All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
56:46
20130617_Mon_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- It's time for humanity to stand up in the end of the war.
Do you wanna fight?
Give me!
I'm out of belief!
I'm God's word!
Welcome to the InfoWars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Monday, June 17, 2013, and here are our top stories.
Tonight, Edward Snowden Q&A.
NSA whistleblower answers your questions.
Then, these guys want to hack your home, and you should let them.
And government agencies are exploiting buggy software to spy on you.
That's up next on the InfoWars Nightly News.
Now we are all persons of interest.
That's a quote from Thomas Drake.
And if you've been watching the metastasizing surveillance state for a while, you'll recognize the names Thomas Drake, William Binney, and J. Kirk Wiebe.
Now, the three of them were whistleblowers from right after September 11th.
They realized that national security was going in the wrong direction.
A direction opposed to the Constitution.
All three of them became whistleblowers.
Thomas Drake was a former NSA technical director.
William Binney was a former NSA technical director as well.
And Jay Kirk Wiebe was a former NSA senior analyst.
Now, USA Today had a roundtable with the three of them.
Talking about the NSA as well as Edward Snowden, whistleblower, and here's what Thomas Drake had to say.
There is a bottom line, though.
The government unchained itself from the Constitution as a result of 9-11.
And in the absolute darkest of secrecy, at the highest level of the government, Approved by the White House, NSA became the executive agent for a surveillance program, extraordinarily broad surveillance program, that turned the United States of America effectively into the equivalent of a foreign nation for dragnet electronic surveillance.
It's a very, very powerful quote, and I want to read that to you again and emphasize this.
Now, this is a man who was being prosecuted by the government, and he could have gotten life in prison if they had been successful.
And all he was doing was pointing out criminal activity.
Unconstitutional activity on the part of the government.
And here's what he said.
The government unchained itself from the Constitution as a result of 9-11.
Unchained itself from the Constitution.
In the darkest of secrecy, at the highest levels of government approved by the White House, NSA became the executive agent for an extraordinarily broad surveillance program that effectively turned the United States into the equivalent of a foreign nation for dragnet electronic NSA became the executive agent for an extraordinarily broad surveillance program Do you see how the American empire is turning in on itself?
We've had nothing but constant war for 60 years.
And as Ron Paul pointed out, when we treat other people in other countries with absolutely no respect for life or their property or their liberty, eventually that is going to come back to haunt us.
What we're doing is we're training an entire section of our Civilization, the government sector, to treat people as non-humans.
And eventually they're going to come back to the United States.
And as Thomas Drake said, that time is now.
Now, we are all persons of interest.
It's always been that way.
That's why we talk about democide.
That's why we did the video about democide here at InfoWars.
Because governments have always, always treated their citizens much more harshly than they have citizens of other countries.
They've always killed more of their citizens than they have citizens of other countries.
And all the wars combined, more people have died of democide.
And that's what we have to look forward to if we do not stop and reverse course in this criminal government Now, in this roundtable, they had some interesting quotes here as a back and forth between the three whistleblowers and the people at USA Today.
And here's some of the transcript.
For years, the three whistleblowers had told anyone who would listen to them that the NSA collects huge swaths of communication data from U.S.
citizens.
They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems that they say have now been turned against Americans.
Now, this is William Binney.
He said, we tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside of the government, trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing, and openly admit that, and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends that they were really after.
And that just failed totally.
Because no one in the Congress, or we couldn't get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and Inspector General's office didn't pay any attention to it.
And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever.
All it did was to continue to get worse and expand.
And we rejoined and said, yes, we failed.
Now, that sounds very much like what we've seen happening with the IRS, doesn't it?
Rather than investigate wrongdoing, rather than do anything, they circle the wagons.
Or they go after the people who reported the wrongdoing, as opposed to making any corrections.
And Jocelyn Raddick, who was their lawyer, she was a lawyer for all three of them, and she herself was a whistleblower.
Not for the NSA, but I believe for the Department of Justice.
She said, not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them.
The Inspector General was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.
They were all targets of a federal criminal investigation and Tom ended up being prosecuted and it was all for blowing the whistle.
And they were trying to put him away for life for doing that.
Now Weeby also made an interesting point.
He pointed out that what they were doing made absolutely no sense from a mission standpoint.
In other words, if their mission was one of security, what they were doing was not oriented towards doing the best job about that.
What they were doing was maximizing the transfer of money to certain companies in the military-industrial complex.
It was not efficient.
But we see that with the TSA as well, don't we?
We see the TSA is not effective as a security agency.
What the TSA does is a PSYOP operation, training people to give up their freedom and their personal dignity.
And that's exactly what was going on at the NSA, although they were interested there in feathering the nests of the people who were well connected within the military-industrial complex.
Today, The Guardian had a live question and answer with Ed Snowden.
People could leave comments, they could tweet their questions to Ed Snowden.
And here's the take-home money quote that came out of that.
He was asked by somebody, how many sets of documents you disclosed did you make?
And how many different people have them?
If anything happens to you, do they still exist?
And this is what he said.
All I can say right now is the U.S.
government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me.
Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
Well, I certainly hope that is true.
I hope that's true for his sake, and I hope that's true for all of our sakes.
Now he also said in this question, back and forth answers on The Guardian, he was asked about the domestic use and the distinction that the NSA is trying to make between domestic and foreign spying.
And he said, the NSA likes to use the word domestic as a weasel word here for a number of reasons.
The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its Section 702 authorities, American communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant.
Right?
A warrant is what's required under the Fourth Amendment.
But they didn't get a warrant when they got the data for 7 million Verizon customers.
And of course, as William Binney has pointed out over and over again, that order that was publicized, that was leaked, was actually Order 8013.
And he said, from his experience, the 13 represented the year 2013, and 80 would have been the 80th order.
They do these on a quarterly basis.
So doing the math, that means that there were at least 40, maybe as many as 79 other orders that went out.
For that, so we have a lot of companies that they're putting these orders out on.
Now, what he's saying here, and this is being said by others, is that the domestic distinction is nothing but a wiggle room to try to get around the requirements of having a warrant.
He says, this excuse is an incident, they excuse us as an incidental collection, but at the end of the day, Someone at the NSA still has the content of your communications, even in the event of a warranted intercept.
It's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider to be a real warrant, like a police department would have to.
The warrant is more of a template form that they fill out and send to a reliable, that means a compliant, judge with a rubber stamp.
And then Glenn Greenwald, who is there with him on the question and answer period, followed up and said, when you say someone at the NSA still has the content of your communications, what do you mean?
Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?
And he says, both.
If I target, for example, an email address, for example, under FAA 702, and that email address sent to someone to send something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it.
All of it.
IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything.
And it gets saved for a very long time and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.
That's the whole purpose of the data center being built in Utah, Bluffdale, Utah.
They want to store worldwide communications for hundreds of years, and they have the data capacity to do it.
And once they do that, they'll be able to mine it every successive year.
They'll be able to go in and make more and more data mining operations with more and more information.
And how will they use that?
They will use it to corrupt, to blackmail, to even do corporate espionage.
We've even seen reports that Palantir, who claims that their prison program is not the same one that the NSA has, they were implicated two years ago in a enemies list type of espionage involving the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
U.S.
Chamber of Commerce got them to go in and do data mining operations on people that were being critical of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
We've seen how it was used against the director of the CIA, David Petraeus.
Maybe he might want to rethink some of these privacy issues.
Well, we don't see any protests going on, unfortunately, in America.
But in Hong Kong, hundreds of people protested NSA surveillance over the weekend.
A story from Infowars says, in a show of protest against U.S.
surveillance programs and in support of whistleblower Ed Snowden, several hundred people marched Saturday to the U.S.
Consulate General and the offices of the Hong Kong government despite drizzly weather.
Shame on the NSA!
Defend freedom of speech, chanted marchers who carried signs written in Chinese and English and wrapped in plastic to keep out the rain.
Protect Snowden, another sign.
The march, backed by five.
How about that?
They have a multi-party democracy there, unlike the United States.
Backed by five opposition parties and 22 other organizations included the presentation of protest letters addressed to US Consul General Steve Young and the head of Hong Kong's government.
Well, in the questions of USA Today to the three whistleblowers from the NSA, one of the unfortunate things about it was the whistleblowers, at least the parts of it that I saw, they kept trying to turn the discussion back to the actual issues.
The issues of legality, the issues of criminality, constitutionality, even the issues of effectiveness.
You know, are you really going to find bad actors?
Or are you just really trying to do a dragnet so that you can keep tabs on everybody like the East German Stasi?
As they kept trying to turn it to those issues, USA Today questioners kept turning it back and making it a personal issue.
We saw the same thing happen at Bilderberg.
Once Bilderberg was out in the open and there was enough people, enough coverage, that they could no longer Ignore it without being laughed at.
What they decided they would do is try to laugh at it, try to ridicule it, and make the subject, the protesters that were there, or talk about Alex being there, rather than the issue.
But here in Hong Kong, they focused on the issue.
Not just supporting Snowden, which is a great thing, but they also focused on the issue.
And the issue is the NSA that is spying, not just on Americans, but on foreigners.
But it's not in America that people are taking to the streets to protest.
It's only in foreign lands.
Why don't Americans care about our freedom, about our laws, about our Constitution?
Where are the Americans in the streets?
I don't see them.
Well, the NSA spying flap extends to the contents of U.S.
phone calls.
This is reported by CNET, and this is a quote from Representative Gerald Nadler, New York Democrat.
He disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed, quote, simply based on an analyst deciding that.
Basically the same thing Snowden is saying.
If the NSA wants to listen to the phone, an analyst's decision is sufficient without any other legal authorization required.
Nadler said he learned.
I was rather startled, he said.
He's an attorney and a congressman who serves on the House Judiciary Committee.
Now, that secret briefing was on Tuesday.
And there was also, as reported last week, there was also another representative, Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat.
And she was also at that meeting on Tuesday, and she was astounded.
This is her quote.
She said, I think it's broader than most people even realize, she said, of the contents of the secret briefing.
And I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too.
In other words, what they are getting in these briefings is the idea that everybody is being surveilled.
And it's not being limited to metadata.
It is the actual content of your communications that they are analyzing, that they are storing for further data mining in the future.
Now, Obama likes to say that it's nothing to worry about, that it's just metadata.
Well, metadata isn't a term that was in the Constitution.
It talks about all your personal papers and your property and your privacy.
It talks about having a warrant, which means that the government has to have a reason to suspect that you are a criminal, a bad actor, that you're doing something wrong.
They have to be specific In front of a judge about what they think you're doing.
Where they want to look.
When they want to look.
That's when they get a warrant from the judge.
That's the way it works in a free society.
That's the way it works in a constitutional society.
That is not what is happening now.
And we see that congressmen are being told this in private.
Back in March, Ron Wyden was told by James Clapper that they were not looking at any data.
And he knew at the time that Clapper was lying.
Now we all know that Clapper was lying.
Lying under oath.
Committing perjury.
Lying to Congress.
The National Security Director for Obama, I believe is his title.
Something to that effect.
But he's being defended and he's being retained by the Obama administration.
He has not been taken out of his office.
He has not been criminally prosecuted.
We need to understand from congressmen where they stand.
Unfortunately, the Senate members had their briefing on Friday and most of them chose to go home for the weekend instead.
They simply don't care.
And the question is, do you care?
Do you care enough to contact them?
To hold their feet to the fire?
To say to them, either you are going to prosecute these criminal, lying government officials, or you are an accessory to the fact.
And we need to get rid of you as well.
That's what they need to hear from all of us.
Now, the next NSA spying shoe to drop is going to be pre-crime artificial intelligence, according to an article on InfoWars from Washington's blog.
Now, this says, in 2008, Christopher Ketchum revealed that a governmental unit operating in secret and with no oversight whatsoever is gathering massive amounts of data on every American and running artificial intelligence software to predict each American's behavior, including, quote, what the target will do, where the target will go, who Who are the targets?
What kind of Americans?
Well, dissidents, activists of various stripes, political and tax protesters, lawyers and professors, publishers, journalists, gun owners, illegal aliens, foreign nationals, and a great many other harmless average people.
Now, in February this year, the Sydney Morning Herald reporter Ryan Gallagher wrote that Raytheon had secretly developed software capable of tracking people's movement and predicting future behavior by mining the data from social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare.
The software is called RIOT, which stands for Rapid Information Overlay Technology.
They really kind of, whenever you look at these acronyms, they never really make that much sense.
Really, what they want to do is they want to come up with a word that kind of represents what they're interested in.
And what they're interested in here, I think, when they talk about, when they name this program RIOT, and they want to follow people, that's exactly what they're concerned about.
They're concerned about people finding out what they're doing, getting angry about it, and rioting.
But that's okay.
I don't guess they've got anything to worry about because we won't even protest What they're doing to us right now, will we?
Now, what they're doing with these programs, with these corporate programs, and this is what CISPA was all about in its latest incarnation from Mike Rogers, is that they're using third-party, turning over, third parties turning over your information voluntarily.
Companies like Microsoft, like Google, they're turning over that information voluntarily and the legal loophole that they claim that they have Is that if they were to go in and get that information directly from you, they say they would need a warrant.
But if you give that information to a third party, that third party can voluntarily turn that information over to them.
Now, of course, it's a violation of their privacy agreements with you, and they have some liability in that area.
However, that's the purpose of CISPA.
CISPA was to remove that liability so that these organizations, these third-party, independent companies like Facebook, Google, could turn that information over to the government and there would be nothing you could do about it, even though they were lying completely on their terms of service agreement.
But let's look at new revelations about the NSA PRISM program's first volunteer, according to their leaked slides, and that's Microsoft.
If you remember, in 2007, Microsoft supposedly was the first company to join the PRISM program.
And now we learn in Popular Science that the U.S.
government is using early knowledge of Microsoft bugs to spy on us.
Microsoft software is both widely used and infamous for its bugs.
Just this week, Microsoft released a patch designed to cover an image file exploit that let hackers look at special information.
Now, this was disclosed in May that there's an exploit in Microsoft Office that could give an attacker a foot in the door to gain full access to the attacked computer.
Sometimes, major software is released with day zero bugs.
In other words, bugs from the, when they release it, like Internet Explorer 8, or Windows 8, or every version of Windows ever.
And before Microsoft releases a public patch of a software bug, and this is the key, it passes along that information to U.S.
intelligence agencies, say two sources familiar with the program.
So what happens is, as this article is pointing out, once they find a bug, Then they allow the U.S.
intelligence agencies to have a window of time where they can exploit that bug.
Now it sounds very much like what Aaron Schwartz was saying.
Remember in the CISPA debates, Aaron Schwartz was saying that the U.S.
government is the source of nearly every cyber attack on the planet.
And they fund and research all of this.
So they're actually funding people to find exploits.
And it turns out apparently that in the case of Microsoft, If they're not deliberately putting these bugs in the Microsoft operating system.
At least Microsoft is waiting quite a while before they report it, before they fix it for the public.
And during that time, intelligence services can use that information to spy on you.
Now, Wired Magazine has an article entitled, These Guys Want to Hack Your Home and You Should Let Them.
No, you shouldn't.
But in this article I say, the dream of an automated home full of connected appliances, also known as the Internet of Things, isn't the vaporware that it once was.
We've been talking about that for a while.
Several consumer devices already connect to the web, and hardware hackers have been building tools.
This can require more than a little computer know-how, but IFTTT, that's the name of their program, is changing that by letting you integrate various web services and devices without having to write code.
We always had the idea that IFTTT could be the world's simplest programming language, says company CEO Lyndon Tibbetts.
But we don't call it that, because people would have a reaction to the word programming.
Well, again, this goes back to what we reported on about a year ago, when Petraeus announced That they were going to be using appliances to spy on you.
As crazy as that sounded, this is now what they're looking at.
And that is to offer you the opportunity to pay for your own surveillance devices.
They will allow you to do a little bit of programming, but be aware that on the back end, There's going to be a lot of programming being done by someone else to spy on you, to watch everything that you do, just as we see with the latest Microsoft gaming release.
And you might think that Petraeus might want to rethink this, but evidently, no.
He was at Bilderberg with Henry Kissinger, and the subject was still big data, one of the major subjects that they were talking about, if we can believe their released agenda.
Well, that brings us to our quote of the day, and it's from Samuel Adams, and he says, Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty.
Well, as Sam Adams was saying, the question is whether or not there's going to be any asylum for liberty on earth.
And it looks like, as the U.S. government, government has its way, there isn't.
Because they want to look at everyone on the planet's information.
No one will have any privacy, and without privacy, there can be no liberty either.
There's apparently only one thing the government doesn't want to know about you, and that is whether or not you're a citizen when it comes time to vote.
In a Supreme Court decision today, they overruled an Arizona law that would look at people's citizenship.
States cannot demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote in federal elections.
The justices 72 ruling closes the doors on states independently changing the requirements for those using the voter registration form produced under the federal motor voter registration law.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court's ruling and this is what Clarence Thomas said in his dissenting opinion.
He said, The Constitution authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections.
How about that?
He actually read the Constitution.
Which necessarily includes the related power to determine those qualifications are satisfied.
Isn't it strange that the only aspect of our life that the government feels that it cannot come after us, not have to know everything about us, is when it comes to producing identification to vote.
Now of course they can stop people on the streets and Demand identification, just like Nazi Germany, at any time they want to set up dragnets.
And they look at everything that we do online, all of our electronic communications, all of our phone calls, emails, they track where we're going, they extrapolate and data mine that to try to determine what our political beliefs are, what our religious beliefs are, to try to predict what we're going to do.
But they do not want to have, under any circumstances, any identification produced at the polling place.
Well, we all know why that is.
It's all about voter fraud.
It's about creating fraudulent elections.
There's a lot of ways that they can do it, but the easiest way for them to do it is just to have people show up over and over again and vote, or to have illegal aliens come in and vote, or people who are not registered to vote there.
We have in North Carolina, where I'm from, we had They wrote a registration that had not been purged for years, and they had thousands of dead people voting every election, and they still would not purge the polls there.
We also have, breaking out of California, a toxic shock.
Californians are allowed up to 1,000 times more glyphosate in drinking water than is needed to cause breast cancer in women.
This is reported by Natural News.
Glyphosate is the chemical name of Roundup.
...herbicide from Monsanto.
And it multiplies the proliferation of breast cancer cells by 500% to 1,300%, even at exposures of just a few parts per trillion.
Few parts per trillion.
The greatest effect was observed in the parts per billion range, including single-digit parts per billion, such as one parts per billion.
California allows 1,000 parts per billion of glyphosate in drinking water.
Just truly amazing.
Another area of our life where The large companies are allowed to dump any toxic waste that they want to into our drinking water in order to make money, in order to dumb down the population as they do with fluoride, or in order to slow kill the population.
Whatever their objectives, it's amazing what large companies are allowed to do with the blessing of government.
And yet we see the EPA concerning itself with absurd minutia on the side and telling people that carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out, is an air pollutant.
And yet they allow roundup in quantities, in the water, in quantities that are a thousand times greater than those that have been seen to increase the likelihood of breast cancer by five times or ten times.
That's what they're looking at between the 500 and 1300 percent.
We'll be right back after the break.
We've got an interview with Lloyd Chapman.
He's with the Small Business League and he has some information about small businesses versus the Fortune 500 and how that's being skewed by government to benefit the biggest companies.
What a surprise.
But we're going to have more information about that right after the break.
Now you can watch Alex Jones live at Infowars.com forward slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15-day trial for Prison Planet TV.
You can also browse the network, the Infowars Nightly News, and over 60 movies and documentaries all together in one place.
You can watch the Alex Jones Radio Show live as it happens.
So check it out, InfoWars.com forward slash show.
Are we choosing our own paths, our own destiny, or has it been pre-selected for us? - C.S.
Lewis said, when training beats education, civilization dies.
We need to always be cognizant of, as a free society, that information can be used as a weapon.
Barrier to discovery is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge.
We are seen as nothing but Biological androids.
To gain control of education in America, not for a philanthropic purpose, but to change the thinking of the American people.
From the time we're very young, we're taught to, you know, worship authority, basically, because that's our key to survival as young children.
Discover the history, the present, and the future of mind control, from compulsory state education to the Hollywood media brainwashing machine.
We are kept in perpetual bondage to the ideas that shape our actions.
In the CIA, scientists could actually film people who had been surreptitiously dosed with LSD.
There's a brain entrainment process that takes place.
That gives the government free reign to create whatever story or narrative it wants to create.
Whatever the public face of something is, whatever they're talking about publicly, there's something else over here they're probably not looking at.
How to engineer the opinion of the American people so that they would fully endorse, not only endorse, but demand a war.
When you watch mainline establishment television, you are putting yourself in front of the barrel of a gun.
Discover the history, the present, and the future of mind control, psychological warfare, brainwashing.
Are we controlled and manipulated?
You bet!
That's mind control par excellence.
Find out how deep the rabbit hole really goes with this new groundbreaking documentary film, State of Mind.
Available exclusively at InfoWars.com.
The important thing about the Pro-1 filter today is that the material we use for removing fluoride and other heavy metals now will remove the latest form of fluoride called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
There's no other fluoride reduction filter out there that will remove that type of fluoride.
It's extremely important because Today we're hearing more and more cities are using that form of fluoride.
We've been having medication forced on us through the water system for quite a while.
Most people don't realize it.
Most people don't realize the negative effects of fluoride.
There's a wide range of health effects that are attributed to fluoride.
Bottom line, why should somebody get this new Pro-1 Pro-Pure filter?
The reason to buy the Pro-1, it's an all-in-one filter.
It's convenient, easy to use.
It doesn't require the add-on fluoride filter.
And in addition, this filter removes the latest form of fluoride called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Well, our guest tonight is Lloyd Chapman.
He's president and founder of the American Small Business League, that's ASBL.com.
He's an advocate for small business.
You may or may not know that the federal government is required to set aside a certain percentage of government contracts to small business, but what he found was that these contracts were actually going to Fortune 500 companies, even though they were not qualified as small business, and in many cases, to foreign companies.
Lloyd Chaplin, thank you for joining us today.
Thanks for having me.
Well, tell us a little bit about your struggles with the small business, as a small business advocate against big government and big business alliances.
Well, I was writing a blog about this earlier in the day, and in 2002, I stumbled onto the fact that there were 5,000 of the largest companies in the world on the Small Business Administration's database of small businesses.
And that was in, yeah, 2002, and I got a congressional investigation, the Associated Press picked it up, and I thought it was going to be over.
And I was wrong.
I was very wrong.
I was just reading something a while ago that surprised me.
I've won 20 lawsuits against the Obama administration.
Wow.
And I won, gosh.
And what was the character of the lawsuits?
I'm suing the government to force them to release information under the Freedom of Information Act that shows that they're covering up fraud in federal small business contracting programs.
And again, the things that they do are just really almost not believable to someone.
It's just surprising.
The Justice Department, by the way, has been my major opponent.
So as I have tried to expose evidence of felony federal contracting fraud, which the penalty for that is 10 years in prison, my number one opponent is the Justice Department.
I just filed a lawsuit on Friday against the Army.
So if you ask the Obama administration for any information, That proves they're giving small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms.
You're going to court and you better have a lot of money.
Wow.
But it's just amazing.
It's absolutely amazing.
And it's the same sort of thing we keep seeing in scandal after scandal.
When improprieties come out with the IRS, the Department of Justice denies, blocks it.
The same thing that we're seeing even with the Snowden case, where as information is released, they deny it and block any other information.
And they come after him rather than looking at internal procedures and saying, you know, this is something that is unconstitutional, we need to fix that.
They go after the whistleblower.
Or they still go after the Tea Parties.
Nobody from the FBI has even talked to any of the Tea Parties that were wrongfully audited by the IRS.
Absolutely.
I mean, they are on me.
I'm telling you.
In fact, I won a lawsuit a few months ago to show that the SBA had hired a company.
I want to say it's APCO, A-P-C-O.
An international firm that specializes in crisis management.
And they've got offices all around the world.
This is probably one of the largest public relations firms on Earth.
And here I am, you know, a little small business advocate in Northern California, and I've got this gigantic international PR firm on my case, and they just interfere with everything you're trying to do.
If you want to issue a press release, or write a blog, or whatever, you know, I'm doing, I can see the interference of it, and I can see, I'll call it the fingerprint, of the federal government and the companies they've hired to try to shut me up.
Well, it's interesting you would mention that, because I've just been doing some research on a company called Palantir.
And this came up because of the release of information from Snowden talking about the PRISM program.
And a lot of people started asking questions.
Is this the same PRISM program that Palantir does?
Because Palantir is a major contractor for the intelligence communities, for the CIA, the NSA.
As a matter of fact, they were funded with venture capital from the CIA's venture capital company In-Q-Tel.
How's that for a competitive business that the CIA has their own venture capital company that goes out and creates these things?
Now, of course, Palantir has denied that they are the PRISM program, but the stuff that they do, the data mining that they do, is exactly the type of stuff that we see in this NSA scandal.
And going back, there's an article from March in 2011 from ThinkProgress.
And in that article they were talking about how Palantir was one of two other companies, and these three companies worked for the Chamber of Commerce, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce lawyers, in terms of going in and doing data mining on Facebook and on LinkedIn about their enemies, about the Chamber of Commerce enemies.
And this was something that some congressmen got involved in.
So this is going back to 2011 we see, and this is why people need to be concerned about data and the surveillance state.
Just as you said, they're on you.
You see things happening to you.
You don't have to be doing anything wrong.
You could just do something like file a FOIA request, which is what you did, and all of a sudden you start getting opposition from the establishment, from the government.
You know, my father worked with the CIA back in the 70s, and he told me 10 years ago, he says, anytime you sue the federal government, it's standard operating procedure, but they monitor all your communications.
And of course, I've been suing them since the late 80s.
And I've had as many as 15 lawsuits against the government at one time, and I'm going to file probably 12 this summer.
I have no doubt that they're just, you know, they're listening to everything I make and every email I send.
In fact, I'll tell you something funny.
I think they actually watch me write these press releases, so sometimes I'll kind of divert from press releases and send them some little nasty notes from me to them.
Well, I haven't sued them, and I'm sure they're looking for my records.
I mean, I'm a Verizon customer, so they've gotten some information on me, and I don't believe their denials that it's just nothing but metadata.
I mean, we've had people telling us for decades, whistleblowers, 10 years ago, right after 9-11, 12 years ago.
Saying that they were going after everybody's total data.
And that's exactly the same sort of thing we see from Snowden.
But let's talk about business.
Let's talk about, you know, I mean, I come from a small business background.
Both my father and both grandparents Had small businesses and we didn't do any government contracting, but one of the things that we see over and over again from big business is that they not only have these secret backdoor deals with the government like we see it at Bilderberg or elsewhere, but they also come out with, and they don't pay taxes, they don't create jobs, but they also create a lot of regulation that gets in the way of small businesses.
Are you involved in that in any way in terms of your advocacy for small business?
To some degree.
In fact, if you have 50 employees or more, you've got to start complying with a lot of different regulations in the government.
So the government says, if you have over 50 employees, apparently you're a big business.
But as we sit here and talk today, Rolls-Royce is considered a small business by the United States government.
Finmeccanica, the largest defense contractor in Italy, is getting millions in U.S.
government small business contracts.
So it's kind of, you know... And when you say they're considered to be small businesses, you're talking about the fact that even though the government has Has mandatory set-asides at a certain percentage of government contracts, let's say if it's road building or if it's defense contracts, that a certain percentage has to be set aside for small businesses.
You've found out in your lawsuits, and you're successful FOIA requests, you found out that those are not actually being set aside for small businesses.
Absolutely not, and it's really not even me.
The SBA Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, the Inspector General for other agencies.
In fact, the General Accounting Office has accused the Small Business Administration of encouraging people to commit fraud.
I think I can remember what it said.
I believe it says, by refusing to hold firms accountable, the SBA and contracting agencies have sent a message to the contracting community that there are no penalties or punishment for committing fraud.
Wow.
And in my way of thinking that sounds like they're encouraging fraud.
Yeah.
The SBA Inspector General has found that the Small Business Administration itself is giving small business contractors some of the biggest companies in Europe.
So, but it's not just me.
It's actually, you can see it on the ASBL website and the media page under document library.
You can see these investigations by a number of federal agencies that have accused the SBA of actually encouraging people to commit fraud.
By the way, that's a felony with a 10-year prison term.
Yes.
Well, I, you know, to me, I'm not sure what they have to do before the FBI steps in and starts taking a look at it.
We're talking about in the last decade, you're talking maybe a trillion dollars in federal contracts that by law should go to the middle class.
The small businesses where most Americans work, where all the jobs are created are being converted to foreign loan companies.
That's right.
Not only is it going to large companies, but it's going to large foreign companies.
And that's what everybody's concerned about when we see these secret confabs like Bilderberg, right in the midst of a major influence peddling scandal in the UK.
They have this big meeting where they spend millions and millions of dollars to keep everyone far, far away from whatever they're doing.
Don't allow any transparency, any reporting, any recording of what they're doing.
And you have to ask yourself, when these largest companies meet for several days with these government officials, is this what they're talking about?
Of course they're talking about business deals.
Oh yeah, one thing, President Obama promised he'd have the most transparent administration in history, and I believe the mainstream media, I think it was CNN or Associated Press, found that he's got the least transparent administration in history.
Most transparently criminal, I think is what it is.
I was writing about this this morning.
When you look at the government's database of suppliers, there's a very critical piece of information.
It was called a parent company, known in Bradstreet number.
And that's how you could tell if a company was a legitimate small business or the division or a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 firms.
And in 2010, the Obama administration removed that That data.
And I sued them and forced them to restore it for a couple of years.
But just think about what's the justification behind removing the parent company Dun & Bradstreet number from the government's database of suppliers when you've got these huge problems that are being reported in the mainstream media about small business contracts being diverted to Fortune 500 firms.
That would be something that you'd want to keep on there.
But the truth is the government's trying to remove all transparency for the public and the media.
And it's, you know, it's very disappointing.
As I have worked with this small business advocacy thing for 20 years, I've come to understand every agency is that way.
Every agency works just like the SBA.
They're doing the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing.
They're not representing the best interests of the American people.
And they're, you know, they're committing fraud.
And you see that across the government.
And I just wonder how much longer the American people are going to put up with that.
Yeah, it's interesting to talk to you because it's like no matter what area we look at from the government, we see massive amounts of fraud and in your face about it.
And then when people try to get more information to go public about the fraud, they find that they're opposed by Eric Holder's Department of Justice.
Same story we see no matter what the subject, the MO is the same in every area.
Well, tell me what your solution is with the American Small Business League that you've got there.
Well, you know, what I try to do is I just try to get the stories out in the press.
I got this story that CBS did in Boston last week that you can go to the internet and look at it.
And I got a story on CBS out of San Jose about a year ago.
And I issue press releases all the time in blogs.
I blog on Huffington Post.
I've got lots of videos on YouTube.
My appearance is on the Alex Jones Show.
And I just try to keep it out there, you know, in the public eye.
And I've got a bill I wrote in Congress called HR 1622.
And it's called the Fairness and Transparency Contracting Act.
And if that bill were passed, it would create more jobs than any economic stimulus program that President Bush or President Obama ever proposed.
And it just simply says that the federal government would no longer report awards to publicly traded companies as small business awards.
The Small Business Act defines a small business as being independently owned, which means not publicly traded.
So that bill is no new taxes, no new spending, what I call free and easy, would create millions of jobs, and I know it has no chance of passing.
Because it's going to take money away from the corporate giants that fund all these political campaigns and put them in the hands of the American people.
And these big corporations aren't going to let that happen.
But I'm still going to fight and try to force somebody to show their hand.
Well, you know, that's a common technique, isn't it?
They just come in and they redefine things.
If they've got to set aside for a small business, they just come in and say, well, you know, IBM is a small business, or whatever, right?
I mean, it just, meaning, you know, word definitions don't mean anything to them anymore, and they just come in and willy-nilly change things, and they play semantics with the language, just like we're seeing in the denials from the NSA and the denials from these other people.
They play with this, with semantics, and basically lie to your face about it.
I mean, everybody knows that they're lying.
They're not fooling anybody.
What's shocking is, you know, it kind of seems like a lot of people in the mainstream media are almost helping them.
Oh, yeah.
Because my story, it's very, very difficult to get this story out, by the way.
Very, very difficult.
I did an interview for CBS in Washington about 14 months ago.
And, uh, you know, they interviewed me for about an hour.
They made me go out in the street and walk back and forth and take a video of me walking back and forth.
And when it was all over, I sat there with the reporter, the producer, the cameraman, and said, let me tell you something.
This story will never air.
It'll never air.
And it didn't.
Yeah.
For every story that I have had air, like the CBS Boston story, I probably had one or two canceled.
The Washington Post dropped a story on this about six months ago.
They interviewed me for two hours, and I was supposed to write a story about how Fortune 500 firms get most small business contracts, and that story never ran.
Well, you want to talk about big business, media is big business.
Just in the last couple of years, there's been a massive consolidation from about four dozen companies down to five.
And so, you talk about a concentration of power, you talk about big business, and of course, they're going to tow the line for big business and big government, because in many cases, Look, you know, GE owns media companies.
You know, it's just interlocking directories where you see more and more concentration of wealth and power, just as we saw, again, at Bilderberg.
You had a great article in HuffPost about should the federal government be giving small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms.
And in that you had some interesting statistics.
You said that over 99% of U.S.
firms have less than 500 employees.
98% have less than 100 employees and 89% have less than 20.
And there's only over 28 million small businesses in America responsible for over 50% of the private sector workforce and over 50% of the GDP.
And yet large businesses in America have created somewhere between 0 and 10 percent of the new jobs in America.
Absolutely.
It's shocking.
It's shocking.
The Kauffman Foundation did a study a couple years ago that said small businesses have created 100 percent of the net new jobs since 1980.
And I believe that is true.
The Census Bureau says over 90.
The Kauffman Foundation says 100 percent.
We all know big corporations shipping jobs overseas like crazy.
So think about what it means if the Kauffman Foundation is correct, which I believe it is, and 100% of the net new jobs in this country have come from small businesses, and yet when you look at economic stimulus programs, they're giving, you know, 99% of the money to the Fortune 500 firms that haven't created one job in 30 years.
That's insane!
It's insane!
But that's what you see.
And those jobs that they're creating are jobs that are in America.
They're American jobs in most cases.
That's right.
I was talking to you at the beginning about how both grandfathers and my father had businesses, and none of those businesses would I be able to do today.
Certainly not my sons.
In my lifetime, there were too many regulations for me to continue on with my father's business, because they were just regulating small companies that did the kind of thing that they were doing out of business.
So I went into a retail business for a short period of time, but you know, even there, that's getting very difficult.
Even my sons would have a difficult time doing what I did 30 years ago.
So you see these opportunities being shut down, and it's not just manufacturing jobs that are being sent overseas, it is excessive regulation in this country as well.
Yeah, you know, I'm starting to see what feels to me almost like an anti-small business sentiment.
You know, we gave out those statistics.
There's no question that small businesses are the engine of economic growth in America.
And there's one little agency in Washington to help those companies, that's the Small Business Administration.
President Obama has proposed to cut the Small Business Administration budget by $100 million.
And their budget, by the way, is peanuts.
I mean, their budget is just peanuts compared to other agencies.
So $100 million is a huge cut to their budget, but it's going to increase $4 and $8 by $9 billion.
It's insane.
Right.
So here's this one agency for small businesses.
In fact, I'll tell you right now, I've told a lot of people this in the media.
I predict that Barack Obama is going to try to close the Small Business Administration by combining with the Commerce Department.
So people need to understand that combining the SBA with the Commerce Department is the same as closing it.
In 1984, when Ronald Reagan tried to close the SBA, the way he was going to close it was combining with the Commerce Department.
So people need to understand, combining the small business direction with commerce is synonymous with closing it.
And Barack Obama's going to try that.
You mark my words.
And I'm going to do everything I can to stop him.
But think how crazy it is.
When small businesses are the heart of our economy, they create all the jobs, they're certainly paying their fair share of taxes, and we've got a government that wants to close the only agency that they've got to help them.
I wouldn't mind necessarily seeing them close as long as they close the Chamber of Commerce and a lot of other...
I'd like to just see government get smaller everywhere, but I would certainly imagine that Obama is interested.
If small business is creating most of the jobs in America, my personal take on it is that Obama doesn't want to see jobs created in America.
That's just my personal opinion after looking at him and studying what they're doing.
It looks to me as if, you know, from our perspective here, it looks like they're deliberately trying to deindustrialize and impoverish America.
And that's just part of the plan.
If you want to do that, the best way to do it is to shut down small business because they're the ones who create the most jobs in America.
And they're the ones who have freedom and independence the most from government because they're involved in their local communities.
These are local communities.
This is what I call free market.
I don't like to use the word capitalism anymore.
But there is, as we see here in Austin, there's a lot of vibrant small businesses that are out there hiring people, interacting on a voluntary basis with people.
That's a good thing, but they shut that down through regulation, through excessive taxation, and I hope we can change that.
Well, if there's one last thing you'd like to leave us with, we're about out of time here.
Tell us about your organization and how people can get in contact with you.
Well, the American Small Business League, as far as I can tell, is the only organization in America that's trying to stop the government from giving small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms.
We're the only organization that's trying to stop the Obama Administration from closing the Small Business Administration.
And again, as far as I can tell, I don't want to offend anybody, but I think we're the only small business group that's not funded by Fortune 500 firms.
People should go to our website ASBL.com, take a look at it, and I'm trying to raise money to get my bill passed.
If I can get H.R.
1622 passed, I think it's going to create more jobs than anything that has ever been proposed.
And it's a great piece of legislation, like I said, no new taxes, no new spending, and we're just trying to fight, you know, for small businesses and keep the failed programs to help them in place and Try to stop them from giving small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms, which just seems insane to me.
So your bill, to clarify that again, would essentially clarify the definition of a small business so that it doesn't include these Fortune 500 companies, because they're coming in and basically saying anybody is a small business, no matter how large they are.
And so you would clarify that with your bill, H.R.
1622, is that it?
Yeah, but close the loophole.
Right, right.
Okay.
Well, thank you very much Lloyd Chapman for joining us and best luck to you.
I hope you get that passed.
We need some sanity and a little bit of truth in government for a change.
How about that?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Well, small business in the media is alternative media, like InfoWars.
And we have a niche to fill that the big companies just aren't going to do.
As you heard Lloyd Chapman say, they spike the stories, they skew the stories.
We do our best to tell the truth as we see it.
To be frank and honest with you, and one of the ways that you can support us is to buy products at InfoWarsStore.com.
And we've got the exclusive pre-book of this new movie here, State of Mind.
It's a documentary about the psychology of mind control.
It starts pre-booking today.
It releases in a month.
And InfoWars has this film exclusively.
We have an exclusive window.
It will not be in theaters.
It's not on YouTube.
And you can only get it at InfoWars for the first 90 days.
So you can support InfoWars and for a limited time.
When you buy State of Mind, you will also get a free copy of this excellent animation, The American Dream.
It's a great animated film that in a very entertaining way explains the banking system and the corruption, why housing prices skyrocket and then plunge, how the banking system works, what is the Federal Reserve.
Things that everybody needs to know.
It's a great way to wake people up.
It's a lot of fun.
You'll get a free copy of this while supplies last when you buy a copy of State of Mind, The Psychology of Control.
And again, this is exclusively at InfoWars for the first 90 days of its release.
You can start pre-booking that right now.
It's a great way to support our operation here.
Go to InfoWarsStore.com and get a copy of those two films.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
Eastern.
Now you can watch the Alex Jones show live as it happens at Infowars.com slash show.
You'll find links to all of our content there and a free 15 day trial for Prison Planet TV.
▲
Export Selection