Top 10 conspiracies of 2012 countdown

Welcome to the Devils in the Details radio show live on skidrowstudios.com. Here's your hosts, Wyne Russell and Nestor Rodriguez. Thank you for joining us yet again on the Devils in the Details radio show. I thank you for listening live here on skidrowstudios.com. My name is Wyne Russell and I welcome you to a very fun, fast and informative show today. We are going to have some fun in the spirits of the holidays. Nestor and I are going to count down New Year's Eve style. As we share our personal top 10 conspiracies of 2012. So let's have some fun today and learn as we're going to share a lot of interesting information, important information and let's have some fun today with this show. So you can call into the show always at 818-893-9562 or watch it live on ustream.com by searching for Skid Row Studios. Now we're looking for Nestor out there in the Netherlands of the Eastern Seaboard. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. or watch it live on ustream.com by searching for Skid Row Studios. Now we're looking for Nestor out there in the Netherlands of the Eastern Seaboard, and I see that he hasn't called in yet today, so I'm going to go ahead and start the show without him, and when he calls in, we'll have him join in and join the fun. So I do have a few of his notes. I don't have all of his five, but we will go through his notes, and I will try to get through the show until he calls in to join in. So with no further ado, this is the last show of the year here at the Devils in the Details radio show. Of course, of the year, we are at the end of a tumultuous year for everybody in the world, I would say. We've come to the end of this huge 2012 conspiracy hoax, and we are set for a new year with hope and vigor, and we're looking forward to that. And more shows, of course, from the Devils in the Details, so with no further ado, I'm going to go ahead and get started. This is Wyme and Nestor's Top 10 Conspiracies of 2012. Here we go. The Top 10 Conspiracies of 2012, number 10. The Top 10 Conspiracies, number 10. So this was one of my choices, and this is the death or murder of Andrew Breitbart. And I say the potential murder, because the death of Andrew Breitbart is certainly in question. So who is Andrew Breitbart? For those of you who do not know, he was born February 1st, 69. He died March 1st, 2012. He was a conservative American publisher, commentator for the Washington Times, and author of his own books, of course. He owned the news aggregation site Breitbart.com and five other websites, so he was a businessman. Back on March 1st, it was Andrew Breitbart who was the subject of a highly coincidental passing. He died the very same day he was to submit videos about Obama that he claimed were finally going to allow us to vet the president. So something he said, something he said that had yet to be done by anyone in the media. So that's how Breitbart felt, is that Obama never really got a clear vetting in the people's eye, and that we never really had a lot of information to judge him, judge his character on, or how he would do as president. So it goes on. Breitbart claimed the explosive videos. So he claimed he had videos, and the videos showed Obama in his college days where he was involved in a... It was speech. He was giving a speech. I've seen the video, but hey, we'll talk about that in a second. So Breitbart claimed the explosive videos that he had been given secretly were so inflammatory, that it was sure to ruin Obama's bid for reelection, and he was planning on releasing them on his website that very day of his death. Do we have Nestor on the line? Is Nestor available? Hey, Nestor, are you there, buddy? Yo, what's up, man? How are you? How's it going? Happy holidays. I've already started with number one, but let's backtrack a little bit. I saw you. I just got on, and you were talking about Breitbart. Yes, sir. So today, man, we're having some fun. We're taking it a little slower, a little lighter here on The Devils in the Details. As you know, we're doing the Wyman Nestor's Top 10 Conspiracies of 2012. Yeah. But let me first ask you, how are you doing? How's the trip? How was Christmas? Did you have a good time? Everything's been great. Excellent. I was in New York for a week, and then I'm up in New Hampshire. It snowed yesterday, so there's a lot of snow on the ground, and it dips down to like 20 degrees. But my in-laws are Italian-Americans, so there's a lot of food. I gained about 10 pounds. Outstanding. In the last three days. I love it. I love it. All right, well, Nestor, since we have started, let's jump right back in. So this is number 10. This was one of my choices, which is the death of Andrew Breitbart. So are you familiar with who Andrew Breitbart is? Yes, I am. We kind of covered it. Yeah, he's a conservative American publisher. He's a writer and an author. And he had this videotape or this collection of tapes that was allegedly showing some sort of early years of Obama that if we saw these videos, we would all have a different opinion about Obama and so forth. So that was the whole theory behind what his videos entailed. Right. But so— Are those videos the Acorn videos? They're videos of actually Obama speaking in a college group. So it was a college speech. Now, that was the video that was actually released after his death. Was he dressed as a pimp? I don't know, but what— Well— Because I was watching. I was reading about him. You mean Obama? No, no. Obama was— Obama was just a regular college kid. Yeah, and— No, no, no. I got you. I was reading, though, about this clip that Breitbart edited to, you know, to accuse Acorn of trying to get their volunteers to come up with schemes to avoid paying taxes and all this other crazy stuff. Okay. So there was a lot of dialogue about that on a couple of sites. Right. And Breitbart was a columnist and a writer, so he does—he was a man of, you know, many opinions. And— Yeah. So you should really look into that. Breitbart.com is a great website for information and opinions. It's another point of view, and it's always interesting to find that. But the man died, interestingly enough, on the day he was actually going to release that information. Right. And so he made it clear to the press that he had these tapes that were going to show Obama in a different light. And he was going to release them on March 1st, and the man had a heart attack, a massive heart attack, and collapsed on March 1st. Right. Right. That's an interesting point to the Breitbart issue. The L.A. County forensic technician Michael Cormier was involved in the autopsy of Mr. Breitbart and was set to submit a final report about the details surrounding his death. Unfortunately, prior to the release of his findings in the autopsy, Mr. Cormier was rushed to St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank and died as a result of what the hospital is reporting as a poisoning. Police ruled out suicide as a potential cause of death. So the coroner, the person who was actually going to release findings on him, was a person who was going to release findings on him. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. But the person who was still on Mr. Breitbart's death died also in questionable circumstances and they claimed that it was a poisoning. So what do you think? The coroner was poisoned. That's correct. Got it. Got it. Prior, he was about to release the findings in Breitbart's autopsy. Got it. Got it. Yeah. Yeah because I was looking at the toxicology report for Breitbart. I was doing a little research on him earlier and... Which findings? I think they didn't find anything. They didn't find any poisons... Interesting. ...or...you know...wrong...fou...fou... Foul play was ruled out and all this other stuff. And this comes from the same L.A. County forensic group of people that potentially did in Mr. Cormier or, to some event, had him poisoned. I couldn't certainly make that aspersion, but the fact that the technician or the person involved in the autopsy prior to releasing the information on his death was then rushed to a hospital and found to be poisoned, I don't know. It doesn't look really good for the honesty in the findings of what you're reading, the death report or the autopsy report. So I don't know. Breitbart is an open book for sure. Not a lot of information. About the Breitbart death, that is certainly something that the media does not want you to talk about. And I don't know why. That's interesting. That's interesting that you took it one step further to the coroner who did the autopsy. Well, yeah, that was part of the whole story. Right, right. Certainly very serious detail in the investigation is that that coroner was found poisoned. But still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still Political Action Committee is correct. Got it. You know what? That's all time we have on these, so each one we got to move real quick. So Andrew Breitbart, major conspiracy of 2012. What happened? Was it a heart attack? Was it a heart attack or was it murder, potentially for releasing some secret videos that he had possession of? Right. He died at 43, by the way, 43. Too young, that's for sure. Yeah, very young. All right, Nestor, you're up next. This is number nine. So here we go with no further ado. Get ready. Top conspiracy of 2012, number nine. Is that number nine is mine? That's yours, man. Hit it. Oh, my God. I don't even know which one to start with. I mean, I got a few of them. Why don't we do, let me see. What do you got? You know, since we're on the Breitbart thing, why don't I just tap into, we did the birth certificate thing with Obama, and I know that was last, two episodes ago. Correct. But I was doing research. I was doing research on that stuff. Okay. And I was doing research on just legal definitions of things. Okay. And I, you know, I just think it's appropriate. So in lieu of a specific conspiracy or not, I'd like to read the legal definition of citizen. Go right ahead. And I think, and then we don't even have to comment on it. Go right ahead. I find it very interesting that certain things get brought out in politics after they're already in play, and depending on the politics. And, you know, there's a lot of parties and whatnot who wants to, you know, hide or lie or whatever. Anyway. Well, what do you got? You got the definition of what a citizen is. It's the legal definition of citizen. Got it. The citizen. Okay. Persons. One who under the Constitution and laws of the United States has a right to vote for representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen are included all white persons, born in the United States, and neutralized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children. Two. Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office. Naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the Constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice president. The Constitution provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges, and immunities of citizens in the several states. All natives are not citizens of the United States. In other words, just because you're born here doesn't necessarily mean you're a citizen. Okay. The descendants of the Aborigines and those of African origin are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. Okay. That Constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens. It does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States, and must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. Okay. This is, this, by the way, I got this from a legal dictionary, legal dictionary, thefreedictionary.com. Okay. So, so I was just looking this up because somebody had, somebody had... It's very interesting, by the way. I mean, that's very interesting information. Isn't it? Sure, go right ahead. What are your thoughts? Well, I mean, I find it interesting that the word white persons is, is put in there. Okay. I mean, I find it interesting that the word white persons is, is put in there. Okay. That is put in there a couple of times... And what was their... ... and I find it interesting... ... and I find it interesting... ... what was their definition of white? Well, there isn't a specific definition... Oh... ... but it says... ... okay... ... it says... I'll go back. It says, in a more extended sense, under the word citizen are included all white persons. So I guess what they're saying is it doesn't matter, but as long as you're white, under the word citizen, and if you're born in the United States, then you're cool. Now, is this quoting a law? Is this an actual quote of a law? Yeah, apparently this is from the Constitution, Article 4, Section 2. Wonderful. I mean, it says, let me see, unless this is all put in on different parts, but the reason I even, and I don't want to go too crazy into this, I know we're going to move on to 8, but the reason I had, I'll pop this one out, because I found it interesting that all natives are not citizens of the United States. So in other words, on one hand, it says that if you're born here, you're automatically a citizen, but then there's an exception, right? All natives are not citizens of the United States. The descendants of Aborigines and those of African origin are not entitled to the rights of citizens. So that just made me think of maybe that's one of the reasons why some people were so gung-ho into getting Obama's birth certificate, because if they could prove that his father was born in Africa, they could probably take away his citizenship rights, whether or not he was born here or not. You know what I'm saying? That was the whole issue. You're absolutely right. Right. So the part of the Constitution that you are... Right. Right. That you are reading was the entire issue for many people in the Obama birth certificate. Right. You know, conspiracy. Right. That's crazy, man. That is crazy. Well, it's not necessarily... Well, I mean, what? The wording of the Constitution is crazy? Is that what you're saying? No, I think it's crazy that, for instance, let me go back. One who under the Constitution and laws of the United States has the right to vote for a representative in Congress and other public offices, and who is qualified to fill office in the gift of the people. Okay. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen. Okay. So, you know, if you're a white person, or included all white persons born in the United States. Okay. So, there's a specific emphasis on, you know, if you're white and you're born here, you have no problem being considered a citizen or getting, you know, having the rights of citizenship. Okay. But if you are a descendant of an aborigine or African, you know, or if you're of African descent or aboriginal descent, then you do not qualify. You're not entitled to all the rights of citizenship in the United States, whether or not you were, even if you were born here. You know what I'm saying? I just think it's, I think it's crazy. All right. Well, where do you stand on being a citizen? Are you, do you, so you read the law? Are you, are you okay? Are you clear? Because I'm okay. So, I'm clear. I'm good. Where are you? How are you? What's your status? Are you okay? Is everything good? Something you got to worry about? Am I clear? I don't know, man. You went to that law. I don't know. I mean, I have, I have African blood in me, believe it or not. Okay. So, you know, I don't know. Nothing wrong with that. My grandmother's, my grandmother's black from Puerto Rico. So, I mean. And all of this. She's a descendant of slaves. Right. Who are descendants of Africans. So, I mean, I don't know. So, did you find a conspiracy in the Constitution, Nestor? That's what I want to find out. And then we'll move on to number eight. Do you think there's a conspiracy? Of course there's a conspiracy in the Constitution. In who would actually be allowed to be a citizen? Oh, who would be allowed to benefit from the rights of being a citizen. Got it. You see? Got it. Well, excellent. You know what? Good job. Let's jump to number eight. This is, let's hit it. Number eight. Number eight is the, well, one of my choices. This is a big one for all of us in the year 2012 and years to come. This is the NDAA or the National Defense Authorization Act. And this law is pure conspiracy. Conspiracy to take our freedoms and our inalienable rights and not allow us judicial rights. And this law is not a law that we can review or do process of any law if we are convicted of the NDAA or detained as a, you know, a combatant as, you know, dictated in the NDAA. So what is it? It is the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. This is an Obama law signed December 31st, 2011. So this is the first year that it has started. And what this actually does is it executes a law that is not in the law. It's not in the law. It's not in the law. It's an order that makes the entire globe more or less a battlefield in the war on terrorism. So it's quite scary that now the continental United States are now, is now basically a battlefield on this ideological war on terror. And it's quite, quite scary. So in extending that battlefield that gives our military and our government more powers against us. And that's what this law sets up and establishes, is that, There are clauses here, and I urge you to read it. Of course, we can't read the whole thing today, but I urge you to read it. There are various sections regarding our freedoms and the rights to courts when we are taken in as a terrorist threat to the United States. So based on the NDAA, if the words we say or our doings or what we do causes our government to think we are going to be a national security threat, they can pull us in on this NDAA, indefinitely detain us, allow us no rights to any Article III courts that we know of, the due process, you know, the courts that we're used to. Right. And. Would not even guarantee any such trial would ever happen. So it's completely rewriting our Bill of Rights and our, you know, the way we do things in the legal world. And it is also stating indefinite detention without trial. So that now that you don't need a trial, and if they determine that you are a danger, you can be held indefinitely in places like Guantanamo Bay. Right. So what do you think? That's certainly conspiratorial if they want to. Right. You know, call the entire world this battlefield. Yeah. And then say, OK. This doesn't sound like it's something new, though. I mean, this is brand new. It sounds like it's. Is it? This is brand new. This is an extension. OK, OK. This is an extension of the Patriot Act. It's more control, more power. It sounds like something similar to something that was passed a couple of years ago. Well, I'm sure they had something similar. They had something similar. But this is, in fact, that Orwellian nightmare. And it is all being created in the NDAA. Now, let me tell you something interesting about the NDAA. So President Obama got a lot of, you know, reaction to the strong information here or what the law actually meant. The indefinite detention. It had the Iran sanctions in it that put us at war financially, more or less, with Iran. That's all in this bill or law now. But what Obama did was when he got the reaction from the masses, he issued signing statements. Do you know what signing statements are? No. Signing statements are something that a president does. He gives his opinion on a law and he uses a signing statement to issue that opinion. And he puts it in writing and he kind of makes it official. And he, you know, files that with the law officially. So what he did was he stated that, yes, those provisions are in the NDAA to take you out of your home if we find you a threat. And put you in a box. And you're going to be in jail forever without a trial. So they give you that. But, you know, we have that power. But we're not going to use it. So don't worry about that. You know, nothing to see here. Signing statement's good. We're not going to use it. But we just, you know, gave ourselves that power for the fun of doing it. Just in case. So what do you think? Real quick, we got to move on. But what do you think about the NDAA? Certainly a conspiracy of 2012. Big time. Yeah. And years to come, of course. Years to come. Now there are court cases fighting the NDAA. So hopefully they can get that right. Yeah. And it's going to be reversed at some point. But so far under the Obama administration, no signs of slowing. So very scary stuff, man. So you want to move on? You want to do number seven? I believe we're at number seven. We're at number seven. Here we go. We're on the political track. So let's keep it going. All right. Here we go. Hold on one sec. Here we go. Number seven. You got to like that. Love it. Love it. Love it. Love it. Go for it, man. You know, I wanted to bring up the conspiracy to prevent black voters from getting to the polls this past year in Florida specifically under- That's something. That's something. Republican Governor Rick Scott. This is a new one. Now this is one I haven't heard, man. So you said, come on, feed me some information. Give it to me. Oh, oh, oh. So this is every election they have, I believe- You're saying in Florida specifically? Well, they have them in the South. Okay. This thing called Souls to the Polls, which is usually the Sunday before election, right? So, and it goes back to, I don't know how many years, how many hundreds of years, whatever. Okay. But basically you have African Americans that go to church on Sunday. Okay. And they would have, they would be able to do early voting, especially that Sunday because they're coming out of church and it'd be a lot easier for them to vote. Okay. And in Southern states, they're allowed early voting up until, I think upwards of eight days before election. Interesting. And the weekends are very, very important because a lot of these guys, a lot of these people can't take off time from work. Okay. Makes sense. Sure. Yeah. The Republicans, they, I'm not sure if they passed, I think they did. They passed a law. They passed a law that would prevent anybody from voting early, 48 hours before the election, which meant on that Souls to the Polls day, that Sunday before election, those people were not allowed to vote. Okay. Like they normally would. So where'd you get the information? So somebody stated that this group of people couldn't vote or was that group angry? No, no, no, no. This was a big deal that was going on in the South and Florida. Interesting. And we all know Florida is always between the Republican governors and the elections. Right. So you're assuming that these voters were Democrats, right? Or you're saying that the Republicans stopped them? You know what? They're assuming that they were Democrats, but there was no party affiliation. It was just basically they prevented voters from voting 48 hours before the election. When you say they. Early voters, they couldn't do it on that Sunday. Who are we speaking about they? Who's they in this situation? Who prevented the voters? Primarily African Americans. But no, who prevented the African Americans from voting? Oh, the government. The government. The government. You said the government of Florida. Yeah, the governor. Interesting. I haven't heard this one yet. The governor of Florida specifically. Yes. Very interesting. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, that would be a major conspiracy. Certainly, that would apply. Yeah, for instance, for instance, the Republican controlled state legislator cut early voting to eight days from 14 last year. Okay. So they basically. They basically, you know, this specific election. Right. There were reports of people having to wait six hours online to vote. Okay. That could be due to the excitement for President Obama. I know the lines are very long. So certainly we all know which day is election day here in America and we are to make it to the polls on that day. Now, if we can't. There are. There are still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still still In your conspiracy, you're stating that this was somehow prevented by a certain group of people, you know, by the government. But we don't have much time on this one. But so what was so the conspiracy is go ahead and sum this one up. Well, to prevent a normal to prevent normally allowed voters to vote in during the early, you know, to submit early ballots the way they they normally were able to do it. And primarily it would affect African-Americans. Basically, what what what the what the conspiracy was. Got it. And just a quick point on the end of that one. If you are stating that it was the Republican government stopping Democratic voters, President Obama was certainly reelected. So that conspiracy, although may certainly could have been a well-planned conspiracy, didn't didn't go off well. So, hey, no, no, no. Good job, man. Backfired. And by the way, by the way, it wasn't Tuesday, November 6th, where people had to. Stayed in line for six hours. We're talking about Saturday. OK, well, that is the amazing early voting. That's the amazing support and the outpouring for President Obama. So let's let's move on. Let's move on to number six. I believe we're on number six now. Number six. Is that correct? Here we go. Number six. Number six. Number six. All right, Nestor. Number six comes to us from the world of sports. Mr. Chad Knauss of Hendrick Motorsports and the Seapost Corporation. A conspiracy on Jimmy Johnson's number 48. This occurred at the Daytona 500 2012. So let me just read this to you and I'll tell you what happened. So February 2012, Chad Knauss was once again accused by NASCAR officials of rules violation involving the number 48 car of Jimmy Johnson after it failed pre-race inspection for the Daytona 500. Oh, sorry. For the Daytona 500, of course. NASCAR issued penalties to Knauss and car chief Ron Malik, who were both suspended for six races. Knauss was fired. Oh, pardon. Knauss was fined $100,000 and driver Jimmy Johnson docked 25 driver points. Now, of course, NASCAR rescinded the suspensions, but they certainly left the money penalties in place. And I guess they did that because at the end of this whole conspiracy, they got to the point that possibly it wasn't done with any malicious intention. But what happened was during the inspection process, NASCAR officials found the Seapost on Johnson's Daytona 500 car to be illegal. Oh, sorry. A Seapost is a panel that connects the rear of the car's roof to the top of the rear quarter panel or the deck lid. The parts were confiscated. They took it to the research center and they said, yeah, this was certainly something that was modified to win the race. So a quick background on the Daytona 500. That is the Super Bowl of NASCAR, the most important race of the year. It is the first race and the purse is like $20 million and there's unseen fame and fortune if you're the winner. Wow. So putting Jimmy Johnson certainly in the... In the catbird seat, which he always is anyway because he is Jimmy Johnson, but certainly modifying his car to win that would be a huge conspiracy. What do you think? Well, I mean... Do you ever watch NASCAR? Do you ever watch races? Not into that? That sounds crazy. No, no, no, no. They do this all the time. And I wouldn't go as far as saying that these people are cheating. I certainly wouldn't say that. But they push the limits of their technology and the way they build these cars. And they just... Stretch it as far as they could. And they just got caught stretching it just a little bit too far. So certainly a conspiracy to win a race, but not necessarily a conspiracy to commit any wrongdoing as the NASCAR cleared them in the end of maybe just making a slight mistake. So does it happen in sports, Nestor? What do you think, man? Happens everywhere, doesn't it? It happens in sports. Are we ready to move on? Because my next one has to do with sports also. All right. What do you got? Hold on. We're on number five. Here we go. Number five. Number five. Number five. Go for it. It happens in sports. My number five one, coincidentally, is Penn State with Jerry Sandusky. Right. What do you got on Sandusky? We all know he was the pervert who molested many boys. And so what do you got? Well, he was an assistant coach at Penn State. He wasn't known as a pervert. He was known as a big... He was... He was a linebacker coach in 1970 and then promoted to defensive coordinator in 1977. So what did we learn about Mr. Sandusky and what did he do? So what his job was is irrelevant. But what was he convicted of? What was the conspiracy? Well, here's the deal. Well, he did a lot of things. Well, he was convicted. Okay. He was... Of what? He was charged on 55 counts of child molestation. Ouch. 52 counts. Sounds like a pervert to me, Nestor. Well, it sounds like a pervert to me. It sounds like something. I'll tell you. Then he was found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges. Apparently, they must have dropped four of those charges. Wow. But he was found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges. And sent to a supermax prison, by the way. He is doing time in a supermax. Well, I think he was 60 and they gave him 30 to 60 years prison. In one of the toughest prisons in America. Thank goodness. But dude, if you really look at it. Yeah. For 45... He's found guilty on 45 charges. If you look at 30 to 60 years, that's not a lot of time. It's enough for his entire natural life. Sandusky will never see the light of day. He molested children and took their freedoms away. You want to assume. Innocence away. We can assume. You want to assume. No, we know that Sandusky will never see the light of day. I got you. But still, that's not a lot of time. But the conspiracy is major. Considering the crimes he did. Oh, it's plenty of time. Because he's a very old man. How old is Mr. Sandusky? What is his age? I think he was in his 60s. I'm not quite sure. So he won't last another 60 years. Nestor, we have to move on. So Mr. Sandusky is an awesome conspiracy. He's certainly not an awesome man. Or he didn't do awesome things, in my opinion. Well, the conspiracy is this. That his superiors knew about this. Right. Yes. And they did not take any action. You're absolutely right. Even after, you know, like... For instance, one specific guy had reported walking in on Sandusky, Mike McQueary. Right. Right. Yes. That's right. He walked in on Sandusky. In the shower. In the shower, man. Oh, my goodness. Naked. Behind a young, I think, 12-year-old kid. Now, wouldn't you have gone in and... And he went in and reported it to his superior. Now, wouldn't you have gone in and stopped that? Would you have stopped it? Dude. We all know... We all know... We all know... We all know... We all know... We all know the details. But would you have stopped that, Nestor? What would you have done? I would have been in shock, number one. Definitely. And I'm not sure if I would have stopped it or really, you know, pummeled the old guy. Oh. One of the two things. That would have had to occur. Right. In my opinion. If I would have seen that, that would have occurred and Sandusky would have been out on his butt that day. Yeah. But I tell you, I think what I would have done is I would have definitely made it clear to him that if he did not turn himself in... That I was going to do it. And I'd call the police. Right. And I wouldn't go to my superiors. Good job. You know what I'm saying? Right. Well, I agree with you, Nestor. Sandusky is a monster. Thank God he is behind bars. He is in a Supermax and will never see the light of day. So, good job on that conspiracy. Let's jump to number four. I believe we're on number four. This is a real quick one. This is an important one to me. So, here we go. Number four. Number four is that annual compulsory flu shot. Now, that... This is not necessarily related to just 2020. But this is something that people do year in and year out. And that is feel the need to get this annual flu vaccination. I urge you to look into the effectiveness and the side effects of this yearly flu shot and why you actually feel you need it. So, I can't certainly give you medical advice on this show. But I can warn you that if you choose to give that annual flu shot to your loved ones, make sure that you read the inserts or ask where the shot is. And if you're not sure where the shot is, ask for this insert, which is the paperwork or documentation that comes along with these flu shots. And it tells you the ingredients in the shot. And I urge you to look up that information in... You know, look up each ingredient and find out what is actually being injected into not only, you know, you, your child, your grandfather. You know, it's unbelievable. So, it's big business. It's sold to us on television, on radio, everywhere we go, every pharmacy, Walmart, Target. They're all willing. They all want to shoot us up. Sometimes for free, sometimes for a fee. But the companies that make this vaccination are reaping billions. And I ask you, why do we need an annual flu shot? Isn't one good enough forever? Does it make people sick? How many flus does it prevent? I mean, all of this stuff is in major question. And it is a huge conspiracy each year, not just related to this year, but many. What do you think about flu shots? I don't believe in them. I don't take them. And I'm with you. I'm with you on this. I think that Americans and people in general, they're all too easy to volunteer, pulling down their pants, propping up their butt, and just allowing anybody to stick a needle in their ass without questioning what it is that they're being injected with. Correct. I just urge you, once again, I can't tell you not to get the shots, but if you do choose to get the shots, become informed on what's in the shot and the effectiveness and possible interactions with things that you're taking. Right. So there is one study that I'd like to point you to is Dr. Sherry Tenpenny. Please go to drtenpenny.com and look at her study on the information. And her advice is very relevant because she seems to think that they're not worth the liquid they're basically made in. So check out Dr. Sherry Tenpenny's reports or opinions on flu shots, along with your own doctor and as many opinions as you can find out there. But please. Right. Be wary of the annual flu shot. You may not need it. What's interesting to me about that is that if you know, historically, every year there's a different strain of virus. Right. And there's no protection against any new strains. Right. How could you prevent an unknown strain of virus when it hasn't necessarily officially come out yet? So you're basically going to take a shot for a flu that they don't even know the strain of virus that it is. You know what I mean? So be careful of flu shots. I'm warning you, it's a major conspiracy. Look into it. If you do get it, be informed. All right, Nestor, you're up, man. This is number three. Here we go. Number three. Hit it. Number three. Okay. Number three. Number three. I would have to go with the Apple conspiracy. Apple and book publishing companies. Let me see. Apple and book publishers, they collude to raise e-book prices. Okay. Okay. And they got sued by the Justice Department. All right? Good. So let me read. When the Justice Department sued Apple and five of the nation's largest publishers for anti-competitive behavior, it seemed a bit counterintuitive. Isn't Amazon the real monopoly in the e-book business? Amazon may dominate the market, but it was those publishers that illegally colluded with one another and Apple to force a so-called agency model on e-book sellers, according to the Justice Department. Interesting. In this model, the publishers set the rules. The sellers took a commission. Okay. This enabled the publishers to raise the price of e-books and turn customers away from Amazon's practice of pricing many books at $9.99. Wow. A model that the publishers thought was unsustainable. A conspiracy on book readers specifically, Nestor. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Amazing. So, okay. So what we have is a conspiracy to raise the price of e-books. Now, by who? This was by Apple? Well, it was by Apple and five of the nation's largest book publishers. Five. So they all got in cahoots, or they all got together, and they said, we're going to raise the price of e-books because we think that – Because nobody's buying regular books and everyone's just buying – Right, right. Well, that's a thing of the past. But basically, Amazon had a bar at e-books for $9.99. Okay. Which kind of limits the amount of profit a publisher can make on e-books. Okay. Right? All right. So apparently, Apple and the five nation's large publishers, they said, well, $9.99 is not enough for e-books. Right. And for us to make a profit. I get it. Right. Yeah. So basically, the Justice Department sued those five and Apple. Very good. And three of the publishers settled with the Justice Department. But specifically, Macmillan and Penguin Publishers did not settle, and they're going to be fighting it out in court in 2013. Very interesting. We're going to have to keep an eye on the conspiracy against book readers. That is a new one to me. But you know what? We learned a lot of things here on the show. Devils in the Details radio show. So great one, Nestor. So we're going to, you know, hey, e-books. Well, basically. They got to be competitive, right? Prices have to be competitive. Wime basically unleashed it. He said, you need to go out there and do some research. So I kind of like deviated and went into like different cracks and crevices. Good job, man. Not the obvious stuff. All right. Hey, well, that takes us to number two. And it is on me. So here we go. Number two. Number two is the Benghazi attack. In Libya. Now, this is a major or potential major conspiracy of 2012. Now, this this was an attack in Libya. You're aware of the attack in Libya on on the in Benghazi on a CIA safe house. Are you familiar with this? No. Check this out. I mean, I loosely I'm familiar with it, but I don't know the specifics. OK, check this out. The attack on September. There was an attack September 11th, 2012 that killed a U.S. ambassador. His name was Chris Stevens. Also. Killed was information specialist Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods. So four people in all. They were contractors protecting Stevens. This was the Stevens killing was the first of the U.S. ambassador since 1988. So this is pretty significant. But what happened was on 9 11 12. Ambassador Stevens was meeting with the general counsel of Turkey in a CIA safe house. And an hour prior to the attack, the Turkish general counsel leaves the compound safely. So the person he was meeting with actually left the compound. And an hour after he leaves, a fight begins. So the U.S. military sent a drone to record this fight involving this ambassador. And the feed was sent directly to the State Department, the Pentagon Langley Air Force Base and was being watched in the Situation Room at the White House. So so it's quite interesting to think that, you know, that this person was potentially, you know, attacked and our military did nothing to stop it. But the the conspiracy here potentially is that there was a. Gun running scheme there in Libya to provide guns to the rebels to unseat Muammar Gaddafi's 42 year old regime. So recently, Libya has been so-called, you know, you know, set free from Muammar Gaddafi's 42 year old regime. He had control of it for many decades. So allegedly we sold arms, American arms to these rebels to fight Muammar Gaddafi's troops. And this person might may have either been. Blowing the whistle on it or involved in it or had information that potentially needed to be quieted or, you know, silenced. So they allowed a video on YouTube to go out that actually was a it was defamation of the Islamic religion. The movie itself was ridiculous. The little clip was ridiculous, but it went viral. And the U.S. is actually using that as an excuse for why this attack actually occurred. That that on 9-11, they actually were angered. Angered. That the, you know, the people in Libya were angered by this YouTube viral video and went and attacked the ambassador. But there are, you know, the the other side of the story is that our government, again, stood down and let this man be attacked to potentially hide information he had on running guns to Libyan rebels. So we're we're close to, you know, we're running out of time. But what do you think about the attack on Benghazi? It's all over the news. It's a huge conspiracy. Very little information, actually. You know, everything's kind of secret at this point. But what do you think? So when Ambassador dies, Libyan rebels are have our weapons, our Stinger missiles in their possession. You know, what do you think? So do you think he could have known something or been part of some sort of gun scheme and was done away with? Just like Breitbart? Kind of like Breitbart, right? There's some suspicion there. I mean, I don't. Big time. I'm going to have to get one of Wines links. Oh, for sure. I'm going to have to do some research. Oh, man. We'll get you filled in on Benghazi for sure. But what's very. Yeah. Well, for sure. I mean, you got to know that when things occur in other countries like Libya, it's occurring, you know, from from the Americans. It's occurring because we're trying to spread our message of freedom and democracy to the world. And we're doing that by creating civil wars. And many people are dying in that quest for our our version of freedom. So I urge you to learn about things like Benghazi and know what our government. And certainly capable of doing. All right. So, hey, what does that take us to, Nestor? Number one. And that ends up on you, my friend. That takes up to number one. Yeah. So find the best one you got and dig in. Here we go. The top 10 conspiracies of 2012. Number one. Hit it. OK. I have three left. So I'm going to let you choose one. You pick one, man. You pick the best one. You want me to pick it? You know, just because it's number one, it doesn't have to. These don't go in any order. These are just great. OK. OK. So go for it. Go for it. OK. Well, I did some research because, you know, I asked you. We had a conversation. I did some research on a couple of the conspiracies that had happened in 2012. And I did look into that Kony 2012. Oh, my goodness. That was a big one. Yes. That should have been on our list. But yes, Kony 2012. What did you find out? Kony 2012, which is crazy. So that's number one. That's what we're going to pick. That's a good one. That's number one. That's a good one. OK. Go for it. OK. So it's kind of complicated, but it's not. All right. So the complicated version is this. Kony is Joseph. Joseph Kony, who's head of the Ugandan Army. The Invisible Children is the organization. Hold on. Let me slow down. The Ugandan, the Sudan's People Liberation Army, the leader of this army that supposedly has been wanting to overthrow the president in Uganda. OK. The LRA. The LRA. Or the Lord's Resistance Army, right? Right. Right. Right. Got it. The Lord's Resistance Army. Right. Right. And supposedly he has. He has taken children against their will, trained them to use firearms and trained them to kill each other and kill their parents if they don't agree and believe in what Kony's for and all this other craziness. So he's accused of all this stuff. And then there's this organization called Invisible Children that's raising money for to prevent this from happening. If I'm understanding the whole thing correctly. Right. Then there's the issue of the actual donations. Yes. That Invisible Children organization has taken in. Right. And how much money is actually going to the, you know, Kony 2012, you know, situation to prevent it and to capture Joseph Kony. So then there's that. Then there's another issue that I stumbled upon, which is. You know, the conspiracy that Kony, Kony's dead, that he doesn't even exist. That's right. You know, I've heard many different things. You know, I probably saw a lot of the reports that you were looking at. And yes. So various stories that he's alive. He hasn't been in the country for decades. Right. So go ahead. Go right ahead. That he hasn't even been in Uganda. Right. He's in another country. So it's all over the place with the information, you know, regarding Kony. So where did they get? So why did they do it? What was their purpose? And why do you think the. Invisible Children Incorporated created the video? Do you think they just wanted to send some, you know, military into Africa and do some sort of, you know, military work there? Or, you know, what was the result of the the Kony 2012 film? What did our government? You know what? I did not see the whole film. You know what I mean? Right. But what I get, what I gathered from the opinions of everybody that I read and videos that I watch of Invisible Children is that these people. Are just collecting money. Right. Not for what they say they're doing. But they're just collecting money and people are giving them money, donating money to them. And no one really knows what the hell they're doing with the money. That's right. One of the interesting things about Kony 2012 was after you watch the video, they invited you to go to their website and their solutions to capture Mr. Kony was to buy a kit. Thirty dollars. I don't know what it was, but thirty dollars. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. But this was their solution on how to create the money to then go out and give it to the people of Uganda. But the... So let me tell you a little information I have about Kony 2012. Go ahead. Go ahead. The campaign resulted in a resolution by the United States Senate and contributed to the decision to send troops by the African Union. So there was actually a Senate... You know, United States Senate movement to send troops to the African Union as a result of Kony 2012. That shows you the power of viral videos on YouTube. You think you're making something in your garage, but you know what? It could have a dramatic impact on the world. So think about that. Oh, sure. So very interesting stuff. Kony 2012 is certainly a huge conspiracy, man. Here's one thing that came out of that. Because I watched a couple of videos. And one of the videos, yes, there was a kid and there was some other stuff. But I couldn't find it. There was some documentation. And I couldn't find that specific video. Because I was watching that on my iPad. Then I'm on another computer, blah, blah. But one of the things to come out of it is for those of you out there that want to donate money to any organization. First of all, do your research. Do your research. Find out what that organization is actually doing with your money. How much of that money that they're collecting is actually going to the cause. That they're supposedly raising money for. That's great advice. That is good advice. So do your research. Correct. And then finally there's a website called charitynavigator.org. Which you can go in and they'll give you the actual percentages of money that whatever organization you might be interested in donating money to. Collect and how much actual money goes to the issue that they're trying to help out. Very interesting. Give us that website one more time. It's called charitynavigator.org. Charitynavigator.org. Great. Well, that's wonderful information. And I'll be looking at that website myself later this afternoon. Definitely. It's interesting. For sure. Because I went to the homepage and the first thing that says is charitynavigator needs your help. By donating to us, you are helping us to inform. Our millions of users of the best charities of all kinds. Wow. Therefore, supporting us leverages your dollars to do the most good. So now who's going to monitor Charity Navigator to see if the money that they're raising is actually going to what they say they're doing? True. That's right. There has to be a level of checks and balances out there for us all to eventually get to the truth, right? Definitely. Other conspiracies in 2012. That one was great, Nestor. I appreciate that. There were many other things. A few things on the notes that we didn't cover was the Bilderberg Group meeting this summer was in Chantilly, Virginia. Yeah, that actually occurred this year. And you know what that is. It's an annual. Wow. Let me just tell you. I didn't get my invitation. I usually get one. You didn't get it. No, I didn't get my invitation. I thought you went. I wasn't even aware that we're meeting this year. That's right. It's an annual unofficial invitation only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe. Most of whom are people of influence. About one-third are from government, politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labor, education, and communication. So it's pretty the head muckety-mucks of, you know, most organizations. The riches of the riches of the riches and the most powerful. That's right. So they met this summer to make all sorts of policies for us that we are unaware of and we won't know of until they decide to roll them out. So that is certainly conspiratorial in every way, shape, or form. When powers that be get in rooms, in private rooms, and quiet with the doors locked and start to decide how our lives are going to change as a result of their desires or agendas. Right. I hope we do an episode on the Bilderbergs. I think that's an episode or two. That's one of my favorite conspiracy theories of all time. You got it. We'll definitely be coming to Bilderberg in future episodes. We'll probably cover that when we do our special. We'll probably cover that when we do our special on the New World Order. So that should be quite interesting because the Bilderberg is, in essence, a global government. Yeah. Which is, in fact, a, you know, even though Bilderberg isn't new, it certainly is trying to create a New World Order, so to speak. Right. So in summing up, Nestor, tell me your thoughts. What do you think? Ten, I mean, certainly not the, you know, the only ten, but what do you think about our ten top conspiracies? I think the ten top conspiracies were pretty good. I was digging it. There is one more that I would like to share. All right. We got a few seconds. What do you got? If we have a few seconds. The LIBOR rate rigging scandal. Do you know what the LIBOR rate is? I do. I, sure. Go right ahead. It's a London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR. It's an average of the interest rates that large financial institutions pay to borrow money. You know, Nestor. It's used around the world as a benchmark for pricing trillions of dollars of financial instruments. Got it. Instruments. Like corporate. Like corporate debt and student loans. Nestor, I got to cut you off. We only have a minute left. So LIBOR is great. Just a little late. But you know what? Look up LIBOR. That's L-I-B-O-R, scandal. Right. And you can find out information on that. So Nestor, I'm going to say goodbye to you now, my friend. All right. And what I'm going to do is read a closing message or a toast to the new year. Okay? So I'm going to go ahead and get that started. Let me move this over. But I want to thank you very much for being part of the show. And here we go. With no further ado. I have many thanks this year for many amazing gifts and dreams fulfilled. I would like to thank Mr. Jeremy Hansen, Nicholas Jacone, Sal Rodriguez, and everyone here at Skid Row Studios for giving my views and opinions light and levitation. I would like to thank my co-host, Nestor Rodriguez, for his tireless efforts on the show. And I hope we have many more great shows to come. Yes, we say goodbye to 2012. But we toast the new year. And welcome hope, good health, and our dedication to you and your search for the truth. So for Wime Russell, Nestor Rodriguez, from the Devils in the Details radio show, happy new year. And we'll see you next Friday.