Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
Stephen K. Bannon
This is an iHeart podcast, guaranteed human.
- [00:04]
Sheila Matthews
Trump's call to nationalize voting. And it reads, in part, voter fraud happens, and the price of freedom is vigilance. But the idea that noncitizens are swaying national elections isn't borne out by the evidence. There is no shortage of panic in the press after Mr. Trump's FBI recently raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, seeking something, anything, to lend credence to his claims about the 2020 election. Yet that mischief won't save him in November. MAGA mouthpiece Steve Bannon suggested that Mr. Trump have ICE surround the polls and call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne. Yeah, after Mr. Trump's political debacle in Minneapolis, independent voters would love that.
- [00:57]
James Rosen
There are two things about Donald Trump we all should be very, very firmly astute to. One, he's a liar. And two, he will steal the elections this November. He's setting this in motion as we speak. I don't know how people, you know, kind of look at this, but everything Donald Trump does, he tells you ahead of time he's going to do so. If we know that, you know, there are going to be ICE agents at polling places, we know he's going to target the 15 states or the 15 jurisdictions that predominantly Democratically controlled, small capital D Democrats. And we know, we know that he's already bandied about the idea of the Insurrection Act. What should we be doing as citizens right now to get ourselves ready for what will not just be a long, hot summer, but a very difficult fall when it comes to elections in this country?
- [01:51]
Unidentified Political Analyst
Well, I think that there's certainly an argument to be made that we've got to be vigilant. We have to be on guard now. And I think when we try to game out what it is that Trump might try to do, I'm much more worried about the back end of the election than the front end. I don't think we're going to see ICE agents swarming polling places. I think you'd get massive public resistance. I'm much more worried about when ballots are being tabulated. You know, we saw last week that Trump's FBI, in an unprecedented move, went to Fulton County, Georgia, and seized actual ballots that were. Were used in the 2020 election, supposedly for some kind of criminal investigation. You know, maybe that's just to please Donald Trump's fantasies about having won Georgia in 2020. But I worry it's kind of a test run for what he can get away with in 2026. If we have a very close congressional race. Is he going to say that there's a problem in how the election was run and try and go in and have federal agencies ballots so we've got to prepare for that right now.
- [02:55]
Sheila Matthews
Do you think recently said we're going to have ICE surround the polls come November? Is that something that the President is considering? Ms. That's not something I've ever heard the president consider. No. I can guarantee to the American public that ICE will not be around polling locations or voting locations in November. I can't guarantee that an ICE agent won't be around a polling location in November. I mean that's frankly a very silly hypothetical question. But what I can tell you is I haven't heard the dispute president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. It's a disingenuous question.
- [03:30]
Stephen K. Bannon
He's openly fretting about the possibility of Republicans losing the midterms and a Democratic Congress impeaching him a third time. So he's demanding that Congress nationalize the elections and Republicans are taking a step in that direction through a piece of legislation called the SAVE act, which purports to solve the non existent problem of non citizens voting in our elections by forcing voters to show documentation like a passport or a birth certificate at the polling booth. In America, a country where you don't need to show your papers a passport.
- [04:03]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
Or a birth certificate, we're soaked in.
- [04:05]
Unidentified Political Commentator
Lies, we're drowning in disinformation, we're drowning in in real time. You can juxtapose what he says and then he'll deny it immediately and then it's then it's kind of it's joined with the history of the country, right? Detroit, Atlanta, Philly, massive corruption, right? Because at the same time that they're that he's talking delegitimizing, he's also engaging in, right setting the stage for purging voter rolls, undermining the ability of people of color to vote. So I think we need to see this as a five alarm fire and not just simply try to deal with Donald Trump's inconsistencies. The man lies like he breathes. So we need to understand what is really at stake here.
- [04:48]
Unidentified Political Analyst
I think there's an optimistic story and a pessimistic story about Tulsi Gabbard being invol story is they don't have anything for her to do. They don't trust her. She's not on board when they're going into Venezuela or going into bomb Iran or something like that. So they give her voting fraud as one of the things she should investigate. And they'll keep her busy. And she can line up with the conspiracy theories that Donald Trump has put out there. And the reason they were in Puerto Rico is because there's some conspiracy theory about a Venezuelan connection to the voting machines. That's not going to go anywhere. The pessimistic story is much worse. It's that not only is it going to be DHS and ICE and the FBI, but it's going to be the entire intelligence apparatus that's going to be used to try to put doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming potentially foreign interference in the election by just making things up that can be pretext for potentially trying to do the things we were talking about earlier in terms of interfering with the counting of the ballots.
- [05:53]
James Rosen
I think the focus between now and November should be on Republicans whose names are on the ballot. Because I'm very curious, my fellow Republicans, do you subscribe to the idea of ICE agents being at polling places? Do you subscribe to the idea that you, as a Republican official should take control of elections in another state, a state that you're not on the ballot in, a state you're not running in, that the federal government? Now, could you imagine Barack Obama, Mr. Republican Senator or Republican Congressman or Joe Biden, President Joe Biden in the 2024 election decided, you know what? I think we're going to look at all the red states and we're going to make sure that we take control of the ballots in those red states. Could you imagine, Mr. Republican Senator or Congress, what your response would be? Share that with us, because that's the response you should be having right now. And I think the more, Eddie, we put that pressure out there to make Republicans, because the president is acting in their name, he's the titular head of our party, and the head of our party says we're going to federalize, nationalize elections, even though he then comes back and go, I didn't say national. No, you didn't say national. You just said take control of what's the difference?
- [07:18]
Unidentified Political Commentator
You know, Mike, I hear you and I'm sitting here thinking, well.
- [07:25]
Unidentified Political Analyst
In a.
- [07:25]
Unidentified Political Commentator
Reasonable world, that seems like that would work. But it also seems to suggest a faith that you have yet to put aside.
- [07:36]
Dr. Bradley Thayer
Right?
- [07:36]
Unidentified Political Commentator
That is to say, your eyes have repeatedly seen these Republicans behave in a way that they don't care about the hypocrisy. They don't care about the contradiction. They're either fearful or they're just simply committed to holding on to power by Any means necessary. And so I'm sitting here not as an expert about elections. I'm sitting here trying to think about the moral rot that has put us in this place where the President of the United States can lie repeatedly to us, can say that he's going to basically try to take over our elections, right? And Republicans will sit back and nod and bend the knee and do whatever we want to do. And we are kind of barreling our way to the midterms trying to figure out what we're going to do in the face of what we already see and what we see every single day. So I'm not so sure, Mike revealing the hypocrisy will actually get us out from under all of this BS that we're drowning in.
- [08:35]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
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. And where do people like that go to share the big lie? MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people people had a conscience. Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my.
- [09:13]
Unidentified Political Commentator
Country, this country will be saved.
- [09:17]
Stephen K. Bannon
War Room.
- [09:18]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. It's Friday the 6th of February in the year of our Lord 2026. Want to thank my own production team here at the War Room. And of course, the Real America's Voice guys endeavor putting together a a MAGN Cold open. Now I know why some of my staff continually walks around depressed because they get to curate MSNBC and cnn. And I want to thank Paul Gigot and the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal for formally naming me MAGA mouthpiece. Thanks, Paul. Normally your editorials kind of hit us the wrong way, but that was quite interesting this morning. From the ridiculous to the sublime. We got a lot to go through, but I want to start with something that's a seminal moment in the MAGA movement and the conservative movement. James Rosen joins us right out of the box. James, Associate Justice Scalia, a giant of the 20th and 21st century on the Supreme Court. Your magisterial first volume, Rise to Greatness. His, I think three part biography. You're coming out with the second part next week and we want to give everybody a heads up to get on top of this book asap. You've got the Supreme Court Years, Volume two, at least the first part of the Supreme Court. I think it takes up to 2001. Why is Scalia important enough? James, given you're one of the top reporters in town that you appears in, reading the book and look at the research, every waking moment of any time you have leftover from reporting is spent working on this book. Why would you do that? Why is Scalia so important that you would dedicate basically your life to this?
- [11:02]
Stephen K. Bannon
That's weird, Steve, because your question echoes one that is persistently asked by Mrs. Rosen. But first, I just want to say I'm grateful to be with you. Long time listener, first time caller, as it were, and I'm joining you from my office at Newsmax, where I am the chief Washington correspondent and feel very privileged to work. And yes, this book is out this coming Tuesday. It's called Scalia Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001. It covers the first half of Justice Scalia's nearly 30 terms on the Supreme Court. And as you mentioned, the first book came out about three years ago, published by Regnery Skyhorse, that was called Scalia rise to greatness 1936-1986. There were two previous biographies of Scalia, one he cooperated with, one not at all. They both came out while he was alive. And both books ended in the same place, Steve which is to say openly hostile toward Justice Scalia's personality, conduct, philosophy and jurisprudence and his legacy. So this is the first admiring biography, or as I like to say it, it's the first biography of Antonin Scalia written by someone who has his head screwed on straight. That first volume took you up until the moment he sat on the Supreme Court. And he had a fascinating career before he even became a judge, working under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and then being nominated by President Reagan to the appellate bench and then the Supreme Court. This new book out Tuesday, scalia Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001, covers his first day as a justice all the way up through the national trauma of Bush v. Gore. Bracing it was, Steve, for this reporter to realize that there sits today on the Supreme Court only one justice who sat on Bush v. Gore, and that is Clarence Thomas, who was interviewed for this project. But you asked why is it important? And I'm really glad you asked. Antonin Scalia is not just one of the most important Supreme Court justices in history, he's one of the most important Americans of the last hundred years. And it's because of the philosophy he brought to the business of being a judge. When Scalia came along as a federal judge in the early 80s and then rose to the Supreme Court in 1986, confirmed by the United States Senate 98 to nothing which always bothered him, by the way. Well into the 21st century, Scalia would be saying, let's just call it 100. He was, he was ticked off that two senators didn't vote. But in any case, when he came along, there prevailed in the, in America and particularly in the law, this notion of a living Constitution. This is still taught to school children every day. And the living Constitution idea, which is subscribed to by liberals on the Supreme Court, the living Constitution holds that the document, the Constitution itself, and indeed every law that's been enacted ever since the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, which is their central business of interpreting the laws, telling us what the law means in a way that allows the judge to expand the meaning of the Constitution of a given clause or any law to in effect alter the meaning, to modify the meaning of, to graft their latter day policy preferences onto the existing law. And the idea behind it is that this Constitution should expand to cover phenomena that the founders never could have envisioned, such as nuclear weapons or the Internet. Scalia's answer to Scalia stood a thwart all of that. And Scalia believed in something called originalism. And his idea was that he didn't care what the intent behind the Constitution was or the lawmaker's intent behind a given law was. Their intent is embodied in the text that they voted up or down. And if they voted it up and a president signed it into law, that's the intent. The first place we should be looking in order to interpret a law is its text. And that text carries a meaning and not a meaning changed by latter day judges, but the original meaning it was widely understood to have at the time.
- [14:56]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
It wasn't actually. Hang on one second. We're taking a short commercial break. Textualism, originalism next. James Rosenberg, here's your host, Stephen K. Band. Okay, welcome back. I'd want to spend an hour with James today given the seriousness of this book and the topic. And I want to thank Newsmax for cutting loose and let me have a little bit of time. We're going to have him back on Tuesday. He's got an amazing piece coming out this weekend in the New York Times about law firm Richard Nixon. All of the topics we've talked about, but the demands of Newsmax today, we've only Got James for a half hour. I want to thank the Newsmax team for doing that fantastic work. We love you guys over there. I'm going to come back to originalism, textualism, things we want to get into today. The book is so and to know that they had another guy that actually had cooperation. The book is so well researched. But as you know, the Warren posse, we have huge readers on his. We did the, you know, we sent the Buckley book of Sam 10 house to two or three new printings. We're readers and it's beautifully written. How do you find the time? You're chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax, which is, you know, in a dogfight with Fox every day for ratings and for breaking news. How do you actually find the time to do the research and to take the time it takes just to make sure this thing is so beautifully written.
- [16:25]
Stephen K. Bannon
JAMES well, you're very kind, STEVE thank you. The short answer is I steal the time from my family. And in the acknowledgment section, this book, I apologize to my wife and two sons for how much time this project has, has required me to be away from them. I never intended, it was never intended to be a three volume book. It was intended to be a concise biography, believe it or not. But as you could tell from our first segment, Steve, I don't do anything concisely. I did want to finish the discussion we were having before the break about why Scalia is such an important American in the history of this country. It's because he persuaded through, mostly through dissents, but really through his brilliant writing, his genius, his affability, his literary gifts, his charm, his use of language, mostly in dissent. He wasn't frequently on the winning sides of cases, but he changed the way we draft the law, we argue the law, and judges and justices decide the law. When he came along, people were talking about the living Constitution and how we need to expand its meaning to account for new phenomena and how we need to look to the intent behind the law, not just the text of the law. We need to know what they meant. So we should look back at floor speeches on the House and Senate floor, and we should look at committee reports. Scalia said no to all of that. Nobody voted on a floor speech. Nobody voted on a committee report. They voted on the text of a law. And that text doesn't change and its meaning doesn't change. By the time Scalia died in his 30th term on the court. And we're coming up on the 10th anniversary, February 13, since Antonin Scalia left us no less a figure than Justice Eleanor Kagan, an appointee of President Obama, pronounced, because of the Scalia revolution in the law, we are all originalists. Now.
- [18:15]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
What was it? Was it in his opinions? Was it in his lectures? Because originalism and textualism, that was a long struggle. What was it that drove that point home? Was it made someone like Kagan, who had been Solicitor General and from, I think, dean at Yale Law School, or one of the powers at Yale Law School, Harvard, what was it specifically, over time, that drove even the most liberal jurist and lawyers to this point?
- [18:41]
Stephen K. Bannon
It was the clarity of the philosophy itself, the idea that the words have meaning and that meaning doesn't change just because some judge decided the meaning should change. So that was very attractive. And of course, Scalia helped found the Federalist Society, which grew enormously over time, and popularized the idea of originalism. You mentioned textualism. It's important that people understand what these concepts are. As I explain in these books, textualism is kind of the metal detector that is used to divine the original meaning of the text. And so you pay close attention to text. If the text is ambiguous, and many laws have clauses and sentences that are ambiguous that leave us scratching our heads as to what they mean, then Scalia decided that the next feature of originalism, to divine the original meaning of a law would be that you would have to look at historical traditions and to look at whether there is a long tradition on behalf of something, even if the law is ambiguous. That was his argument against abortion. And Professor Scalia was arguing against Roe v. Wade as early as the 1970s on PBS. And in essence, there was nothing in the Constitution that mentioned abortion. And there was no historical tradition that protected abortion. Quite the contrary. I interviewed Justice Alito for this project. And in addition to the New York Times story that you mentioned, next week in Politico, I'm going to have an op ed that is based off the interview I did with Justice Alito and Chambers. We talked about the Dobbs opinion, which of course overturned Roe v. Wade. And I asked him, is there a direct line from the writings and speeches of Antonin Scalia in the 70s and 80s to Dobbs? And he said, absolutely there is. So Scalia's impact is still with us in a very big way. And again, it was his magnetic personality, it was his genius with words, it was his humor, it was his constant evangelism on and off the bench that swayed whole generations of lawyers away from the living Constitution construct from the Warren Court era and over towards an original Meaning construct which is more rooted in the Reagan era.
- [20:55]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
How did we get part of this is the first book and I strongly recommend particularly if you have young people in your life that are thinking of careers in law or thinking of careers and somehow they want to get some sort of. At least even if they're getting undergraduate education, want to. To get some legal background. This book is inspiration for anybody and particularly Scalia's not just rise to greatness, but how he had such a massive impact on American life. So not just for yourself. This book is a great gift for young people and it's a page turner, so you're going to love it. Given the disasters we had, the suitors and I even think Sandra Day o' Connor, when I say picked by Republicans that became quite moderates or liberals on the bench. How was Scalia selected and how did he possibly go? 98 to nothing. If you had Scalia today, brother, we would have a firefight. You know, given his Catholicism, given his traditional Catholicism, given everything, it would be a firefight. How did he get selected and how did he. Given all the bad choices that had come around him and how did he get. How did he get nominee confirmed 98 to nothing.
- [22:04]
Stephen K. Bannon
When President Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court in June 1986, Scalia had spent four years having been previously nominated by President Reagan on the D.C. circuit. That's the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It's the Court of appeals that's one rung below the Supreme Court. And the D.C. circuit is often described as the second most powerful court in the United States because its work so frequently shapes the output of the Supreme Court. But also so many justices are plucked from the ranks of the D.C. circuit. At one time on the D.C. circuit. What a murderer's row of judicial talent we had. From Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Antonin Scalias to Robert Bork to Kenneth Starr to James Buckley, Larry Silberman. Truly an extraordinary array of judicial talent. And so when the vacancy arose in 1986, because the chief justice since 1969, Warren Berger, retired, President Reagan was very adamant that the only types of people who would be able to demonstrate that they shared his judicial philosophy of original meaning, moving away from the living Constitution, expansionist role for judges. Judges would be if they had been judges already on the appellate bench, because they would have a track record as opposed to mere writings which could be moved away from different from a judicial opinion. So he chose William Rehnquist, who had been an associate justice on the court nominated by President Nixon, seated since 1972 to elevate him to the Chief Justiceship. Rehnquist for many years was the only conservative on the Court. He issued so many lone solo dissents that his clerks once gave him a Lone Ranger dollar. So it was seen as a kind of a reward for all those lonely years of service in the 60s, in the 70s and 80s. And then they had to decide who were they going to try and nominate for the vacancy created by elevating Rehnquist. And it came down to Bork and Scalia. And the first book, rise to Greatness, really delves deeply into that friendship between these two brilliant men. That friendship effectively destroyed by the competition between them and by Scalia's elevation in 1986. We know what happened to Bork when he went up a year later. And you asked how did Scalia get confirmed? 98 to nothing. Chiefly because of the distracting figure of William Rehnquist, having been the lone conservative on the Court for so long. The Senate Democrats who claimed control of the Senate in 1986 in the fall election. So it was controlled by the Republicans when Rehnquist and Scalia went up. Nonetheless, they were out for bear with Rehnquist. They hated his opinions for the last 15 years. He was ultimately confirmed after a very ugly process, 65 to 33. And as Justice Alito told me recently, gosh, if a confirmed nominee got 33 votes, you'd call that. And it went 65. 33, that'd be a landslide. That would be bipartisan. In 1986, 33 was the highest number ever recorded for a confirmed nominee. And so Rehnquist, in what they called the Rehnquisition, took all the fire. Scalia, with his charm, sailed through 98 to nothing.
- [25:15]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
James Word of people, I want everybody to pile in on this book over the weekend it's released. It published publishing date is Tuesday. We're going to have you back on huge piece in the New York Times. Where do people go to the site to get the book where they find out more about you? What's your social media, how they get all your hits over at Newsmax.
- [25:33]
Stephen K. Bannon
So you can watch me on Newsmax or Newsmax 2, our streaming service known as N2. You can find me on X@amesrosenTV. That's AmesrosenTV, the book Scalia Supreme Court Years 1986-2001, coming out Tuesday. Want to emphasize it's written for all readers, not just for lawyers. And frequently it's hilarious. Hilarious as in my lunches with Justice Scalia where we broke bread and wine and he overruled my lunch order. This can be ordered on Amazon and anywhere books are sold. Steve mentioned my coming New York Times piece that Sunday morning. It's the Secret History of the Deep State. It exposes some newly declassified evidence about Deep State activity against Richard Nixon and it makes the parallels with today's scene as well.
- [26:19]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
No, it's magnificent. Look forward to see you back here on Tuesday. Want to thank Newsmax because I know you're busy. Chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax, James Rosen. This book is magisterial. I could not recommend a book more. We'll be talking about it throughout the morning and tomorrow morning on Saturday, I'm a breakdown part of it. James Rosen, we'll see you on Tuesday. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you. Folks, I gotta tell you, the, the, the effort to write something like this when you've got a full time job is just unbelievable. Anyway, short commercial break. Back in the War Room in a moment. Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. Okay, if Grace and movie and Elizabeth, if we can be forced multipliers, we'll get you a clip of this. Here's the reason we have giants in our movement, people that have changed the direction of American history. On the Supreme Court now, we're very fortunate to have two Associate Justice Thomas and of course, well, not two now, but Anton Scalia. He is a giant. The other biographies of him have been obviously not up to par. The first volume of James 3 volume Scalia, the Rise to Greatness. And this volume starts at the very first day he takes his seat in the Supreme Court and goes all the way through the hotly contested 2000 election of Bush versus Gore in the decisions that were made there. So you will absolutely love this book and you'll learn lot. Learn a lot. This is why the Buckley book was so important. This is why this book's so important. You not just get a feeling for the it's just not a biography. It's the type of biographies I love where you actually get a sense of the times that the man or the woman lived in and very, very powerful. And just to know Rosen, who's an incredibly busy guy when you're chief White White House or chief Washington correspondent now for an operation like Newsmax that's covering Washington, D.C. so intensely. Right. To have the time to research and to have the time to write and to take your time and to write beautifully is to me is extraordinary. So Scalia, the White House years I think 86 or 87 to 2001 it's the first part of his time on the Supreme Court. And you will learn a lot of this. We'll also learn Sheila Matthews. We're learning from you every day. So, so it's interesting. I tried to get a cold open for Sheila Matthews, folks, one of your favorites and one of our biggest contributors in the years in the wilderness. In fact, he started coming on the show the first week that President Trump was sent to the wilderness in 2021. Right. That first week it was Russ Vote. And then Russ formed cra and we were big sponsors of cra, all do their conferences and always talk and just magnificent. Of course, so many of the people from CRA went into the government, particularly into omb. They got a great team over there now as the second wave. They're doing magnificent work. But Russ Vought, there was an assassination attempt on Russ Vogt. A guy went to his house with a gun and I guess neighbors called and the police eventually came and he's arrested, but he's got a commonality. When I read this, I reached out to the one and only Sheila Matthews. Sheila and I want to continue to drive this because you are almost like a voice in the wilderness, but the dots all connect. Tell me about this guy and what connects him to, like Butler. This is a problem. This is not a problem. This is a crisis. It's a crisis about how these, the radical Democrats and this cultural radicalness of these people obviously is trying to change the culture, but they're also trying to destroy, I think young men. Walk me through. And by the way, I could. We could not find a clip. I don't think anybody's covered this today, actually on television. We haven't been. We're trying to be as thorough as possible, but we couldn't find a good clip to use. There's a couple of newspaper articles, but they're buried back in the tirades. The director of Office of Management Budget and one of the two or three most important people in this administration, an assassination attempt at his home. And now the guy's locked up and being charged. But why does this connect directly to Butler, ma'?
- [30:51]
Stephen K. Bannon
Am?
- [30:52]
Sheila Matthews
Well, because Colin DeMarco from Maryland, the, the man who went to Russ's house was treated. He was in the psychiatric facility and he was diagnosed. And so we don't know who treated him, what meds he was on. And that's the common issue here.
- [31:13]
Unidentified Political Commentator
Like.
- [31:13]
Sheila Matthews
But Butler, in Daily Mail this morning is JD Vance making these comments regarding not knowing the motive of the alleged would be assassin Thomas Crooks. His parents were behavioral health experts. How did they miss that? He was building a bomb in his bedroom next door. Why can we not question him? When now? Next week we're going to have a case in front of Georgia where a 14 year old boy killed four people, injured 11 in the state of Georgia. 14 years old. He's going to make a plea deal and they're going to charge the father for giving him access to weapons. Who gave him access to the mental health diagnosis and the drugs. What do his mental health records show? So the commonality here is we have a billion dollar industry that, that is feeding off our children and pumping them filled with mind altering drugs. And we cannot get behind the scenes there. We can't get to the treating psychiatrists. Who are these treating psychiatrists?
- [32:26]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
But hang on, but hang on, but hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. I know the theory of the case and hangs together. It's a multibillion dollar industry. Why can't we. We've done it now. You see in the transgender ideology we're getting to just had the $2 million court ruling, bullying the people, the Terry Shillings, those guys against the transgender radical ideology have used a sharp enough stick to puncture and get through it. What do we need to do? Because this is outrageous and you see these shootings happen all the time. You never get to who the doctors were or what they prescribe, what the drugs are, what the big pharma is making on this. Why is their cartel cabal that strong that we can't puncture, we can't push through this man?
- [33:08]
Sheila Matthews
Well, the transgender issue falls under psychiatry. So I would say that is the umbrella that we need to go after. And the state and federal government is in bed with this industry. So that's why we can't get access to the treating psychiatrists. They're training the FBI agents, they're training our teachers. So it is a big issue here. And the bottom line is we need the mental health health records and we shouldn't be assuming that the motive is not traceable. It is, it is to. If we're concerned about the guns, we should be more concerned about what led that child, the 14 year old that's going to make a plea deal. So we're not going to get access to those records in Georgia of the, of the little boy who picked up his father's gun. They're going to charge the father yet. Butler, those parents aren't dragged in. Okay, amazing. So we have parents just like with the ones in Utah.
- [34:06]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
They're not, you're gonna see. I've been, I've been telling people, oh, wait till the trial. You're not gonna have a trial in Utah. They're gonna cut the. You watch Georgia. They're gonna cut the same type of deal to get away from the death penalty and get a life in prison without parole. You're never gonna see any of this stuff at all. I've been saying this from the beginning, Sheila. I know you gotta bounce. You've got a big anniversary coming up, a big event. I want everybody that's in the area or wants to come in from around the country to support you. Where do they go?
- [34:33]
Stephen K. Bannon
Go?
- [34:33]
Sheila Matthews
We go to ablechild25.com ablechild25.com and they could get tickets there. It's going to be in West Palm Beach. And really, people, we need signs on this petition to get federal hearings. We need legislation we're trying to kill. Massive bills coming in. And we have a proposed bill. We need a sponsor in Georgia. So lawmakers, please start listening to us so we can get to some safety for the these children. So, yeah, ablechild25.com, we're celebrating 25 years. Two moms who started out of the abyss. So we need your help. We want to stay valuable to children, and we want to help the government. We want to help. We want to save lives.
- [35:24]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
We want these to do what we want to do. What we want to do is stop this destruction, particularly of young men. It's bad in women, but young men that try to destroy. Sheila, one more time, do people go.
- [35:36]
Sheila Matthews
Ablechild25.Com for the tickets and ablechild.org for our petitions. So thank you so much, Steve. We're honored to be part of.
- [35:46]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
No, it's outrageous. Thank you, ma'. Am. You look at the connectivity, look at the commonality in all this. All these young men are on these psychiatric drugs. Who prescribes this? Well, who's accountable for this? It's constant. Also, Russ Vogt, the guy said he did it because Russ Vogt was one of the key architects of Project 2025. Have you seen an outrage in the community in Washington, D.C. have you seen an outrage in the media that a courageous public servant, a courageous public servant is an assassin? A guy goes to his house to assassinate him, and just by grace of God, Russ doesn't happen to be there. And some neighbors, I guess, turned this guy in and some footage on it, and the authorities are involved now. It's just like in Butler. We don't know. I mean, the Butler situation is a Travesty, I keep saying. And Posobec and these guys can prove me wrong. I just don't think you're ever going to get to a trial in. I think they're pulled the same thing they're going to pull here. They're going to try to cut some plea deal, get him off of capital murder, away from a murder charge. And we're never going to get that. We're never going to get the facts. And I think there we have to see the facts. We have to see all the details, all the interconnections because I'm still not at least what's been out there. I just don't believe a guy got up there because he thought his tranny roommate or however you define this other guy who hasn't been charged with anything. No accessory? No, no accessory either before or after the fact. Nothing. It's just still, this was a Tyler Robinson. I'm just not buying it. Maybe. Maybe they'll put out evidence otherwise. I just don't think you're ever going to go to trial in this situation. The psychiatric drugs and destroying these young men has got to. We got to get to the bottom of it. I don't know if we. Do we have the clip of Betts? Can I play Betts clip? Do we have that? My great producer. Do I have it? Let me play that before I bring on Thayer for a second. Let's go ahead and play. This is from Ben Harnwell does the Friday show tries to coordinate six o' clock. All the great reporting coming out of and things coming out of Europe. This is very important when we talk about civil war. Let's go and watch.
- [38:14]
Professor Ben Harnwell
Yeah, I do want to stress that I'm really not making a party political point point here or I'm not trying to. That's. That's not most of what I'm talking about. In fact, all I'm talking about are structural issues. This is not political point scoring. I, I'm not, you know, trying to. I'm not trying to be that sort of pundit. And your earlier remarks about the uniparty are entirely accurate and people understand that to be the case. Which is what is fueling this. I think this is the fundamental thing that is fueling this pressure cooker you talk about. Because once people have fully internalized that voting doesn't matter, then that is an expression of basically a complete lack of confidence in the legitimacy of the existing system. It is a complete lack of confidence in the ability of politics to solve collective action problems in that society. And it's really hard to roll back from that. And to the point of your specific question now about reform, I have to say I'm not terribly optimistic on this front. Reform currently just doesn't look to me to possess the sense of urgency, to possess the desire to conduct the sort of radical changes to the society which would be implied by a reasonable apprehension of the problems which we face. Moreover, even if we get to the next election, Professor Betts, let me just clarify that you think that these forces.
- [40:24]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
Are in the UK I want to come back to the punchline. I want to come back with a punchline with Ben Harnwell and bring in Dr. Thayer Tage Gill is going to join us. Orrin Katz has got a magnificent piece, two big pieces coming from the New York Times over the weekend. Oren Cassidy basically calls out the entire finance industry, Wall street, as a complete and total grift. And what should you do with the grifters? We're going to take a short commercial break here in the Worm on a Friday super bowl weekend. Back in a moment. Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. Crypto is in a, how do I say, this historic plunge. Gold is not, and I think that's the difference between something being a hedge entity being a hedge and maybe not. And you don't want to find out about this when it's plunging. We've done something different here, I think, than other people that just say, go buy gold, buy gold. Buy gold. Gold. We want to teach you the purpose here with Birch Gold over the last four or five years is to teach you to understand the process, not the price of gold, but the process that drives the value, both as a hedge against times of financial turbulence, but now as a new kind of financial asset class which has happened as the central banks have stepped up here and the US Dollar comes under assault. We started this at the beginning of the Biden regime, the illegitimate Biden regime. Why we only had an inkling. First thing he did was about opening the borders. We knew it was going to be detrimental to the country and insane. I shouldn't say insane. It was logical for them because they wanted to destroy the American republic. What he did in the spending was to destroy the financial stability of the country and destroy the $25% depreciation, devaluation, lack of purchasing power in the dollar in four years. It's one of the reasons the BRICS nations who are all enemy, virtually all enemies of the United States, led by the Chinese Communist Party, looking at alternatives, as we've reported and we sent Philip Patrick and his team down to Rio for the Rio reset. But even I think the BRICS nations as much they hate the United States, they do have kind of a point when they talk about an alternative given what Biden did to the dollar anyway, that's a long winded way of saying talk to Birchgold. Many ways you can get there. Enter the Dollar empire. Go to birchgold.com, promo code Bannon enter the Dollar Empire. Seven free installments. The eighth installment moment is on my desk and we're going to be getting it out for all of you. And we'll have Philip Patrick on here to discuss most important thing or whether you take your phone out and text Bannon B A N N O N at 989-898 get you to the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump, including silver. It gets you access to Philip Patrick and the team and they love it when the war and posse connects and you don't have to buy gold. We're going to teach you the process of what drives the value of it and why. The guys at Birch Gold think there's a long way to go in that valuation, but you come to your own decisions. What we're going to do is put the information out there. I want to finish with Ben Harnwell. Betts is the tenured professor at King's College and one of the world's leading experts, if not the world's leading expert on modern warfare in every aspect of it, including color, revolutions and civil war. Let's go ahead and play Ben again and I'm going to bring in Dr. Bradley Thayer.
- [43:55]
Professor Ben Harnwell
Delightful. Professor Betts, let me just clarify that you think that these forces are in the UK are so already entrenched and the momentum is there that not even.
- [44:10]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
An eventual hypothetical reform government would be.
- [44:15]
Professor Ben Harnwell
Able to stop the civil war in.
- [44:19]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
The UK that you see that you hypothesize as being on the horizon. It's that bad?
- [44:26]
Professor Ben Harnwell
Yeah, I don't see that. Yes, in answer to your question, it's that bad. The as I said, the issues are structural. They're not casually political. They're not superficially political political. They're deeply social. And that's that. Bottom line is the political system is not able to cure itself.
- [44:54]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
This is why Trump that was from last Friday. This is why President Trump won in 16. There's something deeply wrong with the American political system, including the Republicans. This is why they're controlled opposition. This is why now the Wall Street Journal is Hammering President Trump every day. And look, people can throw the toys out of the pram, they can pull their hair out, they can cry. It doesn't make a difference. We're never going to allow ever again to have the globalist and the elitist and the people that hate this country to steal another election. Those days are over and we gotta rev it up to make sure we hold accountable who stole 2020. Look what they did to our country financially, culturally, 15 or 20 million illegal alien invaders. Look at these cities. Dr. Thayer, you've written a quite brilliant piece. I'm so glad the Federalists put it up. I just love the federalist side about why you take Betts theory and you take it one step farther in saying, hey, it's coming and we have to win it and President Trump has to lead us to victory. Talk to us about it, sir.
- [46:04]
Dr. Bradley Thayer
Yes, Steve, thanks. The pieces available to federalists today and two arguments. One, there's a civil war in the West. From London to Texas, we see that. From Ireland to Italy, from Canada to Australia, we see the same thing. We have an increasingly authoritarian political class and we have their principal weapon of immigration, of flooding Europe, Canada, Australia, the United States with many tens of millions of immigrants. So we're locked in a civil war between those who want to destroy the west and those who want to save it. It's an old struggle, really goes back to the Bolsheviks 100 years ago who started it. But it's being realized now. Now what needs to the Trump administration needs to save Western civilization because he's the only one who can. And he's opposed by Australian government, Canadian government, the EU and Keir Starmer in the UK what the Trump administration has to do is right now, today get serious about developing strategies to stop this and to turn it around through re migration. So there's much that has to be done. First, tariffs. Professor Betts makes a great argument, but he seems to assume it's the 11th commandment is that Europe is going to go Muslim. Right? That's not true at all. It's a result of policy decisions and policies can be reversed if the cost to the EU and the cost to Keir Starmer's government in the UK are higher enough. So let's get Peter Navarro to put 500% tariffs on the EU. Okay? That's going to start moving the European Union in the right direction. Secondly, let's hang on developing.
- [48:01]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
Hang on, hang on. Ho, ho, ho. I want to go through all of them. We're taking a short break. Five, are you saying put 500% tariffs on the EU to force them to have policies that reverse the immigration of Muslims into into Europe into England particularly which I think is now going to a significant part of the population Is that I got 30 seconds is that what you're saying?
- [48:26]
Dr. Bradley Thayer
Absolutely. Not only reverse but to do so on a truncated timetable. Right. To do so with next week they're going to be at this number the week after they're going to be at.
- [48:36]
Unidentified Host/Commentator
Double that number okay we're not Hang on hang on I'm going get I'm going to take time we're going to get it all done we're going to take a short break or in cast all going to join us I'm going to recommend right now we set up an office of remigration and I strongly recommend to President Trump the administration that Dr. Bradley Thayer be the very first person to step in there and take that position. Short break back in a minute.
- [49:04]
Stephen K. Bannon
This is an iHeart podcast guaranteed human.