Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human.
- [00:06]
B
This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. You're just not going to free shot all these networks lying about the people. The people have had a belly full of it. I know you don't like hearing that. I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. It's going to happen.
- [00:28]
C
And where do people like that go
- [00:29]
B
to share the big lie?
- [00:31]
D
MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul,
- [00:34]
B
I wish that any of these people had a conscience. Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my
- [00:44]
C
country, this country will be saved.
- [00:48]
D
War Room here's your host, Stephen K. Ban.
- [00:55]
B
Okay, it's Tuesday 3rd March, Overlord 2026. It is game day here in Texas. We're going to go wall to wall coverage on that. Also on Capitol Hill, Krissi Noem's getting grilled over and also Bridge Colby. Now, remember, Bridge is kind of the chief thinker and strategist over there, very, very important. One of Hegset's top guys. And we got Neil McCabe at the hearing, but Dr. Thayer is also monitoring online. Pretty important, particularly given the conversation we just had in the first hour. Bridge as and we'll get some clips on this. Definitely looks like distancing from regime change and focus very much on the Iranian navy and missile capacity. And we know they've pounded the Iranian navy. I think President Trump said last night 11 capital ships of the Iranian navy are now sunk. And I think all of those have been sunk in the Persian Gulf. They didn't even get to open sea on the North Arabian Sea. So we'll get more of that. But Bridge Colby is making the case and he's getting grilled to, although it's it hasn't been confrontational at all. KRISTI Noem, A little bit different because they're coming after Christie. I want to get Kris Kobach up and then Terry Schilling, a huge federal a huge decision on this transgender issue yesterday in California, KRIS kobach, ATTORNEY GENERAL at the state of Kansas. Sir. And you've just done a magnificent job. And of course, people know you as one of the top you and Paxton are probably the two Top MAGA Republican AGs. And of course, today we're here following Ken Paxton's he's trying to fleet up to the Senate. Talk to me about this driver's license situation, because this is one, this is One that has sent the Rachel Maddow crowd and msnbc. If they didn't have the war to focus on, trust me, they would be outside your door. I don't think anything has triggered these people as much as what you've done in the state of Kansas. Can you explain to us what went on?
- [02:53]
D
Chris yeah, I, I, it's a, it's a long saga, but I'll give you the Reader's digest version. In 2023, the Kansas legislature passed a bill saying you can't change your sex other than to something other than your biological sex on your driver's license or your birth certificate. There was litigation over that where the we have a Democrat governor in Kansas and she directed her administration not to interpret the law the way it was obviously written. And so I had to sue the governor and we prevailed in district court. But then a very liberal court of appeals panel went the wrong way and said, oh, maybe the statute isn't as clear. And so then the Kansas legislature, this just this past session, within the last few months, amended the bill to make it crystal clear so that no judge could possibly mistake that this is intended to stop individuals from changing their sexual under driver's license to something other than biological sex. So now there's no room, no wiggle room for a judge or an attorney to read it the wrong way. But where it got even more interesting is while the legislature was deliberating on this, just in this past January, a newly appointed Democrat legislator, who is himself a biological male transition to female, but still very much looks like a biological male, started using the women's restrooms in the Kansas Capitol building, causing great distress to a very large number of female legislators. And as a result they in addition to clarifying the driver's license bill, they said, well this would be a good time to also bring in legislation that we were considering on bathrooms in public buildings, saying that those two must conform to your biological sex, your use of the bathroom. So the two things got passed. The governor again tried to veto them. Legislature we have a more than a super majority Republican in Kansas Legislature overrode the governor's veto and just Friday a few days ago, the ACLU is suing, claiming that there is an invisible constitutional right to force the government, the government to change your sex on your on your government document and you have an equally important invisible right to use the bathroom you choose in government buildings. So that is the case. We are, we are going to be arguing and I'll be arguing it this week and Friday in a TRO hearing
- [05:11]
B
Why do you think? Why is it? Schilling's gonna be here in a minute who's led this effort throughout the country, and he's gonna talk about California. Why is it certain elements of the. It looks like all of it now because President Trump called it out the other night in the State of the Union where they wouldn't stand. What's the obsession here, sir, that they go through all these perturbations on every different aspect to try to get this in. It seems like to folks in the country, basically know the 85 that don't agree with this to be an obsession.
- [05:43]
D
You know, I think just from my observation as an attorney who has litigated some of these cases over the past few years, I think there's a real strong desire on the part of the trans movement to force the government and force the rest of society to embrace their claim that they have changed their sex. It's. It's not enough that they can go about life presenting themselves as someone of the opposite sex. They want to force the rest of us, and they want to force the government itself to state their claim that they have, you know, somehow changed their sex despite the fact that their DNA remains the same. And I, you know, I don't pretend to be a psychologist and. But that seems to be the driving force here.
- [06:27]
B
Let me ask you, because we're going to have you back next week to talk about more detailed stuff, what you're working on, but you and Paxton kind of became legends and standing up for the Constitution and standing up for your states. What is it? Because you've got a. One of the best legal educations, let's say, I've ever seen. Right. What is it about the judiciary and even the legal profession that appears that they've so radicalized that they may be the most radical part of this, of the progressive democratic movement? They're maybe even more radical than elected. Much more radical than even elected officials. Why is that?
- [07:06]
D
I think there are two things going on. One is that there are attorneys who become judges who believe in an activist judiciary. And that is to say they believe that judges should do more than just interpret the law, the words of the law, neutrally, but that judges should take action and act as a pseudo legislator. And then that's in combination with the fact that the left politically in America is losing a lot of these battles in the legislature. And so they are putting pressure on the courts to give them a victory after they've already lost in front of the representatives of the people. So you've got an ideological mindset among many of the people who go into the judiciary. Not all of them, but many of them. And then you've got this intense pressure from the left saying, hey, this is our only. We've lost in the legislation. We can't possibly win in the legislature. We are taking our battle to the courts. And of course, the ACLU is their primary, you know, vanguard. Those are their shock troops every time a case like this is filed. And of course, I'm litigating against the ACLU in this case.
- [08:07]
B
Chris, where do people go to your website and social media to follow you and all the. All the fights that you're in?
- [08:15]
D
Kris kobach.com is my personal website. Krish kobach.com Also, the Attorney General's official website will include some updates on this litigation, too. And that's AG KS
- [08:30]
B
Kris Kobach from Kansas, thank you so much, sir. Appreciate you.
- [08:35]
D
My pleasure. Thanks, Steve.
- [08:37]
B
Also, one of the greatest, for years, one of the greatest immigration and fought so many of the great battles that got us to President Trump and where we are today to actually get the mass deportations and to get these illegal aliens out of the country. Kris Kobach was in the breach many, many times. Is Terry Schilling. Do I have Terry Schilling yet? Terry Schilling, you just saw Kobach. And I want to say, if it wasn't for people like Kobach and Schilling, Terry, just give us a second because. And I want to talk about the shootings, this movement that you've helped identify, that was going to be a huge deal a couple of years ago when you came on here, the viciousness of it, I don't think people totally comprehend. Tell me about that for a second. You've seen this now with all these shootings and this. This anger that seems to be building up. Why is that? And then even people like yourself in Kobach, even if it's about war or if it's about cutting the budget or it's even about mass deportations and illegal aliens, you do not see the level of hate and vitriol as about this topic. This is, for some reason, the hot button of all hot buttons. Am I misinterpreting that? I mean, we cover a lot of stuff here, bringing a lot of people. We do a lot of background research and all this. And I keep telling people this one is in a different category, sir.
- [09:58]
C
No, Steve, you're exactly right. So at the heart of the entire transgender ideology is antisocial behavior, right? They are rejecting all of society's norms around Sex and gender around normalcy when it comes to protecting children and their innocence from sexual perversion and dysfunction. And that's what's driving it. Right? And keep in mind, Steve, these are still men. I will never forget. It was right after the obergefell decision in 2015. The left immediately pivoted to pushing the trans issue on children and on women in their private spaces. And you would have these big, enormous, burly men wearing dresses and makeup who were threatening to kneecap TERFs. Now, what's a TERF? It's a trans exclusionary radical feminist. So essentially, it's a lesbian who doesn't want to have sex with a woman who has male genitalia. Is essentially. But it's always been a violent movement. You know, this. Call me ma'.
- [10:59]
A
Am.
- [10:59]
C
We've all seen the viral videos. There's way too many of them to point out. And you don't see those types of videos with Christians or with pastors. You know, it's a totally different game, but at the heart of it is incredible amounts of dissatisfaction with one's life. There's been countless articles about how lonely these people are. They can't find a mate, they can't find a partner because no one wants to do this stuff. It's a very small community. And they become radicalized because they're told that until society begins to affirm them in their gender identity and who they are as, as a person, that they are going to continue to commit suicide and be depressed and have anxiety. The problem is, is that none of those problems are going to go away until they rectify and reconcile their body with their minds. And it's absolutely atrocious, Steve. But the violence doesn't stop there. You know, this. This Supreme Court case that we're seeing here, where we just had a major victory. Well, this is a preliminary decision. So basically, right now, all the laws that say that schools can withhold this information about a child transitioning, those are struck down. They're not valid. And the California district has a major victory this summer. There will be a larger decision that comes out, and we're very optimistic that this decision will end up striking down every single law that banishes parents from the classroom and from knowing about the issues that their children are suffering from. But, Steve, there are seven kids at the heart of this case, and one of them, one of the kids, her parents did not find out until she attempted suicide. Right? So it takes suicide for the school to let the parents know what the kid's going through, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
- [12:40]
B
I want to. I want to go back for something. Because your group has focused on the family. I mean, we used to talk about, we're going to put forward a family economic plan. And this. The family is the core building block of our society. And it was in your work on the family that. Because at its heart, this radical transgender ideology is set up to strike at the heart of the family, is it not?
- [13:07]
C
No, that's exactly right. So let's go fast forward here. And by the way, I just gotta say, this is all the Gavin Newsom and Scott Wiener. Right? Scott Wiener. A lot of your audience might not know him. He is. He's Gavin Newsom's chogie boy on LGBTQ issues. He's the one that's. He's the one that introduced this legislation in the state legislature in California. He's now running for Nancy Pelosi's seat. But this is the guy that's been targeting our children across the board. But, Steve, if you just press fast forward and you let this trans issue play out without anyone stopping it, what happens? Well, you have a whole generation of infertile people that are sterilized. They can't have their own children. So then where do you get new people? Well, the corporation and the state will provide that. Right. This is a dystopian novel waiting to happen. These people won't be able to reproduce. They won't be able to have their own families making them much more miserable, making them have less purpose in their lives, and making them more depressed and suicidal and anxious. It's not good for society. But then on the other end, you will have corporations, fertility clinics that are growing babies in artificial wombs. And I know this sounds radical now, but I'm saying it now in 2026, so that in five to 10 years, when it all starts happening, we'll have another marker of how War Room and app were. Right, but this is where they're taking us. They want the state and the corporation to determine the means of reproduction. And that's what they're trying. This is all Marxism. Carrie Gress has a related book, I think, on feminism called Anti Mary. All of this stuff has Marxist roots in it. It's all being driven by people that come from broken homes, from very sad situations, from abuse, from sexual abuse, from. From physical and verbal abuse. And they're the ones leading the charge and breaking up our families.
- [14:49]
B
Hang on one second. I want to hold you through the break. Get more questions about where this is headed. Where are we and where this is headed. Terry Schilling app in a moment.
- [15:04]
D
Here's your host, Stephen K. Now.
- [15:09]
B
Okay, just some logistics planning. The chancellor of Germany, Merz is here in a bat with the president. It was going to be closed press where now we get the word right away. They're lining up the press to go into the Oval. So as soon as it looks like the president may make some statements and as he does in the bats when they're sitting in the gold chairs and he may answer some questions from the media. But we're going to cut to that immediately and we'll even break. We'll blow our commercial brakes if we have to. All Family Pharmacists. Two things. All Family Pharmacy. If you want to have real medical freedom, you have to have a relationship with a pharmacist and a doctor that you can talk to and prescribe stuff that All Family Pharmacy can get you.
- [15:53]
E
Right.
- [15:54]
B
Break the stranglehold of McKesson and these big distributors and also the drugstore, the massive drugstore change because that's just like being controlled by big Pharma. Go to All Family Pharmacy. All Family Pharmacy promo code ban and get 10% off. But take your time. You can talk to qualified medical physicians and pharmacists about what you need. And they also have a wider range of everything you do need. Go to the website or talk to people. They got great customer Service. All family pharmacy.com promo code Bannon get 10% off. Check it out. Plus they pass on the cost savings because they don't have massive overhead because it's online. AllFamilyPharmacy.com do it today. Also, Tax Network USA has given a great, great special. And in fact, the Warren posse has responded so amazing on this that we set their own phone number. Let me get it here momentarily. All family tax network USA tnusa.com Bannon you can get there or they've got a number just for you. 866-513-5516 let me repeat that. 866-513-55160. Because the war room sends them so many people, they've now got a free discovery call which normally costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars. In other words, you can get your papers and they will sit there with professionals and go through what I call the bit in the ass. What the IRS thinks you owe and what you think you owe. In that gap is where they can hopefully negotiate. They've solved billions of dollars of tax issues. Your tale of woe, trust me, they've heard before. But this is all free. And Cameron Kinsey, who was in the first term with President Trump's just fantastic. She helped work this out. 866-513-5516. It's free. A free discovery call. Nobody does that. Go there today. Texas Network usa. Okay, we got a clip for Terry and we'll bring Terry back in. I got Brian Kennedy to talk about this executive order, his amazing piece on the Blaze. But let's go ahead and play the clip for Terry, bring him back in.
- [18:07]
F
The nation's capital today, where the Supreme Court has ruled on California policy regarding the notification of parents surrounding their child's gender identity. Today's ruling overturns a state law which prevented schools from notifying parents if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. This comes after some religious parents and educators challenged California school policies aimed at preventing schools from outing students to their families. California argued students have the right to privacy over their gender expression, especially if they fear rejection from their families.
- [18:43]
B
Okay. This is why it was directly at the heart of the family, because having children and really having the family, having the children is such a great pleasure and honor in life. And having had the pleasure of growing up in a family, we, you know, it was five of us, right? And we're all very close. And my mom was a, was a homemaker. My dad, blue collar guy, you know, eventually got into lower white collar management, never went to college, kind of a foreman. But back in those days, you could do that. You see the, was it Tolstoy? I got this right? Now, all happy families are the same and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own unique way. You can see that. And Terry, what this always bothered me is that you would have the fear of having kids because these schools, all of a sudden, they can take your children. They imbue it with just beyond bizarre radical ideology. And they got these books and the librarians, the whole thing. And you as a parent, not only do you have no control and couldn't find out about it, they could come back and sue you. And other, I mean, the stories you hear, first of all about the kids, that they're trying to transition, you hear the stories of the parents, as hard as it is to be a parent in modern America. And you hear this, I go, man, you're not going to have anybody want to have kids because this is demonic. The Marxists, the, remember the core of Marxism and the Bolsheviks was to destroy the family. You destroy the family as the basic unit of the Judeo Christian west. And you're a long way to take down the whole thing. And they understood this and this. Of everything we've ever been assaulted with, this was by far the most demonic. And they were vicious about it. And these parents, the heartrending stories you just gave the story. They only found out about it when their little girl tried to commit suicide. But there are hundreds of stories. So what did the Supreme Court say yesterday? Because to me, this is kind of. Now the path of the calvary is arriving.
- [20:51]
C
Yes, sir. So the Supreme Court essentially ruled that this law is unconstitutional. It violates parents rights to direct the upbringing of their children. This is. Steve, parental rights is like pre constitutional, the Constitution, like, like it assumes that parents have the right to raise their children and direct their values. You know, they didn't really think that they had to enshrine that. And so the Supreme Court struck this down. I do think it's important though, Steve, to point out what is actually happening in California, which is that California is conducting experiments on captive audiences. Right. And what that, what that means is that the audience, the people that they're targeting, can't leave. So they go after school. Children where the schools and the teachers, these are authority figures, right. Parents tell the kids to do what the teacher says. That's kind of the nature of the schools. But they also do it in prisons. There is a guy, Tremaine Shear. I'm sorry, Tremaine. Dion Carroll, in the California prison system. He, through sheer force of will and through the help of Gavin Newsom and Scott Weiner, he forced his way as a male into the women's prison by claiming to be a woman. Well, he impregnated his first cellmate and now he's been indicted for raping the next two prisoners can't go anywhere. Neither can students. They trap these people and they force them to go through these crazy and evil and diabolic experiments around this stuff. It's absolutely atrocious. But I will say, Steve, I do think the tide is turning. This is a huge victory. You know, I'm so used to the Supreme Court giving us a little carve out, you know, religious freedom exemption like we saw with Hobby Lobby, or just simply allowing our women's sports laws or our anti gender mutilation bills to. To stand and be enforced. But this law is a major victory. You know, when Roe v. Wade was decided, it struck down all pro life laws across the country. That's what this ruling is doing on fronts to parental rights to know what their children are suffering from and what their children are going through. It's a very Big day for America. It's a great day for the American family. And by the way, Steve, real quick, the family is the revolution, right? If they take away your right to have children and to raise them and to instill your values, that's like the last recourse. If you can't do anything in politics, if you can't get members of Congress or senators to vote your way or a president elected, you can have children, you can start a little community, you can raise them, instill the right values in them, teach them to be good.
- [23:21]
E
And.
- [23:21]
C
And they want to take that away. And that's what these government schools are doing, is they're instilling their values into your children so that they aren't Christian, so that they aren't American, so that they're Marxists and so that they hate you.
- [23:35]
B
Let me add the engine room. And because we've had this issue now coming down to Texas about charter schools and private schools, all that, this I just want to make sure, because the engine room wants to know that this ruling does not apply to private schools.
- [23:49]
C
No, it does not apply to private schools. I don't believe I will double check that. But I think this just applies to government funded schools. But we don't really have this issue going on in private schools. At the elite levels. It's kind of crazy. But those parents that are paying 40 grand a year to send their kids, I don't know.
- [24:05]
B
People's heads are blown up right now. I think they would argue the exact opposite. I think in some of the most elite private schools, particularly New York City and across the country, I think this is a huge problem. Anyway, we'll deal with that. But let's put a pin in that. I think the private schools are particularly the ones that elite that send people up to Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent. I think this issue is massive. But we'll get.
- [24:25]
C
You know that you're right. That is exactly where the problem is. It's not in like, you know, Holy Spirit Catholic School in Annandale or, you know, any local ones, but it's the elites. That's where the real problems are.
- [24:36]
B
So how are we going to deal with that if it doesn't apply to that is somebody else got to come back and sue on that? Is that how we do it?
- [24:43]
C
You would have to pass a law to make it illegal for private schools or for any schools to do this. What's happened is the law that was struck down only applied to the government funded schools. And that's what's being struck Down. So you would need to pass a new set of laws that would apply to all schools across the country.
- [25:02]
B
Now, that was the question that the people that follow these private schools and are fighting these elite private schools that are saying, hey, they're destroying the nation. However, we had other engine room people that came and said, terry, you've put out a new term that the Warren posse is not familiar with. You have to explain it. Turf is a T. What is turf? Explain it. We got about a minute, sir. We got 90 seconds. You're gonna get your pitch at the end. But what is turf?
- [25:31]
C
Trans exclusionary radical feminists. These are essentially lesbians who don't believe that men can become women and they don't want transgendered men who claim to be women to be in the feminist movement. Right. This is a big fight.
- [25:48]
B
That's a big fight. It's a big fight.
- [25:50]
C
It's a huge fight. But, yeah, that's who it is.
- [25:52]
E
That's who.
- [25:52]
B
So it's not to be funny.
- [25:54]
C
Women want to kneecap and kill.
- [25:56]
B
Yeah. No, this is actually a big fight over on that side of the. The side of the aisle. Terry, you're doing incredible work. You're the tip of the spear on this. But also app just its basic talk about economics and everything around the family. Natalist, all of it. Where do people go?
- [26:12]
C
American principlesproject.org or check me out across all social media channels, especially X. It's Schilling. 1776. S C H I L L I N G. 1776.
- [26:24]
B
Now you're a man of action for the cause. Where do we stand with number eight?
- [26:30]
C
Any day now, Steve. The. The inducement date is March 16th, so three to 16. That'll be fun. We might have to name him John.
- [26:39]
B
Between what? The ides of March and St. Patrick's Day. Not too shabby. Terry Schilling. Terry Schilling. Thank you so much. Thank you, brother. The vitriol that these folks are standing for, this you can't imagine. Raw hate. Short commercial break. We're going to talk about the 20. It's election day in Texas for the primary, but all eyes are also on the midterms. Next.
- [27:05]
D
Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban.
- [27:08]
B
Okay, Brian Kennedy is here. As you know, he's one of my favorite people. Co founder of the Committee on the Present Danger China. Been just a guy that we can depend on from the very early days of America first and one of our leading public intellectuals. But Brian, before I get into this amazing piece you wrote in the Blaze, I wanted we Tried to cram it in yesterday, but I needed to breathe today because people have to understand the path here for the 2026 midterms to make sure that we've given everything in Georgia, given everything in Michigan, given everything up in Wisconsin, in Maricopa county and in Pennsylvania. We got to sort this out. Grace Chong has told me she's upset I haven't had enough. Boomer neoconism on. So can you give a minute summary of where you think we stand in this major military operation, sir?
- [28:00]
E
Yes. Thank you, Steve. Thanks for those kind words too. I would consider this Boomer America first ism, not neo Communism. The neocons wanted to engage in the democracy project all around the world. And I don't subscribe to that at all. The President doesn't subscribe to that. This is, I think what I think about this is just simply America first. The President's conducted this war here in Iran to put America first, to put America defense first. There may be ancillary benefits to Israel obviously throughout this. We may be doing this, obviously we're doing this in concert with Israel. But the President's main purpose is making sure that America is defended from Iranian ballistic missiles and their nuclear program, which he is systematically degrading over the next four or five weeks. He says now this idea that we're running out of everything and that this is a badly planned operation, I'm not sure how we would even know that. Maybe asking our allies for some of the interceptors back may be an indication of that. But when it comes to American capabilities in terms of offensive forces and even much of our defensive forces, we have a lot. And this military would not be engaging this over a five week period without adequate resources. I will give our military more credit than that, Steve.
- [29:28]
B
And let's go to Fennell yourself. You're the co founder of the community. President Danger Gaffney Dr. Thayer and we consider ourselves the leader of the anti CCP movement at least here in the country. But the main thing, the main thing, we now have Korea, we have politicians in Korea saying hey look, we feel betrayed because you're taking, you're asking for the Thaads back. The Japanese prime minister just won a sweeping victory. I think 75% on essentially saying we're not going to have a self defense force, we're going to rearm. And I'm looking at my partner, President Trump as my bestie here. Do you think in keeping the main thing, the main thing and I want to get Stephen Mosher's got a great piece up in the New York Post, it was exclusive. The great Stephen Mosher, although I'm not sure he tied in enough of the military aspect of it. Are we stripping East Asia right now and exposing Taiwan as we double and triple down with the Persians?
- [30:31]
E
Well, let's hope we're not, Steve. That would be a bad thing if we were, because as I argued, I think before, this is a phase of World War three that you rightly have described over the last several years. And so this is not just about Iran. This is certainly about China. Now, some folks say that China, Chinese have been egging us into this so as to expose ourselves over there in the Middle east so that we can deplete our forces, what have you, and being capable of defending Taiwan, certainly that is a problem for us. But wars are fought this way, Steve. There's all sorts of problems throughout a war. Wars are not fought in a couple days as if this was something that you can watch on TV in one like a Netflix special, and it'll be over and things will be simple or perfect. And that's not how wars are. And I think we need to grow up a bit as a country on what it takes to fight wars. Do we need more munitions? Yes. Are our factories working around the clock producing more munitions, offensive and defensive? Well, they should be. We should find out today. Are our factories producing who produce these interceptors? Are they working around the clock to make sure that we don't need to deplete our allies? Are our allies producing their own defensive weapons and offensive weapons? This is simply the nature. If we have to rely simply on making this perfect before we do it, it'll never get done. And so I have a lot of faith in the president and our military to get this piece of it right.
- [32:06]
B
I think the reason he's called the media, I think that we're going to go to the Oval momentarily for this bilateral. I think president's going to have a couple of things to say just about this. All arms, the ability to take down the of course, bridge. Colby has said and I'm getting this from McCabe and from Dr. Thayer who are both watching McCabe's there. Thayer, I think watching the stream that bridges make the argument does this take down the ballistic missile system, any nuclear capability in their fleet, It's a degradation or destroy that. Brian, I want to pivot. Start at the top. We got about eight or nine minutes here. The floor is yours. I want you to walk through the whole logic of this because this is one of the most important pieces I've seen. And it gets to a ticking time bomb that we got to take care of and we got to move on this immediately. The floor is yours, sir.
- [32:51]
E
Well, thank you, Steve. Really. This grew in part out of our work on the Committee on the Present Danger, China. We saw the Chinese declare a people's war against the United States in May of 2019 and throughout 2019 and 2020. And I'd come on the war Room, we were talking about the Chinese threat to the country. And after the election of 2020, when it looked like the election was stolen, I had a team of many of them retired intel officers, including our friend, the late Rich Higgins. Many of them put together a report and was studying and evaluating what happened in the election. I went to Arizona, I went to Nevada to investigate what went on. The other intel officers were doing their own investigations. And we all came to the conclusion that we may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the election was stolen in 2020. All of us believe so. But what we noticed was the electronic voting systems that were in place. All of them were using component pieces within their system that were made in Communist China. The same way our cell phones and our laptop computers are all made in communist China. So were the voting machines. Some of them are built in the United States, but they're all using electronic components. That was a great concern because the, the PLA has a cyber army of a million men who are capable of all sorts of, you know, nefarious cyber activity. That was a concern. Anything that is a computer based system can be programmed. And, and when you looked at the providence of, of who programs these election systems, some of it in some of the systems is done in America still using the Chinese components. But the providence of, of the software looked to be evaluated by Communist China. Some of the design was in Venezuela in some of the systems. Some of the systems used software that was designed in Serbia. And, you know, just that they may be perfectly honest, these machines, but just at the level of transparency, people look at that and they think, you know, that seems crazy. And I got subpoenaed by the Biden Justice Department at the end of 2022. Then in 2023, I testified before a grand jury for six and a half hours on this. It was one of the January 6th grand juries. It was myself and the former National Security advisor for President Trump, Robert o'. Brien. He was in front of one of the other parts of the grand jury. But we testified. I testified for six and a half hours. And the real question was all about this electronic system and its vulnerability. They had a 50 page PowerPoint that I and the rest of the team had produced, Rich Higgins especially, that laid out the Chinese origins of the electronics and the foreign ownership of some of the other components. My big push at the time was we need to investigate this. The federal government needs to investigate it. This is obviously the weeks after the election and get to the bottom of this. Well, all these years later, we've had a lot of theories about what went on, but we've never gotten to the bottom of it. We know that there were all sorts of improprieties in the election in 2020. And those things have only now, really now that President Trump's back in office, are being thoroughly investigated here. But we're losing major opportunity. We have an election coming up here this fall. The midterms we have, it's game day here in Texas. In Texas, you have low voter turnout. A certain percentage of the people don't believe the elections are fair. They think the system is rigged and so they don't vote. It may be a small percentage, but a significant percentage of people really does affect the outcome. What I'm calling for in this piece, after laying all this out, is the fact that because Communist China is part of the mix of these electronic machines that we prohibit through an executive order by the President and a presidential finding, if necessary, that we simply can't use these electronic voting machines because of the potential for foreign interference. Tulsi Gabbard is looking into this. She's certainly looking into what transpired in Georgia. And my hope is between Tulsi Gabbard and the President, they do sign an executive order banning the voting machines, electronic voting machines, and the tabulators and anything electronic, because all of it's going to be touched by Communist China at one level from being used in any future election. Now, once you do that, you're going to have to have a system in place to, to replace the electronic voting system. And all sorts of people in the war room is very familiar with this, have called for, including Michael and Dell, who's been a real champion of this, a voting system that uses paper ballots, voter id, that they're counted by human beings with other human beings watching them, that these things are all streamed online. So there's absolute transparency about who wins in an election. Because if you don't know who wins your elections, you don't really have a country anymore. You're not a sovereign people. If, in fact you don't know who wins the election. And I describe in the piece we have the crisis of illegal immigration. If you don't have a border, you don't have a country. And if you don't have a voting system, you can't really give consent properly for the Republic you're living in here. And so I'm very serious when I say the President, if he does want to secure the elections, and by every measure he believes the 2020 election was stolen, he thinks the electronic machines are a problem, but not everybody in the White House does. And it is my sincere hope that he looks hard at this essay and looks hard at the executive orders that are before him and talks to all of his, his best people about this and, and pulls the trigger, as it were, on making sure that the machines are banned and that a new system is put in place. If.
- [39:31]
B
If we ban the system. Yep, if we ban the system. I got a minute and you gotta, I get a bounce. If we ban the system, is there enough time with all these people have been working on it to put a, some at least rudimentary system in place that could guarantee free and fair elections?
- [39:47]
E
Absolutely, absolutely there is. We, we know how to produce ballots. We used to do, we used to do this in this country, have paper ballots counted by human beings. We can easily replicate that system. We absolutely need to. People will have more faith in the system. It will be the fairest election in the history of the country. And that is the kind of thing that a free people need. We also see that the blue states around this country don't seem to care about. They're in a political war against the President in the blue states and we can't rely on them to produce fair elections anymore. The way the state boards of elections have behaved when it comes to any kind of oversight is simply ridiculous. And the President really does need to do something about that if we want to have fair elections in the future. You can find the piece over@theblaze.com I'm putting it up at present danger china.org and it'll also be on my social media. Brian T. Kennedy one on X& Brian T. Kennedy on Getter and Truth Social. Thank you, Steve, for, for championing this issue.
- [40:55]
B
Absolutely. It must happen. Brian T. Kennedy, thank you so much.
- [40:59]
E
Brother.
- [41:05]
D
Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban.
- [41:10]
B
So the President, United States in the Oval Office. Let's go and roll with a man
- [41:14]
A
who's become a friend of mine. And we've known each other for a little while and, and some very interesting times. And we get along, our countries get along very well. We have a great affinity for each other. And the Chancellor has been very well received in Germany. He's very, very successful man, became the Chancellor of Germany, which is a big deal. And he's doing a very good job, in my opinion. A really a great job. Very popular. And the relationship that we have in trade and everything else has been very strong. We've been able to do our deals, and it's been very strong. We'll obviously be talking a little bit about Iran today. And he's been helping us out doing. Been very nice, actually. And that is coming along, as you see, very well. They have no navy, it's been knocked out. They have no air force, it's been knocked out. They have no air detection that's been knocked out. Their radar has been knocked out. And just about everything has been knocked out. So we'll see how we do. But we're doing. We're doing very well. We have a great military and they're doing a fantastic job. So we'll be talking about that. And we're talking about some very big trade deals and those I know will work out, too. So I just want to say it's a great honor to have you at the Oval Office. The beautiful Oval Office, beautiful White House is a special place, even from your standpoint. And you have some very special places, too. And I look forward to being with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
- [42:51]
G
Thank you, Mr. President, for having me here in this Oval Office for the third time now. Really happy to have the opportunity to speak with you and be challenging times. We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away. And we will talk about the day after, what will happen then if they are out. We have to talk about our trade agreement, which I would like to be in place as soon as possible.
- [43:26]
E
And.
- [43:27]
G
And we have to talk about Ukraine. There are too many bad guys in this world, actually. And this is an issue we have to talk about because we all want to see this war coming to an end as soon as possible. But Ukraine has to preserve its territory and their security interests and. Well, we will talk about that. Looking forward to that.
- [43:51]
A
Well, thank you for being here.
- [43:52]
F
Thank you.
- [43:53]
G
Your hospitality. Thank you for letting me spending the night in your guest house.
- [43:58]
A
That's right.
- [43:58]
G
Very, very good. Comfortable place.
- [44:01]
A
You liked it, right?
- [44:02]
G
Absolutely, yeah. Great place. And a famous place. So many former presidents.
- [44:07]
A
That's right. Very famous place. Any questions, please?
- [44:13]
H
Mr. President, did Israel forced your hand to launch these threats against Iran? Did that United States into this war
- [44:19]
A
No, I might have forced their hand. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. And we have great negotiators, great people, people that do this very successfully and have done it all their lives, very successful. And based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first. And I didn't want that to happen. So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand. But Israel was ready and we were ready. And we've had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out now. Their missile count is going way down. Amazingly, they're hitting countries that were, you know, let's call them neutral. Right. They lived together for a long time. They. I think they were surprised. I was surprised. I think it. And now those countries are all fighting against them and fighting strongly against them. Someday they'll write a story and they'll say why they did that. But they hit countries that had nothing to do with what's going on. They were sort of leaving everything alone. All of a sudden they get. They had missiles shot in, which shows you the level of evil that we're dealing with. They'll hit people that were actually at least somewhat friendly. And they had no problems with it also hitting only civilian places, hotels and apartment buildings. And we're hitting them where it is much more appropriate. We're hitting them very hard. And the big scale hitting goes now. They no longer have air protection. They no longer have any detection facilities at all left. And so they're going to. They're going to be in for a lot of hurt. These are bad people. These are people that killed. I guess it's 35,000. It's coming out. 35,000 over the last three weeks, protesters. 35,000 violently killed. So these are bad people. And the leader of the pack is gone. And as you know, 49 people were taken out in the first hit. And I guess there was another hit today on the new leadership. And it looks like that was pretty substantial also. So they're getting hit very hard, and we'll see what happens. A lot of people are coming forward. A lot of the people you would least suspect want to quit. They want to have immunity. They're asking for immunity. And probably at some point they'll be dropping, as you would say, laying down their guns. We'll see what happens. In the meantime, we're just Continuing to go forward. Our military is the number one in the world by far, and we are. This is. Everything is big in my book. Venezuela was big. This is big. The original hit, Midnight Hammer, was big. Everything you view is big, but it says it's not considered very big. By some standards. By some of our standards, we have a military like no other military that's ever been built.
- [47:31]
H
Mr. President, what's the worst case scenario that you have planned for in Iran?
- [47:37]
A
Well, I don't know if there's a worst case. We have them very much beaten militarily from the military standpoint. They're still lobbying some missiles. At some point, they won't even be able to do that because we're hitting all of their carriers, we're hitting all of their missile stock. You know, they built up all these missiles over the last few years. They had a lot of them, they've shot a lot of them, and we're knocking out a lot. I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person. Right. That could happen. We don't want that to happen. It would probably be the worst. You go through this and then in five years you realize you put somebody in who was no better. So we'd like to see somebody in there that's going to bring it back for the people and we'll see what happens with the people. You know, they have their chance. And we've said, don't do it yet. If you're going to go out and protest, don't do it yet. It's very dangerous out there. A lot of bombs are being dropped. But I always say that would be about the worst.
- [48:38]
H
Do you have someone in mind right now? Because you said all the people you did have in mind have been taken out.
- [48:43]
A
Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead. So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports. So I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty soon we're not going to know anybody, but we have. I mean, Venezuela was so incredible because we did the attack and we kept government totally intact. And we have Delsey, who's been very good. We have the whole chain of command and they've been, you know, the relationship has been great. We've taken out 100 million barrels of oil already, and a big part of that goes to them and a big part goes to us. And it's been great. We paid for the war many times over and we're going to be running the oil and Venezuela is going to make more money than they ever made. And that's great for the people. The relationship has been great. It's been seamless. Nobody has actually ever seen anything like it. If you look at Iraq, where very stupidly everybody was fired, the generals were fired, the military was fired, the police were fired, the fire departments were fired,
- [49:57]
B
and Joe Allen is going to be alive on our streams. Check in with Grace at 12:30 from Tallahassee, the steps with humans. First, his press conference. Also, we will be Charlie Kirk show is going to pick it up now. We'll be back at 5 with Natalie Winters, 6 with War Room Texas and then live coverage tonight, 8:30 until whenever with Grant Stinchfield and myself. We'll see you then.
- [50:21]
H
Is he an option at all in your mind?
- [50:23]
A
I guess he is. Some people like him and we haven't been thinking about too much about that. It would seem to me that somebody from within maybe would be more appropriate. I've said that he looks like a very nice person, but it would seem to me that somebody that's there that's currently popular, if there's such a person. But we have people like that. We have people that were more moderate. You know, these were radical lunatics. And you know what they get? They get nothing. All they do is kill people. This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human.