July 9, 2022 - Bannon's War Room
48:38
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| But Brexit was the closest I've seen Britain come to something like what American politics looks like. | ||
| It was ugly. | ||
| It was racist. | ||
| It was anti-immigrant. | ||
| It had like a lot of the elements of Bannonism and Trumpism. | ||
| Why do you suppose that in Britain that did not result in a kind of insurrectionist thinking and insurrectionist action there, that it's destroyed the political culture here? | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's a reflective reaction, if you will, to that administrative state, which is what Trump came in talking about, you know, going after it and beating up on it. | |
| Reagan sort of mused about it and had some nice quips about it. | ||
| But when he got to the presidency, pretty much kind of used it the way other presidents had used it. | ||
| Same with other Republican presidents. | ||
| But with Trump, It was really about deconstructing that administrative state, which is not something that we've seen in European history, recent history at least. | ||
| So there, to Keir's point, there's some real big differences that you can't overlap and say, oh, one-for-one comparisons, because what drives us beneath are a constitution and bills of rights and so forth that are driven around abortion. | ||
| and guns and things that are enshrined one day and maybe as we've just learned not so much the next day. | ||
| What President Trump is doing within 30 days. | ||
| Steve. | ||
| Yeah, I think that I think the same thing. | ||
| I think if you look at the lines of work, I kind of break it down into three verticals or three buckets. | ||
| The first is kind of national security and sovereignty, and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, homeland security. | ||
| The second line of work is what I refer to as economic nationalism, and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer at Trade, Peter Navarro Stephen Miller, these people that are rethinking how we're going to reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world. | ||
| The third, broadly, line of work is what is deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| And if you... So I think the three most important things, I think one of the most pivotal moments in modern American history was his immediate withdrawal from TPP. | ||
| That got us out of a trade deal and let our sovereignty come back to ourselves. | ||
| The people, the mainstream media don't get this, but we're already working in consultation with The Hill. | ||
| People are starting to think through a whole raft of amazing and innovative bilateral relationships, bilateral trading relationships with people that will reposition America in the world as a fair trading nation and start to bring jobs, high value-added manufacturing jobs. | ||
| Welcome. | ||
| It's Saturday, 9 July, the Year of the Lord 2022. | ||
| You heard Everybody's getting to the swing of things now, talking about the deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| We started with Joy Ann Reid and Michael Steele over at MSNBC, and of course, go back to that talk I gave at CPAC back in 2017. | ||
| Things are heating up in this area, about the administrative state. | ||
| I thought it was very important. | ||
| We had such great feedback. | ||
| We did a special a couple of Saturdays ago with Mike Davis, who over at Article 3 has just become such a, not just a regular here, he's all over media. | ||
| Explain to people what's happening in the Supreme Court, federal courts, and how important these decisions are. | ||
| Mike, you're also a specialist in the administrative state. | ||
| In fact, you're working on one of the biggest things right now, which is this entire tech bill you're trying to get through. | ||
| And part of that, so for the next two hours, what we're going to do is going to have, we're trying to get Malone on here, Navarro, Bill McGinley, other experts with Mike Davis. | ||
| What's the administrative state? | ||
| What's the scale of it? | ||
| Why it has to be not enlarged? | ||
| How did it actually get here? | ||
| What drove it and why we need to deconstruct it. | ||
| One of the things that you're doing right now, there's a bill you're working on about the tech oligarchs. | ||
| You're trying to actually start to break apart the tech thing. | ||
| And one of the reasons is these companies, we have now kind of a state capitalism where the companies are so big, they actually, it's not regulatory capture anymore. | ||
| It is really almost like a merger of these two, between like big pharma, big media, big tech, and it's one of the issues that you're working on. | ||
| In your mind, and I know that you're, I think, a clerk for Gorsuch, you know Gorsuch, who's kind of the chevron, and he's one of the top thinkers in this, how important is this whole line of work we're going through now, particularly now into the future, of the deconstruction of the administrative state? | ||
| So, this is about power, and what we're seeing over the last 90 years in this country is that power has consolidated. | ||
| to the federal government and then in the federal government it is consolidated to these administrative agencies, these three-letter agencies and these unelected, faceless, nameless bureaucrats that run too much of our lives and now they're starting to work with these trillion-dollar big tech monopolists, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple and it's very easy for the government to control these monopolists, right? | ||
| They protect their monopoly, they give them government contracts, they give them government favor, and in return, they can control them. | ||
| We saw this with Jen Psaki from the White House podium saying that she's going to work with these big tech monopolists to censor, silence, de-platform, cancel conservatives and others who dared questioned the COVID measures, the wrong COVID measures that Tony Fauci and the Biden administration were taking. | ||
| They canceled Senator Rand Paul, a medical doctor who questioned Tony Fauci. | ||
| He was kicked off of YouTube, owned by Google. | ||
| And so what we need to start doing as conservatives, as populists, as Trump conservatives and populists, is we need to start going after concentrations of power, whether that power is concentrated in the government or that power is concentrated in corporations. | ||
| And either way, at least we do not want concentrations of power in this country. | ||
| And so what we need to do over the next month here, we have a window of opportunity in July to actually do something big about these big tech oligarchs controlling information, controlling commerce in this country. | ||
| They have the power to shutter small businesses, kill competition, crush competition, cancel conservatives. | ||
| And there's a bill going through the House and the Senate right now with bipartisan support championed by Senator Chuck Grassley, my former boss, and Congressman Ken Buck, two conservative all-stars. | ||
| It's called S-2992. | ||
| And what it does is it breaks up big tech's gatekeeping power over information and commerce. | ||
| And it's really important. | ||
| Why would people buy it? But some libertarians and our brothers on the right that are more free market economics than maybe the populist nationalist heart of the war room. But we love these folks. They're going to say, look, that's this crazy band where they were. This authoritarian this the authoritarian right. What you're doing, it's fine, but you guys have made the administrative state this boogeyman. And in doing so, scale and these companies, because they need to be scaled to compete on a global basis. | ||
| But some libertarians and our brothers on the right that are more free market economics than maybe the populist nationalist heart of the war room, but we love these folks, they're going to say, look, that's this crazy banner where they were. | ||
| We have a global economy. | ||
| These guys got to be able to glow. And so the fact that they know their regulators, they're they they get along with the regulators. Maybe people go from the regulatory agencies to certain government affairs agencies in these companies. | ||
| That's just modern capitalism. | ||
| And so what you're doing is you're going against the thing of letting these companies compete because they have to compete against the Chinese. They have to compete against the French, all the champions in Europe, Germany, all that. And what you're doing is you're going to stifle the backbone of the American economy, which is that the the Silicon Valley and the tech business, Mike Davis. So the Silicon Valley, the tech business used to be the backbone of the American economy. | ||
| The problem is, is that when you have monopolists take over the tech industry, they stifle innovation. | ||
| And they're not pro-America. | ||
| We saw this. | ||
| We saw this with Google. | ||
| Just back in, I think it was 2008, 2020, Google can't, the woke employees at Google were upset that America was participating in a drone program with Google. | ||
| So the Wilkins police at Google got Google to pull out of this drone program and left our intelligence community high and dry. | ||
| At the same time, Google was entering into a contract for censored Internet searches with the communist Chinese government. | ||
| What does that mean? | ||
| Well, that means that they're not pro-America. | ||
| Like these companies are not, we can't, there's an argument going around the big tech shills right now that if you break up these big tech monopolists, if you actually update and enforce our century old antitrust laws and break up these big tech monopolists, you're going to hurt American national security. | ||
| And actually the opposite is true. | ||
| As we saw with Project Maven, which was the drone program that Google pulled out of because of their woke employees upset that American, that Google was participating with the American drone program. | ||
| And then Project Dragonfly, which is when Google was doing the censors search with, with the communist Chinese at the same time. | ||
| So they're not pro-America at all. | ||
| But people will say that what you're attempting to do is that what the courts did to break up Ma Bell AT&T into regional Bell operating companies. | ||
| Look, I'm a child of the phone companies. | ||
| My grandfather was a 50-year employee of the phone company and my dad was a 50-year employee of the phone company. | ||
| And the phone company is like next to the Catholic Church as far as stability. | ||
| My dad would argue, he just died this past year, over 100 years old, and he would argue to his dying day that the universal service and what the phone company gave, although it might have been not the cutting edge of maybe efficiency of Silicon Valley, what it provided you with Bell Labs and this integrated package was really universal service and great service at a very low price to the American consumers. | ||
| And as soon as you broke it up, you had all these fly-by-night companies. | ||
| And so that in going after tech, particularly going after, because you're kind of trying to do the same thing to tech. | ||
| Basically, that was done to the Bell, that was done to AT&T in the telecommunications industries in the 80s. | ||
| Is that essentially correct, trying to break them up into smaller entities? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, that's what we need to do because they have too much power. | ||
| These big tech monopolists, trillion dollar big tech monopolists, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, they have too much power, and they use that power to crush competition, and then they use that power to promote their woke agenda, including canceling conservatives, censoring conservatives. | ||
| So would this allow, in this bill, and why would Democrats support something, particularly guys like Schumer, why would they support something that made it easier for conservative voices to get into the town square of Twitter, to make it easier for Facebook, to make it easier for Google? | ||
| They're very happy that we're forced out of these mainstream apparatuses. | ||
| What is the incentive for the Democrats to go along with this? | ||
| Because it almost sounds like too good to be true. | ||
| It's an unholy alliance right now, Steve, between the traditional left, the true liberals who think big is bad, and so they think every big corporation in the world is bad and needs to be broken up. | ||
| I don't think that. | ||
| I think that sometimes big can be good. | ||
| But the, and then there are the conservatives who think that we need to break up these companies because they're woke. | ||
| So liberals want to break them up because they're too big. | ||
| We want to break them up because they're too woke. | ||
| But they're also stifling competition. | ||
| They're hurting the market and the whole point of our century old antitrust laws. | ||
| Weren't those antitrust laws that came up in what's called the Progressive Era? | ||
| This was the Teddy Roosevelt-type Republicans. | ||
| If you talk to the Glenn Beck guys and the Rand Paul guys, you mention Teddy Roosevelt's name in those antitrust laws, they spit on the floor. | ||
| Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, the Libertarians, you talk to the guys at Cato, they freak out when you mention this. | ||
| Well, they freak out about antitrust laws until Rand Paul was kicked off of Google and out of YouTube, so then he got upset by it. | ||
| But, I mean, think about what we're doing with these antitrust laws. | ||
| These are law enforcement. | ||
| It's not regulation. | ||
| It's the opposite of regulation. | ||
| You have two law enforcement agencies in the federal government along with state attorneys general and private parties who are enforcing our century-old antitrust laws, and what they do is You could be big in this country. | ||
| These companies can even be monopolies. | ||
| They just can't use their market power to harm competition. | ||
| They can't be monopolists. | ||
| You could be a monopoly under our law. | ||
| You can't be a monopolist. | ||
| Meaning, if you are a monopoly, you have to play with kid gloves so you're not crushing competition. | ||
| And that's exactly what these big tech platforms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are doing. | ||
| And so, we need to update and enforce our century-old Antitrust laws and use law enforcement to target the tumors, target the bad actors because we don't want industry-wide regulation. | ||
| Facebook is calling for regulation because that is an entry barrier for startup competitors. | ||
| Trillion dollar companies can easily absorb the cost of regulation. | ||
| Startup companies cannot. | ||
| Okay, here's what we're doing for the next two hours. | ||
| This is a line of work that we need everybody to get up to speed on. | ||
| So like when we first started pandemic, we talked about national security. | ||
| One thing is the war room. | ||
| We like to talk about nomenclature. | ||
| So we define terms. | ||
| We want to talk about what the process is in these and the industrial logic of this. | ||
| We want to talk about the statics and dynamics of process. | ||
| So we're going to do all that. | ||
| What you're going to have is a great primer on what is the administrative state. | ||
| Why has it become an issue? | ||
| In fact, why has it become one of the central, if not the central, domestic issue of our day? | ||
| And particularly, this is going to be a huge focus on the Supreme Court. | ||
| Last week, I actually argued on the show, and I still believe this, as important as Roe v. Wade was. | ||
| Actually, the more important ruling they had was in this EPA case in West Virginia, because that really shows you, in going after the EPA, what they're talking about, about the deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| Also, I want to talk, we're going to get Mike Davis to explain it. | ||
| We've got a lot of other folks. | ||
| I'm trying to get into the medical side of it, the national security side of it, the whole trade side of it. | ||
| This has become a beast. | ||
| It's different than bureaucracy. | ||
| It's different than Oh, we get rid of two regulations for everyone, we're approved. | ||
| It's much deeper than that, much more systemic. | ||
| So Mike Davis from Article 3 is joining us here. | ||
| He's my co-host. | ||
| We're going to have some other people rolling in. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to be back in the War Room. | ||
| This is one of our Saturday specials. | ||
| Be back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Bring it on and I will fight to the end. | |
| Just watch and see. | ||
| It's all started. | ||
| Everything's begun. | ||
| And you are over. | ||
| Cause we're taking down the CCP. | ||
| Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more. | ||
| Let's take down the T.T.P. | ||
| Day of our lives. | ||
| War Room. Pandemic. With Stephen K. Bannum. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room. | ||
| Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, MyPella.com, promo code War Room. | ||
| You know, Mike got the hook. | ||
| Mike's actually in Alaska. | ||
| He's going to be up there for the rally today. | ||
| Make sure you go to MyPillow.com so he's not in Walmart anymore or any of the big box stores. | ||
| If you want to get your MyPillow products, you've got to go to the different squares. | ||
| Go to the War Room Square on MyPillow.com. | ||
| We've got the Sheet Special. | ||
| I think it's $39. | ||
| You've got the Slipper Special. | ||
| You've got the Buy One Get One Free. | ||
| There's specials all over the place. | ||
| We've got a special deal on these sheets. | ||
| Go check it out. | ||
| MyPillow.com, promo code Warren. | ||
| Make sure to support the armor-piercing shell that is Mike Lindell. | ||
| Only four speakers today. | ||
| It's President Trump, it's going to be Mike Lindell, Governor Palin, right? | ||
| We had Governor Palin on the show last night. | ||
| Governor Palin and, of course, Kelly Chewbacca. | ||
| So out there in Anchorage later today. | ||
| Also at four o'clock on Real America's Voice, make sure you don't miss Ben Berquam's second or third episode about the border situation. | ||
| Ben Berquam's doing such a spectacular job there. | ||
| Really honored to have Mike Davis. | ||
| Mike's been such a, you really have been, I'll tell you, become a huge audience favorite, Mike, really quickly about just walking people through the process. | ||
| Because a lot of times, this is where I've heard Cortez and Navarro on capital markets. | ||
| People get very intimidated by this stuff, particularly the process of the federal courts, the whole process of the Supreme Court. | ||
| And they didn't, they kind of close down and they don't feel comfortable asking questions. | ||
| One of the things we try to do in The Worm is explain, there are no dumb questions, right? | ||
| We're trying to make sure people have their own mental maps of things. | ||
| This topic, do you agree with this Mike, that this topic over the next couple of years In media, what's happening in the court sector, the administrative state is going to become a hot topic. | ||
| One of the things people say, well, hold on, aren't you just talking about the bureaucracy? | ||
| It's actually more than just bureaucracy. | ||
| And that's why you got to, you got to think in new ways. | ||
| It can't be just like, oh, we're going to take out five regulations for every one we increase, or we're going to, we're going after bureaucrats or, or waste, fraud, and abuse, the way they're going to cut the federal budget. | ||
| What has happened And this started after the Great Depression with the Roosevelt administration. | ||
| It came out of part, it was the court packing, how it was shut down. | ||
| But then it metastasized, it got bigger during the war, right? | ||
| It never slowed down during the Cold War. | ||
| It actually got bigger in the Great Society. | ||
| And honestly, even Reagan, nobody's been able to really, even President Trump, who went after it in the administrative state, I argue, in the interagency process is what came after him on the nullification process immediately. | ||
| Then we had the Supreme Court with, in particular with Neil Gorsuch, and I think Neil Gorsuch is an individual, Kavanaugh to agree, but Neil Gorsuch sticks out as a unique individual. | ||
| Explain to the audience, why is this just not bureaucracy? | ||
| Why is it just not the standard thing to think about? | ||
| Why is it, what is the administrative state, and why has it become a, for some people, if you go on MSNBC, they kind of worship it. | ||
| Others are sitting there going, this is a central problem of our budget, it's a central problem of how we govern ourselves. | ||
| What is the administrative state? | ||
| How is it metastasized and why is it a problem? | ||
| So the administrative state is the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. | ||
| There are, you know, somewhere near 3 million federal government employees and there are only about 3,000 political appointees who are supposed to manage this beast. | ||
| And what happens is the beast manages the political appointees, and it's the biggest threat to our liberties that you can imagine. | ||
| I mean, if the founders saw what happened, what is happening today with our administrative state and COVID with, you know, the CDC, unelected bureaucrats, the CDC, Tony Fauci becoming This is crazy. | ||
| This is the very definition of tyranny. | ||
| If you look at our Constitution, our Constitution is a loan agreement between we, the people, and our governments. | ||
| We can't travel. We have to stand six feet apart. We have to close businesses. This is crazy This is the very definition of tyranny if you look at our Constitution Our Constitution is a loan agreement between we the people and our governments and we loan the federal government's specific enumerated and divided powers Divide it between the legislative powers go to Congress, the executive powers go to the President, and the judicial powers go to the federal judiciary. | ||
| We loan them, the federal government, these powers in exchange. | ||
| The government promises to secure our rights and liberties. | ||
| Notice I didn't say give us. | ||
| Secure because our rights and liberties come from God and the sovereign. | ||
| We are the sovereign. | ||
| We the people are the sovereign. | ||
| We loan power to government. | ||
| We're not like Britain from which we declared independence where the king or the queen is sovereign and they grant, you know, they grant the people these powers that they don't have but for the Magna Carta or other grants of these privileges from the sovereign. We the people are the sovereign and we've gotten this backwards in America over the last 90 years. | ||
| Steve talked about the switch in time that saved nine. | ||
| What happened was that FDR tried to pass these New Deal programs that he thought would get us out of the Great Depression. | ||
| They didn't work. | ||
| What got us out of the Great Depression was World War II. | ||
| But he tried to pass these New Deal programs. | ||
| Nowhere in the Constitution did the federal government have this power. | ||
| So the Supreme Court struck down many of these programs because the federal government Yeah, and then so what FDR did is he threatened the court. | ||
| He said, okay court, I am very popular right now. | ||
| I dominate Congress. | ||
| They'd be ready to go and the court would say this is unconstitutional. | ||
| Yeah, and then so what FDR did his he threatened the court He said okay court. I am very popular right now. I control I dominate Congress I have a lot of political support out with the American people If you don't go along with my New Deal programs, I'm just going to pack the Supreme Court. | ||
| I'm going to add justices who will overrule you. | ||
| And so that's the switch in time that saved mine. | ||
| What happened was the courts took an expansive view of federal power after that 90 years ago, and we've never looked back. | ||
| There have been instances where, you know, some of these more conservative justices have rolled back power in the last two decades, but it's been very limited. | ||
| What we're seeing with President Trump is he puts Three constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court, and Justice Gorsuch, my former boss, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett, and they're going to team up with Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, to a lesser extent Chief Justice Roberts, and they're going to start rolling back federal power. | ||
| And we saw this with the EPA case. | ||
| The EPA claims... Do you agree with me that in the long run of things, as important as Roe v. Wade is, obviously it's monumental, historic, that you can make an argument that almost for tonality and going forward that the EPA case in West Virginia might have been at that level or maybe even more important about the direction so sure the courts gonna go it's I think the the Dobbs case was a monumental case in line with Brown versus Board of Education just because the morale the immorality of | ||
| abortion and how just wrong it wasn't tens of millions of unborn babies were murdered in the womb Not only was it just morally, egregiously wrong, I thought as a matter of law it was just a dumpster fire of a decision with Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. | ||
| But if you're talking about the power of the federal government, the EPA case is much more significant if you're talking about limiting government power, because what you're going to start to see is The these federal judges are going to start to step up and say, OK, administrative state, where do you think you got your power to do this? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Is it in the statute? | ||
| And if it's not in the statute, you don't have this power. | ||
| If Congress didn't delegate a power to you under statute, a specific power, specific delegation, you don't have this power. | ||
| You don't, you can't just make up these powers because you think it's the right thing to do. | ||
| And I think the next step after that is, is wait a second, EPA, how do you think that you have legislative powers and powers to adjudicate cases? | ||
| How do you think you have article one and article three powers when you're an executive branch agency, you don't get all three powers. | ||
| So you get limited powers from your, your enabling statute and you don't get to, you don't get to make up the law. | ||
| You don't get lawmaking power and you don't get a, you don't get to decide cases. | ||
| That's power for Congress and the federal judges. | ||
| And then the next step after that is, is wait a second, where in the constitution does it even mention the EPA? | ||
| And so I think that's where we're heading with this federal judiciary and that's going That's going to make the left, it's a 20 year project, but it's going to make the left's heads explode. | ||
| This is why it's so important. | ||
| I want to make sure we go back to the administration, where it's different than bureaucracy. | ||
| What's been described to me as we started doing the pick and shrubber work on this is that the progressives knew that, first of all, they're globalists, but more importantly, they wanted to be impervious to elections. | ||
| They wanted to have it so, no matter who was in power, that you had a permanent government. | ||
| Remember, this is not deep state, it's the administrative state. | ||
| It's in your face. | ||
| So, they've got this administrative state that's kind of sucked up the traditional cabinet offices, the bureaucracy, plus it's got all the alphabets. | ||
| this is why we have a five and a half trillion dollar federal budget every year with three and a half trillion going in in transfer payments but there's another uh... one and a half to two trillion dollars to get spent just on running the beast but the ministry state has all branches of government it has its own uh... regular it has its own legislative which is puts out its own federal regulations it has its own executive word as a force in fact each agency actually has a security force right this way here | ||
| the i r s buying a billion rounds of ammunition areas of staying and it's got some courts it has its own internal process a go go and so when people are going to go hangover second the ministry state is a hermetically sealed Additional government from what the founders set up and the checks and balance. | ||
| Is that a simplistic way to explain so people can understand it? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| It's it's unconstitutional and it is very dangerous and it's just been we've been frogs in the pot and they just did a slow boil on us for you know 90 years and we don't realize we're boiling in that pot because we the pot started out cold they just turned up the heat gradually over 90 years and now we're at a point where the CDC controls every aspect of our lives because of This bogus fear about COVID. | ||
| And if anyone questions this, if anyone questions the so-called science, even scientists like Dr. Malone, Senator Rand Paul, if you question the science, if you question the administrative state, you get canceled. | ||
| They work with big tech platforms to censor, silence, and de-platform you. | ||
| They work hand in glove. | ||
| This is really where you see state capitalism, these big concentrated powers in tech, and in media, and in finance, really work with the administrative state. | ||
| It's not regulatory capture anymore. | ||
| It's really what I call administrative state merger. | ||
| These public companies are almost quasi-government entities, given their power. | ||
| Okay, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| This, when he says a 20-year project, Write this down. | ||
| Next year, when the court comes back, if you thought you saw some gnashing of teeth outside with Roe v. Wade, you wait until you start seeing the decisions next year, because this is... People say, hey, drain the swamp? | ||
| Here's how you do it. | ||
| You deconstruct the administrative state, and that's what the courts are going to do. | ||
| Also on the legislative side, you know, Mike's already working on this thing with Big Tech, but there's a lot more to come here. | ||
| It's kind of a convergence of efforts. | ||
| This is going to be a heavy lift. | ||
| But if we don't do it, we're not going to pass on to our children the constitutional republic that was bequeathed to us. | ||
| Okay, short commercial break. | ||
| Be back in the War Room. | ||
| Our Saturday special, Deconstruction of the Administrative State. | ||
| Be back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Pandemic. | ||
| When there's no more, let's take down the T.T.P.! | ||
| See you, boys! | ||
| War Room. Pandemic. With Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room. | ||
| Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| This is our War Room Special. | ||
| It's 9 July, Saturday, and we're talking about the Deconstruction of the Administrative State. | ||
| We want to make sure that you guys are totally up to speed on the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, what's happening in Congress about this. | ||
| This is going to be a topic. | ||
| Of course, my co-host today, Mike Davis, has a 20-year project, but everybody talks about draining the swamp and taking on the bureaucracy. | ||
| This is the fight that we've got, and it's going to be intense. | ||
| It could get a little nasty. | ||
| Eric Prince, we had Eric on yesterday for our opening tribute to Prime Minister Abe. | ||
| Eric's been obsessed by the issue of security of your phone. | ||
| He's got unplugged.com slash war room. | ||
| Go there, get the app right now for your Android phone. | ||
| You put that app down, all the other apps you can get on there can't be traced, can't be monetized, they can't use your metadata. | ||
| Zero. | ||
| Make sure you go check it out. | ||
| Plus, the best encryption key built. | ||
| Eric Prince is a guy that believes in security, and go check it out. | ||
| Unplugged.com forward slash war room. | ||
| Go check it out. | ||
| You get a big discount by using that code. | ||
| The Deconstruction of the Administrative State. | ||
| I want to talk about, so Davis, Mike, there's a couple of topics I see in the court and out there in the ether and I want to bring this in for nomenclature. | ||
| One, when the left is going crazy, I see these articles that the biggest threat, you know, the Guardian had this article by their top columnist in I think Friday's paper, right, that said the biggest single threat to democracy In America today, hey, is guess what, not white nationalists and domestic terrorists, not moms and school board, it's, wait for it, the Supreme Court. | ||
| Okay, now the Supreme Court. | ||
| A couple things they talked about in these articles is that this, two things, a theory of the independent state legislature, theory, Right? | ||
| And the other is this, what, non-regulation or something about regulation, but it's not actually related, I think it's non-regulation. | ||
| I want to lay those two, have you lay out those two concepts, because one looks like it's the, what's really going to be about going back to federalism if it's not in the Constitution as a power, a numerator power for the Constitution goes back to the states. | ||
| The other is essentially, hey, if it ain't in the Constitution and then it's back to Congress. | ||
| Walk through The theory of independent state legislatures, and then I think this is non-regulation. | ||
| Non-delegation. | ||
| Non-delegation, non-delegation. | ||
| So the independent state legislature theory is what the Democrats call, is actually the elections clause in the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 4, Clause 1, that says that state legislatures determine the time, place, and manner of federal elections unless Congress overrides them with a statute. | ||
| So the state legislatures determine what the House district lines are, how they're redrawn every They keep saying theory because that's a meme they want out there, right? | ||
| of elections, right? And so that is not a theory as the Democrats call it. It is actually in the U.S. Constitution. | ||
| Why do they keep saying theory? Because that's a meme they want out there, right? | ||
| This is some theory of the Gorsuch, Alito, these radicals on the right now, Trump appointees. | ||
| This is a theory they've kind of cooked up. | ||
| You're saying it's not a theory. | ||
| Hey, it ain't a theory because it's a black letter in the Constitution. | ||
| Yeah, it's the elections clause in the Constitution. | ||
| Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1. | ||
| But why the Democrats don't like the elections clause and they want to write it off as this right wing theory is because Republicans control state legislatures. | ||
| They control more state legislatures than Democrats do. | ||
| If if Democrats controlled more state legislatures than Republicans, you wouldn't hear Mark Elias and Eric Holder and all these Democrat operatives talking about a theory. | ||
| They would say it's the elections clause in the Constitution. | ||
| And so this is about power. | ||
| Democrats care about power. | ||
| That's their goal or their God. | ||
| That's all they care about. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And if state legislatures controlled by Republicans get to redraw House districts every 10 years instead of Democrat Supreme Court justices, state Supreme Court justices and Democrat appointed commissions, then Democrats lose power. | ||
| This is all about law. | ||
| But why have state legislatures, and even in Republican states, why have they gone to these commissions? | ||
| Why have they gone to these, having judges and have these state courts do it? | ||
| How did we get into a situation where the states themselves, and particularly the prerogatives of the state legislature, they know the Constitution, why have we gotten to a situation that now you really need people like Gorsuch to take a fresh look at this? | ||
| How did this devolve to this when so many of these were Republican legislatures to start with? | ||
| Because our side is weak and stupid, as we've talked about, Steve. | ||
| And a good example, this is like in Kansas. | ||
| It's a Republican, conservative Republican state, yet the people in Kansas have allowed Democrats, leftists, to take over the Kansas Supreme Court. | ||
| So it's just, we need to, we, Republicans, conservatives, need to understand that Democrats, this is not your grandparents' Democrat party, these are not old school liberals, Who care about equality and due process and they love America. | ||
| Today's Democrats are leftists. | ||
| They're Marxists. | ||
| They hate America. | ||
| All they care about is power, right? | ||
| And we need to wake up to that reality. | ||
| We need to get woke as conservatives to that reality that we're not dealing with our grandparents or our parents' Democrat Party anymore. | ||
| So we need to start taking off the gloves. | ||
| We need to put on the brass knuckles. | ||
| We need to break their glass jaws. | ||
| We need to start fighting back and stop being country club Republicans. | ||
| You think what Roe v. Wade says, it is a glass jaw. | ||
| The country club Republicans have been afraid of these Democrats for years. | ||
| Afraid of the media. | ||
| Afraid of being called racist. | ||
| Afraid of being called... Sexist. | ||
| None of it's true. | ||
| Sexist. | ||
| Xenophobic. | ||
| And that fear, because you're going to be kicked out of the club, or they're going to look at you badly when you walk into a restaurant, that fear has stopped Republicans from really fighting for what they should be fighting for, which is actually in the Constitution. | ||
| Yes, yes. | ||
| Most Republican politicians are cowards, and so what we need to do is have people in the War Room Posse and other engaged conservatives pushing them, helping the, I always say that the DC swamp, is the only place on the planet where the reptiles lack backbones. | ||
| And so as the War Room Posse, our job is to, on a daily basis, help these swamp reptiles find their backbones. | ||
| And so that's part of what we're doing with Steve Bannon's War Room. | ||
| That's what we're doing with the Article 3 Project. | ||
| We need to help Republican politicians find their backbones. | ||
| And you've dedicated your life to, I mean, you could go work in a big law firm. | ||
| I mean, why have you not taken the path that most people take? | ||
| Here, go work at a big law firm, make, you know, a couple million bucks a year, and be part of the system. | ||
| Why have you become essentially a crusader for, by setting up this small operation, you've got to become a crusader for the Constitution? | ||
| Well, because I'm crazy, as you can pick up just from talking to me, and no one wants to hire me, but I would say that when I left, you know, I did a clerkship for justice courses on the Supreme Court, and these former clerks, they leave, they go get a $450,000 signing bonus to go work at a big law firm, and then they get about a million dollars a year to start out. | ||
| So, I could have done that, but I would have been miserable. | ||
| I was a lawyer for 10 years, and, you know, if you think politicians are miserable people, go work at a law firm. | ||
| I decided that I didn't want to do that, so I decided to be even more crazy and go work for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and now I run conservative non-profits. | ||
| In Senate Judiciary, we would have never gotten Gorsuch through Kavanaugh. | ||
| I mean, you were Grassley's right-hand man, and people don't understand the system. | ||
| We saw that in Judge Katonji Jackson Brown, the scrutiny we put on her, but that was kind of, I think, when I saw the committee, kind of slapped together versus what Kavanaugh And Coney Barrett and Gorsuch, but you were actually the detail guy to get those things through, which is every detail has to be checked. | ||
| I mean, the good thing about growing up with red hair is you're just used to getting kicked around your whole life. | ||
| So it doesn't bother me if the left attacks me. | ||
| I kind of like it. | ||
| So I am more than happy to lead these fights against the woke left and their Marxist nonsense. | ||
| And I have the skill set to do it, which really enrages the left. | ||
| But I'm happy to do it. | ||
| I'm happy to Mike, one of the things I want to go back, because I know how to, already just knowing Davis here for a couple of months, I know how to hit his tripwire. | ||
| Independent state legislature theory is one. | ||
| Davis is the redhead that blows up. | ||
| But it's because the Democrats at no time in anything were either redistricting or about election integrity. | ||
| They want to block as much stuff from the state legislature as possible because that's theoretically where Republicans have power, correct? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, and when they take back, if Democrats ever took over state legislatures, they'd all be, they'd be, they would say that the independent state legislature theory is- Was a fact, was a fact. | ||
| It's the Elections Clause. | ||
| But go to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 because everything we hear up here now Is all the buzz of this, you know, watch for, you know, when it's bipartisan, duck. | ||
| This bipartisan group that's working with Romney, I keep hearing, I keep asking people, I say, look, they couldn't change, they couldn't amend, they didn't have the votes to amend the Constitution back then when they had a couple of bad elections. | ||
| They had to come up with this kind of... | ||
| It's a funky bill, but it's the rules as they are, right? | ||
| But in the Electoral Count Act, the one thing they're obsessively focused on is state legislatures, right? | ||
| For some reason, the Democrats want to make sure that under no circumstances, the state legislatures really has their constitutionally defined role. | ||
| Democrats, again, only care about power. | ||
| When Bush won the White House, the Democrats wanted to abolish the Electoral College. | ||
| Now they love the Electoral College. | ||
| The guiding principle for Democrats is how do they get more power, and so they can use their power to crush conservatives. | ||
| That's all they care about. | ||
| Let's go back to the to the administrative state. | ||
| Let's talk about this other, it's the non-regulation. | ||
| Non-delegation. | ||
| Non-delegation. | ||
| What is not, what is the non-delegation, what, clause of the non-delegation? | ||
| It's called the non-delegation doctrine. | ||
| Doctrine. | ||
| Which is an interesting way of saying that, you know, that the administrative state is unconstitutional. | ||
| So they have to come up with a fancy word for it. | ||
| Essentially, again, we talked about this, the U.S. | ||
| Constitution is a loan agreement between we the people and our governments. | ||
| And we loan the government specific, enumerated, separated powers. | ||
| And if there is not a power listed in the Constitution, the government is not supposed to have that power. | ||
| The federal government is not supposed to have that power. | ||
| It's supposed to belong to the states and the people, as confirmed by the 10th Amendment. | ||
| But again, since the switch in time that saved mine 90 years ago, that has been flipped on its head. | ||
| The Constitution has turned From a shield to protect us from the federal government to a sword that the federal government uses to come after us. | ||
| And so that's the 20-year project is switching that back. | ||
| But the non-delegation doctrine essentially says that you cannot delegate these administrative agencies these powers that they have. | ||
| They do not have They do not have legislative power. | ||
| That is the most awesome power under our Constitution to legislate. | ||
| That is, Article 1, it belongs to Congress, and it's divided between the House and the Senate, and it's curbed by the bicameralism, and that power is curbed by presentment. | ||
| You have to have the President sign off on it. | ||
| If he vetoes it, both houses have to overwrite him with two-thirds. | ||
| They've just bypassed that. | ||
| They've just given these legislative powers To the CDC and to these other administrative agencies. | ||
| Another power that these administrative agencies don't have, you can't delegate them power, is they don't have the power to adjudicate cases in Congress. | ||
| They have their own, like I said, they have their own legislature, they have their own courts, they have their own executive branch or enforcement mechanism. | ||
| Yeah, they are their own government unto themselves and if you see any President come in or any Congress come in and try to take away the administrative state's powers, the administrative state turns on them. | ||
| They did that to Trump, right? | ||
| They'll literally spy on the President of the United States. | ||
| This is the nullification project from day one, and when you think about it, go back to the first impeachment. | ||
| Remember, they had a fetish for this thing, the interagency process. | ||
| That's just the administrative state of how they work and combine together. | ||
| Mike, I want to come back. | ||
| In your personal life, ladies and gentlemen, the non-delegation doctrine was important because this was the OSHA. | ||
| This was surprising. | ||
| And hey, I tell you, when that young federal judge gave that ruling, this city went in vapor lock. | ||
| And they went in vapor lock not simply for the ruling itself, which everybody thought it was that. | ||
| They went in vapor lock because of her opinion and then what people talked about it. | ||
| This is all about deconstructing the administrative state. | ||
| Would OSHA have it? | ||
| Well, I'll let Mike Davis advice. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We'll be back in a moment on the non-delegation doctrine, how it impacts your life. | ||
| next in the world. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ceo. Everything's just be. But the games you want to bring it on and now right to the end. Just watch and see. | |
| It's all started, everything's begun, and you are over. | ||
| Cause we're taking down the CCP! | ||
| Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more, let's take down the CCP! | ||
| War Room Pandemic with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| The epidemic is a demon and we cannot let this demon hide. | ||
| War Room Pandemic. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, go to MyPillow.com. | ||
| The sheets, they only last as long as they last. | ||
| Go there, check it out right now. | ||
| Program code WARROOM. | ||
| That gets you on the square. | ||
| We got everything. | ||
| You got the buy one, get one free sales. | ||
| You got the slippers. | ||
| You got the biblical pillow and blanket. | ||
| Now you've got these incredible sale on sheets, on sheets what, $100, $150, $125? | ||
| I think they're $39. | ||
| Go check it out. | ||
| But they're only going to last, these are special sheets, only going to last as long as inventory is there. | ||
| Check it out today. | ||
| Okay, I can tell when this town's, when something that all of a sudden you see a sucking noise and it clenches up. | ||
| And I'm not a lawyer, but I know, I know when things are happening. | ||
| When the young judge in Florida on this OSHA, because we know the lawyers have brought it, we've had him on the show a number of times, there was something even deeper than just about the mask and everything like that. | ||
| Tell me what it was. | ||
| Why did the powers that be in this town, the administrative state, why did they go, oh, and then she was attacked. | ||
| She's young. | ||
| She doesn't know what she's doing. | ||
| She was attacked viciously for some judges giving an opinion. | ||
| Why was it on this OSHA with the mask? | ||
| This was about the non-delegation doctrine. | ||
| Why was this a big deal? | ||
| So Judge Catherine Mizell is a young, brilliant, conservative judge who President Trump appointed down in Florida. | ||
| She was a former Supreme Court clerk, just brilliant credentials, and she's a young conservative woman so the left automatically hates her. | ||
| She came up with this brilliant ruling, there was a lawsuit down in Florida over the CDC mask mandate on airplanes, and she came up with this brilliant ruling that went through not only the statute, the CDC's authorizing statute, and showed that the CDC did not have the authority under the statutes to issue these indefinite mask mandates on airplanes forever, these stupid mandates that are not called for by science, but you have to wear these annoying masks on your flights for two years, we'd | ||
| still be wearing our mask, but for this ruling by Judge Mazzel. | ||
| But she also ruled that even if the CDC had the statutory authority from Congress to issue these mask mandates on airplanes, that Congress may have violated the Constitution because it delegated too much legislative power to the executive branch. | ||
| It's the Congress's job under Article 1 of our Constitution to write our laws. | ||
| The executive branch, the CDC, enforces the laws and federal judges are due to get sued. | ||
| adjudicate cases based upon laws. | ||
| And Congress can't just hand over its awesome power, its awesome responsibility of lawmaking to the executive branch, to unelected bureaucrats at the CDC. | ||
| Okay, but this is gonna get back to the thing about a modern, this gets back to the hit on, or the complaint I'm hearing from people. | ||
| And by the way, people should know, on your bill, what Davis has done. | ||
| It's full employment for the TV stations. | ||
| I have never seen a non-stop barrage of ads anti-your bill. | ||
| I mean, Big Tech has pulled out the stops. | ||
| You cannot cut on MSNBC. | ||
| It's even crowding out Big Pharma. | ||
| And every time when you finish, there are tears running down people's faces. | ||
| Poor Davis is picking on Big Tech. | ||
| But here, and the argument there is that, Mike, they've got to be at scale to compete against the Chinese, and you're trying to break them up into little minnows, and they've got to be whales and mean whales. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here, I mean, what's the point? | |
| Don't you have to have an agency that kind of does regulations in a modern economy? | ||
| Is Congress supposed to pass a law about masks? | ||
| Is that just, is that from what they argue The other day, the Georgetown professor says, hey, this document is written about slave owners and it's from a horse and buggy. | ||
| We're enslaved by, you know, 50 slave owners who have enslaved us now with an ancient document that's irrelevant for a modern world. | ||
| Mike Davis. | ||
| Yeah, they do need to write these rules because look what happens when you just hand over lawmaking, executive, and adjudicatory powers to an executive agency like the CDC. | ||
| Look what happened during COVID. | ||
| They wanted to ignore the science, The science is supposed to be an ongoing process. | ||
| You're supposed to have people question the science and then question the people who question the science. | ||
| That's the whole point of the scientific method, unless you're in COVID and then you cancel those scientists and you get rid of their federal grants and you kick them off of big tech platforms and you make them pariahs in society under the new left's science. | ||
| But you saw this with the CDC. | ||
| They had bad science. | ||
| They're relying on bad science on the six-foot rule. | ||
| They're relying on bad science on masks. | ||
| But you couldn't question that. | ||
| And then you just give the CDC this unlimited power to make us wear masks, to close down schools, to say that we have to be six feet apart, to control way too many aspects of our lives during COVID because too many politicians were cowards and would not question this. | ||
| They would not stand up. | ||
| And even when Rand Paul A U.S. | ||
| Senator did question this. | ||
| He got kicked off of YouTube, right? | ||
| And so, it's just, what we have to do is get back to the basics in our country, that we cannot delegate all powers to the federal government, and we certainly can't delegate legislative powers and adjudicatory powers to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. | ||
| That is the definition of tyranny. | ||
| Maisel is one of these Young, fire-breathers, or brilliant jurists, they're like the Gorsuch's. | ||
| They're going back and actually, these are what we call, I don't know, originalists? | ||
| I don't know what the term of art is. | ||
| Yeah, originalists. | ||
| Originalists that go back to the document itself, go back to the document, and this, because nothing strikes fear in this town right now than the phrase, the non-delegation doctrine. | ||
| Because if you take that to its logical conclusion, that begins to deconstruct the administrative state. | ||
| Is that correct? | ||
| They don't have these powers. | ||
| The non-delegation step two. | ||
| Step one is do they have these powers under the statute? | ||
| That's step one. | ||
| No, the CDC or the EPA doesn't have these powers under the statute. | ||
| But even if Congress did delegate these powers, these legislative powers, to these executive branch agencies, that's unconstitutional. | ||
| You have to remember, we elect the House every two years, we elect the Senate every six years, and we divide legislative powers between those two branches, and then we curb them with the President signing or vetoing legislation. | ||
| We've just bypassed all this. | ||
| This legislative power being delegated to the CDC or the EPA, that needs to stop. | ||
| That's step two. | ||
| Step three is, wait a second, how does the federal government have these powers at all? | ||
| It's not mentioned in the Constitution. | ||
| This is, I gotta tell you, it is going to lead to a whole really revolutionary idea about getting back to the core basics of this country. | ||
| You're going to see debate on the Federalist Papers, you're going to see debate of what the Framers meant. | ||
| It's so refreshing. | ||
| The Tea Party started it, but now you've had people like Gorsuch, and you have people like Judge Mizell, and you have others, right? | ||
| And we're going to talk about this. | ||
| Looking at this, the Chevron Doctrine will go through the kind of Legal cases that made this such a big deal. | ||
| So I got Mike Davis here. | ||
| He's my co-host from Article 3. | ||
| Peter Navarro, the president's assistant for manufacturing and trade. | ||
| He had to wrestle with the apparatus on several occasions. | ||
| But we'll take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to be back in the war room in a moment. |
Export Selection