NSA Whistleblower reveals scary details of government's spying ability

Last night, news broke that the federal government has been tapping into the servers of nine major internet companies allowing them to access phone records, e-mail, web chats, photographs and documents. Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple are all reported to be a part of this program, code-named PRISM. TheBlaze has been covering the troubling surveillance state and reporting the information released by whistleblowers, and today Glenn welcomed crypto-mathematician and 36 year NSA employee William Binney to speak on the issue.

Transcript below:

GLENN: The whistleblowers we have talked to had guns pointed at their heads by our FBI for trying to tell you the truth. Thank goodness people are starting to listen. William Binney is one of them. He is ‑‑ you were with the NSA for 40 years. What was your title at the NSA?

BINNEY: Well, I rose up to be the Technical Director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Group which was about 6,000 analysts which, you know, that was basically the intelligence reporting of NSA.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what, how bad ‑‑ tell the American people who might be listening for the very first time ‑‑ because this is no longer theory now; this is out there ‑‑ tell us exactly the truth and what the White House and the members of congress don't want you to know.

[...]

BINNEY:  I see that the whole program started early in ‑‑ or late, late or mid to late October 2001, and it started by pulling in just a toll record or the phone records from various telephone companies of U.S. citizens making phone calls anywhere in the world or in the United States. So that total accumulation I estimated about 3 billion U.S.‑to‑U.S. phone calls every day. So that was being indexed. So that was building your communities of interest out of that so that who you talk to daily or ‑‑ and how you interact with them was being recorded and could be timelined so you could look at a timeline and see how people interact with others. This included the senators, House Representatives, everybody.

So then in 2003 with Mark Klein's disclosure of the NARIS devices on the fiberoptic lines of the ‑‑ inside the United States of America, that started to say, well, they are spreading around inside this country to somewhere between 10 and 20 sites the capacity to collect e‑mails and any other activity on the Internet and store it, okay? So that gave them that information. This is the intelligence community doing it. You know, you hear all the requests for the FBI to get the information, but that's only because the FBI needs it to get to go into court. And you can't use NSA‑collected data for court because it's not acquired by a warrant. But if the FBI has to request a warrant to get it, then they can take it into court to ‑‑

GLENN: Okay. So why did the president have to go and say, "I want William Rosen's stuff"? Because he intended on prosecuting? Or James Rosen?

BINNEY: I think it's ‑‑ excuse me, Glenn. But I think it's to intimidate reporters for the main part, but also there probably is somebody they're interested in prosecuting that's been, you know, talking to Jim Rosen or to the AP. There's more in there. Maybe they were interested in the stories that the AP was trying to develop. So by getting that kind of data, they could take it into court and show the relationships that would imply, you know, who was leaking information or who was ‑‑ or they couldn't ‑‑ they could assert that as an allegation for an indictment.

PAT: We're talking to NSA whistleblower William Binney. William, what do you say to people who claim, "Well, I don't ‑‑ I don't care if they're collecting information on me. I'm not doing anything wrong anyway. What are they going to do with it?" What do you say to those people who just don't understand what this is all about?

BINNEY: Well, you can only try to point out examples of things that go on that could very well be a part of this. Like, for example, all of the IRS targeting of the TEA Party. I've said early on several years ago that if you wanted to know who was involved in the TEA Party, this kind of activity would lay out their entire structure and the whole ‑‑ everybody who's involved in it, no matter where they are inside the country. And that information then could be passed to the IRS to target people.

PAT: What do you think ‑‑ what do you think the administration is doing with this information now? Are they doing anything nefarious with it? Are ‑‑ I mean, will they turn this against us?

BINNEY: I think they are already doing that.

PAT: Yeah.

BINNEY: But ‑‑ to a certain degree. But certainly that's been my major, my major concern is that that's how ‑‑ that's how totalitarian states begin. Once you have that kind of information about the population, you can now control your population. This has been historically true down through the ages of how these totalitarian states work. I mean, the KGB did it when Russia, the Gestapo did it in Germany and 00

PAT: Yeah, look how much further we can go than the KGB did with the technology available.

GLENN: This is way beyond. There wouldn't be a Jew alive on the planet today if they had this information.

BINNEY: They could never have dreamed of having this kind of capability.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me that ‑‑ because I've heard conflicting reports on this and I would like to get your opinion because I believe I know what is capable. They are saying that, two things: One, oh, no, they're just connecting the dots. They are not ‑‑ they don't have access to any conversations or anything." Then on the other side of that I've heard they can take every keystroke. So in other words, you start writing an e‑mail and you can delete, delete, delete, delete, and they'll have what you wrote and all of the deletes if they care to open those packages. True or false?

BINNEY: That's true. I mean, their statement about we don't have content is an outright lie. I mean, that's been going on ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

BINNEY: ‑‑ the NARIS devices from 2003 give them that data. Even the telcoms. If you looked at that report on Prism, they were requesting information like e‑mails, you know, videos, all kinds. That's all content.

GLENN: So Bill, they have ‑‑ I know this. We started getting on this because we had Michael Chertoff and John Ashcroft on on days when Bush was still in office and neither of them would go online. Neither of them would have a phone or and they just laughed at me. And they were like, if you knew what we could do, you wouldn't have it either. And we started talking about it at that point.

BINNEY: Yeah.

GLENN: And so it won't really stop because how do you dismantle something like this? First of all, for all of those members of the media that were talking about these things via conspiracy theory, what the hell did they build the Utah information vault for? How do you dismantle something like this?

I listened to Lindsey Graham give his testimony and I thought to myself, "Gee, Lindsey, what is it they have on you?"

BINNEY: Yeah.

GLENN: What is it they have on you because this doesn't make any ‑‑ what you're saying is totalitarian in its end.

BINNEY: I agree, Glenn. I mean, it's really disturbing what he's saying. I mean, I couldn't understand why he couldn't stand up for the Constitution.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So how do you end it? So how do you end it? Does it end?

BINNEY: I mean, it's going to take radical action by the people just to vote these idiots out of office.

GLENN: But they ‑‑ again, I go back to what George Bush said to me, you know, "my hands are ‑‑ my hands are tied pretty much, I have no real decisions." Who is going to shut down? It's really not about the elected officials. You know, one thing I thought of was I don't believe for a second John Roberts, because I've read the ‑‑ I've read the ruling. He was on the other side and didn't even have enough chance ‑‑ time to really even rout out all of the things that he was writing. He was on the other side, and he comes in for the ruling and he's blurry eyed and looked like he's been crying all night. I mean, honestly what gives me any kind of confidence that that man wasn't called up by somebody and says, "John, John, John. I don't think you're going to vote that way because of X, Y or Z." I mean ‑‑

PAT: If they are doing this to congress, they are certainly doing it to Supreme Court justices. I mean, that's a possibility, right?

GLENN: Right.

BINNEY: Well, they're all in it. I mean, it's not ‑‑ all their data's being collected. So that's certainly possible.

GLENN: Okay. Bill, I sure appreciate all of the heat that you have taken for so long, and you have been ‑‑ you have been vindicated through this story and I unfortunately ‑‑

BINNEY: Yes, unfortunately.

GLENN: ‑‑ unfortunately know that that is not something that you celebrate.

BINNEY: Yeah.

GLENN: But I thank you, and thank you for all of the help that you have given the country. And I'd like to have you on again maybe next week to talk about encouraging other whistleblowers, in anything that we can do, anything we can do as people to help encourage those who know, who might have a guilty conscience and just have been like, "I don't know what to do" and they feel trapped. How can we help them? So ‑‑

BINNEY: Yeah. Well, certainly there still are people like that because these exposures are coming out.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's amazing, they are coming out even at the time when the administration is doing their damnedest to intimidate and scare them.

BINNEY: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: It gives me a little bit of hope.

BINNEY: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Bill.

BINNEY: Okay, thanks.

GLENN: Appreciate it. One of the chief guys from the NSA, William Binney, and we will talk to him again.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?