All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2014 - InfoWars Nightly News
01:00:51
20140320_Thu_NightlyNews
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
.
Welcome to the Infowars Nightly News.
I'm David Knight.
It's Thursday, March 20th, 2014.
Now, tonight we're covering a story that's actually happened a few days ago, and it illustrates the point that even we get too accustomed to Obama violating the law, stepping over the bounds of the Constitution.
This is an executive order that he actually issued on March the 6th, and it's starting to propagate around the Internet.
It was on an article today on InfoWars.
New executive order.
Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.
There we go.
He says, This is a new executive order that does not apply just to Russians or foreigners.
If you criticize the situation in the Ukraine, or as Obama would put it, if you undermine the new Ukrainian democracy, then he is saying that he has the authority to seize your assets.
Here's the actual executive order.
Let's pull that up and take a look at that.
He says, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America including, and then he goes to list a few acts there.
Guess what?
When he takes an oath to the Constitution to become President, he is subordinating himself, in theory, to the Constitution.
So, if the Constitution clearly says That you give people due process before you confiscate their assets, and it does, then he cannot say that he has authority invested in him by the Constitution.
Nor are the laws allowed to do that.
The laws are passed pursuant to the Constitution.
So if the laws go around the Constitution, they're null and void as well.
This is something that we've seen for a very long time.
We've seen inanimate objects We've seen people charged with crimes under the War on Drugs.
We've seen cash charged with crimes.
We've seen airplanes confiscated, cars, homes, you name it.
They charge the inanimate object with a crime and then seize it.
But now this is something completely different.
Now he is criminalizing political dissent.
People who differ with him on his foreign policy.
People who would criticize him for fomenting unrest and his regime trying to start a trade war, a cold war, a hot war.
If you criticize that now, you not only are kept out of the country if you're a non-citizen, but as a citizen, he's saying that he has the authority to confiscate your property.
Well, he doesn't.
Look at this report from a local news reporter who went to a White House press conference.
She said the White House press secretary gets questions from reporters before press briefings.
This is what she said.
Here's the report.
This was off the record, so we were able to ask him all about some of the preparation that he does on a regular basis.
And then he also mentioned that a lot of times, unless it's something breaking, the questions that the reporters actually ask or the correspondents, they are provided to him in advance.
Then he knows what he's going to be answering and sometimes those correspondents and reporters also have those answers printed in front of them because of course it helps when they're producing their reports for later on.
Now to clarify this she's a local reporter who was going to a White House press conference and she has clarified that to say she started out those remarks we didn't have it there she said he told me off the record so she's a little bit ditzy about some of these things but essentially What is going on there is a dance.
People understand that if they're going to get access to the White House, that there's going to be certain things that they do and certain things that they don't do.
And as part of that dance, she just stepped on some toes big time.
So she won't be getting invited back to that.
But it's a game that they play.
It's why we don't play that game.
We don't get access to the press conferences.
Even the local police department doesn't give us information about their press conferences because we don't ask them easy questions.
If we went to a press conference we might ask Obama why he wants to confiscate our assets if we undermine democracy in Ukraine.
Doesn't that undermine our democracy in the United States to do something like that?
This is all part of the access game and of course they've taken down that report.
She has walked that back now and it's something though that we see going on frequently.
There certainly is a lot of softball questions that are being asked.
They obviously know What individual reporters are going to ask, that's why they call on certain ones and don't call on other ones, and why they invite certain reporters and don't invite us, for example.
Now, talk about a war on journalism and a war on the press.
Take a look at what happened in this democratic Ukraine.
They barged their way into the offices of Oleksandr Panteleimonov, accusing him of serving Putin and being Moscow trash.
Ironically, the man with the ponytail is the deputy head of Ukraine's Committee on Freedom of Speech.
Ukraine's Prime Minister has condemned the assault, calling it unacceptable for a democratic society.
Okay, now to put that in perspective, the guy that they were roughing up there is actually CEO of Ukraine's first national TV company.
And the guy who's doing the roughing up See, if you're going to attack the press verbally, if you're going to attack the press with a surveillance state, if you're going to attack the press with a National Espionage Act, which Obama has, that goes back to the early 20th century, he has done more prosecutions under that act than all the other presidents combined.
As a matter of fact, about twice as many so far.
And he's still got most of his second administration to go.
But if you're going to go to war against journalists, This is where it ultimately ends up.
It ultimately ends up in these kind of thuggish tactics, physical violence.
And of course, this is the party that we've seen as the neo-Nazi party that's there in Ukraine, but they're also the allies of the Obama administration.
And these guys, remember, these guys who are beating up the president of the Ukrainian TV?
These guys videotaped it themselves and then put it up on the internet because they're proud of it.
It's kind of like the act of killing.
Remember that movie that showed the reprisals in Indonesia?
That, of course, is where Obama grew up, where he spent his formative years in the wake of that kind of thuggery.
These guys, if you ever watch the movie, they brag about how they're gangsters.
They brag about the people they killed.
They show the documentarian what they did because they're proud of it.
That's the mentality, and that's what we see happening in America.
No longer are they trying to keep their illegal acts secret.
No longer do they use the IRS as a weapon in secret.
They do it openly, and after it's exposed, they continue to do it.
That's the kind of thuggish behavior.
That's where it's going to lead in the United States.
Now we also see that the L.A.
Police have incredibly said that they believe that everyone in Los Angeles is a criminal suspect.
These are some Electronic Freedom Foundation FOIA request information that came out.
An article by Steve Watson on InfoWars Today says, L.A.
Police, all cars are under criminal investigation as part of a license plate reader surveillance.
The Washington Post story that declared cancellation of the National License Plate Database was completely wrong.
This is what the L.A.
Police have said.
According to Steve Watson, they've attempted to justify an automatic license plate reader surveillance program by claiming that every single car in the city is part of a criminal investigation.
They say, quote, all license plate data is investigatory.
I can't pronounce it, but that's what they're saying.
Stalin said something similar, didn't he?
He said, bring me the man and I'll find the crime.
That's the danger of the surveillance state.
Now Steve Watson's article goes on to point out that last month the Washington Post reported that the Department of Homeland Security revealed via a federal business opportunities solicitation that it was going to activate a national license plate tracking system that was going to be shared with law enforcement.
Now what he's pointing out in this article Dan Frumkin of the Intercept pointed out that the Washington Post erroneously said that they're going to stop the database.
That's not what they're doing.
They're actually just stopping the solicitation to share the information.
But they have many databases, and as he points out here, far from going away, the databases are growing at a furious pace due to rapidly improving technology and federal funding.
Now you have to understand that when your privacy is lost to Dianne Feinstein, it's simply an abstraction.
But when her privacy is violated by the government, it's an invasion.
I hope that Rand Paul is correct.
I hope that people in Senate really are afraid of what our government has become.
What this shadow government has become.
Because they should be afraid.
They're going to be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes from the CIA and this shadow government.
And right after the program, right after the news, we're going to have Rand Paul's entire speech.
That he gave at Berkeley.
Don't miss it.
It's a very well done speech.
Very well received by people and hopefully we're going to see a realignment from the traditional left and right false paradigm they've given us between the two major parties.
People need to understand that the vital issues before us right now are whether or not we're going to live in a police surveillance state or whether or not we're going to continue to have a free society as we used to have.
I'm not saying that we've got a free society today.
Now the leftist media came after a football star's wife with a vengeance when she said she did not want to get her kids vaccines because she was concerned about possible adverse side effects.
Adon Salazar points out on InfoWars today, leftist media dissent on NFL quarterback and wife For refusing to vaccinate children.
This is NFL quarterback Jay Cutler and his wife Kristen Cavallari.
She said, I've read too many books on autism and the studies and one in 88 boys is autistic.
That's a very scary statistic.
They point out that the leftist media is saying though that this isn't an issue that ends at their household like homeschooling.
Little Camden Cutler is weaponized to spread disease.
Really?
They're trying to make this little kid out in some kind of a typhoid merry.
If their vaccines worked, then he would not be a threat to anyone unless they chose not to be vaccinated.
Jakari Jackson has more on this story.
With all those sneezy people and the Jenny McCarthens of the world not vaccinating their babies?
Are you opposed to vaccines?
We didn't vaccinate.
Really?
You're one of those communists?
You know what?
I've read too many books about autism.
So, making a personal, educated decision somehow makes you a communist.
Now, let me be clear.
There have been plenty of healthy people, including myself, who have received vaccinations and don't have autism.
But why is it so taboo to point out that autism rates have exploded as vaccinations have become more prevalent across the globe?
Until the wonderful people like us introduced vaccinations to Africa, The African children basically were autism free.
They never heard of autism, never had a case of that.
Are you familiar with that?
Have you ever heard that before?
Once again, I'm not claiming that vaccinations are inherently evil, but what is the health benefit of injecting mercury into your body?
Mercury-containing vaccines may help not harm kids, according to two new studies in the journal Pediatrics.
The CDC did, in fact, conduct studies on the link between autism and thimerosal, the preservative in vaccines that is 50% mercury by weight.
Thimerosal was used in most childhood vaccines and the rogam shot for pregnant women prior to the early 2000s.
What Dr. Hooker found was that data on over 400,000 infants Born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by a CDC epidemiologist, proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder, and speech disorder.
Really?
You're one of those communists?
Let's move away from autism and into the effectiveness of vaccinations.
Every year people become ill and every year people who are not vaccinated are blamed for the illnesses.
Not to mention the people who get sick just days after taking vaccinations.
Yet it's somehow the fault of the unvaccinated for infecting the vaccinated, while polio vaccines have crippled a conservative 50,000 children since 2012.
Whether you choose to vaccinate or not, educate yourself and don't be bullied into a herd-like mentality.
We'll end with this man's tale of his son descending into autism.
You can find more reports at InfoWars.com.
My name is Jimmy Beckway, and several years ago, Shawn Michael here, my second son, who's 10 years old, he received a vaccine, and a little while later, he started exhibiting symptoms of autism.
And according to the MD who's treating him alternatively, it was definitely the vaccines which caused this, and you can do research on the internet anywhere and find out about it, what all it's doing.
Like Alex said, now one in every 58 children is autistic, there has to be something going on, and it is the vaccines.
But it is reversible if you get on it.
So don't let them tell you, but immediately quit giving your children vaccines.
I will never give either one of my two children a vaccine again as long as I live.
Even if it means my death, I will not give them a vaccine.
Sir, sir, tell us how old your son was when this happened.
Son was, I'm going to say, around two, about two years old or younger.
How was he acting before the shots?
He was acting normal and they really noticed that he was sick when he went in, but they gave him the shot anyway.
I wasn't there that day.
My mom and my now ex-wife went and then after that, for example, his uncle, my brother-in-law, came up to stay with him a while.
And he noticed.
He goes, Sean just didn't what he used to be.
He used to be real friendly.
He'd run up and talk to people.
And he went through a period where he didn't want to talk to people or make eye contact.
And he's, he is coming around.
He's doing better now.
But he's still exhibiting many symptoms of autism.
Well, that's it for tonight's news portion.
If you would like to support our news operation, please consider getting a subscription to Prison Planet TV.
One subscription will allow you to share that with up to 10 other people simultaneously, as well as sharing all of Alex's documentaries.
A great way to wake people up.
It's a great way to keep your friends and family informed as well.
Now, stay tuned, because right after the break, we have Rand Paul's speech at UC Berkeley.
Now, he went straight from CPAC.
Where he was talking to conservative people there, young people there.
Going to Berkeley, where he's talking to a decidedly liberal audience.
But the old paradigm is no longer as important.
We need to break down a paradigm between liberty and an authoritarian society.
Because we see people in both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, pushing us towards a permanent warfare state, towards a surveillance and police state.
Rand Paul had a very important message, very well received.
We're going to have the entire speech as well as the question and answer period right after the break.
Stay tuned.
Stay tuned.
Molon Lave is ancient Greek for come and take it.
This popular design combines both classic Greek Spartan imagery with modern M16 assault rifles.
Now available in women's tees and proudly made in the USA.
And now you can protect yourself from corrupt cops.
It's your car's black box that records all that the driver sees and hears.
And introducing the Block-It Pocket.
It renders your phone undetectable while protecting your private data and your health.
Or take back your privacy and protect your personal information by getting your very own detractor cell phone pouch.
So get incredibly high-quality, freedom-based products and help fund the revolution.
at infowarshop.com My friends, Alex Jones here to tell you about some of the most important information concerning you and your family's health.
Radiation levels have more than doubled in the last 60 years in the Northern Hemisphere from all of the nuclear testing and radiological accidents.
Radioactive contamination is now in most of the food supply.
There's only two ways to avoid this.
Move south of the equator or properly protect your thyroid with nascent iodine.
Looking to protect my family, I've done deep research.
Nascent iodine is the purest, cleanest, absolute best form of iodine to protect yourself and your family.
It's made right here in the USA, completely non-GMO.
I searched out the best quality and now have developed a double strength form of nascent iodine.
Exclusively available at Infowarslife.com.
Nascent Iodine is on record as one of the only safe ways to detox from fluoride poisoning.
Survival Shield Nascent Iodine.
Secure your super high quality Nascent Iodine today at Infowarslife.com.
That's Infowarslife.com.
Thank you.
Great to be here at Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you to the Berkeley Forum for inviting me.
Now, you may be a Republican, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian.
I'm not here to tell you what to be.
I am here to tell you, though, that your rights, especially your right to privacy, is under assault.
I'm here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you're under surveillance.
I'm here to tell you that the NSA believes that equal protection means that Americans should be spied upon equally, including Congress.
Instead of equal protection to them, it's equal disdain.
They don't care if you're white or black or brown, they care only that everyone must submit to the state.
Senator Sanders, and I don't agree on everything, he's an independent from Vermont, but he asked, he asked the NSA, he says, are you collecting records on Congress?
And in characteristic arrogance, you know what the NSA said?
They said Congress is getting the same treatment everybody else is.
In other words, yes, yes, and again yes, they're spying on Congress.
They're collecting our data as well.
Digest exactly what that means.
If Congress is spied upon without their permission, who exactly is in charge of your government?
Last week we learned something new.
Your Senator's in the middle of this.
We learned that the CIA is illegally searching the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
They're the ones supposed to be overseeing the CIA.
I don't know about you, but that worries me.
If the CIA is spying on Congress, who exactly can or will stop them?
I look into the eyes of senators and I think I see real fear.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but I think I perceive fear of an intelligence community that's drunk with power, unrepentant, and uninclined to relinquish power.
I'm honestly worried and concerned about who is truly in charge of our government.
Now most of you have read the dystopian nightmares, the dystopian novels, and maybe you're like me and say, uh, you know, that could never happen in America.
And yet, if you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance.
Last week, a new revelation came out.
The NSA uses an automated system called Turbine.
They've hacked into millions of computers.
The NSA has even posed as a fake Facebook server.
You may have seen Zuckerberg complaining to the President about this.
To infect computers.
If you have a computer, you may well be under surveillance.
Who knows?
They won't tell you.
Your government collects information from every one of your phone calls.
That's what they're maintaining.
Remember the warrant that Snowden revealed?
Every phone call from Verizon was on the list.
Your government stores your email so it can access it without a warrant.
Your government claims the right to look at your every purchase online.
Your government actually claims that none of your digital records are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Listen very carefully to that.
They say they'll protect them, but they say none of your records are protected by the Fourth Amendment.
This is something we're going to fight in court.
If you own a cell phone, you are under surveillance.
I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.
In the opening pages of Fahrenheit 451, the protagonist Guy Montag asks, "Wasn't there a time when firemen used to put out fires?
They laugh and rebuke him and say, everybody knows that firemen start fires.
Montag knows this.
His father and grandfather had been firemen.
It had been his duty for many years to burn books.
He knew it was his duty, but this day would be different.
Montag arrives on the scene to do his job, but he finds a woman who won't leave.
She stands on her porch as they pile the books about her, but she won't leave.
Undeterred, Montag proceeds with the other firemen to douse her and her books with kerosene.
The woman shouts out and goads them.
She is indignant that they would touch her books.
She refuses to leave the port.
She says to them, play the man, Master Ridley.
Today we will light such a candle by God's grace in England that it won't be soon forgotten.
They keep dousing her with kerosene, and she says it again.
Play the man, Master Ridley.
We will light such a candle.
In the book, the reference is lost to the firemen, as they simply do their job.
The reference is to the 16th century figure Hugh Latimer, who literally became a human candle.
He was burned at the stake in 1555 for heresy.
His crime?
He wanted to promote the idea that the Bible could be translated into English, which the state forbade.
In the U.S.
today, we're not yet burning people at the stake, nor are we burning books.
Yet.
But your government is interested in what you're reading.
They're interested in what you say on your phone calls.
They're interested in what you write in your emails.
Or even if they say they're not interested, they say the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect any of these records.
The NSA is collecting the records of every American.
A year before Snowden's revelations, before Snowden had his leaks, I had heard that this was happening.
I had talked with Ron Wyden, I'd seen some of the releases, and I'd heard that they were collecting an unprecedented amount of records.
But I wasn't allowed to reveal the number because they say it's a secret.
Why the numbers are secret, I don't know.
So I announced that a gazillion records were being collected, because I knew that was a fake number.
They can't put me in jail for making up a number.
But I wanted to emphasize, by using this fictitious number, a gazillion, I wanted the American public to know that the actual number of communications being collected by the federal government was almost beyond comprehension.
Senator Wyden of Oregon has been trying to shed some light on this invasion of our privacy.
It's an example of how someone from the left and someone from the right come together for something that's good, for the protection of your privacy.
He's on the Intelligence Committee and he's privy to information that very few congressmen or senators have access to.
For over a year before Snowden's revelations, Wyden expressed concern that the government was acting outside the law.
But he was constrained by the secrecy laws.
Finally, a few months before Snowden's leaks, Wyden called the office of the Intelligence Director, James Clapper, and he says, I'm going to ask you in open committee, are you collecting millions of Americans' records without a warrant?
Despite this warning, Clapper comes to Congress and lies.
This is a felony, punishable up to five years, but you hear nobody talking about it.
When this secret surveillance of Americans finally became public, though, no one on the intelligence community was even contrite.
Their only regret was that the program was no longer secret.
In an almost surreal exchange, a congressman asked the NSA, did you think a program of this magnitude could be kept secret from the American people?
The NSA official replied with a slight smile, well, we tried.
The sheer arrogance of this.
They are only sorry that they got caught.
Without the Snowden leaks, these spies would still be blithely doing whatever they pleased.
Some say it's only records, held anonymously, only rarely accessed.
What's your beef?
Well, what they rarely mention is that they don't believe any of your records have any Fourth Amendment protection.
When they say, oh, it's only boring old business records, think of what information is on your visa bill.
From your bill, the government can tell whether you drink, whether you smoke, whether you gamble, what books you read, what magazines you read, whether you see a psychiatrist, what medications you take.
There was a recent study by two Stanford graduates.
Are we allowed to mention Stanford here?
By two Stanford graduates.
Look it up.
In the last week or two, it was released showing exactly what can be figured out simply from your boring old phone records.
I oppose this abuse of power with every ounce of energy I have.
I believe that you have a right to privacy and it should be protected.
I believe no government should ever access your records without a judge's warrant.
I believe that the majority of Americans agree with me.
Whether they're Republicans, Democrats, Independents, I think most people are offended by this program.
Now Edward Snowden, the leaker of classified information, did break the law.
But so did James Clapper.
I don't think there's been enough criticism of Clapper.
James Clapper proposed that it was okay to lie to Congress and the American people in the name of security.
Snowden proposed it was okay to leak classified information in the name of liberty.
There are laws against both of these, both leaking and lying, yet history sometimes accepts one or both as laudable.
If a government official leaks to expose government malfeasance, we sometimes call it whistleblowing.
If an enemy asks for secret information, we would expect our Intelligence Director to lie.
But no matter who is testifying to Congress, lying to Congress is still a crime.
Lying to Congress also damages credibility.
When the Intelligence Director lies, it makes it harder for us to believe him when he comes and tells us, oh yeah, we're collecting all your information, but we promise we won't look at it.
You know, so it's harder and harder to believe them when they don't tell the truth when they testify.
They also come to us and they say, well, terrorists can't be apprehended in a fashion consistent with the Bill of Rights.
Well, under cross-examination, that turns out not to be true.
Who knows what to believe anymore?
Even if no abuse of phone records has occurred so far, we must limit government power to prevent abuse in the future.
The intelligence director maintains he lied in the open hearing because it was open to the public and the information was classified.
He tells us that he testified in the least untruthful way.
Anybody accept that?
The least untruthful way.
As Americans, we don't deserve the least untruthful way from the people we pay for, who work for us.
We have a right to the truth, we deserve the truth, and we demand the truth from our officials.
Are the people clapping that aren't clapping?
Are y'all from the intelligence community?
I I'm asked repeatedly, is Snowden a hero or a villain?
Now, there's no...
I'm sort of of mixed minds.
I know some of you have decided this.
But there's no doubt that his legacy will be clouded, you know, by his perch in Russia.
No great repository of civil liberties.
I agree with critics that say you can't let everybody just decide when to leak classified information.
Snowden will in all likelihood face punishment if he returns.
But I don't agree with those who argue that he should be hanged or shot on sight.
Snowden's leak should not be seen, they say, oh it shouldn't be seen as civil disobedience because he didn't stick around for punishment.
Now one can argue degrees of bravery, whether you would stick around or not.
Thoreau faced a day in jail, and he was considered to be a civil disobedient.
Martin Luther King faced 33 days in jail, he was a civil disobedient.
But Snowden faces either death or life in prison.
I don't believe yet to commit civil disobedience that it requires martyrdom.
History will decide is he a hero, who is hero, and who is villain.
Clapper lied in the name of security.
Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.
The debate over the leaker, though, shouldn't be caught up just in personalities.
It shouldn't make us lose track of the real issue.
How does the Fourth Amendment apply in the digital age?
To me, this is a profound constitutional question.
Can a single warrant be applied to millions of Americans' phone records, emails, credit card statements?
When you sign a privacy agreement with your phone company or with your internet provider, don't you retain A privacy interest in those records.
The Fourth Amendment is very clear.
Warrants must be issued by a judge.
Warrants must be specific to the individual, must have your name on it if they want your records.
And a single warrant for millions of Americans' phone records hardly sounds specific to the individual.
Warrants are supposed to be based on evidence of probable cause.
I'm not up here arguing against people searching you.
If the judge says they have probable cause that you committed a crime, I'm fine with that.
I'm not against the NSA per se.
But I am for the process, the due process of law to protect your rights.
Generalized warrants that don't name an individual And seek to get millions of records, it goes against the very fabric of the Fourth Amendment.
Some say that James Otis, his protest against generalized warrants at the time of our revolution, was really the spark that got things going.
I find it ironic that the first African-American president has, without compunction, allowed this vast exercise of raw power by the NSA.
Certainly J. Edgar Hoover's illegal spying on Martin Luther King and others in the civil rights movement should give us all pause.
Now if President Obama were here, he would say he's not J. Edgar Hoover, which is certainly true.
But power must be restrained because no one knows who will next hold that power.
As Madison put it, if government were always comprised of angels, we wouldn't need restraint.
But as we all know, government is often not comprised of angels.
The President claims, well the NSA program, it's been approved by 15 judges.
Well, yeah, right.
15 judges, most of them ruling in secret, where nobody had a lawyer on both sides of the equation.
The FISA court is a court where the defendant gets no attorney.
The debate is shrouded in secrecy.
In the FISA court, the NSA can say whatever they want, and they are not cross-examined.
A secret court is not a real court.
We must take a stand and demand an end to secret courts.
This battle for your rights must take place in the light of day.
As we speak, my attorneys are battling for a hearing in open court in Washington, D.C.
We have a lawsuit to try to prevent this from happening and to get a decision from the Supreme Court.
Only the Supreme Court can legitimately decide if government can access all your phone records with a single warrant without suspicion.
Everyone in this room owns a cell phone.
So I'm not fighting for just me or for just one political party.
I would do the same whether a Republican president or a Democrat president.
This is an important issue that goes beyond party politics.
I say what you read or what you send in your email or your text messages is none of their damn business.
Now, they say they're not listening to your phone calls.
Maybe they are, maybe they're not.
But last week we found out that the CIA illegally searched Senate computers.
Dianne Feinstein, she's in charge of the committee, she gave a big speech on the Senate floor saying they're illegally taking our work product, they're looking at our computers, and they have now taken stuff off the computers that we thought could have been information for the American people.
I'm going to fight him on this.
I told her and complimented her.
She's from another party.
I went up to her immediately and said, great speech.
Everybody's talking about it.
Because I don't see this as a partisan issue.
I hope she will stand up, not let the CIA push her around, not let the NSA push her around.
I'm going to fight him on this.
No one, no one should be allowed to invade your privacy.
That's why I'm announcing today that when I return to Washington, I will push for a select committee Styled after the church committee that investigated the abuses of power by the intelligence community in the seventies.
It should be bipartisan.
It should be independent and wide-reaching.
It should have full power to investigate and reform those who spy on us in the name of protecting us.
It should watch the watchers.
Our liberties are slipping away from us.
When Hugh Latimer said, let this be an episode that will not be soon forgotten, he became a human candle against tyranny and intolerance.
Americans still have a torch that's burning, figuratively or otherwise, in New York Harbor.
We should never let that flame of liberty go out.
On occasion we've let our guard down, particularly in times of war, in times of fear.
We've succumbed.
We have, as Roger Waters put it, traded our heroes for ghosts.
Exchanged a walk-on part in a war for a lead role in a cage.
Or as Franklin put it, traded our liberty for security.
I think we've been too lax in guarding our privacy.
Look at how we travel now.
Look at the personal privacy and dignity we've lost.
When you slog through the airports, ask yourself, who's winning?
Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman asked the question in a very visual way.
He says, the next time you go through airport security, the next time they tell you to put your hands over your head and hold that vulnerable position for seven seconds, no hun, just a little bit higher, ask yourself, is this the posture of a free man?
The question before us is, will we live as men and women?
Will we cower?
And will we give up on our liberty?
I, for one, will fight on because I believe that your rights are inalienable, inseparable, inextinguishable.
And I hope everyone, everyone with a cell phone, every American will fight for your privacy and for the right of every American to be left alone.
I hope you will stand with me and take a stand for liberty.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
The globalist social engineers are not just targeting us with propaganda.
They are manipulating our genetics.
We are being targeted at every level by estrogen mimickers that lower our testosterone and other hormones and natural compounds that the body needs.
The key is to be aware of this attack and to fight back against it.
After consulting top doctors, nutritionists, pharmacists, and others, we have developed what I believe is the ultimate non-GMO organic super male vitality formula.
Sourced from powerful organic herbs harvested around the planet and then concentrated for maximum potency.
I've always believed in nutrition and herbs.
Super male vitality was developed to activate your body's own natural processes instead of using synthetic chemicals.
Super male vitality by InfoWars Life is so powerful that I only take half the recommended dose.
Visit InfoWarsLife.com today to secure your super male vitality and other powerful products from InfoWars Life.
Introducing Pro One.
All of your filtration in one system, portable, on the go.
No more do you have two or three filters to just reduce sodium fluoride.
You have a system that cuts out the sodium fluoride and up to 95% of hydrofluorosilic acid.
Advanced manufacturing technology combines silver impregnated white ceramic with new Aquamedics advanced media for removal of fluoride and other heavy metals, all in one filter element.
It is the only one that does it and out of the gate.
We have it discounted at 10% off with promo code WATER.
This is the only system that in one unit helps reduce or remove pesticides, herbicides, chloramines, ammonia and chlorine, hydrofluorosilicic acid, the most common form of fluoride not covered by other fluoride filter brands, and sodium hexafluorosilicate.
get your pro pure with a new pro one filters today at infowarstore.com or by calling 888-253-3139 conservative activist larry clayman and the aclu have also filed similar lawsuits against the nsa and both resulted in either failure or a state ruling a
What makes you think that you'll have any more success than these groups that have tried before you?
I am supportive of all the other lawsuits.
So it isn't exclusive that mine is the best, but it is slightly different.
The ACLU lawsuit was ruled against.
The judge either threw it out or said that the program was constitutional.
The Clayman suit is in the same court that mine will go to.
And the judge has previously ruled it unconstitutional, stayed the ruling, and I think it will be appealed.
So I think the Clayman suit is still active.
Ours is going to the same court because it has a similar subject.
Our case is slightly different, and we think for some legal reasons that it may have a chance of going all the way to the Supreme Court.
To me, it's not so much that my case has to go, but I think a case needs to go to the Supreme Court because Currently, many people believe that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply at all.
They think that the reason why you can give a single warrant to Verizon is that you don't own those records.
I think they're jointly held.
I think if you sign a privacy agreement, Verizon agrees not to tell your neighbor who you're calling.
So they kind of acknowledge that.
I think it's acknowledging that you still have an interest in those records.
But to me, the most important thing is, and there's at least, we think, four or five Supreme Court justices that have indicated that in this digital age, think about it, it's a lot different than 1975.
That's when the last case, Smith v. Maryland, was held on records.
It's also different, that was about one suspect's phone tap.
We're now talking about 300 million Americans phones.
I think it's a big deal and it is different than what we've ever had before.
So I'm hoping that we will get all the way to the Supreme Court.
So earlier you condemned Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for allegedly lying in front of Congress.
You said he's very explicitly broken the law.
Does that mean that you think he should be sent to prison?
I think he should be.
You don't get sent to prison until you're found guilty.
So we should have a trial.
He deserves a trial.
But the interesting thing is I'm not an outlier on this in the sense that I think seven members of the Intelligence Committee or Judiciary Committee in the House have signed a letter saying the same thing.
And I think it hurts us because we do have to rely on some things being secret.
And it's an extraordinary power.
It's a power to capture people, incarcerate people.
It's even a power to kill people.
So that power needs to be overseen, and they have to be honest with us.
If the people in charge of the intelligence community are not being honest to Congress, and they're actually spying on Congress, I have grave doubts about everything they're telling me.
So yeah, I think it is important.
And one of the reasons I bring it up is that many of these people, they want to throw the book at Snowden.
And I have mixed feelings what should happen, because I think you can't release secrets all the time.
I mean, that would lead to chaos.
But at the same time, I think he also wanted to reveal something he thought was unconstitutional.
But for all the people that want to throw the book and the letter of the law at Snowden, I like the contrast.
They don't want to do a thing.
Not a peep out of them for Clapper.
So you're not really being consistent if you want to throw the book at Snowden, but you don't want to do a thing to Clapper.
They both broke the law, technically, and then you have to decide what justice is.
But yeah, I think clappers should be tried for perjury.
So you say you're asked this all the time, but we want to get it in here too. - Thank you.
Would you classify Edward Snowden as, on the one hand, a hero or a traitor?
And to phrase that slightly differently, maybe, if there were another Edward Snowden out there, would you encourage him to speak up?
You know, I think the ultimate decision of hero or villain history is going to sort out.
And I think there are pros and cons to a lot of it.
And I know people have a strong feeling about it.
I think that his intentions were good.
But here's the problem.
Let's say we have 400, 500 people here.
And let's say you all are, you know, we're talking to you and you're the new recruits for the CIA or for the intelligence for our army.
Should I tell all 500 of you just decide when you think it's unconstitutional and just reveal secrets anytime?
You could see how it could lead to chaos.
But at the same time, I'm very upset about what our intelligence community is doing.
We might not have ever known about it had Snowden not leaked it.
Some say Snowden should have tried to become a whistleblower.
I don't know if he did try or what the process is.
But I think on the one hand you have chaos, you know.
Bradley Manning released 24 million pages.
There's a chance that people could die from that.
There's a chance that intelligence could get out, that it could endanger our agents.
And I'm not against spying.
I mean, we will have people gathering intelligence around the world.
And I don't think that we can allow a willy-nilly indiscriminate release of documents.
But at the same time, I'm sympathetic to what was released because I think it's a real problem.
So I have mixed feelings, is the bottom line.
So you posed a very interesting question during your address.
You asked about potential CIA spying on Senate computers.
To quote you, if the CIA is spying on Congress, who exactly can or will stop them?
So what would be your answer to this question?
Well, see, here's the interesting thing, and this is worth everybody reading about.
The way I understand it, and this is what Senator Feinstein said in her speech, they came across something.
They were given access to the CIA computers by the CIA.
The search engine was created by the CIA.
They say, and I'm just going from what they're telling me, they say they found a report called the Panetta Review, which looked into some previous activities of the CIA, interrogation and detention, and they got it through the search engine.
If that's true, the CIA then may have said, oh whoops, we didn't want you to read that, but think about that.
If it was a mistake by the CIA, you can say, well, it was a mistake, but why should the CIA be allowed to withhold an internal review from the people overseeing the CIA?
So, that to me is the arrogance that they think they're in charge, and it's too important to let members of Congress know about.
Well, if your members of Congress don't know about it, the people you have some interaction with and can get rid of or elect, then who is in charge?
You can't have people who are not elected in charge of your government.
And that is really, I think, the very definition of tyranny.
So this, to me, is a very important thing.
And I also want to make the point that I'm not saying that any of these people are necessarily evil or that they have bad motives.
I think a lot of them have good intentions.
And maybe they're not even abusing their power at all.
The danger, though, is allowing that much power to go unchecked and not have review by Congress.
So we obviously don't have all the information yet.
It's a recent scandal.
But if these allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers do prove to be true, then who do you think should be held responsible?
Would it be just CIA Director John Brennan or perhaps some official higher up in the federal government?
That's a good question.
I'm not sure I know the answer.
Brennan was approved about a year or two ago.
That's when I actually did the filibuster was to his nomination.
And so whether or not it's Brennan or someone who precedes him, but Brennan oversees it now and he's defending the program and saying it didn't happen.
But here's the real direct question.
There's some media here.
Y'all need to ask.
is ask Brennan, what about the Panetta Review?
Why should Congress not be allowed to read the Panetta Review of the CIA interrogation program?
I mean, if I'm not allowed to look at it, and this is something you also need to realize, much of this that goes on in the Intelligence Committee, I'm not allowed to read.
Okay?
The Intelligence Committee is allowed to read things I'm not allowed to read, and then the head of the Intelligence Committee is allowed to read some things that the rest of the Intelligence Committee isn't.
Some of the revelations that have come forward have come forward, and the day before they came forward, the CIA calls up...
Senator Feinstein and Chaplis says, oh by the way, we've been collecting email for the last 10 years, it's going to be revealed tomorrow.
You know, so we're really not in the loop on this stuff and we're not overseeing it.
They're doing what they want and then when they get caught, they inform us, but that's not oversight, that's not representative government.
This is incredibly important, not just because of abuse that may be occurring, but because of abuse that could happen if someone took the reins of power and really wanted to use this for Malevolent purposes.
All right, so we have time for just one more question for this interview.
This is on sort of a different topic.
There has been pretty extensive media coverage of your recent visits to places that don't usually vote Republican, like students at Howard University.
You mean like Berkeley?
And at UC Berkeley.
There has been quite a lot of speculation that these efforts constitute an attempt on your part to broaden your personal appeal in anticipation of a 2016 presidential run.
How do you reply to these claims?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Part of it might be that.
Part of it might be that the Republican Party is... I've said they have to either evolve, adapt, or die.
You know, it's a pretty harsh thing.
I think, I was telling somebody the other day, remember Domino's finally admitted they had bad crust?
Think Republican Party admitted, okay?
Bad crust, we need a different kind of party.
But I think some of...
One of the things that really upset me in the last couple years was that we passed legislation, really done by Republicans and Democrats, frankly, that allows an American citizen to be indefinitely detained without a trial... that allows an American citizen to be indefinitely detained without And I had a conversation with another senator, and I said, does this mean an American citizen could be accused of a crime and sent to Guantanamo Bay with no trial, no lawyer?
He said, yeah, they're dangerous.
That's what kind of begs the question, doesn't it?
Who gets to decide whether you're dangerous or not?
The reason why I think this is important is many sort of libertarians, libertarian-leaning Republicans, people who believe in individual rights, this really bothers us.
But I think it's a bigger audience than that because Think about it.
If you're African-American, Japanese-American, Jewish-American, Hispanic, have there ever been times when the government didn't treat you fairly?
Have there ever been times when you said, you know what?
The war on drugs has had a racial outcome.
Three out of four people in prison are brown or black.
So something's gone wrong.
Maybe a candidate who would stand up and say, everybody deserves their day in court.
The law should not have a racial outcome.
Maybe then people would say, you know what?
I always hated those Republicans and their crust sucks.
But maybe there's some new Republicans.
Maybe there'll be a new GOP.
We'll see.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So we also have some questions from the audience.
Oh, God.
I thought you were dead.
We passed out notecards before and you guys have submitted some questions.
I was going to read a few of them to the Senator.
This actually relates to your last point.
Do you think the issues of privacy and civil liberties could be used to bridge the partisan divide in Congress?
You know, yes, and I think there's also, there's a right-left nexus on this.
One of the persons I work most closely with in Washington on NSA, spying abuse, more oversight needed is Ron Wyden.
He and I don't agree on some economic liberty issues.
You know, he's not so much for lower taxes or less regulations, but on this, we're almost in 100% agreement on some of these intelligence issues.
I think it's a way you could actually get things done.
That compromise isn't always splitting the difference, but compromise means meaning that your party label isn't as important as the issue is.
So to me, I honestly would tell you, whether this was a Republican or a Democrat president, I would give exactly the same speech.
And I think Ron Wyden would too.
I think he's an honest progressive.
In fact, I ribbed some of the others by saying, whatever happened to the good liberals around here, alright?
You know, because you can be, I think, even someone who isn't a progressive, Be progressives who are honestly good or I think very good on civil liberties.
In fact, the president was.
When he was a senator, President Obama was much better on civil liberties than he is now.
Next question from the audience.
If elected president, how would you respond to the recent increase of executive power?
I think one of the biggest problems in the last 100 years, not Republican, not Democrat, but last 100 years has been the increase in power of the executive.
We have thousands of orders written by the executive.
Montesquieu wrote and said, you know, he was big on the separation of powers and the checks and balances.
He said when the executive begins to legislate That becomes a form of tyranny.
The check and balance is that the executive, the president, is not allowed to legislate.
Only the legislature can.
But it's a messy process and you gotta, everybody's gotta just come to grips with that.
It's a messy process and it's not easy.
But that's why you have to convince people on the other side of the aisle to vote for your stuff.
And it is also why we have so much contention over the health care plan.
Not one Republican voted for it.
Had there been some Republicans voting for it, or had the Democrats come a little bit to our side to have a discussion, I don't think we'd be having this big war in our country right now.
So really, I think, the way I look at issues is, you don't have to agree on everything.
We are probably a mixture of people from parties and all different walks of life here.
And let's say we take ten issues.
We're not going to agree on all ten.
You know, we might agree on three out of ten.
Why don't we work on the three out of ten issues we agree on rather than spend our whole time fighting around the seven out of ten?
Next question from the audience.
Yes.
You have voiced support for a flat tax system.
Are you concerned about the potential increase in inequality resulting from such a system?
One of the interesting things is some of the wealthy pay no taxes.
Some of the corporations, wealthy corporations, pay no taxes under the current system.
Another interesting fact, over the last five years, income inequality has gotten worse.
Even though we raise tax rates.
So it is something you have to kind of think through as far as how you want to make it better.
I'm of the opinion that the way you stimulate the economy and the way you create jobs is by leaving more money in the economy.
Now you may say that sounds incredibly simplistic, but it's true.
The private economy creates jobs.
We have to have a certain amount of government, but we should minimize the size of government because it's not very good at stuff.
Why is... I'll often say... I'll often say it's not that government is inherently stupid, although it's a debatable point.
Is that they don't get the same signals.
So for example, we need to have a national defense and it can't be done privately.
Same with the judiciary and the legislative branch and roads and education and things like this where the government will be involved.
And so, I think you can argue that that should occur but we should keep it and not expand it to all walks of life.
Do they, does the government need to sell pizza?
You know, does the government need to deliver the mail?
That's really a problem.
They probably shouldn't be delivering the mail.
They're not very good at that either.
We should minimize what government does and try to maximize the private sector.
And that's, I think, where jobs are created.
But to me, though, it's getting beyond the hurdle.
I can go to a poor community in the mountains of Eastern Kentucky and I'll say, bring me the 10 richest people in your town because I would like to reduce your taxes.
And you may be horrified and say, oh, he cares only about rich people.
No, we all work for rich people.
So I want the people who own the business, the guy who owns the business in Middlesbrough, Kentucky, who employs 100 people, is probably the richest guy in town.
How am I going to get him to hire, or her, to hire 110 people?
Reduce their taxes.
So we've got to get over this class warfare that rich people are bad people.
The top 1% pay 40% of the income tax.
There are some exceptions to the rule.
We should fix the exceptions, meaning that if there's some in the top 1% that aren't paying taxes, they should.
In some ways, a flat tax accumulates more of those people, and you lose less of those people by having less deductions and having a flatter, simpler code.
But I'm also for reducing everyone's taxes, not just the middle class, everyone's taxes.
This is going to be your very last question.
um We are here at the number one public university in the world, something we tell ourselves a lot.
You're not at all biased, right?
Of course not, of course not.
This relates to that.
Do you believe the federal government should play a role in supporting higher education?
If so, describe.
I believe in general that the more local control of education, the better.
So you really are not at the Federal University of California, Berkeley.
You're at the University of California at Berkeley.
You are a state school.
And so education has primarily been at the state level.
There is some federal influence through Pell Grants and things like that.
I've decided to leave those alone when I've created budgets that cut a lot of money because I think a lot of people are dependent on them.
I also think we have to figure a way forward.
The biggest problem really isn't right now getting an education.
We've got plenty of grants, people are getting into school, that's not the problem.
The problem you need to think through is not getting a grant and getting into school, it's getting a job when you get out of school and how you're going to pay your loans back.
What's happening is the loans are so big and the income's not as large that a lot of people are getting out and making something that's inadequate.
I think one of the ways that we could fix and help students is to maybe give tax credits to students as they get out.
Not forgive your loans, but let you reduce your taxes, because most people will be working.
Let you reduce your tax burden some as a way to pay off your student loans.
Thanks, everybody.
Thank you.
Alex Jones here to tell you about how you can help spread liberty worldwide while also enjoying what I have found to be the best tasting 100% organic coffee on the planet.
For more than a decade, my favorite coffee has come from the high mountains of southern Mexico, where the Chiapas farmers grow their unique shade-grown Arabica beans.
We have now managed to secure the sought-after beans in a highly customized blend.
Discover and try a bag of the Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee at Infowarslife.com.
This coffee gives you a long, smooth pick-me-up for hours without the headaches and heartburn that so many other coffees give me personally.
Hands down, this is my favorite coffee, and it's taken us years to secure connections directly to the Chiapas Mexican farmers.
Drop by the site today, order a bag or two, and I don't think you're going to be disappointed.
Available in original or with our immune support infusion blend.
You are watching the InfoWars Nightly News, which airs 7 p.m.
Central at InfoWarsNews.com.
▲
Export Selection