It's difficult to get a handle on an organization that doesn't have a face, doesn't have names associated with it.
We have someone who called the radio show yesterday.
And we're going to have an interview with him at the end of the show, and he's going to talk to us about his perspective.
He says that he was involved with it around the periphery, so we're going to talk to him about some of the good things they've done, but some of the false flag operations that the FBI has done to try to demonize them.
Stay with us, we're going to be right back, and we're also going to have a report in the next segment from Anthony Gucciardi about what's going on with the false faces of high-fructose corn syrup.
Stay tuned.
Every year we make resolutions to lose weight and get in shape.
And the truth is, it's hard.
Even with diet and exercise.
Because of toxic food in our environment that is stressing our bodies more than ever before.
Working with experts in nutrition and biochemistry, I found that super high quality nutraceuticals, in addition to my diet and exercise, Worthy answers that synergistically worked.
I can see the drastic changes every day with the amount of weight I've lost, my increased stamina, and more of a twinkle in my eye.
That's why we are now so excited to launch the InfoWars Life Resolution Pack, combining three essential formulations.
Oxygen Based Cleanser Oxy Powder, The Secret 12 Bioavailable Vitamin B12, and your choice of Super Female or Super Male Vitality.
Now all available at a discounted price to you and your family to bring in the new year and make 2015 a true success.
That's Infowarslife.com or 888-253-3139.
or 888-253-3139.
2015 is the year to do it, and it all starts at InfoWarsLife.com.
Yes, these men of their hypnotized followers follow this a new order. these men of their hypnotized followers follow this a new It is not new, and it is not order.
City of Austin tap water versus filtered City of Austin tap water.
I didn't like taste dirt in it.
God knows what's in this.
This has an aftertaste.
Tastes like Austin water?
Yeah, it does.
These people just sampled City of Austin tap water straight from the faucet.
Next, we had them try a sample of tap water filtered through the ProPure G2.0 filtration system.
High quality H2O.
That one is better.
Tastes like nothing.
Yep, I know what good water tastes like.
It's good water.
Most tap water contains added substances, like fluoride, chlorine, Monsanto's deadly pesticide, glyphosate, and many others.
Studies prove that these substances are linked to an assortment of major health issues, including tooth decay, lowered IQ, and even cancer.
It tastes like you're drinking out of the lake when you're drinking tap water.
Yeah, it has that processed flavor to it.
The ProPure® G2.0 filtration system removes these deadly substances and many more, leaving only fresh tasting, deliciously clean water.
Okay, this is very tasty.
It's good water.
Refreshing.
It's good.
Go to InfoWarsStore.com today.
Use promo code WATER and save 10% off your Pro Pure purchase.
Again, that's InfoWarsStore.com or call 1-888-253-3139.
For years, mega food manufacturers have told us to not look at the label or the ingredients of your product and that high-fructose corn syrup is perfectly safe.
It's the same as sugar.
You shouldn't even care, in fact, if you're eating regular sugar from fruit.
Then high fructose corn syrup is the same thing.
But unfortunately for them and fortunately for humanity, due to some recent studies I'm about to reveal to you, we have been looking and we have been concerned because we don't want to eat garbage and we don't want to feed our family mercury-laden high fructose corn syrup.
And yes, it does contain mercury as the Washington Post has shown.
Specifically now, the corporations have lost the battle to such a degree that they're giving up and renaming high fructose corn syrup.
So no longer are you even allowed to know, just like GMOs from Monsanto and other biotech industries, if you're eating high fructose corn syrup.
They've gone now, and according to the Corn Growers Association, they have literally changed high fructose corn syrup just to fructose.
And how do they possibly get away with that?
They just say, well, it's the same thing.
There's nothing wrong with that.
And this is actually a quote from the Corn Growers Association.
They say that the term fructose is now being used to denote a product that was previously known as high fructose corn syrup 90, meaning it's 90% pure fructose.
Compare this to what is now termed the regular high fructose corn syrup, which contains either 42 or 55% fructose.
And you'll easily know why General Mills and others are so eager to keep you in the dark.
Now specifically what we're saying here is that they're changing high fructose corn syrup to a less scary name, just regular fructose sugar.
It's totally safe.
The Washington Post however and other mainstream news outlets disagree.
Let's look Look specifically here when it was found that high fructose corn syrup not only is it unhealthy and there's a new study explaining exactly why and how it's actually killing you and harming your reproduction and shortening your life, but specifically how it's contaminated with one of the most toxic, if not the most toxic substances in the known world.
Specifically here, we can look at the Washington Post article from 2009, where it says, "Almost half of tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand name food and beverage products, where high fructose corn syrup is the first or second which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand name This is according to two new studies.
Now, specifically, they went to the store shelves.
This wasn't some scam system.
This was an independent actual analysis, and that's why we see real results.
We don't see these things when Monsanto or major food corporations fund these studies to say that it's perfectly safe.
And you've seen the commercials on television, on YouTube, when the ads play before the video, where they're feeding their families the ice cream and the cookies, and it says, high fructose corn syrup is so safe, it's the same as sugar.
Well, as it turns out, they all actually contain these major brand names, about a third of them, and they only tested about 55.
You can imagine about 90% of them, though, I would say, actually contain some form of contamination.
Maybe not mercury, but they all contained mercury in levels that were actually harmful.
Specifically, here is a quote from one of the lead professors.
Mercury is toxic in all its forms.
Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered.
We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.
So, specifically now, children are munching down on this garbage, which is bad for them anyway and contains high fructose corn syrup, which is shortening their lives.
But they're also getting a major intake of mercury.
And they've never factored this in before.
And then they're saying, well, gee, what's going on?
Why are all these kids getting cancer?
Why are all these kids having signs of, you know, heavy metal overload and mercury overload?
Why are all these kids getting other sources that we are intaking and not counting all of the high fructose corn syrup and watching them have, you know, childhood diseases that we've never had in the past 50 years?
Well, it's pretty simple, and a new study just came out, actually, while I was looking into all this, I found from the University of Utah, and this is a major A groundbreaking study has been on the front page of many news outlets.
However, it's interesting to see when the mainstream media won't actually talk about it, because they're, of course, sponsored in many cases by the food manufacturers, who have an ad right next to the article proclaiming how safe high fructose corn syrup is and how great their sugary sodas are.
So let's look at this article specifically.
Fructose more toxic than table sugar in mice.
There it is, plainly stated from the University out of Utah.
When University of Utah biologists fed mice sugar in doses proportional to what many people eat, the fructose-glucose mixture found in high fructose corn syrup was more toxic than sucrose or table sugar, reducing both the reproduction and lifespan of female rodents.
There it is.
And they don't even mention that it contains mercury.
Is it the mercury doing this?
Is it the other contamination?
Is it the genetically modified ingredients that go into the corn that makes high fructose corn syrup?
Because remember, a large portion of the corn supply, in addition to soy and other crops, are genetically modified.
So, are we being hit by the mercury, the GMOs, or the very constituents that make up high fructose corn syrup?
Let's continue reading.
This is the most robust study showing there is a difference between high fructose corn syrup and table sugar at human relevant doses.
Coming from a biology professor, Wayne Potts, who is the senior author of the study.
Now, we've known this for quite some time, and Princeton also said this back, I believe, in 2010, and they were ostracized from the medical community, saying, high fructose corn syrup is perfectly safe, and that's where those campaigns came from, because everyone hates high fructose corn syrup, and you talk to anyone that cuts that out of their diet, they're instantly losing weight, feeling better, overall getting up in the morning and actually thinking, what's happening?
Oh wait, I'm not dosing myself with GMOs, mercury, and other constituents that make up high fructose corn syrup.
The bottom line, however, is that we are achieving victory.
Because in reality, these corporations are being forced to run away from the truth.
They're being forced to run away from the reality that they're pumping garbage into their products.
They know that you know and you're not going to buy it anymore.
That's why they're rebranding it.
It actually should be hailed as a victory.
These studies coming out is public information and public knowledge growing.
And the corporations, they're running behind their darkness, their shield and their cape of darkness, running away from you because you're actually making a difference.
You are the activist when you don't buy this garbage.
So overall, I would say this is a victory.
I would say spread the word, share the information when this is up on InfoWars.com tomorrow in the Very early morning and afternoon, share this information.
Because if you are unknowingly eating high fructose corn syrup, or your friends and family, or your kids are eating high fructose corn syrup under this new name, fructose, and you can share these articles as well to let people know, then they have no idea that they're getting mercury, GMOs, and other garbage in their body on a daily basis that is making them sick, fat, and giving them cancer.
I'm Anthony Guicciardi, and it's essential to protect your health, and it's great that we're defunding these worthless corporations that are just plugging us full of total garbage.
Sold out for weeks through the difficult and extensive proprietary process behind its creation, the exclusive InfoWars Life Secret 12 formulation is now back in stock in the last limited shipment of 2014.
The most bioactive form that has been created with our proprietary process, this ultra-clean vitamin B12 nutraceutical has been carefully crafted and developed over the last two years and is based on cellular science of how your body actively absorbs essential nutrients.
Secret 12 is taken by mouth, right on the tongue, and then swallowed.
No needles, no injections.
Vitamin B12 deficiency is linked to scores of serious problems.
And Secret 12 is a fusion of two organic, proprietary forms of Vitamin B12, bringing you a true, nutraceutical quality of Vitamin B12.
Secret 12.
Secret 12 is an excellent Christmas gift.
And it's tailor-made to boost your New Year's resolutions.
Supplies of Secret 12 are very limited.
Secure yours today at InfoWarsLife.com or by calling toll-free 888-253-3139.
Music.
Music.
Jakari Jackson here with Justin Delash of Lone Star Gun Rights.
How are you doing today, sir?
Doing great.
How are you, Jakari?
Doing very well.
Now, we're here for a very specific reason at the Texas Capitol.
You guys are hosting an event next week?
Yes, sir.
January 13th, 8 a.m.
I need all Texas gun owners to meet me here at the South Steps at the Capitol for HB 195, the 2015 Texas Constitutional Carry Bill.
And for people who don't know, what is constitutional carry?
Constitutional carry simply means that if you're legally allowed to possess the firearm, you should be able to carry it openly or concealed without a permit, without having to pay for that right.
Okay, so would this do away with concealed carry and things of that nature?
Absolutely not.
And it actually doesn't do away with the CHL either.
It just makes it voluntary in Texas.
So if you still want the CHL for reciprocity reasons, for going across state lines, it'll still be there if you want to get one.
It'll just be voluntary in Texas.
And are you anticipating anybody coming out with firearms?
Are you promoting that for this particular event?
After the event, we're okay with people carrying their firearms, but I know that DPS probably still won't allow people onto the ground, so we're suggesting that you stay outside the gates if you're going to do that.
But if you're going to participate in our event, we prefer that you don't carry, bring an empty holster, constitution, whatever, because the thing is, we want to go into this building here and we want to talk to the legislators, and we can't do that with our firearms right now.
Right.
CHLs you can, just not openly carried.
Okay.
And when you say you're going to talk to the legislators, what exactly do people need to prepare for?
Well, we have some leaders already designated for our groups.
We're going to break off into groups and we're going to be visiting all 181 legislators and we're going to be dropping off petitions and just show up and allow us to do the talking.
Justin, I know there's a lot of bills being worked on right now.
Why is this the one that you guys want to focus on?
Because this bill fully reinstates our rights that have been taken away from us over 140 years ago without due process.
It now turns our right into a real right versus a privilege.
It makes the CHL voluntary in Texas, therefore we don't have to pay in order to carry, in order to exercise our rights.
And you guys have done a lot of marches and many more than I can document.
What is still left for Texas gun owners to achieve?
There's a number of things.
I think definitely this would be a huge leap if we get this bill passed.
There's some federal things we could do as far as, you know, the federal encroachments we have going on amongst Texas gun owners and stuff like that.
But I think right now our focus should be on getting this mammoth bill passed right now.
And you also have a petition that you want people to sign?
Yes, absolutely.
Even though January 13th we're going to be dropping off a large majority of our petitions, we're going to be doing it all session long.
So I'm asking your viewers if they would please sign the petition so that you keep us busy all session long.
Because ultimately the petitions are a showing of teeth and they show these legislators that this is a serious issue.
And that we are going to take it serious, and that it could potentially cost them their jobs next time around.
Governor-elect Greg Abbott says he will sign this bill should it make it to his desk.
How much time do people have to get in action, get in the game before that decision comes?
Well, we've got five months of session coming up.
So, depending on when they choose, they're going to end up putting all the Second Amendment bills probably in a pile.
They'll probably dedicate a week or something like that to it.
We don't know exactly when that's going to be yet, but if you go to LonestarGR.com, you can keep up to date there, or you can find us on Facebook, and that's mainly our goal is to keep everybody up to date and tell people where to be and when to be there.
It's going to be 8 a.m.
to 6 p.m., and we're begging people to stay with us.
We know it's going to be a long event, but it's very important that everybody stays with us.
Thank you, Justin.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you.
You can find more reports at InfoWars.com.
Symbols are powerful, and the globalists have hijacked the symbols of America that They've turned them into their own symbols.
Well, we are restoring the idea of the true republic, not the counterfeit globalist empire, by promoting the icon George Washington and others.
That's why we're rolling out on a 100% made in America line of incredible pro-liberty apparel.
We are re-popularizing liberty.
We are helping fellow Americans rediscover what made this country great.
We are the spirit of 1776.
We are 1776 worldwide.
We are all brothers and sisters in arms in the animating contest of liberty in the long march towards humanity's ultimate destiny of freedom.
Visit madein1776.com today and vote with your dollars to promote truly made in America, high quality products and promote the ideals of liberty.
Yesterday on the Alex Jones show, we had a caller call in, Matthew, who said he'd formerly been involved with Anonymous.
And he was concerned about things that he had been seeing going on that he thought were efforts to smear the group.
In particular, he talked about a day of rage that was purportedly something that was going to be an anonymous operation.
This was something that, as he commented on and questioned it, he got blocked from the site.
So we wanted to have him on to talk a little bit more about Anonymous.
And of course, as we all know, if it's an organization without a face and without a name, we can't be certain that he's with Anonymous.
But certainly he sounded credible.
And he had some comments that he wanted to make about Anonymous' past that I think everybody needs to hear.
So joining us now is Matthew.
Well, Matthew, you're not an official spokesperson.
You want to make that clear.
And of course, with a group that doesn't have any name, doesn't have any face, there really isn't an official spokesperson.
But you've observed this.
You said you've been involved with it tangentially.
Tell us a little bit about your involvement and tell us what you want to say about Anonymous.
Um, well, I guess the main thing that I want to hit is I want to establish kind of the concept of the mask.
But as far as my experience, I started back in, it was about 2008, 2009, and before it was, you know, a crime to be with the group.
And so when I started, you know, the first thing that was kind of an agenda, I guess, or kind of the thing that we took on as far as an op or an operation, which is how we, you know, label things that we try to do, is I started with the anti-Church of Scientology.
And as a collective, as a group, we've come to the conclusion that Scientology was really Wasn't really even a religion.
It wasn't really a faith.
It was just kind of a scam.
That was just yeah taking people's money I mean it really was not helping humanity in any way shape or form Yeah, that's how L. Ron Hubbard got his start.
He got his start scamming and ripping off people who were theosophists, who were satanists and cultists, but then he went on to found this religion.
Sorry, go ahead.
So, yeah, no, no, it's cool.
Yeah, so anyways, and it got to the point where, I mean, if those Dianetics guys, they go out and they try to advertise, and what happens is the minute they see one of the guy fox masks pop up, They just run.
They don't even want to deal with us anymore.
It was really a victory that kind of set us on the path, I guess.
And a little while later, I decided to distance myself because of the fact that I noticed that a lot of what I was doing was being monitored, and that's one of the reasons why I wanted to come out.
Today, I know for a fact that I'm a target right now, and it sucks.
Well, you know, the thing is we have to all realize that we all are targets.
And if we pull back and we're afraid to speak out, they win.
Yeah.
And if we get so distrustful because we realize that we've been lied and we've been tricked and we trust no one, then they win also.
So that's a difficult thing because Anonymous doesn't have a face.
It doesn't have, by definition, there's no names or faces.
And so that makes it very easy for the FBI or the CIA or the NSA or any bad actor to come in and be an agent provocateur, presume to speak for the group, and then do bad things in order to destroy the group.
They do that with every group then, and that's a long strategy going all the way back to, I guess it was most obvious with Lenin and Felix Dzerzhinsky, the first head of the Cheka, the intelligence agency of the old-style Soviets.
Every opposition group throughout the world was started by the Cheka, by Felix Dzerzhinsky.
And they did it so they could know who their opposition was.
So they started creating all these opposition groups just so they would find out who might be activists to oppose them.
That's always an issue.
People need to be careful, but we need to not be so paranoid and not be so fearful that we get stifled into doing nothing.
So, yeah, and it's a very, you know, so it's a very massive, you know, intimidation as far as that goes.
And the other thing that, you know, the same with the Bundy Ranch, where there were people that were in there that were causing trouble that they decided to kind of expel from the group.
And it even happened in Occupy.
We started the Occupy Wall Street movement.
You know, the fight against that, it wasn't about race, it wasn't about, you know, it wasn't a bunch of bums like Fox like to put it, you know, out there trying to like destroy everything.
It was a group of people that were fed up with the fact that 1% of the country owns 80% of the wealth.
We live in the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, and they were angry about it.
And so the movement was to try and bring attention to that, which it brought attention to it.
But unfortunately, and it was the same with every case, is somebody would show up and either throw a Molotov cocktail or run in and hit somebody or hit a police officer.
I mean, something happened and it was always somebody that nobody knew.
Yeah, exactly.
It was somebody that just kind of randomly showed up out of the blue, that had no association with anyone there, and they would start something.
Well, give an example, the one that you called into the show about yesterday, the radio show, was the Day of Rage, going back to August, as things were heating up in Ferguson.
Tell the audience about that.
Well, I was reading this FBI article and it said, Beware Anonymous Day of Rage, and they had all these locations and times where supposedly the anonymous organization was going to create mini-Fergusons.
And I don't know if you saw that picture I sent in.
Yes.
I tried several times to say, you know, this is a hoax, you know, it's a false flag, it's not going to actually happen.
I actually went on to the Anon, you know, there's a place where you can look at the ops and you can see which ones are active and which ones aren't.
And there is not a single op that says Day of Rage.
In fact, it even goes against what the group represents, which is, you know, peaceful opposition.
The only group that this would really benefit would be the globalists.
You know, and I'm looking down, and so I tried four different times to edit it.
They deleted my posts every time.
And then the fifth time I tried it, they canceled it.
They blocked me from the site, essentially, the website administrators.
And so I took a picture of me being blocked, and I put that up on Facebook, and I tried to do it three times, and every single time they took it off.
And so it's like, okay, wow.
And even me trying to send that picture through my email, I had to throw on a blocker just to stop somebody from, something was happening while I was trying to link the picture to the email.
So they're trying to basically give Anonymous a black eye, or perhaps try to instigate something that's violent and then say that it originated with Anonymous.
Talk about some of the good things that Anonymous has done that basically have not been talked about by the media.
I don't know if you've heard of Operation Neverland.
The group that we initially went to war with was NAMLA, the North American Man-Boy-Love Association.
Operation Neverland is an op designed to try and identify and feed police information on potential child molesters and online predators.
And so I'm trying to remember her name, but the girl that committed suicide a while back, because pictures of her were posted online and somebody was blackmailing her.
And I'm trying to remember her name.
She was really, really popular for a while.
But Anonymous actually identified the person who was harassing her.
But Anonymous had actually worked together, a large group, and had identified the person who incited everything, who was harassing her online and blackmailing her.
And they were able to, you know, grab the emails and get them to the proper authorities.
And he's actually in jail now.
See, I think that's very important when we have something that looks and smells like a false flag in the sense that there's some suspicious things.
We're not being told consistent stories from the government.
And they've immediately got a solution or they've immediately solved the crime.
And I think when the Internet community at large starts looking at things as they did with the Boston bombing, I think that's a very useful thing.
We saw how angry the police got about that.
They said, don't look at anything except what we give you.
I mean, you know, we need to have that kind of openness and transparency.
And I think a crowdsourcing investigation like that can really turn up a lot of valuable evidence.
It certainly can expose fraudulent actions by governments.
Mm-hmm.
And so, yeah, I think it's a very important aspect.
And the other thing is that, you know, the nons wanted to do this to show that we're not against the people.
The only people that we're a threat to are, you know, corrupt politicians.
I mean, you know, we're definitely a threat to the system, you know, and that's really what, you know, Kind of, you know, encourage this concept that, you know, Anons are terrorists, and da-da-da-da-da.
And you look down in the Day of Rage post, and I was looking at a lot of the comments that people were saying that were allowed to stay there, and they were saying, you know, you show me rage, I'll show you rage, and you know, da-da-da-da-da.
I mean, it just goes on, you know, and one person said, They're just a bunch of leftists in Halloween masks, which I think is funny because to the conservative Republican side, the Anons are all leftists.
They're all Obama supporters and that kind of deal.
And then to the leftists, they're all a bunch of essentially terrorists, for lack of a better word.
Yeah, well it's very easy, like I said, you know, when they can't see your face, it's very easy to demonize people.
But of course, the police and SWAT teams have taken to wearing masks all the time as well, so just wearing a mask doesn't make somebody evil.
And as you're aware, they're putting laws on the books throughout the different states to make it illegal to wear masks, to make it illegal to even wear hoodies, because they want to optimize their facial recognition software and make sure they know where everybody is and what everybody is doing.
So where do we go from here, Matthew?
Um, well, uh, you know, as far as the, uh, the next project that or the next operation that's going on, I don't know if you've ever heard of Operation Blue Beam.
Um, yes, but it falls into a lot of different categories.
One is, uh, the dehumanization and over sexualization of children.
And so I don't know if you've, you've checked out the, uh, The way that schools are teaching sex ed now, but I mean, I don't think homosexuality needs to be explained in great detail to a six-year-old.
Yeah, right.
We know that this is a major preoccupation of pretty much everybody in power.
I mean, this is the news that's breaking this week, the royal family's connection to pedophile rings.
We've had Westminster connections to pedophile rings that were centered around entertainers like Jimmy Savile.
see that our royalty, Bill Clinton and others in American politics, have been involved in these very same pedophile groups.
So this is something that seems to be a characteristic, a common denominator of the people who are in power.
So it doesn't surprise me that they would start feeding that through the educational system that they control.
Oh yeah.
And the whole idea is to dehumanize.
The idea is that you can't be a homosexual, for one, because that's against God.
And you can't be a non-homosexual because that's intolerant.
So you've got to be somewhere in the middle.
You can't be male and be proud.
You can't be female and be proud.
You've got to be somewhere in the middle.
It's taking people and breaking down what they are and turning them into essentially organic machines.
And this gets even deeper.
I had a little bit of a clip I was going to It's talking about designer babies and the idea that using nanotechnology to essentially alter the DNA of a child or digitally figuring out how a child is going to be based on the parents being able to do this.
And I thought it was interesting.
And the idea, though, is that he's saying that designer babies are choosing the genetics for a child.
is similar to choosing a school for a child, or choosing a foster family for a child, or something to that extent.
And it's like, we're going to choose genetics that way.
Well, of course, that's going to be the way it's going to be sold to people.
You know, first it's going to be, look, this is your choice.
Then they're going to say, well, you know what?
We've got the ability to make these choices, but we're going to take that choice from you and we're going to exercise it as the government.
That's what's behind the, I guess we should call them cyber cars.
I've been calling them computer controlled computer-driven, government-controlled cars.
Maybe we just ought to call them cybercars that are coming because that's the whole focus, it seems like, the major focus of the Consumer Electronics Show that's going on this week.
And that is a focus of the government in order to control transportation.
So they offer this out there and say, isn't it nice you can have a choice of whether you want to drive your car or whether you want the car to drive itself, but it won't be long before they're going to take away that choice of you driving, and they're just going to control where, when, and how you go anywhere.
Yeah, kind of the iRobot mentality.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let's talk – Let's talk about what I think is going to be coming up, and that is yet another push to get CISPA through.
We saw in light of this Sony hack, whoever did it, and we've had many cyber experts come out and present their case to the FBI as if the FBI really Would listen to them.
I think it's great that they make this technical case to them, but it struck me odd that they would not really realize that the FBI is the one trying to sell people this agenda.
I want to play that clip from Fox News where Greta Van Susteren and Catherine Herridge talk about that.
Cyber warfare.
And in this particular case, what happened at Sony was so destructive, it was like dropping a bomb on that corporation.
All right, you said, in the quote, it's saying that the talk about we don't want to be on the defensive.
Well, it strikes me as a little bit odd, because we have known about this risk for a very long time.
We've had Mike Rogers, chairman of the Intelligence Committee and ranking member on a Dutch Ruppersberger.
And the NSA.
And they've been talking about this for a long time.
And all of a sudden, suddenly, you know, the administration wakes up and says, oh my God, This could be an attack, a cyber attack.
Look, the seminal events in terms of cyber warfare happened at least three years ago.
Stuxnet on Iran's nuclear facility that destroyed the centrifuges.
Your comments about that, Matthew?
All right.
Well, you know, the interesting thing about it, and this is, you know, kind of something that's been being pushed around online, kind of in the more Discrete areas, but I've been reading a lot about the fact that Anons actually believed that this was a false flag.
And it's really evident in the sense that, I mean, you listen to them talk.
I mean, they're fear-mongering.
They're using words like war, bomb, explosion.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
You know, they're really trying to incite this.
And I remember in the video they, well, when I was watching Fox News, they mentioned, I mean, it sounded like a march to war we need to go in there and we need to we need to get them back we need to show them that america's not going to stand for this and you know i mean they're you know and then you know coincidentally uh north korea's internet gets shut off the next day you know who'd have thought um yeah if these guys are such great hackers they can't protect their internet from uh completely being shut down i think it's very interesting because they basically talked about three aspects
They said, this is war, this is really seriously dangerous.
They said, Obama's been asleep, even though we have been warning them.
Well, who is the we?
Besides Fox News, they're talking about Mike Rogers, the guy who has brought up CISPA over and over again, the guy who thinks that the NSA can do no wrong, should have no laws controlling them.
And then they say, and this has happened before.
And the example, the very first example she gives is Stutznet.
We all know now, after looking at Stutznet, we know that that came from American and Israeli intelligence.
So they justify this, they offer this as a problem, and they've got their solution, which we've had offered to us so many times.
SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, CISPA twice, now we're going to get CISPA three.
When Obama talked about this hack on Sony, he even used the language that they use for the CISPA acronym, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing.
That's the CIS in CISPA.
They're definitely coming back with this again.
Well, and the interesting thing about it, and I noticed it when I was trying to post, is, you know, I mean, net neutrality, which I think is interesting, because the actual net neutrality is really a great thing.
But that's always the opposite when it comes to legislation.
And of course, the FCC has been on both sides of this issue.
They really merely want to assert their bureaucratic control over the Internet.
They don't care how they do it.
Once they get it there, it's going to be like the income tax.
It starts out very small, or any other thing that they do, it starts out with a very small footprint.
Or they may do it in the pretense that you think it's something that needs to be done, and then it's going to grow into a bureaucratic empire, into a monster, and they're going to control and shut down the internet.
They're coming at it with CISPA, and they're coming at it with TPP, and they're going to come at it with the FCC.
It's going to be a multi-pronged attack this year to control the internet.
Well, and the thing is, and there's a couple aspects to that, you know, the suspicion that I have is, you know, and I've been talking about it with my dad and everything too, is the sense that...
That a lot of this is already here.
It seems like it's kind of like the attack on Naboo, you know, I'm going to make it legal.
Don't worry.
You know, and it's like the attacks already happened.
Oh, yeah.
Now they got to legalize it and get permission to do it.
Yes, that's the way they operate.
Well, tell us a little bit more about, before we finish, tell us a little bit more about Anonymous and the different levels of Anonymous and maybe how you were involved with it, because some people People, we can't vet the fact of whether or not you're anonymous.
We're just accepting your word for it at this point.
So just tell us a little bit about anonymous from your perspective.
Well, if you actually look at the real definition of anonymous, or at least the ideals, technically you're anonymous.
And I'm anonymous, and my dad's anonymous, and George W. Bush, he's anonymous, and everybody's anonymous.
Because the idea behind the mask is simply that there's no age, there's no race, there's no gender.
You're simply a human being with words, and those words form ideas, and those ideas can't be something that can be killed.
You can kill the person behind the mask, but you can't kill the ideas that the words create.
Yes.
And so that's the definition, that's the whole concept behind having it, is it gets rid of any of the prejudice that could be, you know, taken out of context, and oftentimes we use our eyes to try and listen versus our ears.
And so really that's the backbone behind the mask, that's why it exists.
You know, along that line, that's kind of really what they sell us each time we have a presidential election.
We get two faces that we can identify with, and we can like Obama because he's a young black man, or we can like Romney because he looks like a traditional fighting whitey kind of guy.
So they put these two up there, but the ideas behind them, the people who control them, are the same for either one of them.
So it's one idea, but with two faces.
So what you've got with Anonymous is you've got an idea without a face, is what you're saying.
Yep, essentially.
And it's been great as far as getting the message across.
It gets the message across just fine.
It also helps us to work well as far as operations go.
We work really well together because nobody's really outranking each other, nobody's pulling rank.
And so it's kind of a beautiful thing.
It's almost, I wouldn't say communism, but it's just a universal deal on a small scale where everybody's looking out for each other.
So more like libertarianism, I suppose.
And that's the other thing I was going to mention, too, is most of the Anons are actually libertarian.
And the funny thing is we advocated for Ron Paul, really supported him.
A lot of us fully promote the right to bear arms, things like that.
But at the same time, it's like, well, if I've got the right to bear arms, what right do I have to go take something else from somebody?
You know what I mean?
The idea is that let's just all not take anything from anybody and we'll just call it good.
Yeah, that's right.
You can't have... Freedom is one thing you can't have unless you're willing to let everybody else exercise at the same time.
Yes.
The other thing that, you know, is a big issue is the fact that, you know, so if the Anons are going to be, you know, more like Tea Party members, then, you know, there's... The other side of the spectrum is that we're totally cool with, you know, or, you know, the group's totally cool with, you know, homosexuality and things like that as well, too.
They don't have any problem with that.
They have a problem with exposing little kids to that before they're ready to actually decide that for themselves.
They got a big problem with that.
You know, we have a very big problem with pedophilia and things like that, as well as, you know, being a predator online and going after children.
I mean, that's a big no-no.
That's something that, I mean, you're not going to hear the end of something like that.
And those are the kinds of people that end up, you know, getting essentially exposed to either information about them sent to the police department wherever they live or, you know, stuff like that.
That's the information that'll get fed out.
But within the organization itself, you actually, now you have three groups, essentially.
You have your under guys, kind of the guys that are kind of in the background, the coders, and they actually, they refer to everybody else as mortals, which I think is kind of funny as to imply that they've ascended.
But you don't really get to talk to them.
I mean, you can talk to a recruiter who might be able to get you in contact with something like that, maybe, but the only one that's actually been exposed is Commander X. I don't know if you've heard of him, but he's the only one that's actually come out and said, oh yeah, you know, it's me.
But most of the guys behind the scenes, I mean, they're very difficult to get a hold of.
You wouldn't know who they are, and they would never, under any circumstance, talk to anyone.
And let me ask you this, Matthew.
How do you know that those guys aren't, it isn't, you know, Hayden at the NSA at the top?
I mean, how do you verify that people are who they say?
I mean, that's the real problem within even an open organization.
The real problem is infiltrators and counterintelligence.
So how do you know that you're dealing with legitimate people?
Well, the thing is, if it was Hayden and he was trying to push a globalist agenda, he wouldn't be very successful.
The way that anons work is an idea gets put out, and if it's a good idea, then the collective will roll with it.
And so, you know, the traditional idea, and that's not to say, because there's a couple other groups here, there's one other group that's kind of where I fell into the category, and that's the activist side, and they're the ones that I mean, they're putting videos on YouTube and they're trying to educate the public and wake people up.
And, you know, I'd say a large majority of them probably listen to the Alex Jones Show.
But these are the guys that are more journalists and movie creators, videographers.
The people that you'd see standing in between an angry crowd and the police, in that kind of sense.
And so they're the more active foot soldiers, I suppose.
And so, you know, when I was part of the group, that's kind of where I fell in, was, you know, more of an activist.
I never even wore the mask, actually.
I had the mask just kind of on like a necklace thing, and it was just kind of there.
Well, of course, as you pointed out, you know, it can be dangerous in this kind of environment to even exercise your First Amendment rights.
I mean, look at Barrett Brown.
It's like, you know, when he had, as Julian Assange talked about, one of the major charges against him right now is the fact that he tweeted out a quote from Fox News
Essentially saying just you know to assassinate Julian Assange and the FBI said he's talking about us and they're still maintaining that that's the case even though it's a quote from Fox News and they never did anything to Fox News for saying with not joking but saying that Julian Assange ought to be just shot by the government.
They never did anything to them, yet they would come after him for quoting what they said about somebody else and saying he's saying about us.
So, it can be very dangerous to just link to information that somebody else has posted on the internet.
That was one of the other charges I had against Eric.
Yeah, actually there are several people that have either been killed or, you know, imprisoned for that kind of deal.
Actually, there's a very long list of Anons that have been arrested just for posting links.
But, you know, and that was one of the reasons why I kind of got out of it because people started disappearing, which was getting a little bit a little bit nerve wracking.
But the idea that, you know, Everybody kind of makes up their own choice, their own mind.
And so that, you know, just like anything else, just like the police department, you're going to have corrupt people that are in the police department.
That doesn't mean that all police officers are bad.
You're going to have people that are politicians.
I'm going to say that there are some politicians out there that are really trying to help, but You know, they're just, they're getting overwhelmed, or they're getting blackmailed, or, I mean, something.
I mean, heck, even Barack Obama sounded like Ron Paul when he started off in 2008, so.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, I was all for total government transparency, and, you know, I thought that was great.
Yeah.
You know, so I mean, you know, I voted for him the first time because he promised that.
He told people what they wanted to hear, he told people what they really wanted, and they did just the opposite.
He did it much harder, much faster, much farther than W ever did, didn't he?
Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Um, so you know there's that and then I'll get into the third group here and this is the one that's really difficult to deal with is the third group, um, usually being called Flamers.
Um, it's kids.
It's the new members, the ones that are really young that didn't actually fall into the ideals of the group.
They didn't really you know, learn the message that we're trying to put out.
And so they go on and they'll learn a couple of tricks or whatever and go deface a website for no reason or, or, you know, something like that.
And they're usually the ones that are getting arrested.
Every week you see an FBI post that comes out that says we caught the leader of Anonymous.
And I think it's important to, you know, we see the the protests about the police brutality.
A lot of times, people who are not even deliberately trying to be agent provocateurs, or not a part of a counterintelligence operation, they will do incredibly stupid and non-productive things.
Yeah.
And the way they protest.
And certainly, you know, things like killing innocent people who haven't had anything to do with a particular crime.
I mean, that's the ultimate thing to take down a movement.
Yeah, that's a situation that of course applies to Anonymous as well with these low-level hackers who are doing things.
Yeah, well, and they're not just hackers.
I mean, a lot of them, I mean, they're script kiddies, which is the lowest rank, essentially.
You're using other people's programs to try and do things.
So they don't actually know how to code.
They don't know how to do any of that stuff.
They just go on and, you know, hey, I heard this thing.
If I use this right here, then it should do this.
And a lot of them aren't even behind proxies.
They just get caught all the time.
And it's funny because These script kiddies, these guys that don't know anything about tech, they go in and they're on their dad's computer or something like that, and a lot of times they're not even hacking.
They're just going in and they're making fun of or ripping on other people, and they really just use the Anon thing as more of a hype.
They want to hashtag and put Anon after everything they say.
They like the mysterious aspect of it, they like the popularity aspect of it, but they're not really there to actually try and make a difference.
Well, it all still boils down to an information war.
When you look at something like the Occupy Movement, I think one of the reasons that it had so many problems and so many people pushed back against it was they identified a problem, but they didn't understand the source of the problem, and they didn't really offer a legitimate solution.
So, it's one thing to see a problem and just strike out blindly if you're concerned about police brutality going out and burning down black businesses, even if you think this is racist-based.
And it's not.
There's things that you do that if you just strike out blindly without looking at it.
So it really is an educational issue.
And that's why we wanted to have you on.
You called into the show and spoke a little bit about some of this stuff.
I thought it would be good to have people think a little bit more broadly about Anonymous.
There's issues there.
It's very hard for us to sort out from the outside to understand the good things that Anonymous has done, to understand some of the bad things that are being done on the inside, and understand that people can come into any group under false pretenses, I don't know if you ever heard of Operation Jubilee at all, but Jubilee actually was an attempt to stop the issue with the Occupy movement.
And so what we did was we started doing a citizen's arrest on anybody that started inciting violence.
And that was from our own ranks, too.
And the problem was there were so many saboteurs that popped in that, like, it became impossible to arrest them all.
We got flooded with so many people.
It just got ridiculous.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, that's the way that – unfortunately, that's the way that they operate.
And it's something that is very effective.
That's why they continue to do it along with false flags to infiltrate organizations.
Thank you so much Matthew.
We're out of time.
We've had a very long interview but thank you so much for coming forward and speaking about what you've observed around Anonymous.
Thank you so much.
Well, I really appreciate Matt talking to us.
We don't have any way to verify whether or not he's anonymous.
What he said sounded credible to us, but of course with an organization that has no name and face, you can never know for sure.
Nevertheless, the points that he was making about anonymous are very valid points.
We need to understand that they've done some very Positive things, and we also need to understand that like any other organization, people can do things, whether they're anonymous or not, people can infiltrate an organization and make it look bad.
The government does that with each and every organization.
And we should understand, as they try to sell us on CISPA yet again, and we know they're going to do that, Obama is already using the language of CISPA, talking about cyber intelligence sharing, as they give that to us for a third time.
We need to understand that it is the government that has created these exploits in the past.
As Aaron Schwartz, the man who took it down the first time it came, pointed out, the government funds these exploits and the government is the one who primarily uses them.
Just as we saw with Stutznet.
And yet, Fox News uses that as a case for why we need to have CISPA.
No, we need to have control of our secret organizations, CIA, NSA, and now even the FBI and most of the rest of the government.
They're the ones now who are wearing the masks.
They're the ones who don't want to be seen.
They're the ones who don't have any transparency.
And we need to make sure that we have control and transparency of our government.
Well, that's it for tonight's news.
If you're watching this on YouTube, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
And if you're not a Prison Planet TV subscriber, please become a subscriber and support our operation financially.
You can share that with up to 20 other people, and you can also share Alex Jones' documentaries.
And as we just pointed out with Matthew, the key thing is for people to understand not only what the problems are, but to understand what's behind these problems.
Not just get angry at the system, but to understand where this is going.
We'll join us again tomorrow night at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Cam Eastern.
Cam Eastern.
The Molon Lave Silver Coin.
Certified by the Provident Mint.
This 1 ounce silver round is .999% fine silver.
Inspired by the legendary Spartan King Leonidas and his refusal to lay down arms in defiance of Emperor Xerxes.
Molon Lave.
That's Greek for come and take it.
This is available now at InfoWarsTore.com.
Act now as supplies are limited.
And don't forget free shipping and a free gift.
That's Infowarsstore.com.
A three-year-old Aisley McCarthy was buried today in Elkhorn.
Her family tells me she died Monday morning at Blank Children's Hospital in Des Moines, not even 48 hours after she started showing flu-like symptoms.
Hey guys, Rob Dew here for InfoWars.com and InfoWars Nightly News, and here's a story that I wanted to share with you, and I want you to get this out to anybody you know, especially if someone you know out there is thinking about getting the flu shot.
Family's devastation after their healthy three-year-old daughter dies from flu less than 72 hours after she began feeling unwell.
And this is the story of Azalee McCarthy, a beautiful little three-year-old girl who started complaining of symptoms just after Christmas, and in 72 hours, her parents were holding her And a wrapped up cloth at the hospital as she died in their arms.
Very heartbreaking story.
And it really disturbed me as I read this article and then went to the source link, which is the Des Moines Register, but here's what they had to say at Daily Mail.
She began complaining to her mother that her legs hurt so much she couldn't walk and in less than 72 hours she'd be dead at Children's Hospital in Des Moines, Iowa.
And of course the family is shocked and confused.
They don't know why she contacted this and was dead such a short while later.
But here's where it gets really interesting here in the Des Moines Register.
Healthy Iowa three-year-old dies from the flu.
Third sentence down.
She was healthy and she had her flu shot, said Amber McCarthy, Aslee's mother.
The whole thing is unreal.
And it is unreal.
When you think about in this day and age and we have all this medical technology that a little girl could get a flu shot and then become sick with the flu and actually the same types of flu that are in the flu shot And then die in 72 hours.
But what really angered me was a quote from the health department there in Polk County.
And this is Nola Anger who said, "...if people would get the flu shot it can limit the severity of flu symptoms if they do get it.
The shot offers protections for other strains.
This is a serious illness and can affect healthy people." Apparently it affected this little girl.
They say in the Des Moines article that she came down with influenza type A and B. Let's look at what's in the flu shot.
Here it is on the CDC website.
Traditional flu vaccines, called trivalent vaccines, are made to protect against three flu viruses, including influenza A, H1N1, influenza A, H3N2, and an influenza B virus.
So, if you go back to the Des Moines Register article, you'll see that she tested positive for influenza A and B at the time she was admitted into the hospital.
This year my main tip is to not get the flu vaccine.
It's amazing how many people are sick and even the deaths that have occurred because what they're doing now is they're using these trivalent vaccines that protect against three strains of the flu and this year the 2014-2015 vaccine Contains influenza A H3N2 and it contains influenza A H1N1.
That's right.
They actually put the H1N1 in this year's flu vaccine and influenza B. Now let's look at what else is in the flu shot.
This is from DrTinPenny.com, the truth about the flu shot.
It also contains egg proteins, including avian contaminant viruses, gelatin, which can cause allergies, polysorbate 80, which is known to cause severe allergic reactions and also is associated with infertility in mice, formaldehyde, Triton X-100, a strong detergent, table sugar, resin, known to cause allergic reactions, and antibiotic anthimerosal, mercury, which is still in the multi-dose viral flu shot vaccines.
Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids, according to two new studies in the journal Pediatrics.
There have been widespread concerns that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines might impair the neurological development of children.
These new studies suggest that the opposite, that the preservatives may actually be associated with improved behavior and mental performance.
So these are also the things that you're injecting into your children and into your elderly parents and into yourself if you get the flu shot in addition to three different types of flu viruses.
Doctors told the family the cause of death was a combination of influenza A, influenza B, and sepsis.
The family says before Saturday, Aisley was perfectly healthy and had no pre-existing medical conditions.
And so the mother in this story, Amber, is left with no child and wondering why.
She did everything right.
She said she had her child vaccinated, she even got the flu shot, and this is what happened.
It's still the same outcome.
She succumbed to the virus that she was supposed to be protected against.
That's because it really doesn't offer you protection.
And you can read that on the insert.
They just say that so they can get these people out there and get these flu vaccines into people.
It's a money-making scheme.
And what does it do?
For most people, it makes them sick, which will then make them go to the doctor, which then they'll be prescribed more drugs.
And don't take my word for it, there's countless other people out there that have done studies on the flu vaccine and its ineffectiveness.
They found that if someone, your neighbor or kids in school or anybody that you hang out with got the flu vaccine, that it can spread to other people for up to 17 to 25 days later.
So you need to look at this story.
I'm providing the links below.
You can read it for yourself.
And you need to feel bad for this family because they were caught up in the ruse.
They were caught up in the medical industrial complex ruse that says, hey, if you get the flu shot, you'll be protected.
But as we've seen time and time again, people who get the flu shot end up getting sick with the flu.
With regard to risk, there is no question, Campbell.
It would be dishonest to say that we know for sure the vaccine is going to be safe for everybody.
Ronan was rushed to Doernbecher Children's Hospital in Portland.
Doctors there tried to save him, but Burgess says he went without oxygen for too long.
and suffered brain damage that was irreversible.
He died days later.
She's sharing her story to warn others that the flu shot is not always enough to protect children from the H1N1 virus.
Her nine-year-old daughter was happy and healthy.
But just three days after receiving a flu shot, Mary Sue was paralyzed, diagnosed with a rare disease.
So what happened?
Just a few weeks ago, Amber had gotten the flu shot, but she managed to get the flu anyway.
Within hours of Amber experiencing flu-like symptoms, she landed in the hospital fighting for her life.
I can't even read.
I used to love to read.
I love to sew and crochet.
I can't do that now.
That flu shot did me in.
I'm going to get it.
Yes.
If that helps at all.
But I'll tell you, my wife is not going to immunize our kids.
Because I've got four of them.
And when I go home, I'm not Dr. Oz.
I'm Mr. Oz.
So if you want to protect your immune system, you can check out all the products we have at Infowarslife.com.
And I suggest that you do do that.
And if you do find yourself getting sick with the flu, you can do what I do, which is take our Silver Bullet product.
Which has definitely cut down on major sicknesses that I felt coming on.
Took that, boom, wiped some out.
But that's just my opinion and that's just my personal history.
Of course you need to consult your doctor for anything like this.
This has been Rob Dufour for Infowars.com and Infowars Nightly News.
If you are watching this on YouTube, please consider becoming a member of PrisonPlanet.tv.
Your subscription can be shared with up to 20 people now and we're having a great special to kick off the 20 years that Alex Jones has been on the air.
So come a member today and help us take this fight to the next level.
Every year we make resolutions to lose weight and get in shape.
And the truth is, it's hard.
Even with diet and exercise.
Because of toxic food in our environment that is stressing our bodies more than ever before.
Working with experts in nutrition and biochemistry, I found that super high quality nutraceuticals, in addition to my diet and exercise, Worthy answers that synergistically worked.
I can see the drastic changes every day with the amount of weight I've lost, my increased stamina, and more of a twinkle in my eye.
That's why we are now so excited to launch the InfoWars Life Resolution Pack, combining three essential formulations.
Oxygen-Based Cleanser Oxy Powder, the Secret 12 Bioavailable Vitamin B12, And your choice of super female or super male vitality now all available at a discounted price to you and your family to bring in the new year and make 2015 a true success.
That's Infowarslife.com or 888-253-3139.
or 888-253-3139.
2015 is the year to do it, and it all starts at InfoWarsLife.com.
Yes, these men and their hypnotized followers follow this a new these men and their hypnotized followers follow this a new order.
It is not new, and it is not order.
You are watching the InfoWars Nightly News, which airs 7 p.m.
Central at InfoWarsNews.com.
▲
Export Selection