Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Name: 20170615_Thu_Alex
Air Date: June 15, 2017
805 lines.

Summary:

In this podcast, Alex Jones talks about the recent shooting of Republican lawmakers and accuses mainstream media of inciting violence through their propaganda. He warns that celebrities and politicians are promoting hatred against conservatives. He promotes his own products and discusses false portrayals made by the media about him. He also addresses accusations regarding Sandy Hook and clarifies his stance on it. Jones further talks about the deep state, upcoming civil war, and how establishment media manipulates news reporting for their benefit. Lastly, he promotes various products available at InfowarsStore.com and encourages listeners to support independent media.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the NFO Wars Nightly News.
	I'm David Knight.
	It's Thursday, June 15th, 2017.
	Here are our top stories.
	Tonight!
	We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.
	The U.S.
	Treasury says Obama stole money from Fannie and Freddie to fund Obamacare.
	InfoWars White House Bureau Chief Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks down the lies, the fraud, and the deception of Obamacare and explains how President Trump
	And we will finally fix healthcare for America's incredible veterans!
	Veterans!
	We love our veterans!
	All that plus much more up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
	The globalist social engineers are not just targeting us with propaganda.
	They are manipulating our genetics.
	We are being targeted at every level by estrogen mimickers that lower our testosterone and other hormones and natural compounds that the body needs.
	The key is to be aware of this attack and to fight back against it after consulting top doctors, nutritionists,
	Pharmacist and others, we have developed what I believe is the ultimate non-GMO organic super male vitality formula sourced from powerful organic herbs harvested around the planet and then concentrated for maximum potency.
	I've always believed in nutrition and herbs.
	Super male vitality was developed to activate your body's own natural processes instead of using synthetic chemicals.
	Supermail Vitality by InfoWars Life is so powerful that I only take half the recommended dose.
	Visit InfoWarsLife.com today to secure your Supermail Vitality and other powerful products from InfoWars Life.
	Check out these amazing deals at InfoWarsStore.com.
	25% off bio true selenium, a powerful antioxidant and back in stock super blue fluoride free toothpaste.
	Now 33% off.
	And while you're there, check out the total oral care pack, which combines our organic mouthwash with the amazing super blue toothpaste.
	Now 37% off.
	All available right now at InfoWarsStore.com.
	Well yesterday the mainstream media was not too happy about the narrative that was developing about killers for Bernie.
	They wanted to move away from that very quickly.
	So yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening, the Washington Post came out with some leaks to talk about obstruction of justice charges for Donald Trump and saying that the special prosecutor is going to be looking into that.
	Was it really obstruction of justice or was it obfuscation of that story?
	We're going to talk about Killers for Bernie and some updates on that.
	But we also want to take a look at the mainstream media and how they're salivating over these charges and why, again, there is nothing there.
	We're going to lay that out for you, why there is no obstruction of justice.
	But first, let's take a look at David Gergen.
	He was on CNN last night and he was talking about how he believes that we're now in impeachment territory.
	Here's what he had to say.
	I was in the Nixon administration, as you know, and I thought, after watching the Clinton impeachment, I thought I'd never see another one.
	But I think we're in impeachment territory now for the first time.
	Well, I think that the obstruction of justice was the number one charge against Nixon that brought him down.
	Obstruction of justice was the number one charge against Bill Clinton, which led to his indictment in the House that he won in the Senate.
	And I think
	I'm a lapsed lawyer.
	I cannot tell you whether it meets all the legal definitions.
	Yeah, he's a lapsed lawyer, and he doesn't know if it meets the legal definitions.
	We're going to give you some observations from somebody who isn't a lapsed lawyer, and he's going to break this down for us.
	But, this is a guy that the Washington Post says those were not the words of a left-wing political blogger with high hopes.
	Nor are hyperactive Twitter mavens spouting conspiracy theories.
	They came from David Gergen, the typically moderate, mild-mannered CNN analyst and former aide to four presidents, both Republican and Democrat.
	So bow down and worship this swamp thing called David Gergen.
	Let's break down who this guy really is in a really short interview that Alex Jones had, I think it was back in the 90s, and he put it in one of his documentaries.
	But here's Alex Jones.
	Meeting David Gergen.
	What does that mean?
	He is a swamp thing after all, right?
	Why does he need clothes?
	Especially when he goes to Bohemian Grove.
	Okay, this is the guy.
	Let's talk about the obstruction.
	What was it?
	Was it something that he said about General Flynn?
	Yet we had Comey continue to testify that no, there was no crimes by Donald Trump.
	I wasn't investigating any crimes by Donald Trump, and he continued to say that all the way through his investigation.
	No, no, no, there wasn't anything.
	I wasn't investigating Donald Trump personally, and yet the very first conversation they had, allegedly, was about Michael Flynn.
	So all this occurred after that.
	So there would be no obstruction charge there, or if there was, then basically Comey would be part of that.
	So was it the firing of Comey that was the obstruction of justice?
	You know, I think the presence of a hostile, partisan replacement, like Robert Mueller, argues very decisively against that.
	It says, no, that really didn't happen.
	But yet, we had commentators again on CNN saying, the irony is, one of the reasons that Trump fired Comey was because he wouldn't say the president was not under investigation.
	Isn't that a good enough reason?
	Isn't that something that you can't get somebody to say that I've done nothing wrong?
	Who's going to give me back my good name?
	Who's going to clear my good name?
	Tell the people that I haven't done anything.
	And yet, let's go back to this clip.
	Let's take a look at this clip of Marco Rubio.
	Remember the Comey testimony?
	Marco Rubio called him on that.
	He said we had all these leaks.
	Why didn't we ever have the... Everybody knew.
	It was an open secret with all the senators that Trump was not under investigation.
	Why didn't that leak out?
	Remember this?
	Let's play that clip.
	Yes, sir.
	You know, this investigation is full of leaks left and right.
	I mean, we've learned more from the newspapers sometimes than we do from our open hearings, for sure.
	Do you ever wonder why, of all the things in this investigation, the only thing that's never been leaked?
	Great point.
	Great point.
	I don't know.
	He doesn't know.
	He doesn't know.
	And yet he continued to say, not only did he say that Trump was not being investigated, but he said, Trump fired me because of the Russian investigation.
	And what did he base that on?
	Comey based that on a leak.
	And a false report by the New York Times.
	And Comey himself discredited the New York Times.
	He said, they get these leaks and they don't know what's going on on the inside.
	And then he talked about later how he was a leaker to the New York Times, indirectly, through the head of the Columbia School of Journalism, that he had leaked to the New York Times.
	But, supposedly, the story that goes back to the reason that Trump's saying, I fired him because of the Russian investigation, this goes back to the New York Times story, May 19th, after the firing of Comey.
	And purportedly, what happened, and we don't know if this is what happened, because this was a leak that the New York Times built a story on, and as I just said, Comey destroyed the New York Times and many of these stories, and then yet still used them as his source.
	According to the sources, during a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Trump said, I just fired the head of the FBI.
	He was a crazy, a real nut job.
	And he says, I face great pressure because of Russia.
	That's taken off.
	Well, maybe that's because he was naive enough to think that this investigator, this special prosecutor, Mueller, would be an honest guy!
	Unlike the political tool that Comey is.
	But of course, we then saw that he staffed his investigation with Democrats.
	And as was pointed out by many people, Judge Napolitano said they're prosecutors, they're going to try to justify their job.
	Prosecutors are going to come up with charges.
	This is a Stalinist type of investigation.
	It's not just a witch hunt.
	This is Stalin.
	Bring me the man, I'll find the crime.
	They have been investigating this for nearly a year.
	Nothing yet.
	But let's come up with something else so that we can't fire this special prosecutor.
	Remember, we had Representative Gohmert after the Comey hearing said, there is no collusion here.
	We saw this, there's no collusion between the Trump administration and Russia.
	This was admitted over and over again by Comey, who's been investigating it for nearly a year.
	So he said, the only collusion that we know of is collusion between Comey and Mueller.
	Comey ran things by Mueller before he testified.
	He also ran things by other people in the Justice Department when he did the memo.
	So there is a lot of collusion.
	There's collusion within the Justice Department to get Donald Trump.
	And so he said, yeah, we ought to fire him.
	And of course, as part of this testimony, we heard Comey say that Loretta Lynch had tried to, guess what, obstruct justice.
	Call it a matter.
	Don't really go there.
	So why isn't that being investigated?
	Donald Trump said that Loretta Lynch, former Attorney General, obstructed justice.
	Let's do that investigation.
	But you know, we look at this leak that says that Comey was fired because of the investigation, the one that supposedly came from this meeting in the Oval Office with
	The Russian Foreign Minister.
	Do we know if that leak is really accurate?
	We don't really know.
	What we do know is that Comey truly is a nut job.
	He is a political hack.
	He's an admitted coward.
	He is an admitted leaker himself.
	He is a disgruntled employee who is angry because he learned of his firing when he was holding a meeting and it came up on the television behind him.
	But he was fired for good cause.
	Even Stephen Colbert's partisan audience applauded when they heard that James Comey had been fired, before they realized they could use it against Donald Trump.
	So I have to say, lordy, lordy, can't you see that?
	Can't you see the character of this man?
	Can't you see that he refused to lift the cloud over Donald Trump, even though he did everything he could to remove the cloud from Hillary Clinton?
	By opening that up.
	He was using his position, his official position, for political attacks.
	It is right to fire a politicized hack like James Comey.
	But let's look at the Washington Post itself.
	The same people who brought this up yesterday.
	Last week, when we had the Comey hearings, they had a report from Andrew McCarthy.
	He's a former federal prosecutor.
	He's a contributing editor at the National Review.
	And here's what he had to say at the time, a week ago.
	He said, what Comey described was not obstruction of justice, and here's why.
	He said it'll embolden those who think that they know enough to conclude that Trump obstructed justice by leaning on the FBI director to halt a criminal investigation of Michael Flynn.
	But that is fatally flawed in two critical respects.
	It overlooks both a requirement for corrupt intent and a principle of executive discretion.
	So let's talk a little bit about legalese, because we have David Gergen throwing this out there and giggling about the fact, oh, we got impeachment starting here.
	And then he says, I'm a lapsed lawyer, so I can't really speak to this.
	Well, here's a guy who isn't.
	Here's a guy who actually knows and cares what the law says.
	So let's talk about what this really is required.
	The arguments for presidential obstruction, he says, tend to admit the statute's most important word, corruptly.
	Not every form of interfering with an investigation or even closing down an investigation is a felony obstruction.
	Only the corrupt ones.
	Prosecutors must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused not only acted intentionally, but also with an awareness that his actions violated the law.
	And he gives an example.
	An official who acts to halt an investigation out of fear a suspect will reveal wrongdoing by the official.
	Okay?
	Comey's own testimony, if it was true, is that that's not an argument against us because he talked about
	I want you to get the satellites.
	So if Comey is telling the truth, and as he said, she said, back and forth, and it's just Comey's word against Donald Trump's word.
	But Donald Trump, according to Comey, said, I want you to look at these satellites.
	I really want you to go there and look at that.
	So that is not showing that he wants to shut this down because it's going to get broader.
	And also he replaced Comey and continued the investigation.
	He said, but what would be a legitimate interference with an investigation?
	You really can interfere with an investigation if you're president and you can do it legitimately and not be impeached for it, not be obstructing justice.
	He says you have executive discretion.
	He said every day in the FBI and in U.S.
	Attorney General's offices throughout the nation, agents and prosecutors decide to close investigations.
	Or to decline prosecutions.
	They consider the seriousness of the offense, the balance against personal factors of the suspect, his criminal history, contributions to society, whether alternatives to criminal prosecution would be more appropriate, whether a criminal charge would be overkill because of other consequences.
	So he said the FBI and the Justice Department, so think about the fact that the FBI and all these attorneys general are doing this.
	Everywhere on a daily basis.
	And he points out these guys are a branch of the executive.
	He says they're subordinate to the president.
	They don't exercise their own power.
	The Constitution vests all that executive power in the president.
	The prosecutors and the FBI agents who are constantly doing prosecutorial discretion are his delegates.
	And when they exercise prosecutorial discretion, they are exercising the President's power.
	The President cannot have less authority to exercise his power than his subordinates do.
	And then he goes on to talk about, describing the February 14th meeting, Comey understandably inferred from Trump's requests that others leave the room, that the President's possible awareness was that he might be doing something appropriate.
	But he says this suspicion has to be balanced against what Trump actually did.
	Which is merely to plead on Flynn's behalf and not to order an outcome.
	He says the president added that Flynn had been through a lot.
	He'd been fired in a humiliating fashion.
	His financial prospects were obviously dimmed.
	In other words, assuming Comey's version of the conversation is correct, and Trump has disputed it, Trump was doing what prosecutors and agents do all the time.
	He weighed the equities.
	He opined that further investigation and potential indictment were not warranted.
	Enough is enough.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly what we're talking about here.
	So let's talk a little bit about the story they don't want you to hear.
	The killers for Bernie.
	Today we had the GOP
	A senator from South Carolina, Mark Sanford, I'm sorry, he's a congressman, he went on with the Joe Scarborough Show, and he told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
	He said, I would argue that the president has unleashed partially, again, not in any way totally, but partially, he is to blame for the demons that have been unleashed.
	Is he to blame?
	Or are these killers for Bernie?
	You know, we have seen throughout the campaign, we saw assault and intimidation at rallies, we saw battery, we saw vandalism of cars, we saw a lot of different things that were done by Bernie supporters, okay?
	And then, as I've pointed out a couple of different times, we had Bernie himself, and you can see his social justice warrior rage at this guy who was a Christian.
	And we talked about this.
	This was Russell Vaught.
	He had been nominated to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
	But because he was a Christian, Bernie Sanders didn't think he was qualified.
	And because he had written something that put out Christian doctrine, that got Bernie Sanders very angry.
	He said, this was something he had written for a publication called Resurgent.
	He said, Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology.
	They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ as Son and they stand condemned.
	Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic, said Bernie Sanders?
	And he said, absolutely not, Senator.
	I'm a Christian.
	I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.
	That was an answer to a questionnaire to this committee.
	I answered that.
	It was about my alma mater.
	Wheaton College is a Christian school.
	And he goes, forgive me, forgive me, I'm not going to let you talk about... And he comes back and he says, but do you believe that Muslims are condemned?
	Do you know how many Muslims there are in America?
	Maybe a couple million.
	Are you suggesting all these people staying condemned?
	And he goes, well, I'm a Christian.
	He said, I understand you're a Christian.
	Look, it is none of Bernie Sanders' business what Voight believes.
	That is his own private business.
	He has free exercise of religion.
	There should be no litmus test for serving in the government.
	And yet Bernie Sanders cannot tolerate Christians.
	He can tolerate Muslims.
	He can tolerate secular humanism, which perhaps is his religion.
	But he will not tolerate Christians.
	Absolutely intolerant.
	When he finishes, and of course this guy came back and said, look, as a Christian I think all individuals are made in the image of God.
	They're worthy of dignity and respect regardless.
	That's what the First Amendment was about.
	It was Christians that created that.
	But Bernie Sanders and his intolerance and his hatred, the same intolerance and hatred that we see from the killers for Bernie as they've escalated this.
	Screaming at everybody.
	Everybody that opposes them is either a racist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, or whatever.
	And as Bernie Sanders finished up, he said, this nominee is not someone this country is supposed to be about.
	This country is supposed to be about the First Amendment, not the intolerance, not the hatred of the Bernie people.
	We'll talk more about this on the other side of the break.
	Stay with us.
	We've taken thousands of years of known research and put it together with our own four years of seeking and testing to find the very best systems that God gave us through Mother Nature to detoxify the body.
	That's why I'm introducing Z-SHIELD.
	Toxic Metal and Chemical Defense Support.
	It's made in the USA.
	It's filled with known compounds from nature that are absolutely associated with detoxifying the body and it supports the info war.
	It is a classical 360 win.
	Our formula at Infowarslife.com is quite frankly simple.
	We go out and look at the recognized research and we take it to the next level of quality, of purity,
	Yes.
	What's
	You owe it to your family, and you owe it to the future of this country and the world that patriots stay as healthy and as clean and as focused as you can be.
	Because we need you, the remnant of America, to reignite those brush fires to the next level and to be healthy and as focused as you can be.
	Because if you're sick, if you're over there on the sidelines and not in the fight, you're basically giving in to the new world order.
	Thanks to your support and your prayers, together, we're changing the world.
	Now it's time to change our bodies with a Z-Shield at Infowarslife.com.
	I want to tell you about some of the products at Infowarsstore.com.
	We are under constant attack.
	You know it by now from the mainstream media.
	They're trying to attack us on every level now with the YouTube scandal.
	They're demonetizing our channels, which again takes a huge chunk out of our income, which is why we always appreciate and rely on you getting the products because that's how we stay afloat.
	They can't get to us that way.
	They can't pressure you to not buy the products.
	They don't have that power.
	And that's why you're the key to this entire operation.
	We have Super Blue Fluoride Free Toothpaste.
	Bubblegum flavour just arrived at Infowarsstore.com.
	This is by listener request.
	Bubblegum flavoured Super Blue Toothpaste now available at Infowarsstore.com in limited supply.
	Again, if you're not using fluoride free toothpaste by now,
	You're absolutely insane.
	Harvard studies, it reduces IQ, it causes bone cancer.
	It's not great, let's just put it that way, and I've been using it for about, what, 15 years now?
	So, you're gonna buy it anyway, why not buy it from us?
	It's in limited supply, but it is available at infowarsstore.com with the new bubblegum flavor.
	Super blue fluoride free toothpaste and it supports this network which is under constant demonization and attack because we don't take big fat checks from George Soros.
	We don't get put on extremist lists even though they want us to.
	That's how they're taking away the YouTube money.
	That's why we need your support more than ever because we're not funded by giant corporations who are now
	Pulling the plug on YouTube as they move it into a TV thing, a Netflix model, to drown out independent voices.
	So, support us by getting the products at Infowarsstore.com.
	Just before the break I was talking about killers for Bernie and how the Washington Post didn't want you to see that.
	That's not an overstatement.
	Killers for Bernie.
	Let's take a look at this article from Paul Joseph Watson and you can see what one of these people is doing in terms of pushing this agenda.
	And I talked about this on Monday before the shooting.
	Talking about how the people of the theater in the park, the New York Times Public Theater, how what they were doing with Trump and Shakespeare
	That was not really Shakespeare.
	They were using Shakespeare the Bard as a beard for their violence so they could enact all this stuff.
	And then all this stuff happens, we've got a Huffington Post writer who gets on Twitter and says this, That's what he tweeted out.
	He describes himself as a member of the intolerant left, and as Paul Joseph Watson points out, after he got roundly criticized for this, he said, oh, that wasn't really a comment on the shooting of Congressman Scalise and others.
	No, no, no.
	Why not?
	It happened right after that.
	He was not aware of this?
	Surely he's aware of this.
	It was a top news story everywhere.
	We know that when he's talking about individual acts of this particular shooter, he's calling for widespread revolution.
	We've seen this over and over again.
	From the Antifa people, from the Bernie Sanders supporters, from the killers for Bernie.
	Huffington Post writer's main beef with today's attempted mass murder Republicans, he says,
	Was that it's poorly organized.
	That was the response from Federalist co-founder Sean Davis.
	Last June, as Paul Joseph Watson points out, Ben wrote a piece for the Huffington Post in which he called Donald Trump a fascist and said, quote, violent response to Trump was logical.
	He also had a pinned tweet that shows Pepe the Frog being decapitated.
	The writer who was last published by the Huffington Post December 2016 also advocates class warfare in his Twitter biography.
	That makes him definitely in the Bernie Sanders camp.
	And then of course we have the gun issue.
	It took a little bit of while for them to come up with this, but now we've got Terry McAuliffe, the guy who has a lot of ties to Hillary Clinton.
	He was her campaign manager in 2008.
	He was a bundler, a money bag man for the Clintons for a long time.
	He was former DNC chair.
	He was on the board of the Clinton Foundation, and now they've gotten him a governorship in Virginia.
	He'll probably run for Senate or something there because you only get one term in Virginia.
	He had this to say yesterday.
	Let's play this clip of him.
	Do you think anything more needs to do to protect politicians?
	Well, let me say this.
	I think we need to do more to protect all of our citizens.
	I have long advocated, this is not what today is about, but there are too many guns on the street.
	We lose 93 million Americans a day.
	93 million a day?
	I've long talked about this.
	Background checks, shutting down gun show loopholes.
	That's not for today's discussion.
	It's not just about politicians.
	Governor, can you tell- We worry about this every day for all of our citizens.
	There's not going to be anybody in America within about three or four days at that rate.
	But don't worry, we can always bring some Muslims in to inhabit it after all the Americans have killed each other off with guns.
	Look, he was right about one thing.
	This is not something that we just simply want to do for politicians.
	A Republican, Barry Loudermilk, said that he wanted concealed carry for lawmakers in D.C.
	No, we want concealed carry for everybody!
	Yeah, it may be an exclusive club and we're not in it, but we have a right to defend ourselves.
	We have a God-given individual right.
	The Second Amendment was there not to give us a right, not to create a privilege, but to say to the government, you cannot take away these fundamental rights.
	No free man will ever be to bar the use of guns, as our founders pointed out.
	But let's get to the real statistics.
	It's not 93 million people a day.
	Remember this article we had a couple of weeks ago, Zero Hedge picked up on John Arlott's research.
	51% of murders in the U.S.
	come from just 2% of the counties.
	Places like D.C.
	Places where there's gun-free zones and yet
	Where do we see the shootings?
	It's in the gun-free zones.
	If you look at that chart, scroll down and show that chart there.
	They point out the worst 5% of the counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of the murders.
	Scroll down to that bar chart down there and you can take a look at it.
	Just 5% of the counties dominate, dominate it.
	They said an average 73% of the counties in any given year had zero murders.
	So it's coming all from these different places that are gun control areas.
	Meanwhile, as we look at the intolerance, I want to play for you what Tom Brokaw said about Alex Jones today.
	But I want to preface it with the usual stuff, the usual outrage over racism.
	Here's a story from Sweden that we had on our site today from Breitbart.
	A migrant cries racism and then attacks people when his female companion in a hijab is asked to show her train ticket.
	That's just simply racism.
	An Iraqi man traveling from Stockholm to Hallsberg by train launched a brutal attack on passengers after a Muslim woman was asked to show her ticket.
	He accused them all of racism.
	And as they said, no, no, no, this isn't racism.
	Some people defended it.
	They tried to calm him down.
	He started punching people.
	He stabbed a man as he's standing over the bleeding man.
	He stabbed him four times in the back, in the side and in the back, inflicted critical internal wounds.
	So he stands over him and prances around the cabin, as one person said, as if he had won a national championship.
	He brandished his bloody knife at the terrified passengers and he demanded a father and his daughter tell him if they were also racists.
	Racist.
	That's what we hear always at these demonstrations for Bernie.
	And yet we've got a former anchor.
	Some guy who was just revered by the mainstream media.
	Someone like a David Gergen, for example.
	Tom Brokaw, who used to be the anchor for the NBC News for a very long time.
	He came out of retirement or wherever he's been.
	It's kind of like the Snake Plissken joke in Escape from New York.
	Snake Plissken, I thought you were dead.
	I thought Tom Brokaw as well said that.
	Why would he thought he was dead?
	No, he's not dead, but he's still a snake, and he's still spouting venom like this clip.
	Let's play that clip.
	There's a lot of controversy around this network about Alex Jones, for example.
	But the fact is that he is an unalloyed racist, a man who is out there pulling the pin on the grenade every day, and he has six million viewers who are paying attention to him.
	Six million viewers who are paying attention now.
	Why is that?
	Because we give you the facts.
	We don't just throw this stuff out there.
	We tell you about the people like this Muslim migrant that Tom Brokaw would never criticize.
	You know, because they're Muslims.
	They're their buddies.
	They want them as a people replacement.
	That is what it's come to.
	We got people like Tom Brokaw that they pull out of retirement who sounds like a millennial at a Bernie rally.
	Let's talk quickly, we got just a couple of minutes left, about the Fed raising interest rates.
	We're going to talk to Jerome Corsi in the next couple of segments.
	We're going to talk to him about his story.
	on the Fannie and Freddie disaster.
	The fact that Obama used this to fund his Obamacare.
	He broke the law.
	He violated the Constitution.
	A judge said that.
	We're going to talk about how Donald Trump could shut that down, just like he shut down Obama's attempt to self-ratify the Paris Accord.
	Saying, well, I know the Constitution says the Senate has to do it, but I'm going to do it myself.
	So we got that coming up.
	But let's take a look at what's going to happen.
	This is the fourth time
	That the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates since 2015, says NPR.
	But what they don't tell you, it's the third time that they have done it, that Janice Yellen has done it, since Donald Trump won.
	She did it in December, she did it in March, and now it's June and she's doing it again.
	She's doing it every quarter.
	A quarter of a point every quarter.
	And she did this despite declining inflation.
	As CNBC points out, the central bank now believes inflation will fall well short of its 2% target this year.
	The post-meeting statement said inflation has declined recently.
	Even as household spending has picked up in recent months.
	So they're not concerned about inflation.
	Why would they be doing this?
	Take a look at this chart.
	The history of Fed leaders and interest rates.
	Pull that chart up and let's take a look at this.
	And you can see what Alan Greenspan did.
	It was a rope-a-dope.
	Part of the disaster with the mortgage crisis was the fact that he
	He took down interest rates fairly rapidly, held them at zero, and then he pulled them up a quarter at a point, a quarter point at a time, every quarter.
	He would raise them a quarter of a point until he burst the bubble that he had created.
	So how is this going to affect you?
	Well, of course, as one analyst at CNBC, Jessica Dickler, said, she quoted Brian Rayling, who is at Wells Fargo.
	He said, Fed rate hikes are starting to accelerate.
	He said, the pace at which interest rates have been rising has been so slow that investors may not feel the heat until it's boiling.
	Get the analogy?
	The boiling frog analogy?
	The fact that they are pulling this thing up and you're not going to understand what's going on until the whole thing blows up just like it did under Alan Greenspan.
	But of course you're going to feel it immediately in things that are variable like credit cards.
	You're going to feel it in the credit crunch that's going to affect your home's value when you try to sell it.
	Because even if somebody's getting a fixed mortgage, it's going to do that.
	But then they're also saying they're going to unwind their gigantic balance sheet.
	They've got four and a half trillion dollars that they've used to prop up this economy in the stock market and the housing market.
	They're going to pull out those because they want to bring down Trump's ace in the hole.
	Stay with us, we'll be right back with Jerome Corsi.
	Electrify your day with Secret 12.
	It's like lightning in a bottle.
	We all have days in which we just can't seem to perform at the level we'd like to.
	InfoWars Live Secret 12 is designed to naturally energize your body and mind with two great tasting and super high quality forms of vitamin B12.
	Proper vitamin and nutrient intake is essential to keep your body functioning at optimum levels.
	The reality is, it's hard to take in the proper amount of vitamins we need each day with our modern diets.
	Seeker 12 by Infowars Life is an easy way to naturally upgrade your vitamin B12 intake and support your body's natural systems.
	It pairs two forms of vitamin B12 into one explosive formula.
	Vitamin B12 supports healthy energy levels through red blood cell formation and aiding in the body's natural processes, but it also assists with many other functions of the body.
	Electrify your mind and body and take your health to the next level.
	Experience the power of Secret 12 at InfoWarsLife.com.
	That's InfoWarsLife.com.
	Vitamin Mineral Fusion.
	Visit InfoWarsLife.com to secure your chemister.
	We have worked for years with our chemists and scientists to create the most powerful and affordable, great-tasting multivitamin formula available.
	Vitamin Mineral Fusion Drink Mix at InfoWarsLife.com is loaded with a full month's supply of essential vitamins, minerals, and amino acids that your body absolutely needs.
	In the history of InfoWars Life, we've brought out a lot of amazing products like Survival Shield X2, Super Mel Vitality, and so many others.
	With its unique delivery system and proprietary manufacturing process designed for maximized effects, this formula is the platinum standard of multivitamin mineral products.
	And this part is most important.
	The ingredients in vitamin mineral fusion are either plant-derived or of the highest quality lab standard.
	That means it's clean.
	That means it's pure.
	And rest secured, you're fighting the tip of the spear in the InfoWars.
	That's InfoWarsLife.com and Vitamin Mineral Fusion.
	Take action now before we sell out.
	We have the new product at InfoWarsLife.com, BioTrue Selenium.
	We've had so many requests over the years for selenium, and just recently, we were able to source a certified organic, bioavailable selenium from mustard seed extract.
	When you take selenium in the body, it actually benefits the detoxification systems in your body.
	It helps balance the thyroid gland.
	It helps detoxify.
	Selenium is another one of those absolute must-haves.
	The highest concentration of selenium is in the thyroid gland, but it's actually used all over the body.
	As a matter of fact, there's 25 genes in the body that are directly dependent upon selenium.
	So it really is an all-around nutrient that everybody really needs.
	I'm taking it now.
	Every day.
	This is so key.
	BioTrue Selenium is the product.
	The best selenium that we could bring you.
	We believe it's the best out there at a very, very low price.
	Exclusively available at Infowarslife.com or by calling toll-free 888-253-3139.
	We're selling a product, DNA Force, that is the very best nutraceutical that we can produce.
	Dr. Grip, you took years for you to develop DNA Force for us.
	It's been something that I've been working on for a long time, Alex, because I think it's very, very important.
	What the aging process is, is when the cell replicates, we lose a little bit of our telomeres.
	Telomeres are the little cups on the end of our chromosomes.
	And when it runs out, you start dying.
	We chose the PQQ because it has over 175 different clinical trials.
	It's one of the most effective substances in the world.
	It works like an antioxidant.
	It works to repair nerve growth factor.
	So this is a formula to deliver the maximum amount.
	It's in powder form.
	We have so many five-star reviews.
	I take this.
	This is the product that I take.
	Infowarslife.com and the profit we make.
	We fight the Globals.
	We fight the New World Order.
	Secure your DNA Force today at Infowarslife.com or call toll free 888-253-3139.
	David Knight here with Dr. Jerome Corsi.
	If you've been following his articles on InfoWars about what's happening with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you realize that the Obama administration has been seizing all of the assets from private investors and others to fund Obamacare.
	This is something they couldn't get through, just as we saw with the Paris Climate Agreement.
	When Obama couldn't get that through the Senate, the constitutional process is to have that ratified, he just said, well, I'm going to self-ratify it.
	Well, he did something similar with funding of the Obamacare subsidies.
	Basically, he had a crisis of how he was going to pay for it.
	So he just decided that he was going to take the money from private investors.
	So we're going to talk to
	About several things here.
	We're going to lay this out in a little bit different way than Dr. Corsi has done in the past.
	You want to be able to talk about this at length.
	So we're first going to tell you what this is going to mean for you as an individual, for private investors who maybe are holding some of this money, or people who have it as part of the pension fund that they may not even know that they're invested into Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
	We're also going to talk to you about what this means for homeowners.
	Then we're going to break out what this means for the rule of law, and then we're going to look at the chronology of this.
	Because this all began with the mortgage crisis.
	They took over Fannie and Freddie as part of the mortgage crisis.
	Then Obama took over Fannie and Freddie because he had an Obamacare crisis that he wanted to fund.
	But it really is now the solution to Trump's Obamacare crisis.
	How does he stop Obamacare?
	Well, the solution is the same way that he did with the Paris Climate Agreement.
	To shut down the extra-legal, the unconstitutional, illegal actions of Obama and just pull out of this thing.
	We'll tell you how that's going to work.
	So joining us now is Dr. Jerome Corsi.
	Thank you, Dr. Corsi.
	David, great pleasure to be with you again.
	Thank you.
	Lay it out for us what this really means for people, private investors, people who may have invested in this in their IRAs.
	I know my father had invested in Fannie and Freddie as a private investor.
	A lot of people maybe are into this because of their pension funds.
	So what does this mean for private investors when they have no security in the rule of law?
	Well, I mean, first of all, the whole idea of Fannie and Freddie is that they're fundamental to our
	I think so.
	And that's fundamental to being able to be a homeowner is to be able to buy your first home and have it be financed.
	Now, Fannie and Freddie are both a kind of a hybrid organization.
	They have a government guarantee on the default of the mortgages that are bought by Fannie and Freddie.
	But also, there are private shareholders who buy stock.
	And as you point out, many people through their IRAs or their pension funds may own Fannie and Freddie stock and not really be aware that that's in their portfolio.
	Because they always viewed it as a very safe investment because it was guaranteed by the government.
	It was one of these things that was put in there like FDIC insurance to say, well, up to a certain point, the government's going to guarantee your deposits.
	It was set up there to create a confidence.
	So a lot of people
	Who are not speculators.
	They're individuals.
	They're not big investors.
	They just want this because it's going to preserve their capital.
	And there's two things that happened.
	First of all, when the federal government came in 2008 and took over Fannie and Freddie in a bailout.
	All right.
	Very little, compared to what it had been before.
	Well, before we get into that, let's talk a little bit about this, because earlier in the broadcast, I talked about the moves by the Federal Reserve.
	Right.
	They're raising interest rates.
	In fact, they say they're going to shrink their balance sheet.
	In other words, there's a lot of things that are put in there to prop up the economy in the wake of the mortgage crisis by the Federal Reserve.
	They're now $4.5 trillion in with their balance sheets, but they're also raising rates constantly.
	So they're doing all these things in spite of the fact
	We don't have inflation.
	They're pulling out the props that have been under the economy.
	They're concerned that Trump's big trump card here really has been the economy.
	They want to put things in place that are going to pull that out.
	And of course, when they do things like that, raising interest rates, that's going to affect everybody's ability to sell their houses, the value of their houses and so forth.
	That's a key thing.
	But before we get in the chronology of this and go back to the mortgage crisis, let's talk about what this means for the rule of law, because
	First, we had Obamacare coming in and they said, uh, you have no constitutional authority to force us to buy insurance from an outside source.
	I said, alright, that's fine.
	We'll call it a tax.
	Because you're going to be paying a tax to a private company?
	That's still a load of nonsense.
	And then on top of that, they found that Congress was not going to fund it.
	And so then Obama said, no, we'll just take it from these people.
	So that's the flow of where this is going.
	Let's go back now to the mortgage crisis and tell people about what happened with the conservatorship.
	You just started to get into that.
	In 2008, what had happened was the
	Largely, the Democrats, through the beginning with the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977, have been forcing banks to write subprime loans, which are underperforming loans.
	And this got out of control so that they were doing mortgage-backed securities that were packed with subprime loans.
	The whole thing collapsed.
	Right.
	And we had people that were government officials, essentially, making a lot of money off of
	A couple things.
	Frank, first of all,
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Shareholders felt aggrieved, and they didn't feel it was necessary for the bailout.
	They thought Fannie and Freddie could have survived without a bailout.
	And let's repeat that.
	They came in when they took over conservatorship, and they diluted the shares of the private investors.
	After these guys at the top had made millions of dollars in commissions, then the thing starts to fail along with all these other banks.
	They came in and said, we're going to take conservatorship, and they diluted their stocks.
	That was the first hit that the investors took.
	And secondly, then they
	As Fannie and Freddie started to recover and really make money, the federal government was facing, Obama was facing the problem that the House had refused to fund the money in Obamacare that was needed to pay the insurance subsidies.
	These are the insurance for low-income people.
	Obama had no way to pay that, legally or constitutionally.
	And let's back up there, because you point out in your article that a lot of people didn't realize, except for just a few Washington insiders, that Fannie and Freddie had returned to profitability.
	Yes.
	And they've now made $240 billion, you said in your article, since 2012.
	So they not only came back out of this, but they started to become very profitable.
	So now, this is a pile of money that Obama can get to fund Obamacare.
	And Obama took the money.
	What they call the net worth sweep.
	They decided they were going to take all the earnings out of Freddie and Fannie.
	Again, on a pretext.
	The idea of avoiding another bailout or to repay the federal government.
	The federal government took all this money, which the shareholders should legitimately have gotten.
	And that's gone on since 2012 until now, so you've had really five years, or ten years almost, of the entire theft of Fannie and Freddie, and the shareholders feel aggrieved in that entire period of time.
	So they diluted their shares, then they get 10% of the dividends, and then Obama says we're going to do it at 100%.
	And we're going to talk about why that happened.
	There was an Obamacare crisis.
	He couldn't get any money for this.
	And he was trying to take money from one section that they'd appropriated funds for in Obamacare to another section which was going to subsidize insurance for people who needed subsidies.
	And understand, this is at the core of Obamacare.
	The only metric by which they can say that Obamacare is a success is by talking about the number of people who have been insured.
	Because when we look at our insurance rates, those of us who are paying for our own insurance with a gun held to our heads are seeing Obamacare raising our insurance premiums by over 100% in many states.
	So that is not a metric that they can stick with.
	We're going to tell you how this happened.
	We're going to tell you what can be done by Trump to undo this illegal kleptocracy that we've got here called Obamacare.
	Alex Jones here with a very important news update to anybody out there that wants to be prepared.
	But it goes beyond being prepared.
	Our bodies absolutely must have the good halogen iodine or we will die.
	And you look at all of the thyroid problems and all the people that don't have energy and that have all sorts of hormone problems.
	And from my research and a lot of just mainline research, it leads back to iodine over and over and over again.
	It's as important as vitamin C.
	If you don't get iodine, you die.
	But most people are just efficient, so they're low energy, they're sick.
	You've got to have iodine in your body so that your body can produce the hormones you need.
	It is the base to so many things.
	And since I got into iodine four years ago, we've helped change the entire paradigm by developing and bringing to the public deep earth crystals from 7,000 to 12,000 feet of the purest iodine available.
	Other iodine comes from the ocean, or from other byproducts of chemical facilities, and it's tainted.
	It's bound.
	It's not absorbable.
	I tried it.
	And I had incredible effects, even with dirty iodine, because the body needs it.
	When you don't have iodine, it absorbs the chlorine, the fluoride, and all these other bad halogens.
	Do yourself and your family a favor, and check out the importance of iodine for yourself.
	I think you're going to be blown away.
	And whatever you do, support the broadcast and get a bottle.
	I think so.
	You've got to have vitamin C. You've got to have iodine to live.
	You've got to have water to live.
	Iodine is key.
	You must have it.
	But consult your physician first before you get powerful survival shield niacin iodine, X2, at Infowarslife.com or call toll free.
	We can answer your questions.
	888-253-3139.
	All right, Dr. Corsi, so we've got an Obamacare crisis.
	They don't have the money to transfer these funds over to subsidize insurance, and that is the key thing that they wanted to do to say, hey, look, we've provided insurance for millions of people who didn't have it before.
	They don't want you to see how they're doing this.
	It's the ugly making of the sausage, as Bismarck talked about it.
	So what happens is we've got Health and Human Services Secretary Burwell tries to divert funds from one section of Obamacare to a different section of Obamacare that was not funded by Congress.
	And the House of Representatives sues.
	We have the case House of Representatives versus Burwell.
	Tell us what happened with that, the decision that came out May 12, 2016.
	Well, the Federal District Court ruled that it is not in the authority of the administration to act as the legislator in terms of granting of funds.
	And if the House had not
	I think?
	Or to take the money from anywhere else in the budget.
	But what the Obama people realized was that Fannie and Freddie by 2012 had begun making a lot of money.
	They recovered.
	And so they said, we're going to have a net worth sweep.
	We're just going to take all the earnings out of Fannie and Freddie.
	And we're going to apply them to pay the Obamacare low-income premiums.
	And before we get to that theft, I want to read you a couple quotes from your article here.
	This is from the judge, U.S.
	District Court Judge Rosemary Collier, the case and her decision that came out May 12, 2016.
	She said, Congress is the only source for such an appropriation.
	No public money can be spent without one.
	And then she went on to say, paying out these Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution.
	So what Barack Obama did...
	Was he violated the Constitution by stealing money from another area that Congress had not appropriated money for.
	Congress spends the money, and they spend it for specific things.
	He didn't like the way they were doing it, so they just went somewhere else, totally unrelated, Fannie and Freddie, and stole it with what they call a net asset sweep.
	I love the euphemisms that the federal government uses.
	Obama was particularly great in these.
	But you know what I'll point out too, we only found this, I found it and documented it,
	With the help of one of the accountants who was involved in the beginning of the Fannie and Freddie controversy and going through the balance sheet of the Treasury and looking at the line items into which they took money from Fannie and Freddie and put it into line items where it could then go into Obamacare.
	That's right.
	And we tracked it out and we really, I think, nailed it because it's irrefutable that you could see the transactions.
	It was very deceptive the way they did it.
	They put it in there and they listed, as I said, we've got liabilities coming up, as the Congressional Budget Office put this out there, so we've got liabilities coming up, and we've got liabilities of healthcare subsidies, we've got liabilities of Fannie and Freddie.
	So they make it sound like Fannie and Freddie is still sucking money out of the government.
	And yet, when you looked at the balance sheet, as we see here, it's actually a negative amount of money that they're giving to Fannie and Freddie.
	So in other words, they're taking money.
	They're not giving money to Fannie and Freddie.
	They're taking it because it's a negative number.
	And remember, this is money that could have been paid to shareholders.
	So they're being stolen from the mom and pops, as well as the hedge funds and others who own the institutional funds that owned Fannie and Freddie's stock.
	Instead of paying the dividends, which were legitimately and in corporate law needed to be paid, the Obama administration said, we're just not going to do that.
	We're going to steal the money and we're going to apply it to Obamacare, where we were not given the appropriation by Congress and the court
	Appropriately said that Obama was violating the Constitution and deciding his own funding outside of the rules.
	So they ignore the law, they ignore the Constitution, they ignore the judge's decision, they steal the money from the investors, then they report that it's going to be a subsidy to Fannie and Freddie, but when you look at the balance sheet it's a negative number.
	I mean the deception, the levels of deception here are just epic.
	Okay, so you report this, and then Fox News, Maria Baratoromo, has an interview with Steve Mnuchin, May 1st, and she asks him about this, because there's a lot of talk, obviously, as you would imagine, of investors whose money was stolen, on Twitter, talking about this, and she said, there's a Twitter conversation going on, and it's been going on for some time, about how President Obama needed money for Obamacare.
	And that he took it from Fannie and Freddie.
	Is that true, she asked Steve Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary.
	He says it is true.
	He said they, the Obama administration, used the profits of Fannie and Freddie to pay for other parts of government while they kept taxpayers at risk.
	That's precisely the issue.
	He admitted it.
	So now we have the Treasury Secretary confirming what you found, the story that you broke back in February.
	And what he means by that, what Mnuchin meant was that, see, the money that was being stolen from Fannie and Freddie should have been used to retain capital in Fannie and Freddie in case they had losses.
	So that's putting a taxpayer at risk.
	Because if the money's not there, they have to get another bailout.
	And secondly, it's stealing the money from the shareholders who should have been given dividends when Fannie and Freddie had turned profitable again.
	Violating the law, violating the Constitution, lying in the budget.
	Ed's stealing from pensioners and stealing from many people.
	These are average people who own these shares and had a legitimate right under corporate law to have their dividends paid when there were profits and money was being dispersed from Fannie and Freddie.
	The Obama administration had no authority under the Constitution or anywhere else to steal this money in a net worth sweep and use it to pay Obamacare or whatever else they used it for.
	No more authorization to do that than Obama had authorization to self-ratify the Paris Climate Agreement.
	He had no authority to do that.
	We have a process where the Senate ratifies it.
	We have a process for funding the government where the House of Representatives does that.
	He doesn't care what the Constitution says.
	He does this, he lies about it, he steals, and he breaks the law.
	So what's the solution now to the Obamacare crisis that Donald Trump has?
	And it's a very simple solution, isn't it, Dr. Reagan?
	In fact, I've been writing about it extensively.
	First of all, it's just like the Paris Climate Accord.
	You're right.
	It was never ratified by the Senate.
	It's not a treaty.
	Donald Trump just said, I'm not doing it.
	Okay, well Donald Trump has the authority here to say under the net worth sweep from Fannie and Freddie, I'm not doing it anymore.
	And so therefore, there's no money to pay for the insurance subsidies under Obamacare.
	And how does he do that?
	Because there's a court case.
	Going back to this court case, this decision that came from the U.S.
	District Judge, the Obama Justice Department appealed that decision.
	So it's still tied up in the courts, but they could finalize that decision how?
	Well, if President Trump decides, we're just not going to appeal the case.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So just drop it.
	Drop the case.
	We're not going to fight it.
	And the U.S.
	District Court has said, here's what the Constitution says.
	The Congress allocates the money.
	They didn't allocate the money.
	You can't do this under the Constitution.
	We're just going to leave it there.
	We're not going to keep fighting the Constitution and this judge.
	And Mel Watt, in fact, who is the administrator under the Federal Housing Finance Authority, he's the one who regulates Fannie and Freddie, he told
	The Senate Banking Committee in May, May 11th, this testimony that he was going to end the net worth sweep at the end of the second quarter, which is coming up at the end of June.
	And he was going to retain the money in order to recapitalize Fannie and Freddie.
	Now, that effectively takes the money away that could be diverted into paying these insurance premiums.
	And what Congress needs to realize, and what the President needs to realize, is
	That money has never been appropriated and it should have never been spent since 2012.
	Obamacare should have collapsed years ago.
	Yes, yes.
	Except for this theft.
	And the whole thing is fraudulent.
	And I keep going back to, I want to make sure everybody understands that
	The money was also stolen from average people who invested in Fannie and Freddie in good faith, and were looking for that return legitimately as dividends, shareholder increases in value, and often their retirement funds depended upon this.
	That's right.
	Very much so.
	It's exactly the type of investment that people will look for for an retirement fund, as you pointed out.
	People will look at this and say, hey, this is home mortgages.
	It's guaranteed by the government.
	Yeah, that's where I want to put my retirement funds because I want to preserve capital.
	So it's been a very important part of that.
	So that's the key.
	And that's one of the key solutions to this problem of Obamacare.
	It's been unconstitutional from the very beginning.
	It was based on fraud.
	It was based on violating the Constitution, deception, and stealing from individual investors.
	And now there's some solutions.
	I've been writing about the solutions.
	The solutions are going to be corporate finance solutions.
	Now, the problem is that the only way the shareholders are really going to get restitution is in the courts.
	And that's going to be very difficult.
	But I encourage the shareholders to continue the battle in the courts.
	They could win.
	That's right.
	And there are precedents for them to win.
	Thank you for your reporting on this and we hope that this information gets to the Trump administration.
	He has the tools to do the right thing and shut down the fraud, expose the fraud of Obama and Obamacare.
	For Infowars.com, I'm David Knight with Dr. Jerome Corsi.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I am very proud to announce the introduction of the highest quality InfoWars Biome Defense Probiotic.
	We wanted to come out with the largest spectrum of high quality known probiotics that have been proven to improve overall digestion and health and detoxification in the body.
	Biome Defense is an exclusive blend of 50 billion live and active cultures from over 23 different probiotic strains that are known to support digestion and intestinal function.
	Our researchers are confident that we have been able to develop what will be the leading probiotic on the market.
	Secure your biome defense in ultra strength or regular strength at InfoWarsLife.com today and get started supporting your digestive system naturally.
	We've been testing this formula for years but this is the limited first run to the public so please take advantage of it today.
	Support