All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2013 - InfoWars Nightly News
30:54
20130726_Fri_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight, and it's Friday, July 26, 2013.
And here are our top stories.
Tonight, the U.S.
Army is stockpiling AK-47 ammunition, even though they don't officially use it.
Who's it for?
Then, the prosecution in the Bradley Manning case claims the private was seeking rock star fame, not American freedom.
And feds continue web censorship by demanding passwords.
All that and more coming up on the Info Wars Nightly News.
The man in me is ready to take them all on!
I got you!
Our top story tonight is the U.S.
government buying even more ammo.
This time it's the Army.
And this time they're buying ammunition for guns they don't have.
In an exclusive story on InfoWars today, the U.S.
Army is buying millions of rounds of Russian ammo and popular civilian firearms.
The U.S.
Army is now looking to stockpile nearly 3 million live rounds of Soviet-era Russian ammo, popular with civilian shooters.
As the solicitation implies, the 7.62x39mm and the 9x18mm Makarov are not standard issue in the U.S.
military or in NATO.
Are they going to somehow end up in the side arms of Obama-backed Syrian rebels, especially after two congressional panels cleared the way for shipping small arms to Syria?
These solicitations, with planned acquisitions ranging from half a million dollars to 22 million dollars, definitely forge fears of backdoor gun control by creating artificial scarcity that denies Americans access to a wide range of firearms and ammo.
So that's essentially the question.
Are these Pieces of ammunition that the U.S.
Army doesn't have the capability to use.
Are these going to be sent to Syrian rebels?
Or is this yet another instance of the Obama administration trying to do backdoor gun control by taking away our ammunition?
Jakari Jackson has more information.
I'm Jakari Jackson with an InfoWars News Alert.
We have the article on InfoWars.com headline, US Army Buying Millions of Rounds of Russian Ammo and Popular Civilian Firearms.
A U.S. Army solicitation posted on July 18th on the Federal Biz Opportunities website asked for 2.5 million rounds of 762-39 ball ammunition, that's a popular AK-47 round, also 600,000 rounds of blank ammunition for the same, and 425,000 rounds of 9x18mm. rounds of blank ammunition for the same, and 425,000 rounds In addition to the ammunition, back in 2012, the U.S. Army's
Army was looking for a vendor who could, quote, reach around the world at any given moment to gather and provide multiple types of weapons and weapon parts.
The solicitation also asked for books, manuals, tools, and gauges pertaining to those firearms.
Now keep in mind the U.S.
military and the United States police forces do not use a 7-6-2 round in any official capacity, usually opting for a 5.56 round or a 2-2-3.
But you know who does use a 7-6-2 round?
The Syrian rebels.
The Syrian rebels who have pledged their allegiance to Al Qaeda, the Syrian rebels who are funded by the Obama administration, the Syrian rebels who Mrs. Clinton admitted that we created, When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea that we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.
And also the Syrian rebels who hang out with John McCain in his spare time.
If you want something that uses a 7.62 round, you can go by the InfoWars shop and pick up a Come and Take It shirt.
It has the AK-47 chambered in a 7.62 round, and also the AR-15 that shoots a .223.
I'm Jakari Jackson, and this has been an InfoWars News Alert.
We had a vote this week, just yesterday, from the House, and over half of the House voted to rubber stamp the illegal, unconstitutional activities of the NSA in spying on American citizens with a dragnet.
Now, we can look at that and we can say, since it was roughly half, we can say, is the glass half empty or the glass half full?
In other words, is the House half against liberty and half for slavery, a little bit more than half for slavery?
Because, you know, that's the opposite of liberty.
It's not security, it's slavery.
And now Chris Christie is going after these dangerous libertarians, especially Rand Paul.
As a former prosecutor, and who was appointed By President George W. Bush on September 10th, 2001.
I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism that's going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought.
President Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration in the war on terrorism and I mean practically nothing.
And you know why?
Because they work.
Now notice, at the beginning of that clip, what he said was, Obama has done nothing to change the policies of the Bush administration, the war on terrorism.
Practically nothing.
We're in agreement.
And you know why he said?
Because they work.
Well, you know what?
He left out four words.
For the same people.
Obama's done nothing to change the policies of Bush because they both work for the same people.
Now we've had a reply from the Paul, an assistant from Rand Paul, and he says, if Governor Christie believes the constitutional rights and privacy of all Americans are esoteric, he either needs a new dictionary or he needs to talk to more Americans because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent times.
That was Doug Stafford, a senior Paul advisor.
Now, we can look at this and we can say that, as I said before, is the glass half empty or half full?
Unfortunately, it's not nearly half full, because there's a lot of misunderstanding from both Republicans and Democrats on this, even though, as we see on this particular vote, There's a growing libertarian streak on some issues where Republicans and Democrats can work across party lines.
It was interesting to note that in that vote, all of the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, went with the statist approach.
The approach that was anti-liberty, anti-constitution actually.
Now we have, besides Justin Amash's bill, which was unfortunately voted down this week, well we now have a representative, a Democrat representative, who is introducing a bill that would Repeal the Patriot Act and other surveillance laws, quote-unquote laws.
It's the Surveillance State Repeal Act.
And this is a quote from Representative Rush Holt.
He says, the executive branch's groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head.
My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first and not suspects.
Now part of that is the idea of balance.
The idea that we're going to be balancing liberty against security.
That's a false notion.
As we keep saying, the opposite of liberty is slavery.
And you don't want to balance liberty and slavery.
You want to have liberty.
But he has some good things and some bad things in the Surveillance State Repeal Act.
He wants to repeal the Patriot Act, which is good.
He wants to repeal the FISA Amendment Act, which is also good, because that's where emails are harvested.
That's what's going on with the NSA.
But he wants to retain the ability for government surveillance capabilities to be targeted against a specific natural person.
And you might want to look carefully at how he uses the terms natural person and citizen.
There's a lot more to that than just the casual, what meets the eye here.
But then he goes down and he's got some very bad things here.
7, for example, increase the term of judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 7 to 10 years and allow their reappointment.
Why do we have a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?
We need to have constitutional courts.
That's one of the reasons why we need to get rid of FISA.
And then the next one, in number 80, says, mandate that same court utilize technologically competent special masters.
That should cause you to be concerned.
Special masters, for some reason, is not a term that's found in the Constitution.
If the founders had seen that term, they would have immediately grabbed their rifles, and so should you and I. Our government has gone off the rails of authority.
And as more evidence of that, the feds are now saying that they want web firms to turn over user account passwords.
This is reported from CNET.
It says, the U.S.
government has demanded that major internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with those orders, which represents an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.
And they point out that, although they're asking for this information, they now have the capability, really, to go through and break your password.
So, why are they asking for this information?
It really is establishing a territorial encroachment on our liberties.
To go on with this article, it says, modern computers, especially the ones equipped with high-performance video cards, can unscramble passwords.
And it talks about how quickly they can do it.
And these are with graphic processing units.
They can go in and crack a 14-character Windows XP password in just six minutes using a GPU that is common on personal computers.
So you can imagine what the NSA can do.
They also say this is one of those unanswered questions.
This is a legal expert saying this.
Is there any circumstance under which they could get a password information, says Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society.
She says, I don't know.
And Ron Wyden, who's been very good in terms of pushing back against the NSA, however, says, the authority of the government is essentially limitless under the Patriot Act, under that law.
Now, that's not true.
As we're pointing out, the authority of government comes from the Constitution that they all swear allegiance to.
And we can clearly see, as I just pointed out in the Fourth Amendment, they do not have authority.
We do know That they do not have the authority to do that.
These are not unanswered legal questions.
This is the legitimate authority of government not being applied.
We can't stress that enough.
Now Amnesty International is slamming the U.S.
for a blatant attempt to influence a journalist case in Yemen.
Now if you think that the NDAA is something we don't have to worry about here in America because Obama said he would never do that.
Look at this case in Yemen.
Here we have a journalist who was arrested at the behest of the Americans and Amnesty International is now condemning the White House for its role in detention of a Yemeni journalist who exposed U.S.
involvement in a deadly 2009 cluster bombing.
He talked about something they didn't want him to talk about.
He was arrested in August 2010 on charges of helping Al-Qaeda and militant U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and was found guilty six months later and convicted of five years in jail.
Now, he has always denied the charges of cooperating with the terrorist group, insisting that he only did interviews with some of the members as part of his professional activity.
This is exactly why Christopher Hedges, Chris Hedges of the New York Times, Pulitzer winning reporter, has filed suit against the NDAA along with a lot of other people.
He has often interviewed Al Qaeda, other people who would be terrorist targets of the U.S.
government.
And they could make the same claims against him that they've just made, well they made several years ago, against this Yemeni journalist to get Yemen to imprison him.
The Yemen president has now just pardoned him and released him from prison.
Along the lines of what happened with Michael Hastings, we look at Their capability to hack into a car, which is, I think, an important part of that story that hasn't been looked at in nearly enough detail.
There are more details coming about how the CIA can actually hack into other things, like medical devices, to make it look like accidents, but to assassinate people.
This is something they've been working on for quite a long time.
A hacker has died this week, just days before he was set to reveal how an ordinary pacemaker could be compromised to kill a man.
Security researcher Barnaby Jack died Thursday and the details surrounding his death have yet to be released.
Jack was scheduled to detail his most recent achievement in a Black Hat talk called Implantable Medical Devices, Hacking Humans.
Jack said he was intrigued by the wireless communication of these very critical life devices, and he wanted to see if they communicated securely, or if a hacker could somehow control them remotely.
After six months of research, Jack had figured out how to hack a device remotely, sending a high voltage shock from up to 50 feet away.
At a previous Black Hat Talk in 2012, Jack detailed how he was able to hack into an insulin pump and order the machine to deliver a lethal dose to patients, and in turn, kill them.
Jack's death comes just over a month after the FDA warned that implanted medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators are often connected to networks that are vulnerable to cyberattacks that could shut down and manipulate the machinery.
The FDA sent a report to hospitals that identified 300 medical devices at risk of crippling cyber attacks.
Some of these devices can even be remotely accessed through the internet.
Black Hat is scheduled to begin Wednesday in Las Vegas with a presentation by NSA Chief General Keith Alexander.
It will be immediately followed by the DEFCON Hacker Conference where researchers will demonstrate various high-profile hacks, including how modern cars can be compromised.
For the InfoWars Nightly News, I'm Leanne McAdoo.
Well, as we're talking about the government attacking journalists, both foreign and potentially domestic journalists, and as we believe they did attack Michael Hastings, we now have the trial of whistleblower Bradley Manning coming to a close.
And it's interesting to take a look at the closing remarks of the prosecution as well as the defense on this.
The Guardian is reporting, Bradley Manning sought notoriety, argues the prosecution in their closing remarks.
And what the prosecutor said was that Bradley Manning transmitted this information to WikiLeaks, quote, out of a desire for notoriety and a callous state of mind.
He cared only about himself.
What he said was he delivered hundreds of thousands of documents ready to use to WikiLeaks, and he delivered them for notoriety.
He searched for as much information as he knew would guarantee his fame.
Okay, so he points out that he thinks that he's motivated by personal ambition and aspirations of fame.
But then he goes on to talk about things that would be completely different from that, saying that he's doing this for a greater cause.
He goes on to say, well first he says, the only human that PFC Manning actually cared about was himself, his callousness, and revealed his own chats.
But then he paints him as an idealistic anarchist.
He says that Both he and Julian Assange are information anarchists.
And he says that Manning identified WikiLeaks as the first intelligence agency for the general public.
That doesn't sound like he's working for his own notoriety and personal gain.
And then he says, he has a quote from Manning to Assange where he says, government organizations can't control information.
The harder they try, the more violently the information wants to get out.
That was what Manning said.
That's not the words that the prosecutor put into his mouth, but the prosecutor thought that he was trying to convince the jury and the judge that he's working out of personal motivation rather than looking at a larger cause.
You know, it doesn't hurt The security of America when information like that about Henry Kissinger where he said the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little bit longer.
When that kind of information is revealed, the only people that get hurt with that are people like Henry Kissinger and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
People who serve the New World Order.
Now we've got an interview coming up after the break with a filmmaker who is trying to wake up judges and police officers in England with both an event and a documentary.
It's an interesting approach.
Stay tuned 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.
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.
In addition, this filter removes the latest form of fluoride called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Well, during the Boston bombings, Dan Bedotti made the term false flag a household word.
That was a very important thing, because it takes the power away from the governments that use that technique.
It's not just the Reichstag fire.
It's been used many times.
And we've got a filmmaker in the UK that we're going to be talking to right now, Tony Rook.
And he's bringing awareness to the term false flag in the UK with his films about 9-11 truth.
Joining us from the UK is Tony Rook.
Welcome, Tony.
Welcome back.
Hi, David.
Now, you've had an interesting follow-up, but let's get people brought up to what got us to interview you the very first time, and that is your complaints to the BBC, and you made an issue out of not paying the licensing fee.
People in the U.S.
may not realize it, but everyone in the U.K., if they have a television set, has to pay a licensing fee to the BBC.
You refuse to pay that on principle.
Tell us why you refuse to pay that on principle.
Well, a quick resume of the BBC case.
I ended up in court because, yeah, as you say, I refused to pay the £145 for the licence fee that you have to have here for the privilege of watching the television, and ended up in court.
Now, I was withholding my licence fee under legislation called the Terrorism Act 2006, which we have here, which very clearly prescribes if you have reasonable cause, To believe you may be funding the purposes of terrorism, then you don't pay.
And I've been studying 9-11 for some years now, and obviously because the BBC broadcast the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 23 minutes before it occurred, it has since, you know, embarked upon this shocking propaganda campaign trying to cover up Uh, the reasons for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 which I have reasonable cause to believe.
Was a controlled demolition.
Exactly.
Let's hold it right there because when they did that report, the BBC reporter amazingly, as many people pointed out and it's been seen over and over again, most truthers know it because it's a key piece of evidence, she's reporting the collapse of World Trade Center 7 20 minutes before it happens and you can see it over her shoulder as she's talking about it.
Now you went in and you talked to the judge and you presented some information to them And, uh, we've got some, we've got a clip of that, uh, that we want to show right here.
It's what you showed to the judges off of, uh, your YouTube video.
Okay.
We all remember how the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9-11.
But there was a third huge skyscraper that collapsed that day.
Oh, boy.
- You hear that? - Keep your eye on that film, and it'll be coming out.
- I'm filming.
- It might just blow up.
- Pull it back.
- You hear that?
Keep your eye on that building.
It'll be coming down soon.
What could cause a seemingly sound 47-story building to collapse?
Oh boy.
You hear that?
Keep your eye on that building.
It'll be coming down.
The building is about to blow up.
We'll be back.
Alright guys?
We are walking back.
There's a building about to blow up.
So that's an interesting clip where you juxtaposition what the BBC is saying with what actually happened.
And you show how they manipulated it.
They edited out sound effects of the, you can hear a bomb exploding in the background, you can hear additional comments on the CNN footage about people saying, get back, we're going to blow this up.
They doctored that, right?
Yeah, I mean, the nicest thing you could say about it was that it was very careful editing.
I'd call it propaganda by omission.
Yeah, well, it wasn't even cutting stuff.
I mean, it was taking out sounds.
You're taking out an explosion sound that's in the background.
Yeah, yeah, they clipped that, and the judge said he'd seen all the evidence that we submitted before trial, and there was a lot.
There was a lot of hard copy, and that little piece that you've shown was just part of an hour-long DVD which I submitted, which was nine percent of it was concentrated on world trade center seven and the bbc's very selective uh... editing and uh... broadcast love of of material which you and which was a very you know very much cherry-picked uh...
so they were very false impression of the day so you've been working on things uh...
this is the actually the third project that you've got coming up because you had the is that they were the bbc and uh... giving the evidence to the judge You also had a documentary film about Tony Farrell who was a police detective who began his own investigation, looked at the evidence, took it to supervisors and their reaction was to dismiss him.
They didn't even mention The evidence that he was highlighting in his job.
He'd been a senior intelligence officer, analyst for South Yorkshire Police for over a decade, and had come to the opinion that 9-11 just simply wasn't as advertised, and the same for the London bombings for that matter, and put this forward to his hierarchy, and they said, Tony, we can't We can't work like this.
I think one of them is even on record as saying that, you know, you may well be correct, but we are only the government foot soldiers.
Well, it was a great documentary that you did with Tony, because what you did was you followed his journey of discovery, basically in retrospect, and you showed a person of principle following the evidence, saying why he believed that, and amazingly, they dismiss him for that.
But now that you've gone to a judge and you've given him the evidence as part of this BBC case, you've followed this case of the active duty policeman, now you're looking to fund another film where you're basically going to go to retired policemen, retired judges who don't have anything to lose, who can not have the pressures of their job being threatened if they take a close look at this evidence.
The idea is that yes, people who have Not got anything to lose, if you like, that the job is over.
Once you explain this to people, once you show these declassified documents, the fact that Operation Gladio was thoroughly investigated by the Italian government, Operation Northwoods has been declassified by the CIA, it's an exact template for 9-11, except that we have a different boogeyman.
Instead of it being blamed on Castro's communists in Cuba, it's being blamed on Al-Qaeda.
When you start to show this to people, It starts to click with them.
They see the MO.
They see a repeated thing that the government is doing each time.
They understand that it's false flags and not just the Reichstag fire.
And you went in and talked to a police chief, is that correct?
A district commander?
Yeah, amazingly.
I got a phone call a couple of months ago, David, and it was a police officer from my local station.
I submitted some hard copy evidence to my local police before the BBC trial.
Um, which I wanted them to follow up.
Obviously, it's their job.
And he rang me up to tell me, um, that I could have it back.
And I said, well, I don't want it back.
I want you to act on it.
And to cut a very long story short, we ended up getting into a conversation, funnily enough, on Operation Northwoods.
Um, and I said, have you heard of it?
He said, no, I've not heard of it.
And I said, well, I think that's... I didn't want to be rude, but I said, I think you should have heard of it, being a police officer, because it demonstrates that You know, the governments, the American government has previous, as we call it, and they should have been investigated immediately after 9-11 and the same with Operation Gladio in Europe.
And he was quite shocked, and about an hour later he called me back and told me that I had an interview with the local district commander.
Now, whether or not this was directly related to that, I know that Matt Campbell, who's on board with the film Incontrovertible, he's going to be the main protagonist.
Matt lost his brother in the World Trade Center.
He's also been pestering our local police force.
And you said he just got back the coroner's report after 12 years.
He just got the coroner's report from the US.
Yeah, Matt's just got some materials back on his brother, and I've seen the photographs, and I don't want to get too detailed on it, but it certainly seems consistent with some explosives going off.
So I want to talk about your film here, Incontrovertible, that's coming up.
You're trying to get funding for it.
And, of course, some traditional venues that people go to to get crowdfunding, they don't want to have anything to do with a 9-11 investigation.
So I want to make sure that people have your website, killingauntifilms.co.uk.
And just to explain that to audiences in the U.S., auntie or auntie is a nickname for the BBC.
So that's A-U-N-T-I-E, killingauntifilms.co.uk.
They can help To fund the film that you're trying to get, and you're trying to do a court appearance, essentially, right?
It's kind of a court trial with these judges and police officers.
Yeah, we're going to get a dozen together for obvious reasons.
That's the number everyone identifies with.
Police officers, clergy, some former soldiers and sailors, law enforcers if you like, the clergy being moral law enforcers, the soldiers being military enforcers and of course the police.
and show them this stuff and have it on camera.
I want to see their reactions to this.
And then once we've got them, then take it to serving officers.
And, you know, I recently had an interview with my local district commander, and she liked the idea.
She really liked the idea.
I think it's a wonderful idea to have that trial, to show people who are men of integrity, who know how to look at an investigation, and to film them being presented with the evidence to see their reactions.
I think that would be a very valuable thing.
I hope people will go to your website and help to fund that project.
It'd be a fascinating thing to see and very helpful for all of us, I think.
Yeah, it is certainly an interesting dynamic to watch, to see these guys waking up on film and realizing just who they've been working for over the years.
That's a sad thing as well.
That's true.
And I'm glad to see that you're including clergy in there.
In history, we've had William Wilberforce, who for his entire life stood against slavery.
And it took him an entire lifetime to fight against it, but he was tireless.
And he was told at the beginning when he became a Christian, he was gonna go in the ministry, and he was told by John Newton, who wrote "Amazing Grace," no, what you're doing is just as important.
So we want people to take moral leadership, and I really thank you for doing that.
And the kind of background that you've had with a father who was a detective, who wanted to look at things honestly The story that you've already covered with Tony Farrell.
That's a great documentary.
People should check that out.
They can see that at your website.
Is that correct?
Yeah, it's called Defensive.
The story of Tony Farrell.
Yeah, thanks.
Tony's story is fascinating.
He's a very brave guy and a fine Christian.
Great, great.
So that's killingantifilms.co.uk.
People can go there, watch what you've already done, and they can fund this very important film that you're trying to get off the ground, Incontrovertible.
Thank you, Tony.
Thank you very much indeed, David, again.
Thank you for joining us.
Bye-bye.
Cheers.
Bye-bye.
Well, it's very important to help fund filmmakers, to support them.
That's why we already have State of Mind on the Internet, but if you want to support the filmmakers, get a DVD, pass it around, help to wake people up, and that's exactly what Tony Rook is trying to do with his film, Incontrovertible.
So, take a look at his website, killingantifilms.co.uk, Support him in this effort, and support us in our effort to wake people up at Prison Planet TV.
You can become a subscriber, and up to 10 other people that you give the password to can watch at the same time.
All of this is helping to wake people up, and the only way that we can do that is if you help to fund our operation, if you help to fund filmmakers who are trying to get the truth out there.
Well, that's it for tonight.
We'll be back tomorrow at 7 Central, 8 p.m.
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