Sept. 19, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
48:06
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is what you're fighting for. | ||
| I mean, every day you're out there. | ||
| What they're doing is blowing people off. | ||
| If you continue to look the other way and shut up, then the oppressors, the authoritarians, get total control and total power. | ||
| Because this is just like in Arizona. | ||
| This is just like in Georgia. | ||
| It's another element that backs them into a corner and shows their lies and misrepresentations. | ||
| This is why this audience is going to have to get engaged. | ||
| As we've told you, this is the fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| War Room, Battleground. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Under the new president of the World Bank, change is already taking root. | ||
| Last month, I asked the United States Congress for additional funds to expand World Bank financing by $25 billion. | ||
| And the G20, we rallied the major economies of the world to mobilize even more funding. | ||
| Collectively, we can deliver a transformational boost to World Bank lending. | ||
| Let's start there with a potential shutdown. | ||
| We are, by my math, 11 days away from the deadline of September 30th, a week from Saturday, to get a new budget through it, to keep the government from shutting down. | ||
| I think a lot of people talk about this in political terms, with brinksmanship and all the rest, but from where you stood at Treasury, what would a government shutdown mean to the economy? | ||
| Well, look, there's absolutely no reason why we should have a government shutdown. | ||
| Democrats in both the House and the Senate and Republicans in the Senate are ready to pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution. | ||
| to keep the government open and operating for the American people. | ||
| Speaker McCarthy needs to find a way to do his job, which is to pass a continuing resolution or bills. | ||
| So there's no reason why we can't do that. | ||
| We've got a good, strong economy. | ||
| It has a lot of momentum. | ||
| Inflation is coming down. | ||
| The labor market remains very strong. | ||
| We really don't need a shock to the economy in the form of a slowdown. | ||
| There's no reason for it at all. | ||
| And yet typically it would maybe come up to the 11th hour, but there is a deal struck to avoid a shutdown. | ||
| If that doesn't happen here due to the internal politics in the Republican Party, what happens to the economy? | ||
| What would you say from Treasury? | ||
| Well, we have not tried to estimate the impact of the shutdown. | ||
| It would depend, importantly, on how long it lasts. | ||
| But, again, there's really no good reason why there should be a shutdown. | ||
| When the debt ceiling was raised, an agreement was struck about that would serve to Lower the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next decade and we should just adhere to the bipartisan agreement that was struck. | ||
| Look at the ball face slice. | ||
| Tuesday, 19th September, Year of the Lord 2023. | ||
| She looks you in the camera and says, the bipartisan debt ceiling deal that over 10 years cut the deficit by a trillion dollars. | ||
| They just increased the trillion dollars in this fiscal year over the trillion she said it was going to be. | ||
| The deficit is two trillion dollars. | ||
| They admit it. | ||
| We've added a trillion dollars to the national debt in the last 90 days. | ||
| We're at 33 trillion dollars. | ||
| 33 trillion dollars. | ||
| Embrace it and baby, 33 is going to seem like a low number in the not too distant future. | ||
| We are on the precipice of the point of no return of literally financial chaos. | ||
| And you can see it in the lived experience of your life. | ||
| I've got the Philip Patrick is, is joining me now or is with me. | ||
| He's going to join in a second, but I want to make sure that we fully, when I get Philip on here, we talk about all of it, that we got a key element that is driving this. | ||
| And that is, uh, the war in Ukraine. | ||
| And you saw Posobiec, what Posobiec showed this afternoon, which was kind of epic and incredible. | ||
| Posobiec has been put on a death list. | ||
| By the Ukrainian government, because he's been speaking the truth of what's happening over there. | ||
| From Rome, Ben Harnwell, who is our guy for all things. | ||
| Europe and by the way Ben tomorrow. | ||
| I'll have you on I got to talk about the situation with Salvini and Le Pen and this big rally they had in Europe and the anti the right is coming together on this anti-invasion Aspect of of what's happening on this migrant crisis globally? | ||
| And I noticed I noticed girl Maloney was not at that rally, but I'll just put a pin in that for tomorrow You've been watching this Ukraine situation Zelensky's sitting there, you know, beaming, looking up at Biden today with that little puppy dog look as Biden sits there and, you know, spreads more disinformation about how well they're doing. | ||
| And Biden's opinion is still, whatever it takes, as long as it takes. | ||
| Open-ended. | ||
| And remember, one of the fights, you heard this this morning live with Matt Gaetz, Gates brings up the point that all the Ukrainian, all the madness we put into the budget for Ukraine is all in there. | ||
| The appropriations process hasn't taken it out. | ||
| The $24 billion is a supplement to the Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, McCarthy plan already baked into the cake. | ||
| And our calculation, we're at $140 billion, $70 billion of outright military aid or higher, another, I don't know, $40, $50 billion, we're paying $5 billion a month. | ||
| And so Ben, they fired their defense secretary last week, corruption. | ||
| They fired then over the weekend, they had a Saturday night massacre. | ||
| Uh, deputies in the defense, in every sector, fired. | ||
| Then today, Reuters has got up that the biggest problem Zelensky's gonna have in coming to the United States is really to address this corruption issue. | ||
| This corruption issue is still big. | ||
| Like, this should be some big scoop. | ||
| Where are we, Ben, on this? | ||
| Because he should not get one red penny. | ||
| You're going to have Philip Patrick on here in a minute from Birch Gold is going to make your head blow up for the crisis that we are there on, on this debt. | ||
| And it looks like it's no, there's no way out. | ||
| That we're not just on the precipice, but that we're really at the point of no return. | ||
| That now it's baked into the cake, it's systemic, it's structural, and it's just going to continue on and make our children, everybody under 40, and our children and grandchildren, debt slaves. | ||
| On top of all this, we're talking about more money. | ||
| Another $24 billion just up in your face for Zelensky and, quite frankly, the oligarch criminals that are the leadership of Ukraine. | ||
| Ben Harnwell, thoughts, observations? | ||
| Good afternoon, Steve. | ||
| Well, the backdrop to what I'm going to say today, let's go to Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of the United Nations, who said a couple of days ago that, and it was very subtle, right, but he said that we're now going in for the long term with this war. | ||
| We're bedding in, bedding down, this is going in for the duration. | ||
| So what they did there Really, without sort of flashing attention to it in and of itself, is that they have now substituted Afghanistan for their new, latest, forever war. | ||
| They've now said, this is the Secretary General of the UN now saying, this is it, you know, don't expect a wrap up, a conclusion of this anytime soon, you know. | ||
| And when he says bed in for the long term, who knows what the long term might mean in terms of NATO's projections, all other things being equal. | ||
| And of course, they're not equal and I think we're going to be a globalist elite. | ||
| Our sociopathic overlords are going to learn that all things, all of the variables aren't equal in November of next year. | ||
| So Joe Biden talking about sociopathic overlords was at the Vatican for all sociopathic overlords around the world. | ||
| That is, of course, the United Nations. | ||
| And that is that that is the globalist Vatican. | ||
| He was there this morning doing the warm up act for President Zelensky. | ||
| And Biden said, and we flagged this up yesterday on the show, but let's just. | ||
| do that his headline quote this is the quote that that's picked up the headlines since he gave it an hour or so ago if we allow ukraine to be carved up is the independence of any nation secure uh that's the rhetorical question there of his of his key insight uh in order to show, trying to rally global support, which he hasn't got, he no longer has for this war. | ||
| If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure? | ||
| As we said yesterday on the war room, Steve, this is absolutely, this is the pillar, the fundamental pillar now of trying to persuade American taxpayers to continue the war support, but it is a presumption deprived of any logical explanation or foundation to it. | ||
| It's basically an assertion without any proof because it's not true. | ||
| It's simply not true that it's a war. | ||
| Putin has, as Zelensky suggested on 60 Minutes on Sunday, when he called Putin a second Hitler, it's simply not true that Putin's intentions are to occupy the whole of continental Europe. | ||
| And yet this is what the American leadership, NATO leadership, is basically resorting to saying, because it has no other defence now, in order to persuade The American taxpayer to continue its money, its donations. | ||
| Now, Steve, you mentioned this in your introduction. | ||
| This is, you know, we do call out the mainstream media on the show, and rightly so, because they are appalling. | ||
| As we said on the show, I think a month or two ago, the job of the mainstream media is to keep you misinformed about what you don't know. | ||
| uh... in to keep you misinformed about what you do know and uninformed about what you don't know that was what we said uh... | ||
| and we do call them out we called them out yesterday however credit where it's due to Reuters folks uh... | ||
| Warren Posse will know that Reuters along with Associated Press uh... | ||
| is really the two big international press agencies There's the Press Association Francaise as well, which is also a big one, the third one. | ||
| But these are the three supposedly neutral, supposedly independent Press agencies that draft a lot of the articles that you will then find in your daily newspaper that you're reading. | ||
| And you'll see at the bottom that it's either Reuters or Associated Press that wrote it. | ||
| So one article on one of these networks is picked up right across the world. | ||
| So credit to Reuters. | ||
| And then there's a question, right? | ||
| I'll start with a question and then we can ponder it as I go through this, right? | ||
| Why now? | ||
| Why today? | ||
| That's the question, right? | ||
| And I think the answer's there to anyone who wants to join up the dots because of what's taking place in the United States this week, both with regards to Zelensky addressing the United Nations today, but also Zelensky's pitch on Thursday at the White House to Biden, of which you predicted yesterday he's going to come out empty-handed. | ||
| This is really, I think, the background for this article in Reuters. | ||
| And they have done a job here That they absolutely didn't do on 60 Minutes on Sunday, which was watching that interview on Sunday. | ||
| It was like watching two lovers throw melted marshmallows into one another's mouths at a table near to you in a restaurant. | ||
| And you're trying not to watch. | ||
| You don't want to intrude on their privacy. | ||
| This is serious journalism. | ||
| This, Steve, this is not 60 Minutes. | ||
| This is an article here. | ||
| Which joins up, really, what we've been saying here for a year and a half. | ||
| So here is a very senior constructor, one of the largest constructor firms in Ukraine, called Arkbud Development. | ||
| And he's now fled to Vienna. | ||
| This is where he gave the interview to Reuters. | ||
| And his name is... Now, don't get confused, because there are two people with very similar names. | ||
| The first name is identical, but they're different people. | ||
| So it's Ole Mybaroda. | ||
| This is the guy, the constructor. | ||
| And he says, there's the photo. | ||
| Now Ole Mybaroda says, in this interview, he kept rolls of dollar bills in a safe behind his desk. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| Because it was to bribe officials. | ||
| And who had the responsibility of handing over this cash from the construction to the officials? | ||
| It was a lawyer called Ole Tartaroff. | ||
| who read in this article, it's a very long article here, Reuters, and I'll put it on my Getter feed if folks want to read it in depth and I would suggest that. This Ole Tartaroff, the lawyer, the in-between, is a bit like of a Tom Hargan, I think, type character. | ||
| It was his job to Tartarov used to solve all issues with law enforcement. | ||
| Now, why am I going on about this, Steve, today of all days? | ||
| Because what is Tartarov doing today? | ||
| What has he been doing since 2020? | ||
| He is a senior advisor. | ||
| To whom? | ||
| You guessed it. | ||
| To President Tempestensky himself. | ||
| And what does he have responsibility for? | ||
| Enforcement. | ||
| And the security agencies, law enforcement and the security agencies. | ||
| So this is a guy who's now been labeled by a first-person witness of handing corrupt cash over for bribery to officials. | ||
| These rolls of cash that were kept in a safe. | ||
| This guy who was doing this is now a senior advisor to Zelensky. | ||
| The other story here Which is a bit more tragic because this article has two sides to it, two cases. | ||
| The second one indicates directly Andrei Yermak who is President Zelensky's chief of staff. | ||
| There was a policeman called Dmitry Shtanko who was leading an inquiry into his corruption and unfortunately those inquiries that the policeman Shtanko were taking forward ended when This guy was killed? | ||
| In action in East Ukraine in October 2022. | ||
| And this was a guy who was doing the research into the corruption of Zelensky's chief of staff. | ||
| It sounds a bit Clinton-esque, I know. | ||
| But the interesting thing, Steve, about these two stories is that it appears today. | ||
| So I would gently suggest that there are perhaps in the civil war that is taking place in the mainstream media, there are forces, some of them are guiding 60 Minutes, But others are guiding other journalists, and this is the news that's coming out. | ||
| It's not that Reuters wants to be it, but my point is the corruption and the malfeasance is so overwhelming, and they understand that now we've been on watch, the American people have our back, there's no money for Ukraine, there's going to be a huge, embarrassing fight for the Biden regime this week. | ||
| As we get down to it, it's going to be pretty intense. | ||
| Ben, what is your social media? | ||
| You're putting up stuff all the time and the traction you're getting on it is incredible. | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
| Thanks so much, Steve. | ||
| For my articles, please register on warwin.org. | ||
| And then for my comments through the day, as and when, it's Getter. | ||
| That's where I do most of my most intimate thoughts. | ||
| I drop that on Getter. | ||
| Check out my surname, that's my profile name, at Harnwell. | ||
| I read every response, Steve. | ||
| Every response, every comment on GitHub, I read them all individually. | ||
| Thanks so much, Steve. | ||
| That's fantastic. | ||
| By the way, the global migrant crisis in Ukraine, Ukraine big this week. | ||
| Ben's going to be with us. | ||
| Intensely covering both. | ||
| Thank you, Ben Harnwell, appreciate it. | ||
| In getting Philip Patrick up, I've got to play again Yellen, and you must listen to her, of the lies, misrepresentations. | ||
| This is what you're dealing with. | ||
| This is what we have to deal with here to make sure you're presented with the real case. | ||
| Let's go ahead and hear Janet Yellen on the coming government shutdown and the state of American finances. | ||
| Let's start there with a potential shutdown. | ||
| We are, by my math, 11 days away from the deadline of September 30th, a week from Saturday, to get a new budget through and to keep the government from shutting down. | ||
| I think a lot of people talk about this in political terms, with brinksmanship and all the rest, but from where you sit at Treasury, what would a government shutdown mean to the economy? | ||
| Well, look, there's absolutely no reason why we should have a government shutdown. | ||
| Democrats in both the House and the Senate and Republicans in the Senate are ready to pass appropriations bills or a continuing resolution to keep the government open and operating for the American people. | ||
| Speaker McCarthy needs to find a way to do his job, which is to pass a continuing resolution or bills. | ||
| So there's no reason. | ||
| We've got a good, strong economy. | ||
| It has a lot of momentum. | ||
| Inflation is coming down. | ||
| The labor market remains very strong. | ||
| We really don't need a shock to the economy in the form of a slowdown. | ||
| There's no reason for it at all. | ||
| And yet typically we've maybe come up to the 11th hour, but there is a deal struck to avoid a shutdown. | ||
| If that doesn't happen here due to the internal politics in the Republican Party, what happens to the economy? | ||
| What would you say from Treasury? | ||
| Well, we have not tried to estimate the impact of the shutdown. | ||
| It would depend, importantly, on how long it lasts. | ||
| But, again, there's really no good reason why there should be a shutdown. | ||
| When the debt ceiling was raised, an agreement was struck about that would serve to I will lower the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next decade. | ||
| And we should just adhere to the bipartisan agreement that was struck. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Philip Patrick, my brother, I don't even know where to start. | |
| Sh-Shit. | ||
| First off, she missed her mark. | ||
| What they wanted her there for was to say, if the government shut down at all, it would be catastrophic. | ||
| She's supposed to say that makeup lies. | ||
| She missed that. | ||
| Then came back. | ||
| Philip Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong, of Birchgold. | ||
| We said at the time we fought the debt ceiling fight that the deficit this year and this fiscal year, which ends not the end of the year, but September 30th, the way the government's always had it. | ||
| Would be two trillion dollars or more. | ||
| They had said, no, no, no. | ||
| Worst case, a trillion dollars. | ||
| We said two. | ||
| That has now come to pass on their numbers. | ||
| They admitted two trillion dollars because of decreased tax revenue, because of a slowing economy, as we called. | ||
| Also, we've passed a 33 trillion, as we predicted, happened last night. | ||
| And a trillion dollars has been added onto the debt. | ||
| In the last 90 days. | ||
| Philip, before we get into the new installment on the end of the dollar empire, really the choking down of American prosperity that happened back in 71, I'd like to just give us a framework now, your current thoughts on this budget fight, the appropriations fight, the CR, all of it, the national debt, where in your mind, where are we? | ||
| I mean, you said it yourself, we are, if not at the point of no return, we're very, very close. | ||
| You can't think of a reason to, sort of, you know, there are 33 trillion reasons as to why we need to get a handle on this. | ||
| So let's look at some numbers. | ||
| Over the last five years, the government has spent $11.5 trillion that it doesn't have, racking up $2.3 trillion in debt per year on average. | ||
| But it's getting much worse since the last time we raised the debt ceiling, the government added $1 trillion in debt per month. | ||
| We're now on track for $1 trillion in annual interest expense. | ||
| Soon, interest is going to be the U.S. | ||
| government's biggest expense, more than defense. | ||
| And let's not forget the U.S. | ||
| spends more on defense than the other top 10 nations combined. | ||
| It's absolutely mind-blowing. | ||
| And what's the solution going to be? | ||
| Another continuing resolution. | ||
| Let's kick the can further down the road. | ||
| If this sounds familiar... | ||
| It's because it is familiar. It's the same tactic that Congress has used over and over again. | ||
| This time, though, it's not certain that that continuing resolution is going to pass. | ||
| The Senate has already passed a $1.59 trillion version of the budget. So I think the pressure's on. The House Freedom Caucus is holding McCarthy's feet to the fire at the moment, because I think they understand it's the only way that we can cut deficit spending, is to force a confrontation like this. | ||
| We've been saying this for a long time, but it needs to happen. | ||
| Let's just restate that fact again. | ||
| Since the last time we raised the debt ceiling, we've added a trillion dollars in debt per month. | ||
| It is out of control, and it is insustainable. | ||
| I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a government shutdown over the issue, because it is the only way, I think. | ||
| Something extreme to get a handle on government spending, because this administration doesn't appear to respond to reason, so we have to force the debate. | ||
| We've said it time and time again, and I'm hoping this time something happens. | ||
| The misdirection play, and for our audience, and by the way, the number is 202-225-3121. | ||
| You can call. | ||
| We need you to call your representative, particularly members of the House. | ||
| Looks like the Senate may actually be slowing down because Ron Johnson is actually stepping in. | ||
| Once they pass the budget, they've got to get to the appropriations process. | ||
| That was all supposed to just fly through, but he's actually bringing up some issues about the woke and weaponized. | ||
| He is talking about the debt, but he doesn't make that center. | ||
| Everything we try to do at War Room, the Woken Weaponized is critically important to get out. | ||
| You can't pay for this madness that's destroying the country. | ||
| But if we don't get our arms around the main thing, And the main thing here is an apparatus is just out of control. | ||
| I mean, Philip, right now we know it's about five trillion dollars that comes in. | ||
| And the reason we have a bigger deficit this year is that that number is lower because the lower capital gains taxes, fewer financial transactions and trading going on. | ||
| And and also decreased revenues because the economy is the real economy is just slowing with seven trillion dollars. | ||
| And that's this year, and more coming. | ||
| That delta is $2 trillion. | ||
| Explain to the audience, we've got a couple minutes on this side. | ||
| Can we have a system that continues with $2 trillion annual deficits that are just added to the national debt, sir? | ||
| Well, the answer is absolutely not. | ||
| As we see, interest payments on the debt are already getting out of control. | ||
| It's affecting the Fed's ability to fight inflation. | ||
| The likelihood is they're not gonna raise rates tomorrow, despite the fact that headline inflation's going up. | ||
| And the reality is that they can't really do it, right? | ||
| Last time they raised rates to try and quell inflation, it put a squeeze on the banks. | ||
| And I think they're worried about the same thing happening now. | ||
| So it's stopping our ability to deal with the problems. | ||
| Noel Rabini said that permanently higher inflation would be the reality for the world. | ||
| He said this 2% target was now mission impossible. | ||
| He said this 2% target was now mission impossible. | ||
| And in large part, that's been driven by massive deficit spending, which has tied our hands behind our back. | ||
| And in large part, that's been driven by massive deficit spending, which has tied our hands behind our back. | ||
| It's becoming an impossible problem to solve. | ||
| It's becoming an impossible problem to solve. | ||
| We've said this before, this is how empires have collapsed throughout history. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We've said this before, would be the reality for the world. | |
| It's happened over and over and over again. | ||
| In 71, when Nixon took us off the gold standard, governments around the world knew how this would end. | ||
| And it's playing out in front of our eyes. | ||
| And this administration is doing everything they can to pull that timeframe forward and exacerbate the issue. | ||
| But if it doesn't stop now, we're at the point of no return. | ||
| Birch, my guest is Philip Patrick. | ||
| We have him on a lot to talk about capital markets. | ||
| He's over at Birchgold. | ||
| Remember, Birchgold is our partner in putting out the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| We started this a couple of years ago because we knew this day was coming. | ||
| We've just put out the fourth installment and it is about Richard Nixon. | ||
| It's about one of the most consequential weekends in the history of this nation and one of the most important and consequential acts in the economic history of not just this nation, but the world. | ||
| The 13th of August to the 15th of August, 1971 at Camp David, where President Richard Nixon and John Connolly and other advisors decided to stop the convertibility of the U.S. | ||
| dollar into gold, which the American people have been promised, and also shut the gold window for all the other nations on Earth. | ||
| It kind of came as a shock on that Sunday night. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Make sure you go to birchgold.com. | ||
| Not just to get your copy totally free of the end of the Dollar Empire, the entire series, but the new fourth installment about the assassination of our prosperity. | ||
| Remember, the thing that makes this show different, the reason you're so powerful as a political entity, this audience, is that you're now enlightened about capital markets and about the underpinning of money to power. | ||
| That's where they fear you. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| Back in the warm in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| When you have the Secretary of Treasury that looks you in the eye, Philip Patrick, and lies to you, and you have a guy like Rabini, who's been such an expert in macroeconomics and the global economy, and he's warning us on a macro level that the world is too leveraged up, not just the United States. | ||
| The United States he particularly singles out, but the entire world is so over leveraged that this is going to end in tears. | ||
| Why in the United States do we really go back to Nixon? | ||
| The FDR, obviously, in 1932, about the gold standard. | ||
| But we really bring it forward after the Bretton Woods Agreement, after the war, to essentially the end of Bretton Woods in that weekend in Camp David. | ||
| Why is that weekend so important? | ||
| And here's the beauty of it. | ||
| It is never discussed. | ||
| I think there's been one book over the last 20 or 30 years about it written by one of the heads of the Yale School of Management, who's not exactly a conservative. | ||
| And even that book's pretty damning. | ||
| Why does nobody talk about this? | ||
| Why does nobody talk about it over a weekend? | ||
| They made a decision to stop the convertibility of the dollar into gold. | ||
| And by the way, if that happened today with the alternative media we have, there would be a firestorm. | ||
| No firestorm. | ||
| It would make the great fire of London look tame. | ||
| Philip Patrick. | ||
| Look, I mean, it's a story ultimately of how the U.S. | ||
| went from the world's most prosperous nation to a paper tiger, and it boils down to deficit spending, which during an age of the gold standard simply wasn't possible. | ||
| And of course, back in 1971, Nixon decided that the world would be better off if he could massively increase spending, which was only possible if the dollar was no longer supported by gold. So essentially he temporarily removed the US from the gold standard and that really ushered in an age of unconstrained money printing. Since that day the dollars lost 86 percent of its purchasing power and quite frankly it was | ||
| truly shocking how little thought went into Nixon's decision. | ||
| For the first time in history, by the way, the global reserve currency wasn't backed by gold, and we embarked on a massive experiment with Keynesianism, and I think we're living in the ashes of that today. | ||
| We've said before, and we've come on, as you write the series of the Dollar Empire, things become More and more true, and we're almost writing history in front of us, but it's incredible the lessons from the past, what they can teach us today. | ||
| If only our current administration had studied a little bit harder, I think we wouldn't be in the position we are. | ||
| You know, this is one of the reasons that started in 32 with FDR. | ||
| They knew that unless they got Off of gold. | ||
| You couldn't do the massive printing of the Great Depression, and even World War II. | ||
| Nixon, because of the guns and butter, remember he had the Vietnam War, and Nixon knew that was going to go on. | ||
| Other global commitments, because we were becoming an empire from a republic. | ||
| But also, Nixon made a deal with Pat Monahan, and he basically said, I'm not going to shut down the spinning of the Great Society. | ||
| Nixon never went after any Great Society program. | ||
| In fact, the EPA, he added to them. | ||
| Nixon was, quite frankly, a globalist, a true patriot. | ||
| I'm not trying to get on Nixon. | ||
| The thing I want to go back to that's shocking, and this is why It's very important to go to Birchgold.com and get the report. | ||
| Get all of them and see the level of work the Birchgold team's done with us in putting this together. | ||
| But also call Birchgold. | ||
| Call the guys and ask them. | ||
| Call the team over there and ask them. | ||
| Connect with them about gold overall. | ||
| Why the Federal Reserve? | ||
| Why you got Janet Yellen looking at you and facing lying to you? | ||
| Remember, she's your Secretary of the Treasury. | ||
| Why the Treasury and the Fed are spending all this time on the central bank digital currency, yet the Global South Which I'm honored to say that Philip Patrick, the team at Birch Gold, War Room and Bandit were the first to call that this BRICS thing is real. | ||
| And watch out, there's a new geopolitical entity. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| The guys in the Global South that control the resources, their central banks are buying gold. | ||
| And I keep telling people. | ||
| The people that run these countries are not stupid. | ||
| They have all the Stanford MBAs. | ||
| They have the Harvard MBAs. | ||
| They have an HP 12C. | ||
| They can run all the net cash flow. | ||
| They understand what's going on. | ||
| And those young people around them are saying, hey, boss, I got an idea. | ||
| Let's buy some gold. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So at record rates, the central banks of this country are buying gold. | ||
| Now, this is the point that's going to shock you. | ||
| They're doing it. | ||
| They're running linear programs and getting down to what they need to back up what they've got and not to let the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve note, crush them. | ||
| To Philip Patrick's point, when you read this, and in my research, as I said, it's only been a couple of one or two books ever written about it, but even very little news coverage. | ||
| Philip, the thing that shocked me coming out of HBS and Goldman Sachs and having my own firm. | ||
| They made one of the most monumental decisions in world economic history. | ||
| And I'm still not sure if they ever looked at any financial models. | ||
| Nothing's in the writing that you can actually get to. | ||
| I mean, John Connolly was a blowhard politician. | ||
| He looked like you call Central Casting for a text and this guy shows up. | ||
| And he had business connections, aerospace. | ||
| You had these other guys. | ||
| Nobody's running any numbers. | ||
| There's no dialogue. | ||
| Philip and I are looking. | ||
| I said, no, no, no. | ||
| I got the team. | ||
| I said, let me do some more research. | ||
| I came back. | ||
| I said, I can't find anything. | ||
| Next time we're in the White House, we're going to go over to Treasury and demand the archives. | ||
| No, seriously. | ||
| This is one of the most important decisions in world history, and they literally are just winging it, right? | ||
| And Nixon's trying to get it so he does it Sunday night, so he makes the announcement Sunday night on national TV. | ||
| They're worried about the speech. | ||
| How big an impact? | ||
| Walk us through the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar. | ||
| That killed us, didn't it? | ||
| Yeah, it's absolutely killed us and it's been exacerbated and escalating significantly recently. | ||
| Look, when Nixon took us off the gold standard in the 70s, the world, as I mentioned before, they were up in arms and they knew how this thing would end. | ||
| with massive money printing and they came to the US and said look what's going to stop you doing exactly what we're doing today and John Connolly actually a famous response he said listen the dollars are currency but it's your problem and and the reality is in the 1970s what was anybody going to do about that there was no rival to the US dollar there was no economic rivals it was a case of like it or lump it well the problem is 50 odd years down the line. | ||
| Number one, the argument for the dollar as a stable store of value, which is key to a reserve currency, is weakening, right? | ||
| The dollar's lost 16% purchasing power in the space of three and a half years. | ||
| Secondly, and maybe more importantly, when you act as the world's policeman and you weaponize your currency one too many times, which By the way, we've been doing with increasing frequency since the turn of the century. | ||
| There comes a point when the world turns around and says no longer, and I'm worried that that's where we are right now. | ||
| I made this argument in the Oval. | ||
| I said we got one bullet in the chamber of weaponizing the dollar. | ||
| We've got to use it to take down the CCP. | ||
| You start doing the rest of this stuff, you're going to have a major blowback. | ||
| They're going to try to get off the dollar, and I'm not arguing that we should be the prime reserve currency. | ||
| That's an argument and a debate we should have but I would definitely argue you just can't have it taken away from you because that's going to have the financial and economic collapse of the United States. | ||
| We're going to be like Argentina when you can't sell those bonds. | ||
| Philip Patrick, how do folks get to you over at Birch Gold because you're doing a tremendous public service but you're also helping people think through and that's what we want you to do. | ||
| Just immerse yourself in information. | ||
| You'll make the right decision. | ||
| But right now, you're getting spun by your Treasury Department. | ||
| You're getting spun by the Federal Reserve. | ||
| In particular, the business press has done a terrible job here. | ||
| So where do people go to get the truth? | ||
| It's very simple. | ||
| Birchgold.com forward slash Bannon. | ||
| Again, Birchgold.com forward slash Bannon. | ||
| That's going to get them access to a free information kit on precious metals, how to invest, as well as the end of the Dollar Empire series. | ||
| birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| They can reach me at Philip Patrick on Getter as well. | ||
| Okay, thank you very much, brother. | ||
| I appreciate it. | ||
| Everybody go to birchgold.com slash Bannon right now. | ||
| Do we have a cold open? | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| We have a cold open with Jeff Clark. | ||
| Let's go and play the one thing for the cold open with Clark. | ||
| There's a huge article and a great article in Politico today About the deconstruction of the administrative state and actually the action plan. | ||
| This is New York Times gives you the overall architecture, but Politico has done a great story about the new Republican revolution coming and Jeff Clark is very prominent there as is Russ Vought and everything the CRA is doing to actually get the shock troops in to deconstruct the administrative state and take on the deep state once Trump returns to power in January of 2025 after he won the 24th election. | ||
| Everybody, if Grace and Mo can push that out, if Carly Bonet can push it out over at her site, if everybody can get to that and read it, this is a must-read. | ||
| And Jeff Clark's one of the stars of that. | ||
| So make sure you get that. | ||
| Jeff Clark's working away, beavering away every day, 24-7. | ||
| Let's play Jeff Clark's cold open. | ||
| We're bringing Jeff. | ||
| Professor Soman, your view on the self-executing nature of this section? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I agree that it's self-executing, but it's also the case that once election officials make initial decisions about this, what they do is subject to judicial review in state court and likely in federal court as well. | |
| So I agree that if it was just up to some partisan election official, Professor McConnell would be right to worry that they would try to disqualify their opponents and get away with it, but it wouldn't be up to them alone. | ||
| What they do could be challenged in court, and judges who are not beholden to one political party or another, if the power was being abused to disqualify people who are not legitimately disqualified, then the court could overturn that decision, just as has been the case with other disputes over election qualifications in the past. | ||
| Professor Soman, let me ask you this. | ||
| Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey argued in the Washington Post last week that the insurrection clause would not apply to Trump, even if it was an insurrection, because, quote, the use of the term officer of the United States in other constitutional provisions shows that it refers only to appointed officials, not to elected ones. | ||
| What do you make of that argument, especially given the president takes an oath to faithfully execute the, quote, office of president? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think it's a really bad argument. | |
| The Constitution multiple times refers to the presidency as, quote, an office. | ||
| Moreover, it would be ridiculous to say that the one officeholder who is not subject to disqualification if he engages insurrection is the highest officeholder in the land. | ||
| the President of the United States, it would just be utterly ridiculous to come out with a reading like that and only the most overwhelming possible textual evidence could even begin to justify a reading of the Constitution like that. And the people who argue for this reading, you know, they're some smart people, but in this instance, they're just very badly wrong. | ||
| Does the Supreme Court want this case? | ||
| Does Chief Justice Roberts want this? | ||
| If you were a judge on the Supreme Court, would you be trying to avoid this as much as possible? | ||
| This is such a major question, and if these justices decide that actually Donald Trump cannot run, it will be probably the most consequential Supreme Court opinion in history, will it not? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's true. | |
| And I think you're right. | ||
| I think they will be. | ||
| They're sitting there just hoping that there's going to be some way to get out of it. | ||
| There may not be. | ||
| It may be that they really do have to decide the case. | ||
| that there are a number of procedural complications that could get in the way and keep them from deciding the ultimate question of whether Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection. | ||
| For example, there are all kinds of timing questions. | ||
| Has anything actually happened? | ||
| The lawsuits are being filed, but actually has anything happened yet? | ||
| Who are the authorities? | ||
| There's state law questions about what the reach of state electoral officials is going to be. | ||
| I mean, one very important point, potentially important point, is that Section 3 does not actually keep an insurrectionist from running for office. | ||
| What it does is it keeps an insurrectionist from holding I'm really proud of this show for being at the forefront. | ||
| is not going to be ripened unless and until Donald Trump is actually elected president. | ||
| And what a mess that would be. | ||
| I'm really proud of this show for being at the forefront. | ||
| As soon as I saw the initial report of the Federalist Society professors writing this, I told the team, I said, oh baby, this is going to be large. | ||
| And it's actually even bigger than I thought it initially was. | ||
| No, the Supreme court, the Supreme court understands if it ever gets there, which if we do our work, it will not. | ||
| It'll be a decision at the level of Dred Scott. | ||
| And I don't say that lightly. | ||
| Neither side will be happy by the, by the outcome. | ||
| Jeff Clark, you've been at the forefront of this. | ||
| I want to put what we just saw there, which I thought was a very reasoned debate on something that's a radical idea. | ||
| They're thinking it through in their own mind, because their whole thing is to stop Trump. | ||
| And coupled with the new information we know of Calabrese, the head of the Federalist Society, which I think he had to step into the breach here, because this thing is spinning out of control. | ||
| Jeff Clark. | ||
| Well, Steve, always good to be on with you. | ||
| And I do think that, you know, Mehdi Hassan there did have a You know, useful debate between Professor McConnell and Professor Soman. | ||
| And look, you know, if this did get to the Supreme Court, just like McConnell acknowledged, it would be potentially the biggest Supreme Court case in history. | ||
| You know, I think bigger, bigger than Dred Scott, because it really threatens to take away the franchise from people to be able to vote for the President of the United States. | ||
| And I think would also destroy the whole functioning of the Electoral College. | ||
| The first clip there that I put together, I called lawfare because basically what this strategy is trying to unleash is having dozens of secretaries of state and maybe hundreds of county officials, depending on how state law works, basically empowered to separately say, oh, we're just not going to put Donald Trump on the ballot. | ||
| And that is crazy, and I'll give you a homely example of that. | ||
| Imagine we were back at the time when Obama was running, and there was the whole controversy about where was he born? | ||
| Was he born in Hawaii and therefore qualified to run for president and to become president? | ||
| Or was he born in Kenya, therefore disqualified, couldn't become president? | ||
| Imagine if that question, Steve, had been put to individual county and state secretaries of state for them to, you know, decide on their own that question. | ||
| You would have had mass chaos in the streets, I think. | ||
| You would have had, you know, this biggest case in the history of the Supreme Court ever back then. | ||
| I think, you know, obviously the mainstream media would have attacked it and mocked it mercilessly as a cynical attempt by radical Republicans to block Obama from becoming president. | ||
| And we're just dealing exactly with that as mirrored onto Trump. | ||
| It's all about a stop Trump effort. | ||
| And I think it's really constitutional radicalism at the highest level. | ||
| And I think that's why that's caused. | ||
| And this relates to the second clip about, you know, the civil or military officers of the United States. | ||
| That's caused Professor Calabresi from Northwestern, you know, one of the top 10 law schools in the country. | ||
| He's one of the founders of the Federalist Society. | ||
| He originally said that the professors Baud and Paulson article Was a tour de force. | ||
| And that article argues that Trump can't be president under this disqualification argument. | ||
| But he has since backtracked, as you noted. | ||
| He wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal on top of Mukasey's article in the Wall Street Journal saying, yeah, you know, on second thought, I was wrong. | ||
| I reconsider. | ||
| I have to correct the record. | ||
| I've now been persuaded that actually this does not, this clause does not apply to Donald Trump and that he should be on the ballot. | ||
| Now, what he also said, Steve, was that he thinks Trump is loathsome and that he basically shouldn't be voted for by anyone. | ||
| But he still, you know, realized once he looked at some other scholarship by Professor Josh Blackman, that, you know, hey, yeah, this argument that that Baud and Paulson put together, who were, you know, Federal Society affiliates, that they, you know, their arguments all wet. | ||
| So, you know, that's the state of play at this point, right? | ||
| We even have people who realize that the stakes of this are so earth-shattering and could cause such chaos for the country that they're backing away from it. | ||
| How does this, your lawyer, you know, you're in the short list to be the Attorney General in the next, in the second Trump term, but this is... | ||
| As big a firestorm as the legal and constitutional, we know they're not validated, but that's a huge effort right now. | ||
| To get into the political realm, California is already talking about a way, the state legislature, they're coming up with a bunch of tricks, how they're just going to step in here and game off the ballot. | ||
| What do we have to do to stop this from metastasizing into the political process at the individual states? | ||
| I think, Steve, that you need to, much like is happening on the budget fight, you need to make sure that you get your congressman, your senator, you talk about how ridiculous this is, you talk about the fact that they brought Trump up in the second impeachment on the charge that he violated Section 3 because he either provided aid and comfort to an insurrection or was part of an insurrection. | ||
| And that failed. | ||
| It failed in that trial. | ||
| That's the end of the matter. | ||
| And the import of the third clip there about ripeness where Professor McConnell was discussing that is, I didn't get into this in my own article on this because there's, you know, unless you want to, I wanted to write another 120 page piece, right? | ||
| If you want to do something quick for people. | ||
| you know, there's only so much you can cover. | ||
| But the ripeness issue is important because the text of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment talks about not holding office. | ||
| Really, the questions would not be ripe unless and until Trump were elected. | ||
| And at that point, if Trump were elected by the people under the Electoral College system in America, then the issue of trying to use Section 3 against him is a political question, and it's one that the court shouldn't even interfere in. | ||
| They should let the process of that election run its course and leave President Trump in office. | ||
| Jeff, where do people get to you over at CRA, your social media, all of it? | ||
| Sure, so I'm at JeffClarkUS on Getter and Twitter, and on True Social I'm at RealJeffClark, and the center is AmericaRenewing.com, and the paper is actually up on Citizens for Renewing America. | ||
| If you Google Citizens for Renewing America and the 14th Amendment, the paper should pop up pretty quickly on the Google list. | ||
| Jeff, I'll have you back on about deconstructing the administrative state. | ||
| Thank you for joining us today. | ||
| Appreciate it. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| We're back here live at 10 a.m. | ||
| tomorrow morning. | ||
| It's going to be a firestorm every day, so make sure you're strapped in and come. | ||
| Really want to thank one of our sponsors, MyPatriotSupply, the number one company in preparedness. | ||
| And all I can tell you, you heard the madness from Janet Yellen. | ||
| You've seen what is happening to our currency. | ||
| You're seeing what happened to this debt. | ||
| You must be prepared. | ||
| Take care of your family. | ||
| Go to MyPatriotSupply today, right now. | ||
| Immerse yourself in information. | ||
| The number one preparedness company in the country and they will inundate you with information you need to know today about preparedness. | ||
| MyPatriotSupply. | ||
| We'll see you back here live at 10 a.m. |
Export Selection