All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2012 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:00:44
20120924_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's time for humanity to stand up in the end of the war.
You want to fight?
You may not believe, you can't watch.
Good evening.
It's September the 24th of 2012.
I'm David Ortiz.
You're watching InfoWars Nightly News, and here's what we have in store for you tonight.
Tonight, police arrest 9-11 truth sidewalk chalker.
But shouldn't they be taking more time to catch the real criminals?
And police brutality hits a new low as Houston PD kills wheelchair-ridden, schizophrenic, double amputee armed with... a pin.
And David Ortiz sits down with libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson to discuss the NDAA, torture, the war on drugs, and his lawsuit to be heard in the presidential debates.
All this and more on tonight's InfoWars Nightly News.
Well, third-party presidential candidate Gary Johnson wants to participate in the presidential debates.
So much so that he has recently filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates.
According to Mr. Johnson, this organization is illegally prohibiting him from participating in the debates.
Now, this organization is extremely secretive.
They're very similar to the Federal Reserve in that they have great power over the American public.
They get to decide who participates in the presidential debates.
Like the Federal Reserve, they consist of only a small group of people who are unelected.
And like the Federal Reserve, they rarely give interviews to the public.
Mr. Johnson once again is saying they are illegally prohibiting him from participating in the debates, and so he has filed an antitrust lawsuit.
He expects a decision Will take place within the next few weeks prior to the debates and just so you know this organization demands that somebody has at least 15% that somebody be polling at about 15% in several polls to participate in the debates.
Obviously most pundits agree you're not going to hit that threshold unless you can participate in the debates.
Most of the public sees you at a debate and if you don't get to participate at that event you're not going to hit that threshold.
Now stay tuned because later on in this new segment I conducted a one-on-one interview with Gary Johnson.
There will be a one-on-one interview with Gary Johnson.
I conducted it with him earlier on today.
He visited our studios here at InfoWars and it's a hard-hitting interview.
He talks about this lawsuit that he has filed as well as many other issues.
So stay tuned for that interview.
It's a great one.
In other news, Iran threatens attacks on U.S.
bases in the event of a war.
According to a senior commander in Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, his name is General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.
He heads the Guard's Aerospace Division.
He says, an Israeli attack cannot happen without the support of its most important ally, the United States, making all U.S.
military bases a legitimate target.
Quote, for this reason, we will enter a confrontation with both parties and we will definitely be at war with American bases should a war break out.
The U.S. has facilities in Behran, Qatar and Afghanistan.
And according to this general, they would be targeted.
There will be no neutral country in the region, the general says.
To us, bases are equal to U.S.
soil.
So there you go, you've got a high-ranking Iranian military official saying, look, regardless of what happens, if Israel bombs us, United States, we're coming after you as well.
All the more reason why we should not get involved in this ludicrous war.
Obviously, we don't cower in fear to the Iranian government.
We would decimate them in a military war.
However, such a war would cost us billions, possibly trillions of dollars, and it would ultimately kill many Americans.
For those that say they're concerned about the fate of Israel, we have supplied Israel with weaponry, we have supplied Israel with military intelligence, they are an ally of ours, and I think that's a good thing, that is my estimation, but it is my estimation Israel must shed its own blood.
It is a sovereign nation, and we have armed it well.
It must shed its own blood.
If, in fact, the Israelis think they are outgunned, they might very well want to consider becoming a U.S.
territory.
Therefore, they will have a better chance of surviving and not being ambushed.
So, obviously, they're saying, Iranian officials, if Israel attacks, United States, we're coming after you as well.
All the more reason why we shouldn't get involved in that war.
In other news, economic officials overseas are saying that the Federal Reserve has greatly hurt their economy.
Or they've insinuated that the Federal Reserve has greatly hurt their economy.
According to former ECB chief economist, that's European Central Bank chief economist, Jorgen Starks, he said in an interview, quote, the break came in 2010.
Until then, everything went well, meaning that the European Central Bank was doing just fine prior to that.
Then the ECB began to take on a new role, to fall into panic.
Together with the other central banks, Meaning the Federal Reserve, the ECB, is flooding the market, posing the question not only about how the ECB will get its money back, but also how the excess liquidity created can be absorbed globally.
Quote, it can't be solved by pressing a button.
If the global economy stabilizes, the potential for inflation has grown enormously.
It gave in to outside pressure, pressure from outside Europe, so he's obviously talking about other banking organizations, and he's hinting that the Federal Reserve was one of those organizations.
What these banking organizations do behind closed doors has truly ruined the world's economy.
The Federal Reserve, without the will of the American people, loaned money to European countries.
And now, the European countries owe us money, and it's just become one colossal failure.
As a result, there is likely going to be an economic collapse.
Governor Gary Johnson stated that.
This is a former governor.
He stated later on in the interview that he feels there will be an economic collapse as a result of the banking practices that has occurred.
And here's what the President of the Czech Republic has to say regarding the importance of sovereignty.
What the banks have done to his nation, he warns that quote, two-faced politicians including the conservatives, he's meaning conservatives in his country, have opened the door to an EU super state by giving up on democracy in a flight from accountability and responsibility to their voters.
We need to think about how to restore our statehood and our sovereignty.
That is impossible in a federation.
So there you go.
You've got the president of a country saying, oh my gosh, what did we do?
We gave up our sovereignty and we gave it up to banksters.
Now our economy is in absolute free fall.
It is a very, very sad turn of events.
And these are leaders of countries.
These aren't political pundits.
This is the president of the Czech Republic acknowledging that his country has made a grave mistake.
Now, speaking of tyranny, locally in news, in California, a woman by the name of Amy Larson wrote in chalk on the floor, 9-11 Truth and 9-11 Truth Now.
As a result of her chalk writing, police arrested her and she was detained.
She was held in jail for 30 hours.
She says she could have left earlier, however it would have cost $10,000 to post bail.
Now, Ms.
Larson is a self-described political activist who had never been arrested.
Larson said she was returning from the farmer's market after buying fruits and vegetables when she started writing the statements on the sidewalk.
Again, those statements were 9-11 truth and 9-11 truth now.
A police officer then stopped to talk to her, then left, she said.
I was never told...
Not to chalk the sidewalk, said Larson, who is married and works in a wine cellar.
Five to ten minutes later, the officers returned with her boss in an SUV.
She was first detained, then arrested for investigation of felony vandalism and booked at the Napa County Jail.
Now listen, I don't like vandalism as much as the next person.
I actually think it's pretty despicable, but we're talking about chalk.
We're talking about chalk.
You know, rain or water would take that away.
And if you want to be stern, if you don't want your communities to be vandalized, issue her a $500 or $1,000 fine.
I think reasonable people can agree she should not have been thrown in jail like some criminal.
Now, officers said that there were 40 other chalk writing incidences throughout the town in previous weeks, and they think that she played a part in that.
Ms.
Larson disagrees.
She said she has not Um, played a part in that at all.
It's amazing how people are being arrested for the most silliest of offenses.
And, uh, later this week you'll see a story in which me and another InfoWars reporter visited the Alamo, and, um, officers there said that we, members of the media, could not get within a 200-foot radius of the Alamo to ask residents questions.
He said it was overseen by a non-profit organization, and they get to decide who gets to get close to the property.
Absolute tyranny.
We've got that on video, and I believe Alex is going to air it on his radio show, possibly in prison, Planet TV, later on this week.
The tyranny just continues to grow.
We're not even allowed to get close to the Alamo, members of the media, without being harassed.
In other news, in the state of New Jersey, my home state, New Jersey attempts to strip parental rights with vaccine anti-exemption bill.
According to a bill that is in the New York Assembly, it's called Senate Bill 1759.
It was approved 6-2 by the Senate's Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee last week.
The bill sponsored by Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, I know her well, big government lover, big liberal, and Senator Joseph Vitale would place a greater burden on parents to clarify a quote, valid reason For not wanting their kids vaccinated.
It would define and further restrict what the definition of a valid reason is.
Limiting options for opting out.
Hey, here's my reason.
I don't want to do it.
Just leave me alone.
Now these government officials are saying you need to have more of a valid reason.
It's a complete violation of our civil liberties.
You can no longer just say I do not want to be vaccinated.
Now you need to have more of a valid reason.
And they deem what is valid and what is not.
And here's a quote from Senator Vitale, quote, we cannot allow widespread exemption from immunization based on fear and false science.
Absolutely amazing.
He's basically saying, even if you're wrong, even if you're wrong and your facts are wrong, you still don't have the right to be exempted from this.
We're going to force you to do this unless you have a great reason.
Complete tyranny.
And this bill is going to hit the Senate.
It's up for a vote in the New Jersey Senate, so if you're a New Jersey resident, as I used to be, call your local legislators and let them know that you think this bill is unpatriotic and should not be passed.
Now, speaking of immunizations and 9-11 inside job, there are some wonderful documentaries that we offer on Infowarsshop.com.
Again, that's Infowarshop.com.
This past weekend, I just saw a wonderful documentary on Monsanto.
A couple of days before that, I saw part of A Noble Lie.
I plan on completing it.
So you've got some wonderful documentaries there.
So if you want to see 9-11 truth, The documentary that Miss Larson saw.
Obviously, Alex is the father of 9-11 truth.
Go to InfoWarshop.com and if you want to learn more about the dangers of vaccines, InfoWarshop.com has wonderful documentaries on that.
Also documentaries on the police state and wonderful books as well.
And we're going to talk a little bit here.
We're going to have the Daily Quote.
And it comes from Aristotle, a true patriot.
Here's what Mr. Aristotle said.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
That was according to the great philosopher Aristotle.
We're going to go over to Jakari Jackson now, who has several more hard-hitting news.
Over to you, Jakari.
Thanks David.
This is Jakari Jackson reporting for the Info Wars Nightly News.
Headline, NYC schools give out morning after pills to students without telling parents.
So we just see here another in a long list of the ways they are violating your parental rights.
Let's look into the article.
While Big Apple high schools have long supplied free condoms to sexually active teens, this is the first time city schools have dispensed hormonal birth control in Plan B.
So far, during an unpublicized pilot program in five schools last year, 567 students received Plan B tablets and 580 students received reclipsin birth control pills.
This fall, students can also get Depo-Provera, a birth control drug, injected once every three months.
So we see here they've gone from just giving out condoms to giving out oral and actually contraceptives that can be injected into your body.
And there's a lot of people out there that say, hey, the kids are going to have sex anyway.
Just give them the things they can use to be responsible in their sexual activity.
I don't think responsible with teenage and sexual activity can all go in the same sentence.
But hey, if that's your argument, that's one thing.
It's one thing to give a kid a condom, something they can put on and take off later once they're done.
But to give them these things that they can inject into their bodies, they don't know what these things are going to do to their bodies.
Twelve-year-old, fifteen-year-old, however old these kids are, are going to take the time to look at drugs such as Gardasil that killed people in clinical trials.
They're too busy worrying about Halo 4 and the next Taylor Swift CD or whatever they're listening to.
That actually ties into another article we did earlier this month.
Headline, The Government's War on Parental Rights.
We'll scroll through the article a little bit.
In late 2011, the California Senate Pass and Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 4992, which allowed young children as young as 12 to consent to vaccinations that reportedly inoculate against sexually transmitted diseases.
So there you go, from California to New York.
Ages 12 and up, essentially, they give rights to children to make decisions that could potentially alter their bodies and harm them, such as drugs like Gardasil has done.
So we'll keep an eye on this.
And if you are a parent, definitely be aware of things going on like this in your local school.
Next story.
Only 15 percent not at all concerned about drones invading privacies.
So there we go.
Seems like InfoWars are no longer the only people worried about these drones patrolling the U.S.
skies.
Let's take a look at the article.
Domestically, state and local law enforcement entities represent the greatest potential users for small, unmanned aircraft systems in the near term because they can offer simple and cost-effective solutions for airborne law enforcement activities.
Continuing, the Monmouth poll surveyed a random sample of 1,700 American adults.
And we see the numbers here.
We have 42% said they would be very concerned.
22% said they would be somewhat concerned.
And the numbers went down from there.
So it's not just the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who are worried about these drones invading their privacy and even harming them.
Yes, I said harming them.
We also did another article on Infowars.com.
Headline, you can look at it for yourself.
Police said to use armed drones against Americans.
I'll read that headline again.
Police said to use armed drones against Americans.
And we won't show the full clip here for the sake of time.
But if you watch this video, you will see the county sheriff Holding a drone that says sheriff, and the guy in the video says yes, these drones are armed.
Those particular drones in the video are armed with stun batons and stun agents.
So it's not just people making it up.
People say, where's your proof that these things are armed?
County sheriff holding a county drone says yes, this thing is armed.
So look at it for yourself.
Don't take our word for it.
And definitely be aware of things like this going on in your neighborhood.
My last story.
Houston PD kills wheelchair-ridden, schizophrenic, double amputee armed with a pen.
Now that sounds like some type of skit from Chappelle Show, so let me read that to you one more time.
Houston PD kills wheelchair-ridden, schizophrenic, double amputee armed with a pen.
Keep this in mind as we go through the article.
A spokesman for Houston PD says the officer couldn't make out what the metal object that the man waved was.
It was later determined that the object was a pen.
After the mentally ill man refused to comply with police orders to put the pen down, police opened fire without thinking twice to reach for a taser instead of a gun.
The author makes a very good point, but I think even a taser in this situation would be more than excessive.
The man had one arm, he had one leg.
Let's say, my understanding about a knife or a edged weapon, belated weapon, I don't know what you can mistake a pen to be, possibly some type of ice pick.
My understanding is these things are considered dangerous within 21 feet.
I'm not sure how close the officers were.
But let's say the guy was coming at them with the instrument, being a pen.
Now, I don't know if he's got one of the old wheelchairs that he has to roll with one hand or even if he has one of the newer ones with the joystick.
Even if he was going to use the joystick, he has to hold the pen and the joystick in the same hand because he only has one hand to use.
So how much of a threat is this guy driving around?
I'm not making a joke.
The guy had to drive around like this with the pen in one hand as well as the joystick.
How much of a threat is this guy to these Big tough Houston PD officers.
It's ridiculous.
It's just another, another sad case of police brutality.
And we would like to show you, you know, more, you know, things of cops changing tires and helping old ladies walk across the street.
But hey, this is, you know, these are the stories that we unfortunately get to tell because we even had a chance, me and Darren McBreen, we did a man on the street.
We encountered some very nice, friendly, professional police officers, but they didn't want to talk on camera, so we didn't have a chance to interview them.
But hey, guys like this, shooting and killing, wheelchair ridden, schizophrenic, double amputee, gentlemen armed with pens, I guess that's your new police force.
So I hate to end my segment on such a sour note, but we'll go to break and we'll come back with David Ortiz as he interviews presidential hopeful Gary Johnson.
Stay tuned.
Hello, this is Linda West with a special report for InfoWars.com.
A new DVD has come out by GMO expert and scholar Jeffrey Smith.
It's entitled Genetic Roulette.
It exposes the shockingly unbelievable connection between the proliferation of GMOs by huge agri-corporations And a huge increase in disease in America.
Things we're seeing today aren't normal.
We didn't see them 30 years ago or 50 years ago.
Illnesses that weren't epidemic before are now epidemic.
With this new comprehensive information, we can finally solve the mystery between the rising disease, cancer, allergies, Alzheimer's, premature aging, and even autism.
I'm concerned about all the health issues that I'm seeing, but the one that I am most alarmed about is autistic spectrum, which is literally skyrocketed.
We can't say for sure that GMOs have anything to do with autism, but we can't say for sure that it doesn't.
In fact, there's been an increase in autism since GMOs were introduced, and animals that eat GMOs, both in laboratory and in livestock situations, have shown some tell-tale signs that some practitioners say are linked with autism.
Jeffrey Smith has done the scientific research that finally reveals the truth about GMOs that Big Agricorps and the government has tried so hard to cover up.
This food conspiracy Is making them billionaires and us sick.
He said he lost about 90% of his miniature steers.
What the problem was is I guess he said that they weren't able to process the food correctly and they would bloat up and die from it.
Now that we have the real information, we can make changes.
Now we know exactly why diseases are on the rise, surgeries are on the rise, and so many small minds are being stolen from autism.
I know today we all have a lot on our plate.
But what's on our plate today is killing us.
This is Linda West wishing your family a happy and healthy future.
Sick of the globalist eugenicist control freaks adding poison to your water and laughing as you get sick and die?
Start purifying your water with ProPure.
My friends, I've done a lot of research and the best gravity filter out there, bar none, is ProPure.
And it's available discounted at infowars.com.
Its filters are silver impregnated to prevent bacterial growth.
There's no priming required.
It's NSF42 certified.
Optional fluoride filters can reduce fluoride up to 95% easy to set up and use.
Doesn't require electricity.
Purify water from lakes, streams, ponds, and wells.
This filter system leaves in beneficial minerals, which is key.
Save money by not buying bottled water and avoid BPA that leaches from the plastic.
ProPure is the best gravity-fed filter out there.
It's what my family uses.
Infowars.com already has the lowest price on ProPure.
But if you add the promo code WATER at checkout, you get an additional 10% off at Infowars.com.
You can also call to order 888-253-3139.
Alex Jones here with a message that could revolutionize health in this country.
Going back about a year and a half ago, I began to learn about the incredible health effects of longevity products.
Erin Dykes lost 92 pounds.
We're going to show you some before and afters.
Aaron, break down what happened.
Your story.
I've worked really hard with diet and exercise to try to lose weight, but I just didn't get the results.
It just didn't happen.
Then I saw what you were doing with Infowarsteam.com.
I wasn't even trying to lose weight, but I got it because I wanted to feel better energy.
I wanted I wanted that nutrition.
Didn't even understand how that could kickstart my own weight loss goals.
But the products did that for me.
I found myself suddenly losing weight, more energetic, wanting to exercise, wanting to eat the right foods.
And they don't even advertise it as weight loss.
I want to challenge our radio listeners to go to InfowarsTeam.com.
Sign up as a distributor and get wholesale pricing discounts at InfowarsTeam.com.
And welcome back to Infowars Nightly News.
And right now we are joined by none other than presidential candidate Gary Johnson. - Listen.
Mr. Johnson, thank you so much for being here.
David, great to be on with you.
Thank you.
Now, Governor, we obviously know who you are here at InfoWars, the Freedom Movement knows who you are, but several polls show that a majority of Americans do not know who you are.
So for those who are listening right now, tell us a little bit about yourself and some of your political accomplishments.
Well, I've been an entrepreneur my entire life.
I started a one-man handyman business in Albuquerque in 1974 and actually grew that to employ over a thousand people over a 20-year period.
I became Intel's facilities contractor before the 286 chip.
I sold that business in 1999.
Nobody lost their job.
They're doing better than ever and it allows me to have a full-time unpaid job running for President of the United States.
I had never been involved in politics prior to running for Governor of New Mexico.
ran completely outside the political system as a republican in a state that's two to one democrat got elected governor in a state that's two to one democrat and i'd like to think it was based on what i had to say which was really common sense business approach to state government best product best service lowest price uh let's just have some common sense uh let's just have some common sense uh Less government is better government.
I made a name for myself being governor for perhaps vetoing more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined.
David, I vetoed 750 bills.
I had thousands of line-item vetoes.
I think it made a difference when it came to billions of dollars worth of spending.
I think it made a difference when it came to laws that, but for my signature, would have added time and money to our lives but weren't going to make us any safer, weren't going to make us any more healthy.
I stood up and said no.
I think the biggest indicator of how that went over was the fact that I did get re-elected by a bigger margin the second time than the first time, in a state that's 2-1 Democrat, being a penny pincher, and being somebody who was standing up for less government.
Now, Governor, what are your thoughts on the two front-running presidential candidates?
Tweedledee, Tweedledum.
Elect either one of them, and I'm going to suggest we are going to have a heightened police state in this country, a growing police state, continued growing police state.
Elect either one.
I'm going to suggest that we are still going to be in a state of perpetual war, that we're going to continue to militarily intervene in other countries' affairs, that Result, I think, in hundreds of millions of enemies to this country that, but for our military interventions, perhaps would otherwise not exist.
And then lastly, let's balance the federal budget now.
Not 28 years from now, but now.
If we don't balance the budget, I think we're going to find ourselves in a monetary collapse.
A monetary collapse very simply being when the dollars that we have in our pocket don't buy a thing because of the accompanying inflation that is going to go along with this at some point.
I also advocate abolishing the income tax, corporate tax, eliminating the IRS, and replacing all of that with one federal consumption tax.
I am advocating the fair tax.
I think that's really the answer when it comes to American jobs.
Because in a zero corporate tax rate environment, if the private sector doesn't create tens of millions of jobs...
I don't know what it takes to create tens of millions of jobs.
So big difference between myself and the other two.
And David, when I talk about myself and the other two, I'm on the ballot currently in 47 states and the District of Columbia.
We are litigated in the other three.
We think we're going to prevail.
So although there are other third party candidates, no other third party candidate will come close to 50 ballot access.
Now, you've recently filed a lawsuit against the Presidential Commission on Debates.
They're a very secretive organization, and in my estimation, they're the new Federal Reserve.
Because they're secretive like the Federal Reserve, only a handful of individuals represent these people.
This organization, they're not elected by the people and they have great control over the people.
They're called, again, the Presidential Commission on Debates.
And you have filed a lawsuit against this secretive organization.
Tell us about the lawsuit and why you decided to file it.
Well, we will be filing a number of lawsuits, actually.
We filed the first of what are going to be three, but the first one was on antitrust grounds.
Who are they and why are they able to restrict who doesn't or does get into the debates?
They are a private organization and they're made up of Democrats and Republicans, so they have no vested interest whatsoever in seeing a third party on the debate stage.
They were set up after Ross Perot, really, To prevent Ross Perot from ever being on stage again.
Yeah, it's amazing.
And I know you don't represent them, obviously, but what are the rules?
What are they telling you?
As far as, you know, what do you need to be part of the debate?
Well, you have to be qualified in enough states to have a potential of winning.
Be able to win enough electoral college votes to win.
And then the other one is a certain showing in the polls.
Well, David, if you're not in the polls, how do you get 15% in the polls if you're not in the polls?
You know, right now, arguably, I'm at 6% nationally.
I would just ask you, do you hear my name six times for every time you hear Obama or Romney's name 100 times?
I'm going to suggest you hear my name one time for every 5,000 times you hear these guys' names.
So, point is, I think we're doing a terrific job here.
If it were just being reported a month ago, if it were just reported where I was, I think I would be at that 15% today, because interest, when it comes to my candidacy, is a good thing.
I really do have a resume to not only suggest that I can do this job, but that I can do a good job at it.
Now, when do you expect a ruling on this lawsuit?
I think part of the lawsuit is it has to be ruled on immediately because the first debate is October 3rd.
Okay.
And again, for viewers, they're called the Presidential Commission on Debates, a very, very secretive organization.
I'm calling them the New Federal Reserve.
So Google them and learn a little bit more about them, although they operate in secrecy.
You're not going to learn much about them.
Now, Governor We're going to talk about issues in one more minute, but very briefly, tell us a little bit about the 5% threshold you are trying to get in the general election, and why hitting it would be beneficial to your cause.
Well, reaching 5% would entitle the Libertarian Party to matching funds, significant matching funds, to where next presidential cycle, the Libertarian Party, because of those matching funds, would be a real power to be reckoned with.
Not that it won't be the case this go-round, but given that amount of money reaching a 5% threshold, very, very significant.
It would mean there wouldn't be any issue with ballot access in all 50 states reaching a 5% threshold.
Okay, and right now, how much does the Libertarian Party receive in federal funding?
None.
I did submit for federal matching funds.
It really had to do more with Being in the Republican primary than in the general election, but we may receive up to a million dollars in federal matching funds this go-round, and that would be based on Bob Barr showing last election of one-half of one percent, so you can see how significant this could be if we got to five percent.
Yeah, you're talking about millions of dollars more, tens of millions.
Now let's talk a little bit about the issues, Governor.
What are your thoughts on the President's controversial NDAA bill, and what would you do about this bill if elected?
Well, if I would have been President, I would not have signed the National Defense Authorization Act, allowing for you and I, as U.S.
citizens, to be arrested and detained without being charged.
I think this is why we fought wars.
Okay, so you obviously would try to repeal it.
Well, and it will come up for reauthorization.
I don't know what the time frame is on reauthorization, but I would not reauthorize it, given that caveat to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Now, are you highly offended by this bill?
It seems that some people agree with it, disagree with it, but there's not an outrage over this bill.
I mean, is this bill, you know, something that the American public should be very concerned about?
This is a bill that the American public should be concerned about.
This and the Patriot Act.
The constant furthering erosion of our civil liberties.
And this is happening in a very insidious way.
The National Defense Authorization Act.
Look, we fought wars over the government not being able to arrest you or I and hold us, detain us, without being charged.
I think this is fundamental to the United States Constitution.
I think it's fundamental to why we have fought wars.
Okay.
Now, what are your thoughts on the fact that the President has yet to shut down Guantanamo Bay?
And how would you address the issue of POW torture?
Well, the reasons for Guantanamo Bay, the reasons for shutting down what has become synonymous with Guantanamo Bay is torture and detainment without being charged.
I would stop both of those practices immediately.
Should we, or do we need a facility like Guantanamo Bay?
Perhaps.
So perhaps we keep Guantanamo Bay open, but it would not be open for business to conduct torture or detainment without charge.
Okay.
What are your thoughts on the Libyan embassy killings and the continued unrest we see occurring in several Middle Eastern countries?
Well, let's vacate these embassies now.
It would not be a show of weakness on our part to get out of these embassies, but let's get out of these embassies.
What are these embassies for?
We're setting ourselves up Symbolically, to be a target in an area that's very volatile.
I think it's volatile because of our military interventions, and that doesn't seem to come to an end, but let's get out of the embassies, let's not put ourselves up as a target.
We've put ourselves in the position in the first place by intervening in all of, militarily, in all of these different countries.
Libya, look, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars to oust Muammar Gaddafi and now the group that's coming in to replace Muammar Gaddafi arguably is made up of Al-Qaeda?
Gee, none of this seems to make any sense and yet this is our continued state of war.
Now this issue has many people talking about foreign aid.
Should we provide foreign aid to other countries?
What is your stance on foreign aid?
Well, I think that people need to understand that foreign aid is aid to foreign governments that we prop up.
We oust one dictator and then we put a new dictator in power.
Foreign aid is the money that we give to the new dictator.
It's not to people in these countries, it's to the dictators.
Taking from poor people in the United States and giving it to rich people in other countries that are taking over these other countries.
So, foreign aid should stop.
Okay.
Now, how would you handle the Iranian crisis?
Obviously, you've got Israel, the United States talking about possibly attacking Iran.
How would you handle the Iranian crisis?
Well, I would not bomb Iran.
I don't think there is a military threat from Iran.
And if we bomb Iran, in my opinion, we're going to find ourselves with another hundred million enemies to this country.
But for that bombing would not otherwise occur.
Let's not forget that after 9-11 the largest demonstration in the world in support of the United States was in Iran.
And a million demonstrators show up in support of the United States, and we're going to bomb the citizens of Iran?
Look, our beef is with Ahmadinejad, but it shouldn't involve bombing.
If I were President of the United States right now, I would urge Israel to not be bombing Iran.
If we don't want them to get a nuclear weapon, let's consider the notion of free trade as opposed to embargo.
And you talked a little bit about it earlier on in the segment here.
In your estimation, what is the state of the U.S.
economy?
On the verge of collapse.
The fact that we're borrowing and printing money to the tune of 43 cents out of every dollar that we spend.
I believe that it's not sustainable.
The only way we have a chance at avoiding a monetary collapse, in my opinion, is to balance the federal budget now.
So I'm making a couple of promises.
One is, I will submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013.
I promise to veto any legislation where expenses exceed revenue.
And, David, I want to suggest that with those two promises kept, spending will be lower than any other scenario you could possibly come up with.
Does that get us out from under the threat of a monetary collapse?
No, because we still have a $16 trillion debt.
We need strong U.S.
dollar policies, not weak U.S.
dollar policies, and we continue on the pathway to weak dollar.
Now, you talked about economic collapse.
You're a governor.
You've, you know, you've had to look at spreadsheets and budgets before.
Just looking at our finances, our country's finances, I know you're not, you know, no one's psychic, but where do you think, I mean, if you were given a time frame as to when this country might collapse economically, I mean, what time frame would you give?
Well, I get the sense sooner than later, and I get the sense that the solution is to slash spending.
The solution starts with a balanced budget, and that's where I'm going to start.
Sooner than later, obviously thousands of people worldwide make their living predicting bond prices, and those bond prices don't reflect that at all today, but it will be a bond market collapse, and it's not going to be anything that anybody sees.
It's just going to happen.
But any estimated time frame?
I mean, I know, again, you're not, no one is psychic, but you're a man, you know, you're a political figure.
Well, I'm believing that it's sooner than later, and I'm believing... Within a year?
Well, if I were in that, if I actually believed in that, I would make bets to that from a financial standpoint, but I do believe it sooner than later, and regardless of when it comes, and I'll just say that it is coming, that it's looming, that we can't escape the mathematics of what we're currently doing, that we should be on the safe side and embark on what the solutions are to go along with all this, and that starts with balancing revenues and expenditures.
No, in my estimation, the main culprit for this economic collapse, this is just my assessment, is the Federal Reserve.
What are your thoughts on the Federal Reserve and do you support abolishing it, auditing it?
I would sign legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve.
I think it's an inside game.
The Federal Reserve takes money from Treasury.
They loan it to the banks.
They take money from the Treasury.
Treasury prints the money.
Federal Reserve gives it to the banks at 0% interest.
Banks don't loan that money out to you or I. They buy up Treasuries in a closed loop.
Look at it.
This is Bernie Madoff with a printing machine.
How long would Bernie have lasted?
Well, how long are we going to last?
Because we do have a printing machine.
I would abolish the Federal Reserve if given the opportunity.
I would repeal legal tender laws if given the opportunity.
I would establish competing currencies if given the opportunity.
Okay.
Now, how would you handle the Medicare and Social Security dilemma?
Well, Social Security is absolutely fixable.
Social Security is a system that just needs to take in more money than what it pays out.
I am advocating the Fair Tax.
So, with the Fair Tax implemented, there would no longer be a deduction from your payroll check for Social Security.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment would come out of the proceeds of the Fair Tax.
The employer match for all of those three would come out of the proceeds of the Fair Tax.
But Social Security, absolutely savable.
A few caveats, raising the retirement age, changing the escalator built into Social Security from the wage index to the inflation rate.
I think you could have a very fair means testing when it comes to Social Security.
How much did you pay in?
How much should you get paid out, given a certain level of income?
And then have an opt-in, opt-out provision.
But Social Security is a problem that is just pale in comparison to Medicare.
And Medicaid.
Open-ended entitlements.
As Governor of New Mexico, I oversaw the reform of Medicaid, which was healthcare to the poor in New Mexico.
We took it from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model.
We saved hundreds of millions of dollars and we set up better healthcare networks doing that.
If the federal government would have block-granted the state of New Mexico 43% less money, done away with all the strings and all the mandates, David, I think I could have effectively overseen the delivery of health care to the poor.
I would apply that same model to health care for those over 65, Medicare.
Federal government needs to get out of the health care business completely.
Devolve it to the states.
States are going to end up drawing new lines with regard to eligibility.
But what we need to recognize is, if we don't spend within our means, there won't be health care for anybody.
In a monetary collapse, the government will be incapable of delivering any goods and services.
And just rewinding, you said obviously Social Security is not this country's biggest problem, but you did mention raising the age.
What would you raise it to?
To make it actuarially sound, I'm not suggesting the following, but currently we have 62 and 65, 70, 72.
Okay.
Alright, and let's talk a little bit about the immigration issue.
Recently, Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were conducting interviews, I believe it was with Univision, a Hispanic media outlet.
How would you handle the illegal immigration issue?
Well, I would start with the premise that immigration is a good thing.
It's a good thing.
I think that we should make it as easy as possible for someone that wants to come into this country and work to get a work visa.
I'm not talking about a green card.
I'm not talking about citizenship, but a work visa.
A work visa would entail a background check and a social security card so that applicable taxes would get paid.
If we implement the fair tax, taxes won't be an issue at all.
Because whether you're illegal, legal, a visitor to the U.S., or a U.S.
citizen, nobody is going to be able to avoid paying one federal consumption tax.
Let's not build a fence.
Let's recognize that border violence is a prohibition phenomenon.
Legalized marijuana, arguably 75% of the border violence with Mexico, goes away.
And with regard to the 11 million illegal immigrants that are here in this country right now, we need to set up a grace period where we can document those 11 million illegal immigrants so that we do have tax-paying, law-abiding citizens and we don't want criminals working in this country.
What about those that say, well, because they came in here illegally, they've cost us a lot of money in the ER room, education, I mean, would you fine them at all?
Just so that they can offset some of the cost that they have cost this country?
Well, I think that that's a misconception, that they've cost this country money.
As governor of New Mexico, I asked everyone in my administration And that would have been those in law enforcement, those in education, those in health and human services, to give me a cost-benefit analysis.
Legal, illegal.
How much money is coming in the door?
How much is going out?
The 100% consensus was more money was coming in the door than is going out.
What we little realize is that for the most part, illegal immigrants are providing false documentation that result in taxes being taken out of checks with no claim made on those taxes ever.
So you're saying the illegal immigrants do not cost this country money?
The illegal immigrants do not cost this country money, and from the context of adding or taking jobs that U.S.
citizens don't want, I'm going to suggest that they are value-added.
Now, there's no excuse for illegal immigration, but I'm going to suggest to you that the reason we have so much illegal immigration is because you can't get a work visa and come into this country and work.
Would immigrants stand in line if the line was moving to get a work visa?
I believe they would stand in line if the line was moving.
Okay.
Let's change gears a little bit.
Recently, U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder was exonerated from any wrongdoing in relation to the Fast and Furious operation.
What are your thoughts on that operation?
Well, just that my experience growing a company from one person to a thousand people, my experience as governor of New Mexico, I just find it almost beyond belief that as the head of an agency you would not understand what is going on within the agency.
That said, if he doesn't know, that's even a bigger indictment, I think.
Okay.
And what do you think about the operation itself?
I mean, the fact that that operation was carried out?
Well, it seems an extension of everything that we seem to do when it comes to the government, and that is that it just all defies logic.
I would suggest that fast and furious is our foreign policy when it comes to military intervention, and let's shoot first, ask questions later, and deal with all the enemies that we have created worldwide as a result of that aggression.
Okay.
Now, speaking of shooting, let's talk a little bit about gun control and gun control laws.
Obviously, you know that after the Colorado shootings, many politicians were saying, once again, we need stricter gun control laws.
You hear that quite often.
Where do you stand on gun control?
Well, I don't think the Second Amendment could be any more clear.
I am not for restricting handguns or guns of any kind, whether that be caliber, rounds in the chamber.
I just think when you make guns illegal, those that end up owning those guns are criminals.
Okay.
Now, also you touched earlier on the war on drugs a little bit when we were talking about the border violence.
It seems that Colorado and Washington, I believe it's Washington, have a referendum that's going to be taking place in November where they're going to try to legalize marijuana altogether.
You're not going to need a medical note or anything like that.
You'll just be able to take it.
Where do you stand?
Just elaborate.
Where do you stand on the war on drugs?
Well, I think that we should legalize marijuana now.
Control it, regulate it, tax it.
I think we are at a tipping point.
I think Colorado is going to be that tipping point.
It's on the ballot this fall.
Regulate marijuana like alcohol.
Terrific name for the referendum.
Speaks for itself.
Citizens of Denver six years ago voted to decriminalize marijuana on a campaign based on marijuana being safer than alcohol.
I think when we legalize marijuana, and I say when because fifty percent of Americans now support the notion, why is the number so high?
It's because people are talking about it.
I think that people recognize that there's a direct correlation between the prohibition of marijuana and the prohibition of alcohol.
I think that once we legalize marijuana in this country, Once one state legalizes marijuana in this country, the other 49 will fall in line.
It'll be the first of 50 dominoes.
How will that work when it comes to Colorado?
Well, when everybody in Austin, Texas wants to get on an airplane to go to Denver for the weekend to chill out, I think the other states will understand that this is policy that should affect their states as well as Colorado.
Once we legalize marijuana, I think we take giant steps toward rational drug policy with regard to all the other drugs.
And rational drug policy would start with looking at drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.
I'm just playing devil's advocate.
What about those that say, well, it sends the wrong message?
It's saying, you know, on the kids, you know, a parent can obviously be high on drugs and, you know... Well, I could not more... I couldn't disagree more adamantly.
Kids doing drugs, is that a situation that you as a family member want to deal with?
Or is that a situation that you want to involve the government and the criminal justice system?
I love my kids.
I want to keep my kids well-informed.
I don't want my kids subject to the criminal justice system where they may be excluded from the opportunities that this country does avail ourselves of.
We may have 20 million convicted felons in this country on drug-related crime, but for drug felony crime, They would otherwise be arguably tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
Now, just changing gears a little bit, what are your thoughts on the various internet regulation bills that continue to be drafted in Congress?
CISPA, I forgot all the other acronyms, but what's your take on all these bills?
What's the prospect of Gary Johnson being President of the United States with a record as Governor of New Mexico having vetoed as many bills as I vetoed?
Count on me vetoing all this kind of legislation that wants, that government wants to get in and fix the Internet.
There's nothing that I want the government to fix or protect me from when it comes to the Internet.
Okay.
Now, I'm a libertarian, you're a libertarian, and we actually have a difference of opinion And that's on the issue of gay marriage.
Let me know where you stand on this.
You do support gay marriage.
I do.
I think marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right on par with civil rights of the sixties.
Right.
But under civil unions, isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state?
You're forcefully taking a word marriage which was created by the religious community and I view it as a constitutionalist libertarian, as a violation of the separation of church and state.
Well, I would take the opposite view, that fundamental to President of the United States, fundamental to governing as President of the United States, would be governing under strict adherence to the U.S.
Constitution.
I think this is a federal issue because of the constitutional questions that it raises, which, like I say, I think are on par with civil rights of the 60s.
But don't they get all the rights necessary?
Don't gay couples get all the rights that a straight couple gets under civil unions?
Well, if you take the stance that the government should get out of the marriage business and be in the civil union business, effectively what you're saying is you're not going to affect this issue at all, because 41 states recognize marriage as between a man and a woman.
There are thousands of lines of federal law that contain the word marriage.
If you enact legislation to get the government out of the marriage business and into the civil union business, effectively, you're going to have to change thousands of lines of federal law to make this stick.
By acknowledging marriage equality, no line of federal law has to be changed.
And getting back to the Fair Tax, arguably enacting the Fair Tax does away with about half the issues surrounding marriage equality, which have to do with rights of inheritance upon death.
Okay.
So you're being more pragmatic when you support gay marriage in that saying that you'd have to... Well, it is pragmatic, but I'm going to also maintain that it is constitutional.
To take that word, to forcefully take that word from the religious community.
Well, the notion that we are all guaranteed equal and inalienable rights.
Okay.
Well, that's the difference of agreements that many constitutionalists and libertarians have.
I do think it violates the separation of church and state, although I do support civil unions.
However, somebody might feel about that lifestyle, but I'm not running for president, so it doesn't really matter.
On to another question here.
I've read reports that your campaign is in financial trouble.
Is that in fact true?
No, it's not true at all.
Oh, it's not true at all?
Not at all.
It was a report that I said it was about $300,000 in debt or something?
Well, one of the things about racking up debt, if you will, is that we do have debt coming into the campaign.
Debt can actually be garnered through matching funds after the campaign's over with.
So we're counting on matching funds, actually, to make up the difference there.
What has been your experience like on the campaign trail?
I mean, just as a candidate running for office.
Well, I wouldn't be doing this if there weren't a lot of excitement that's being generated.
I wouldn't be doing this if either party were actually talking about significant change.
Neither are.
And so...
I really thought running as a Republican in the Republican primary, it was going to be hard to marginalize two people talking about the same message on stage.
That would have been myself and Ron Paul.
I didn't find myself marginalized.
I just found myself kicked out of the process, and I thought what I've witnessed is Ron Paul continuing to be marginalized.
I did not think he was going to win the Republican nomination, so back in December, Where does the voice go for this movement after Ron Paul leaves this movement?
Well, I thought it was going to fall on the Libertarian nominee for President.
I saw an opportunity to be that nominee, and here I am.
And what do you say to Ron Paul supporters who, for whatever reason, are hesitant to vote for you?
Well, that Ron Paul and I are saying the same things, and if you're hesitant to vote for me, I would ask you, what is Mitt Romney saying that is anything like liberty and freedom?
And what is Barack Obama saying that in any way resembles liberty and freedom?
Now Governor, what do you say to listeners who say, and viewers who say voting for you would be throwing their vote away?
Well, that if everybody were to throw their vote away, I would be the next President of the United States.
I would argue that throwing your vote away is voting for somebody that you don't believe in, and that if you want to change the system, you vote for the person that you most agree with.
You know, it's one thing also to just agree with what it is a person is saying.
You know what?
They've got to have a resume to go along with what's coming out of their mouth to suggest that they would actually doggedly pursue what it is they're talking about.
David, there is nothing in my resume to suggest that I'm not going to doggedly pursue everything it is that I'm talking about.
Quite often in the liberty movement people get frustrated, they get saddened because it just seems like we're not making too much headway.
What advancement has the liberty movement made in your estimation?
Well, I think it is front and center.
I think that this is a pivotal election for the liberty and freedom movement.
Voting for the lesser of two evils, I'm going to argue is going to change nothing.
Vote your conscience.
This cycle, potentially it has the chance to change this forever going forward.
But on the campaign trail, do you notice anything?
I mean, what advancements have you seen?
I mean, what headway has the movement made?
Anything tangible?
Something that the public, that viewers could be proud of?
Well, the best a Libertarian candidate has ever done running for President of the United States is right at 1% of the general election vote.
Right now, I'm polling at 6%.
Does that change between now and Election Day?
I think it changes significantly if I can actually get more attention.
And I think I'm going to get more attention.
That's the way I feel, the way this is all playing out.
And more attention for me equates to, oh, entrepreneur, two-term governor of New Mexico, all these crazy things that libertarians talk about.
Arguably, this guy was the libertarian governor of New Mexico for eight years.
How did it work out in a state that was two-to-one Democrats?
I got elected by a bigger margin the second time than the first time.
Well, I'll give you one last opportunity to speak to members of the public.
Is there any one message you would like to send to viewers here who are watching on PrisonPlanet.tv or to listeners on the radio show?
If you want to stop the heightened police state that exists in this country, vote for me.
If you want to stop the continued military interventions that perpetuate themselves in this country, vote for me.
If you actually want jobs addressed, if you actually want spending addressed, if you actually want this country to survive, vote for me.
I'm promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013.
I'm promising to advocate on the part of eliminating income tax, corporate tax, and abolishing the IRS.
Well, Governor, thank you so much for coming.
Best of luck on the campaign trail, and on behalf of all patriots, thank you for fighting for political freedom.
We really appreciate it.
That's a two-way street.
Thank you.
And that's all for InfoWars Nightly News.
We again want to thank Governor Johnson for making himself available and allowing us to interview him.
And if you want to continue supporting this operation, this patriot-loving, freedom-loving operation, become a member of PrisonPlanet.tv.
It costs less than six dollars a month and actually One membership is good for, I believe, six people in total.
So you can split that cost with other people.
So there you go.
Great programming on PrisonPlanet.tv.
You can watch Alex's show live, get access to his documentaries, and it once again helps fund our operation.
Thank you once again for watching InfoWars Nightly News.
Please join us again tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection