All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2015 - InfoWars Nightly News
52:59
20150303_Tue_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
It is Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 and I'm Leanne McAdoo.
Here are tonight's top stories.
Tonight, as Obama releases a new plan to increase federal control of police, one town took local control by firing their police and replacing them with private security, getting a 61% drop in crime.
And, has the war on drugs finally run out of lies?
The DEA says it's now worried about stoned bunnies.
All that and more on tonight's Infowars Nightly News.
While seizing on the opportunity to use national outrage surrounding an out-of-control police force that are shooting unarmed people all across the country, Obama has used this as an opportunity to unveil a new national policing policy, which amounts to little more than a federalization of the nation's police.
This plan is entitled Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and it's a plan for a progressive takeover of state and local policing.
The Obama administration is taking control of state and local police by adding more rules to federal funding that cops have to obey.
It's the exact same strategy the feds use to create Common Core.
To get federal money, you have to do what the feds say.
Problem is, police are already addicted to getting free goodies from the government.
From riot gear to grenade launchers and even MRAPs.
And just like the lawmakers up in D.C.
who listen to special interests and not the American people, your neighborhood cops are going to listen to feds who are showering them with free gifts and not your local community.
This is one way the Obama administration is fighting back against states who are refusing to enforce federal gun control and executive amnesty.
It's also similar to Agenda 21, in which your city council takes orders from the U.N.
and not the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Obama wants.
To expand federal power at the expense of not only your voice in government, but also your rights.
Now, there are some positive recommendations in this plan.
They are including things like eliminating these ticketing quotas, having less confrontational practices by police at protests, obviously not wearing riot gear but maybe going in soft cop clothing.
They want to diversify law enforcement.
Law enforcement so that they will reflect the community that they're going to serve.
And also, this should be a no-brainer, they want to collect more data on shootings and deaths by police.
Because as you'll recall, as a result of everything that's happened this last year in Ferguson and so on, a lot of states are not even required to say how many people have been killed in encounters with police.
Now, the president basically gave a little wink to his media allies and said, focus on these things.
He said, I expect our friends in the media to really focus on what's in this report and pay attention to that.
And this is, of course, instructing the media allies to help this federalization of policing But one thing that's sure to be overlooked by these allies of Obama's in the media is the fact that this police task force is recommending the doing away with the FBI's immigration violator database.
Now this pertains to the FBI's National Crime Information Center database.
This was actually created decades ago.
It collects information on everybody, but one specifically for immigration violators was enacted in the early 2000s.
So there's nothing about scrapping that entire database that's collecting cross-jurisdictional information and sharing that with police officers on citizens, but they want to do away with the part that's pertaining to the immigration violators.
This database allows officers to find out if the people that they're interacting with are wanted for crimes in other jurisdictions.
It tells officers if a person has an outstanding removal order, if they failed to complete a registration requirement, or whether they've previously been deported with a felony conviction.
So despite the fact that this is a very useful tool in tracking immigration violators and possible terrorists, the Obama-appointed task force is suggesting that it be put on ice.
So this is part of a larger immigration strategy, of course, which is taking immigration enforcement out of the hands of local and state law enforcement agencies and, you know, putting that under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security.
So now we have a president that is saying that he wants to ban certain types of rifle ammunition because it's dangerous, it can be used To potentially pierce through a cop's protective armor if it's fired from a handgun.
So here he's considering banning a certain type of this popular rifle ammunition because, you know, he's so concerned about law enforcement, yet he's wanting to do away with a useful tool that is allowing police officers to cross-check and see if they're coming in contact with any criminal illegal aliens, potential terrorists,
or gang members, people who have already been deported, you know, for criminal activity, when those are the ones that they're really trying to have the Border Patrol focus on, those are the ones they really are wanting to deport.
But yet they're doing away with this really useful tool and, of course, putting agents in harm's way.
So it's very mixed messages there.
But let's take a look at this little town in Texas.
They seem to have the answer to all of these problems.
They're just getting rid of their cops altogether.
Now this is Sharpstown, Texas.
It's located just southwest of Houston.
They decided in 2012 that regular public policing was proving wholly ineffective and they opted not to renew a contract with the constable's office.
They replaced the entire police department With private security officers with the company Seal Security Solutions, and they saw a remarkable drop in crime by 61%.
Now James Alexander, who's the director of operations for Seal, told the reporters at Guns.com that the reason for such a dramatic drop has come because there's more sensible policing in areas that need it the most.
They don't just randomly drop off a cop in an area and say, go patrol!
And they actually engage with the community Of course there is less bureaucratic paperwork that they have to deal with, and there's more accountability.
Here, these are private contractors, so if there is a claim made against an officer, that means that claim is against them personally.
There's no taxpayers there to bail them out.
It's not a faceless government agency that actually gets a paid vacation if they do something wrong.
Now, in addition, companies like SEAL are operating as businesses, and so that means they're profit-driven.
They have to provide the most efficient service.
And private contractors are less likely to receive hordes of unwanted and outdated military equipment.
So what do you think?
Should the rest of the country be giving police a little bit of competition here in Sharpstown, Texas?
They're saying that they're having to, you know, think a little bit more about their policing policies, you know, really look at who they're hiring.
And people are going to be a lot less likely to pull the trigger on an unarmed teenager when they know that they will be personally held accountable and they're not just going to be covered by that thin blue line and of course, you know, get paid time off.
Or in the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, Cleveland blamed him for his own death.
They said that this 12-year-old young black boy who was playing with a toy gun on the playground was directly and proximately, his death was caused by the failure of Tamir to exercise due care to avoid injury.
Well, Edward Snowden may finally stand trial.
His attorney revealed today that they are working with the United States on his return home.
Now, Snowden said that his biggest regret through all of this is that he didn't come forward sooner with these leaks, and he's also said that he will return home if he is given a fair trial by the U.S.
government.
Snowden has been charged with theft of government property and two counts of violating the 1917 Espionage Act for leaking classified documents.
Now, Snowden's attorney might want to find out what kind of a plea deal that David H. Petraeus just made with the Justice Department.
Petraeus is one of the best known military commanders of his generation.
He pled guilty to providing his highly classified journals to a mistress when he was the director of the CIA.
So this all boils down to David Petraeus had about eight black books that he had a lot of classified information and he had it in an unlocked desk drawer and his biographer, also known as his mistress, kept asking him about these black books.
Include these in your biography.
And at first he was like, well, there's a lot of classified information.
The notebooks contained handwritten classified notes about official meetings, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, and the names of cover officers.
And she kept asking him about it.
So eventually he caved in and gave her these black books with all this classified information.
When he was initially asked about it, he denied handing over this information to his mistress.
Now, Mr. Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material.
This is a misdemeanor.
Now, he's eligible for up to one year in prison, but prosecutors are going to recommend just two years of probation and a $40,000 fine.
So, it's a pretty sweet deal considering the fact that the Department of Justice has really cracked down on government officials sharing secrets with journalists.
So it'll be interesting to see what happens here.
But Stacey Herbert of the Kaiser Report nailed it when she said she tweeted this out today.
She said Snowden revealed classified info for no personal gain only to his oath to the Constitution.
Petraeus released info to get laid.
That was just one of the many tweets that I find interesting.
So be sure to follow me on Twitter at Laid.
Coming up, I'm going to have David Knight in studio with me.
We're going to be talking about another really silly thing that I found on Twitter today.
Stoned bunny rabbits.
So you can always find a little humor there on my Twitter feed.
But now we want to talk about this petition that came out last month.
It was seeking to ban laws making mandatory vaccination.
It's gained already over 86,000 signatures and it's well on its way to reaching its goal, but it still requires about 14,000 more by this Friday, March 6.
To necessitate a response from the White House.
This is a petition entitled, Prohibit Any Laws Mandating the Force and Requirement of Vaccinations of Any Kind.
This appeared on the We the People website last month, and it petitions against making vaccinations of any kind mandatory, including forcing children to be vaccinated to attend public schools, activities in daycare centers, and also working adults in the public or private sector.
To date, 29 states have proposed legislation intending to limit vaccine exemptions and the right to refuse based on informed consent.
So they are really doubling down on this.
So be sure to follow the link that's provided in that article.
It'll also be provided underneath the YouTube video as well.
Add your name to that list.
You have until Friday, March 6.
Now, vaccine freedom advocates were putting officials on notice here in Austin today.
The activists spoke with their elected officials about the potential risks of vaccines.
I am Donna Votie and I'm here to testify against Bill 465 and Senate Bill 29 that would eliminate the right to opt into the system and they want you to have to sign a form to opt out.
I'm sorry.
That is so wrong.
Wrong, wrong.
Folks, are you listening to yourselves?
Tracking.
Database.
You know, you're talking about, not about The United States Constitution and our individual unalienable rights, you're talking about communism!
Database, computer lists, tracking, hello?
You know, that's not the American way.
What they're talking about is the communist manifesto here.
And come on, nine bills?
You know what this is about.
This is about eliminating the waivers, eliminating our right to opt out of vaccines, and you know it.
Nine bills, did we hit the vaccine jackpot in Texas or what?
Come on.
So we know that it's all about eliminating our rights to say no, tracking us, you know, and that's a matter of faith.
It's a matter of conscience to me.
And it's not only a legal matter, it's a theological matter, because your right of faith says who is your sovereign.
Is the state of Texas our sovereign?
Or is God my sovereign and is God in control of my body?
I don't mean to be propane here, but it's none of your damn business!
Do I have a vaccine whether my kids are vaccinated or not?
The Republican form of government has several components.
Unalienable rights and the sovereignty, sovereignty of the individual.
And this committee would take away the individual's right to privacy, the individual's right to medical freedom.
My name is Laurent Fleming and I'm representing myself on behalf of an ad hoc organization, Texas for Vaccine Choice.
Okay, may I reiterate though that this bill is not about whether to get vaccinated or not.
And we are very firm that in Texas, the parents should make that choice.
That's an important choice.
Yes, ma'am.
But when you look deeper, when you combine this bill with the other bills that are being proposed at both the state level as well as the federal level, To mandate vaccinations and deny parents the choice to decline vaccinations when they have a firm, firmly held belief that vaccinations will injure their child, you will see that this legislation is in dangerous overreach by our government.
And I'm not going to put up with it.
and this granny is gonna speak her mind as much as she can.
The knowledge of the ancients.
Tried and true, trusted herbs and extracts.
Fused with the latest nutraceutical science.
Introducing the all-new Ancient Defense Herbal Immunity Blend.
Crafted with over 14 key ancient herbs and extracts to supercharge and prepare your body for what experts admit is the most dangerous season of the year.
We have rejected hundreds of other formulations in our quest to bring you what is simply the most powerful and comprehensive proprietary formula that we have ever created in the realm of herbal immunity.
For the last two years, our team has been working with top doctors, nutritionists, and chemists to develop the ultimate nutraceutical formulation.
Experience the benefits of combining over 14 ancient herbs and extracts with exciting new advances in nutraceutical science.
For a limited time, get 25% off on this introductory offer.
Visit ancientdefense.com or call 888-253-3139, ancientdefense.com.
Used since before the days of the Roman Empire to support the body's natural systems and enhance overall health.
Introducing the new Infowarslife.com Oil of Oregano Formulation.
A highly advanced nutraceutical form of this key herb that has been traditionally used by civilizations for thousands of years to promote health.
We have now procured the most high quality and potent forms of oregano oil on the market.
Sourced from top-leading manufacturers to ensure a concentrated level of bioactive ingredients.
Extracted directly from the wild herb and sealed in easy-to-use capsules, you will no longer need to endure the burning of liquid oregano on the tongue.
Wild-crafted from the Mediterranean oregano species that experts agree is one of the most powerful and most challenging to acquire.
This winter season, it's more important than ever to secure this true form of oil of oregano.
Now available in our limited first run at Infowarslife.com.
That's Infowarslife.com or call 888-253-3139.
Now joining me in studio is David Knight.
And I wanted to bring David in to just kind of have a casual conversation about some of the things that I'm finding really disturbing on the Internet.
I find the greatest stories on Twitter.
Well, the Drug Enforcement Agency has now come up with the most insane argument against legalizing medicinal marijuana.
They are now saying that if Utah decides to legalize marijuana, Rabbits will get stoned.
And this is a big problem.
I think we've got a new metaphor.
Instead of jumping the shark, we need to talk now and in the future about stoning the bunnies.
Because this is so over-the-top absurd to voice this.
This is beyond anything we saw on Happy Days.
I mean, this is to say that we have to not legalize it because the bunnies are going to get stoned, because we're going to have a large number of feels.
Maybe they should talk to the U.S.
military and ask them what's going on in Afghanistan with all the poppy fields that they're helping the people grow there because they've got a bumper crop.
Since when are they concerned about cuddly little baby bunnies?
Now the DEA is freaking out about this bill that Utah, it's really referring to the edible form of marijuana and this is what people want to use to help them medicinally.
But they're so against this.
And this is something that they're just this is their argument that they they went out to these fields where the bunny rabbits were and they noticed that they were just sitting there they were just just really cool with the fact that humans were approaching them and so then they they said if they stole the marijuana crop away they try to take all the marijuana away from the rabbit and they were just stunned because The rabbit just sat there.
And this is what their big concern is, is that wildlife might start to cultivate a taste for the herb and then they'll lose their natural inhibitions and they won't be afraid of humans anymore.
I guess this explains why Jeb Bush opposed medical marijuana in Florida.
You know, he and Sheldon Adelson, the big casino owner in Nevada.
But, you know, Rand Paul called out Jeb Bush on his hypocrisy at CPAC, saying, how dare you withhold something that is very effective, the most effective, the safest medication that people can have for certain illnesses, withhold that from them at the same time you admit that you did it recreationally when you were at this posh school that you were going to.
Nothing happened to Jeb Bush.
And you know what?
Nothing happened to Jeb Bush's daughter when she was caught with her prescription drug problem.
The only person that got in any trouble was a reporter who pointed it out.
The fact that they gave, I think it was, I can't remember what the amount was, but it was a large amount of money that they gave to the judge who was, to his charity, the judge that was presiding over her case.
So there's a lot of corruption.
Jeb Bush is exhibit A, but you know, it just, they're coming up with all kinds of absurd Things to argue against the use of marijuana now because they understand they're losing it.
Right.
People are seeing through the hypocrisy, they're seeing through the mean-spiritedness of it, withholding something that is very effective for medication, even extending it to things that don't have hallucinogens in them like hemp, that are competitors to the paper industry, to the textiles industry, understanding that we have totally been sold a bill of goods for the last half century.
Right, and people are seeing through the elitist hypocrisy of it.
You can buy your way out of going to prison if you've got enough money.
And it does have a lot of medicinal use as well as a lot of other things that you mentioned.
And they really are coming out on the defensive now, desperate to roll this back, desperate to To convince people that this is a dangerous thing, even going so far as to say, you know, cuddly little baby bunnies are now going to be our friends.
And as if that's a problem.
And we saw on Fox News, they actually rolled out one of their medical experts to talk about a new study.
A new study showed that marijuana was the least harmful of all of the common drugs.
And he had a big problem with this.
And listen to his very scientific explanation.
Pot may be safer for you than you think, according to a brand new study.
They're using a lethal dose as a comparison.
For example, they're putting pot or weed against cocaine or alcohol and smoking.
So we know that you need less amount of alcohol to die.
So they're using death as a measure to see what's dangerous and what's not in this particular study.
Okay, so how so?
How is it dangerous?
Forgetting death.
Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.
So that was Fox News' medical expert.
Yeah, medical expert.
He knows about as much as their intelligence expert knows about the NSA and the effects of that stuff.
That's amazing.
They're trying to create a new reefer madness, aren't they?
Yeah.
They're desperate to get this back.
You've got Oklahoma and Nebraska appealing to the Supreme Court saying the federal government, the Supreme Court, needs to shut down these bills, these laws that have been passed by referenda.
I talked to Jim Garrock.
He's going to be our guest later in the program because, of course, he's a former prosecutor in Chicago.
I wanted to talk to him about the black site there.
And, of course, the black site has roots in the corruption that comes from the war on drugs.
But one of the things that I had, Leanne, that was an epiphany was the fact that this is something that has really been driven by the U.N.
You remember last fall when these initiatives were winning everywhere.
Everybody was outraged that the UN said, federal government needs to shut this down at the state levels.
We can't have this.
It's like, who are you to talk to us about this?
You don't have a dog in this fight.
This is none of your business.
Well, it actually began with the UN.
It's like UN Agenda 21.
They created this agenda.
He's going to a, Jim Garrock from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is going to this convention.
They have an annual meeting since 1946.
This is going to be in Vienna.
They've been talking about narcotics.
And in 1961, they created a convention, a treaty, that all the nations signed on to that essentially was the same template that we adopted here nine, ten years later when the War on Drugs was officially declared by Richard Nixon with the drug scheduling, saying schedule one drugs like marijuana, they're going to be prohibited and that sort of thing.
I never really paid attention to the war on drugs until the mid-80s when Reagan came after the end-users instead of going after the suppliers.
And when he started destroying the rule of law with civil asset forfeiture, creating the mandatory minimums and everything, that was a total outrage, total destruction of our legal system.
But I never realized before I started looking at this and what Jim Garrick is doing, because he's going to go to the top level.
I think we need to fight it at the state level.
Right.
Absolutely.
But I think it's a good thing to go to the top level and say, this isn't working.
You guys know it's not working.
Right, well that's how they work too, they put us in a vice, so we need to start doing that to them as well, pushing against the top and the bottom.
And of course that's what this is all about, the DEA is worried about that constant revenue stream that comes from entrapment and arrests.
All these governments say, yeah, you know, we have to do this because it's part of the UN treaty and everything.
They love it.
It's a very effective piece of control for them to come in as we see here in America, but it happens in all the different countries.
But I never really realized that it was an agenda just like the climate agenda, that's coming from the UN IPCC, just like gun control, the police, I mean over and over and over again.
There's these agendas that are created by the U.N.
and then they leave it to the local, because they don't have any way to enforce this stuff.
They don't have any U.N.
police yet, okay?
Once they get their global tax, that's probably one of the first things that they'll fund.
Yeah.
Well, at least the good thing with this is that people are finally starting to see through this false war on drugs.
They've stoned the bunny.
They've stoned the bunny now and it's jumped the shark.
Well, thanks for joining me and we will definitely have you back in studio to break down some of the more bizarre stories out there in the internet land.
But stick around because coming right up, David Knight will be in studio with Jim Garrick.
Another major health threat.
This one in Toledo, Ohio, where everybody in the entire city has been told not to drink the water.
Ohio's governor declaring a state of emergency.
Did you know that the average person uses about 80 to 100 gallons of water at home every single day?
If there's a water emergency, will you be prepared?
Panicked residents forming long lines throughout the day.
We're here at a supermarket in Toledo.
You can see the shelves empty where water once was.
To stay safe and healthy during a crisis, you must have access to safe, clean water.
Water which will not be available at your local grocery store.
There's a mad dash on right now to stock up on supplies.
The ProPure Pro1 G2.0 Water Filtration System is a must-have for every modern, independently-minded household.
Protect your family's safety during an emergency.
Go to infowarsstore.com today to purchase your ProPure Pro1 G2.0 Water Filtration System.
or call 1-88-253-3139.
Introducing Secret 12, the new InfoWars Life vitamin B12 formulation.
Most forms of vitamin B12 are highly processed and synthetic and could not be properly absorbed by the body.
That's why for real results, so many are having to turn to painful B12 injections, which are known to have higher absorption rates.
Now, InfoWarsLife.com is excited to announce that we can bring you our most bioactive, powerful form of B12 that has been developed with our exclusive perfected process.
Secret 12 is a binary of nutrimedical-grade, bioavailable, coenzyme forms of B12.
Methylcobalamin, the same kind used in B12 injections, and Adenosylcobalamin.
Secret 12 is simply taken by mouth, right on the tongue, and then swallowed.
No needles, no injections.
Don't take my word for it.
Try it for yourself.
Discover the secret, Secret 12.
Secure your revolutionary secret 12 formula right now at InfoWarsLife.com or call 888-253-3139.
Joining us tonight is Jim Girard.
Now, Jim was a former prosecutor in Chicago.
I wanted to talk to him about what we learned in Holman Square.
Of course, it has roots in the War on Drugs.
And for the last 20 years, Jim Geerak has been fighting drug prohibition.
He's part of a group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
Actually, he is the Executive Board Vice Chairman.
And before we go to Jim, I want to read you a quote from him.
him.
He says, ironically, the war on drugs was put in place to save our kids from drugs and to make our streets safer.
But ending prohibition is what will truly accomplish these goals.
Joining us now is Jim Girod.
Thank you for joining us, Jim.
David, my pleasure to be with you.
Now I wanted to talk to you especially today because there's a UN event coming up next week.
I think a lot of people don't realize the historical involvement of the United Nations in the war on drugs.
You're going to be going there to try to change the course of the approach that is being, I guess an agenda that's being forced on us from the top down.
But also because of what we saw this last week with the Guardian story talking about Homan Square.
The site where it was alleged that people were held for very long periods of time without being booked.
Some cases of torture.
And at first when I looked at this, Jim, I thought, is this the NDAA being put into practice?
But then as we looked at how the Guardian found this site, what they had was a Chicago detective, Richard Zooley.
Who was involved in some of the more egregious torture incidents at Gitmo and tracking that back, they found that he had a pretty bad record in Chicago and that led them to this site.
So it kind of looks to me like this is something that actually began with the war on drugs, like so many kinds of corruption that we've seen in this country.
Well, David, let me say that there's nothing better than a good cop.
And there's nothing worse than a bad cop.
And what we have done is we have perverted the police mission that used to be to serve and protect and help people, and we've converted it into a war on drugs where we try to catch people involved in consensual adult activity, criminalized it,
And as a result, we have so many human rights violations, rules that used to mean something, the sancrity of the home, now being bulldozed with battering rams and drug police trying to catch you with the drugs before you flush the toilet.
Chicago also has a horrible history, not only from a prohibition standpoint without But also Lieutenant Burge who ran a torture crew here in Chicago.
Many tens of millions of dollars in settlements being paid.
For torturing people, putting a royal typewriter cover over the head of an inmate to suffocate them.
Used a cattle prod, attaching them to the genitals of suspects in order to get them to confess the crimes, often cases which they didn't commit.
We have a sordid, sad history here in Chicago, which is being discussed as a result of this article in The Guardian.
And it did mention that particular officer as well in the Guardian article.
They also had a quote from Mark Fallon, who's former deputy commander of Gitmo's now-shuttered Investigative Task Force.
He said that Richard Zooley's interrogation of one suspect was, quote, illegal, immoral, ineffective, and unconstitutional.
But that kind of describes also the war on drugs, doesn't it, Jim?
I'm afraid to say.
Well, it certainly does.
The despicable war on drugs is the heart of nearly any crisis that you can name.
One of the crises is the excessive use of force by police.
The immunity and impunity that attaches to police misconduct that is so bad in the United States that we have had President Obama put together a task force on 21st century policing, whose report is due here in a couple of days, the preliminary report.
LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition that I'm associated with, sent a statement saying that the one reform, more important than any other, is calling for an end to the war on drugs, that leads to excessive force, to the militarization of the police department, to the corruption of police, to the license for police to use excessive force with impunity.
So many people are complaining about the grand jury doesn't work, that we need civilian review boards, that we need to wear cameras on the bodies of police officers, that we need training reforms, so many reforms.
But all of these misconduct is aggravated because of this license to act like a bad guy with a badge and with a gun.
Because of our war on drugs.
Yeah, there's a lot of perverse incentives in it.
I didn't really start paying attention to the war on drugs.
It really kind of, from an American standpoint, I guess people would say it started when Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs.
And then they created the DEA a couple of years later.
I started paying attention when they went into civil asset forfeiture.
Essentially taking away our right to due process and incentivizing theft from bad cops.
Incentivizing police departments to fund their departments by just seizing property.
Never charging the owners with a crime.
Never going through any due process.
And then, of course, shortly after that, also under Reagan, they came up with the mandatory minimums.
Which completely destroyed the judicial system, judicial discretion, and I think justice.
And that's so much of a part of the prisons that we have that are bursting at the seams.
The incarceration rate that we have in this country that is so much higher.
But, Jim, when I started looking at this, I was surprised when...
The U.N.
came out and attacked the states like Colorado and Washington that had passed recreational marijuana laws.
And I was kind of taken aback.
It's like, well, why are they getting involved in this?
I didn't understand that they've been involved in this long before it happened here in the U.S.
Give us a little bit of that history.
Going back to what you're going to next week is actually something that began back in 1946, isn't it?
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs?
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs meets once a year in Vienna.
Which is one of the headquarters for the United Nations.
And it's just the job of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to provide for drug policy for the world within the confines of three drug prohibition treaties.
The first treaty is called the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
That is the fundamental foundational treaty that says that drug use around the world is outlawed unless it's for And yet we know that there are many people who use drugs that are used recreationally.
And as a result, we have 162 to 324 million people aged 15 to 64, representing 3.5% to 7% of the people of the world who are annually criminalized because of this prohibition system.
The United Nations and these three prohibition treaties are the fountainhead of drug prohibition for the world.
It is the United Nations that's the fountainhead for drug prohibition.
And as a consequence of that, in 1970, the United States passed the Controlled Substances Act.
The following year, 1971, Nixon declared a war on drugs.
At that time, we had 300,000 people behind bars in the United States.
After 40, well, how many years is that?
We now have... 44 years, yeah.
44, 45, yeah.
Go ahead.
We now have 2.2 million people behind bars because of the crazy war on drugs.
Yeah.
Basically, half the people in prison there for drugs offenses.
And when they started mandatory minimums back in 1986, they couldn't build the prisons quickly enough.
They were letting violent criminals out so they could lock people up for 10 years because they were going some pot in their closet.
And because the quantity of pot, even if they were a first offender, even if they were non-violent, they had to be sent to jail for 10 years.
So they were letting the violent criminals go in our country.
I think that's very interesting.
I think most people don't realize, Jim, just as you laid it out here, back in 1961 when changed the rules on narcotic drugs and basically extended it.
They'd done some controls of Opium-based and coca-based drugs, but then they kind of extended it They created these kind of drug schedules that we now see you know people talk about marijuana being a schedule one drug and it was ten years later that that UN agenda became the American War on Drugs.
I think that's very amazing and I think it's interesting that the U.N.
is now getting involved criticizing Uruguay because Uruguay has become the first nation state to say that they're not going to, they're going to legalize marijuana broad-based so the U.N.
came after them.
The U.N.
has criticized American states.
We had, of course, Colorado and Washington just last week.
It was about a week ago, I think it was, that Alaska's law on prohibiting recreational use of marijuana became effective.
So they're coming after all of those states, and so I guess, Jim, Where do you see this headed with the UN?
How are they going to try to enforce that since they don't have any UN police?
The United Nations has these treaties.
And the treaties exist because the nations of the world agreed to be a part of the treaties.
The United States, Russia, China, India, Sweden, countries that often don't agree on much of anything, agree on the war on drugs.
And as a consequence, the nations of the world were required by this 1961 treaty to go home and to criminalize the recreational use of drugs.
And to provide for the incarceration and deprivation of freedom of people who violated the rules.
As a consequence of that, the Controlled Substances Act was adopted by the United States Congress.
The states replicated the federal system and put in statewide prohibition and the nations of the world followed suit and did the same thing, which created havoc around the world that increased drug availability, that reduced the price of drugs, that In the dark.
Because you can't read the label to see what's on it.
Because the irony of prohibition is that when you prohibit something, you give up the right to control and regulate it.
And drugs are too dangerous not to control and regulate.
So LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is going to the United Nations on Monday.
And we, along with the Czech Republic, will be presenting a side event which is titled Treaty Amendments.
A choice for drug policy reform.
And it is essential that the nations of the world wake up And demand an end to this crazy war on drugs that kills in Mexico 100,000 people, 10,000 people a year, that resulted in 60 tons of meth being seized worldwide last year, that resulted in 100 new synthetic drugs being invented last year, that are being created so quickly by drug cartels because they're not against the law if you just invented it.
That we can't add them to the prohibition schedules you mentioned fast enough.
Yeah, that's a good example.
Meth, I think.
Because we see in that what we saw in the original drug prohibition, alcohol prohibition.
We saw that there were very dangerous forms of alcohol created.
Things that were far more dangerous than regular alcohol.
And of course the concentrations went up.
It was a boon for organized crime because they had a monopoly on the black market.
It corrupted the police.
But now our war on drugs has been going on much, much longer than that.
That only lasted about 14 years.
Now, like you pointed out, we've been going on this for 45 years.
And they took a different approach with this in the 1980s.
Reagan started coming after end users instead of essentially going after the Al Capones.
He went after everybody in the speakeasies, locking them up with mandatory minimums.
And so it's become much more pervasive.
It's metastasized into many more forms, become much worse because of the additional length of time.
Basically, your approach Is to go to the fountainhead of the war on drugs, the UN, and to say we don't need to be taking this law enforcement approach to a drug addiction problem.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all, where then all the nations of the world must speak with a single prohibition voice, instead we want to give the nations of the world the right to put in place drug policies which will work in their country, that will replace the prohibition criminalization system
cares about health, that cares about human rights, that reduces incarceration, that increases freedom, that convinces people that we recognize as the governments of the world that we cannot prevent you from using drugs if you choose to.
We can't keep drugs out of a controlled prison environment.
And how do we expect to keep it out of a free society in the world?
People themselves have to use discretion and choose not to use drugs.
Not because the government says you can't, but because we as individuals choose not to.
And if you do decide you're going to use drugs, which we don't recommend, then at least they should be controlled and regulated so you're not killing yourself because you don't know what the heck is in the package.
Because government, when they outlaw drugs, give up the right to regulate who's going to sell it, where it works.
Where it will be sold, the conditions of sale, how strong can the drug be?
And you can't mandate Naloxone be sold along with a dose of heroin when you outlaw heroin in the first place.
And you can't even make a labeling law.
You made a connection between the kind of proposals that you're talking about and the way we approach tobacco.
We understand that tobacco is addictive.
We understand that it's very harmful for your health.
But instead of taking a law enforcement approach like we did with alcohol, like we have done with all these other drugs, we took a different approach.
Talk about that a little bit because that's part of your proposal to the UN, isn't it?
Well, I mean, right now the two most dangerous drugs in the world are alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal.
One of the things that we have suggested is that alcohol and tobacco should be controlled and regulated and a part of the overall view of drugs regulated by the world community through the United Nations.
And that each year these drugs should be listed and scheduled to show which is the one that's killing the most people.
So people can better appreciate what is a dangerous drug and what is killing the most people.
Yes, absolutely.
And of course, putting marijuana in as a Schedule 1 drug is essentially saying that it doesn't have any medicinal uses, and we know that that's not true, flat out.
It's an absurdity.
When you take 3.5% to 7% of the world population who are using a controlled substance in violation of the rules, it shows an international disrespect for the law.
Just as the Controlled Substances Act in the United States shows a disrespect and the violation of it, a disrespect for law enforcement.
People don't respect it when the police are policing for profit to basically hijack the profits of the drug gangs, to take the money, the cash, the cars, the real estate, and convert it to their own use with half gone to the feds and half gone to the local law enforcement agency.
How can you respect something like that?
Absolutely.
When you rough the kid up and when you stop and frisk somebody, when you arrest blacks 48 times the rate at which you arrest whites, how can law enforcement in that mission be respected?
It's not.
And it leads to this horrible policing and violations and excess force and And the 391 program, I believe, is where the Pentagon delivers its tanks to local law enforcement so we can have episodes like we saw in Ferguson just a while ago. - Yes, absolutely.
Now, in terms of talking about this, in terms of talking even about the legal authority for this, I think it's set up a real interesting case, these state initiatives, these laws that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana.
I think that sets up a very interesting case, and as a former prosecutor and lawyer, I'd like to get your take on it because we've got now states that have said in violation of what the federal government has been saying for 40 years they said no we're not going to arrest people who are recreationally using marijuana and you've got the feds
Pushing back on it, you've got some states in particular, Oklahoma and Nebraska, are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and use the Supremacy Clause in a way that I think is not valid.
I think we had two amendments in the Constitution, the 9th and 10th Amendment, that made it pretty clear that unless the power was explicitly given to the federal government to regulate something, they didn't have that power.
It was reserved to the people in the states.
And I think that was recognized in the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment.
Where they prohibited alcohol, they said they needed to have a constitutional amendment because they didn't have that inherent power under some supremacy clause, and then had to have another amendment to take that out.
So how do you see this playing out legally within the United States?
Because while you're going to the United Nations, the source of where this agenda has come, and trying to change the approach there, you've got people in the states who are saying, we're going to exercise our Tenth Amendment rights and we're not going to send people to prison, while other states are trying to appeal this to the Supreme Court.
How do you see this shaking out legally?
Well, I think it's wonderful that we've got these referendums that are passing where the people themselves are saying that our drug laws are so bad that we are going to defy federal law and we are going to legalize, for example, cannabis.
Cannabis, people know for a long time as a medicine, yet the federal government under its laws says it's not a medicine.
Well, we've got little kids with seizures multiple times a day that can be helped with cannabis, but we've outlawed it.
So the dichotomy between federal and state law is a long-time historical part of our government in the United States.
And the President has been wise enough to recognize where the people themselves exercising their authority under state law They legalize a substance.
We're not going to use federal resources to come in and imprison or try and trump local state law.
That's at least a step in the correct direction.
I see this playing out with the war on drugs coming to a quick conclusion because the people realize it doesn't work.
The difficulty is law enforcement and parents and teachers and responsible people, drug treaters, are some of the most difficult people to convince, even though if you ask somebody, does the war on drugs work?
I mean, you're going to get at least 9 out of 10 that are going to say, absolutely not.
But it's a harder question to convince somebody to use their head and recognize that these things are too dangerous to leave uncontrolled.
From the beginning of time, people have used illicit substances and they're going to, to the end of time.
So rather than criminalize and harass a world of people, let's control and regulate drugs.
and try to reduce the harm, reduce the number of people incarcerated.
Stop rewarding police for getting one person to rat on another person instead of relying on the golden rule that we once upon a time used.
Absolutely.
It's just corrupted us in so many different ways systemically.
And I'm hoping that people are going to stand up at the state level, assert their Tenth Amendment rights, stand for their individual rights as human beings, support each other in juries, not convict each other.
We've had a lot of cases of jury nullification of people who were charged with possessing large amounts of marijuana and they had the jurors let them go.
We now have executive nullification in effect where things are so bad the Attorney General Eric Holder is saying U.S.
attorneys don't charge people with these drug crimes that have mandatory minimums where we've got to send them away forever in a non-violent drug offense.
Well, as you pointed out, it's an information war.
It's something we have to convince.
A lot of people who are in responsible positions just cannot see even the precedent that we had with our failed experiment with prohibition at the beginning of last century.
And so now we're doomed to repeat it again, even though it's been failing now for close to 50 years.
Thank you so much, Jim Geerak.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, I wish you the best in taking it to the source of the drug war, to the United Nations.
I thank you for speaking truth to power, and I hope you are successful in getting them to change their priorities at that level.
David, thank you for letting LEAP bring this message to you and your listeners.
Thank you so much, Drew.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Well, it's very important for people to go to the United Nations like Jim Garak is doing.
Make the case that we need to approach this differently, not as a law enforcement problem, but as a drug addiction problem.
Still, we need to understand that we have the rights under the 9th and 10th Amendment to make these decisions at the state level and even at the individual level with our juries.
We need to understand that there was no constitutional authority and there remains no constitutional authority to prohibit anything.
That's why we had the 18th and the 21st Amendments.
Because everybody, a hundred years ago, understood that those powers were not possessed by the federal government.
So they're not something that can be turned over to a treaty.
But as Jim points out, it's not being enforced by the UN.
The UN is just a collection of nations who are saying, well, you know, we all agree that we're going to Run this drug prohibition war.
So you're part of the club, do it.
And they say, oh, don't twist my arm behind my back, because it's a very effective way for governments to control the population.
And we know how involved our government is on both sides of the war on drugs, both as a prosecutor and as a supplier.
Well, that's it for tonight.
If you are watching us on YouTube, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
If you're not a Prison Planet TV subscriber, please consider becoming a subscriber and financially supporting our operation.
Your contribution, your membership, your subscription will allow you to watch the news every weeknight as it happens, and it will also give you and 20 people access to all of Alex Jones' documentaries.
Well, that's it for tonight.
Please join us again tomorrow night at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
From the water table, to our soils, to the atmosphere itself, our world is becoming more and more toxic each and every day.
But it's not just the air outside that's toxic.
Indoor air has been shown to have two to five times higher concentrations of pollutants than even outdoor air.
And most Americans spend 90% of their time inside using toxic chemicals within their homes.
There are more than 42 million smokers in the United States.
Well over a thousand types of mold and mildew linked to numerous conditions.
And don't forget the fact that 6 million Americans live with pets they're allergic to as well.
When I began to research these statistics, it was clear to me it was time to start cleansing my lungs in order to combat the toxic environment that we cannot escape but that we can fight back against.
Made with organic and wild cultivated herbs, You are watching the InfoWars Nightly News, which airs 7 p.m.
Central at InfoWarsNews.com.
▲
Export Selection