Oct. 20, 2023 - Bannon's War Room
48:29
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. | ||
| Welcome to the War Room. | ||
| It's Friday, October 20th in the year of our Lord 2023. | ||
| It's Natalie Winters hosting for the fourth hour of War Room programming today. | ||
| I guess Steve is busy with CPAC stuff. | ||
| He's out in Las Vegas. | ||
| I am, as you probably discern, not in studio. | ||
| I'm in Los Angeles, actually, believe it or not, somehow managing to survive out here. | ||
| But as you guys know, I think where everyone's looking right now is, of course, the Imperial Capitol. | ||
| That is the city of Washington DC. | ||
| Everything going on at the speaker race, but don't be distracted. | ||
| There's so much more going on, whether it's the investigations and to the Biden crime family, whether it's linking the Israel aid to Ukraine, the Ukraine grift in and of itself. | ||
| There is a whole scope of issues that we will be focusing on here in the war room today. | ||
| And someone who I would say has basically always been. | ||
| On the right side of history is, of course, a good friend of the show, Congressman Matt Rosendale from the wonderful state of Montana, who I think we have joining us now. | ||
| But Congressman, I know the audience has probably seen your letter by now. | ||
| You and seven of your colleagues, as Matt Gaetz said, would take your pound of flesh in exchange if it just meant advancing the speakership of Jim Jordan. | ||
| Now, I know everything is fluid. | ||
| It seems like he is no longer, at least per secret ballot, Uh, the elector or rather the designate for Speaker of the House. | ||
| But if you could sort of walk us through that letter, I think we'll throw it up on the screen, but also just where we stand in all this craziness. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| What we recognize with there was, uh, 22, uh, folks that were not going to vote for Jim. | ||
| And unfortunately it was not based on any policy differences, uh, at all, or an agenda question. | ||
| There was really a lot of people that were just very, very upset. | ||
| and angry about the fact that we had removed Kevin McCarthy. | ||
| And rather than have that vented on Jim Jordan and keep him from becoming the speaker, because we know that he would do such an incredible job. | ||
| We said, look, this is in the best interest of the conference. | ||
| It's in the best interest of the country. | ||
| If you need to take some kind of retribution out on us, censure us, suspend us from the conference, whatever, then we will take that so long as we can continue to move forward the election of Jim Jordan into the Speaker's position. | ||
| We would be more than glad to take that retribution. | ||
| Unfortunately, these folks didn't take us up on it. | ||
| We still believe that what we did was 100% right. | ||
| It was in the best interest of the country. | ||
| We cannot have a Speaker of the House representing the majority, representing the Republican Party, Garnering more votes from Democrats to pass mammoth-sized spending bills than they get from the Republicans, okay? | ||
| And continue to leave this person in place to mound up, continue to mound up, the enormous debt on our country. | ||
| And so we stand by The fact that we made that motion to vacate and removed him from office. | ||
| But we are also recognizing that we're doing everything in our power to make sure that we secure someone else in that seat that's going to represent the Republican Party in a good manner. | ||
| You know, it's really wild that there's such backlash to the removal of Speaker Kevin McCarthy because I'm pretty sure the polls have showed continuously That's probably the most popular thing this Congress has done, at least under the leadership of Speaker McCarthy. | ||
| But of course, there's that age-old disconnect between the voters, the grassroots, and, you know, the lobbied special interests in D.C. | ||
| And I'm just curious if you could sort of, you know, to the extent that you can, you know, put our audience in the room. | ||
| In other words, you know, you use the word retribution, and it sounds like some of these grievances may be personal. | ||
| I know there are a lot of personalities, and you guys all have to work together, and it doesn't always just come together seamlessly. | ||
| But this retribution, do you think a lot of it is coming from, you know, the members themselves? | ||
| Or do you think it has to do with these, you know, backroom deals, the deals that are being cut, not even member to member, but more so with K Street, the lobbyists, sort of what the reporting we've been hearing. | ||
| So this goes back to January where we were trying to restore regular order to Congress, Natalie. | ||
| And what you saw was the consolidation of power over the last 15 to 18 years. | ||
| Into the hands of the speaker and the rules committee, 13 people sitting on the rules committee. | ||
| And we fought extremely hard to empower each of the members. | ||
| Now, look, I've said over the last several weeks, there's a lot of comments that have been made. | ||
| Tempers are hot, tensions are high, and people will say things that eventually that they will regret that they have said. | ||
| Not everyone can get into this situation of addressing the legislation that we need to put forward. | ||
| And not take it personally. | ||
| I don't. | ||
| I keep everything focused on policy. | ||
| So I don't take anything that anyone says to heart. | ||
| Not everyone is going to be able to do that. | ||
| And so what you see sometimes or when the tensions and the tempers get so hot and so high that some decisions are made and some votes are cast that not necessarily reflect The true desires of that person. | ||
| And so you try to work through it, but sometimes it just it doesn't happen. | ||
| And are there outside influences? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| In this city, we're talking about the exchange of billions of dollars that are at stake. | ||
| Billions of dollars. | ||
| If someone cares to vote for something or against something, whether it's a contract that gets awarded, Whether it's a policy that gets implemented that means someone has to hire X amount of people or different types of companies to carry out those actions, or whether it's just tax code where someone is being asked to pay a higher tax rate on something or a lower tax rate on something. | ||
| This is why, quite frankly, I introduced the Stock Act to prohibit members from being able to purchase individual stocks. | ||
| I mean, not only are they getting information that is much more sensitive than what you would call insider trading, but they literally have the ability here in Congress to affect the value of a stock by the regulatory climate or the tax climate that they impose upon a business or industry. | ||
| And so all of these things get culminated and you see them come together in this speaker's battle. | ||
| And so you've got all those outside interests that are battling to make sure their guy wins the seat. | ||
| And thank God. | ||
| That we also have all of the voters out there that a lot of us only listen to that are saying we need to make sure that someone is in that seat that is calling the balls and the strikes as they see them in an impartial fashion. | ||
| I think the administrative state thrives when the government runs, you know, on autopilot and you don't sort of see the messy inner workings of government, the fights, the necessary exchanges. | ||
| That you have to have because otherwise the backroom deals just prevail. | ||
| And, you know, frankly, I think it shouldn't be lost on anyone. | ||
| The story that has to do with the special envoy envoy to Iran, Robert Malley, you know, there's foreign interests, really nefarious foreign interests tied up representing people otherwise, of course, not registering with Farah in the style of Hunter Biden, I think, involved in this mix, too. | ||
| And I know you've also been ahead of the curve on that. | ||
| You signed on to a letter with some of your colleagues telling Senate leadership to not link Israel aid with that of Ukraine. | ||
| If you could just sort of walk us through that letter and even more broadly, your reactions to Joe Biden's speech last night, where he basically did just that. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| So it's really disappointing. | ||
| And that's why we did send that letter saying that these funds should not be linked. | ||
|
unidentified
|
OK. | |
| And I watched the president. | ||
| I watched that speech last night as he struggled to try and complete it. | ||
| The deterioration of the president is scary, quite frankly. | ||
| It's dangerous. | ||
| The reason that I'm convinced, the reason that there are Russian troops in Ukraine right now is because of this president. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| And now he's asking us to spend billions of dollars to do something about it. | ||
| But the fact of the matter is that when he first took office and was sworn in, he rescinded the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, keeping us from bringing in 850,000 barrels a day of Canadian, North Dakota and Montana crude oil into our nation. | ||
| And then the next thing he did was begin to have negotiations again with Iran. | ||
| We've seen the amount of money that they have made because of those sanctions being lifted. | ||
| The next thing that we saw was the sanctions were lifted off of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that empowered Russia to generate more money revenue by selling natural gas to Europe. | ||
| And then we saw the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan Where President Biden showed just how weak he was. | ||
| And so when you see all of those things take place, Putin says, why wouldn't I go into Ukraine and start trying to expand our reach? | ||
| But that is still not the United States border war to be fighting, because that's what is going on there. | ||
| And we have already sent over $100 billion worth of aid. | ||
| The only thing that we can actually track Somewhat is the 30 billion roughly dollars of aid that has gone in the form of weapons. | ||
| We can't even track all of that accurately. | ||
| And then to try and bring a hundred plus billion dollar supplemental bill forward right now and shamefully tie it to Israel. | ||
| And put them on the same page as Ukraine. | ||
| Israel suffered a terrorist attack and genocide from Hamas. | ||
| Let's get that straight. | ||
| And to tie the aid that they should be getting to Ukraine, which four years ago had only been described as a corrupt country that was laundering dirty money for dirty politicians. | ||
| And $60 billion of the $100 billion he wants to direct there. | ||
| This is absolutely unacceptable. | ||
| And then as the kicker, Natalie, he says we want to send $14 billion to increase our border security, and that's to do nothing but build additional facilities For illegal immigrants to move into and provide them a social network to prop them up, which is going to incentivize more illegal immigrants coming into our country. | ||
| The whole concept is distorted. | ||
| Before we get into the path forward, I'm just curious, you bring up the border. | ||
| We're not shy here in the war room. | ||
| We think that is the foremost issue that people should be focusing on. | ||
| It's not lost on anyone that when Kevin McCarthy, when they're trying to bring him back from the grave and he was tweeting out those, you know, cringe graphics, giving his plan forward and they had the five step plan and plank number four, not number one or even number two or number three was to secure the U.S. border. | ||
| I think that was sort of saying the quiet part out loud. | ||
| But before we get into the path forward, I'm just curious again, to the extent that you can not expose the any of of your colleagues, but, you know, at these dinners, whether it's whether it's at Capital Girl, Capital Hill Club, when these people are talking with the lobbyists. | ||
| Is there any... | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know what discussions are going on there. | |
| That's how you know you're on the right side of history. | ||
| But in your, maybe your best guess, and like I said, I think I know the answer to this, but is there anyone in those conversations who is representing the interests of the American people when it comes to the issue of immigration securing the Southern border? | ||
| It sort of seems like there's just a void and it's just these multinational corporations and their lobbyists who just want to not only flood this country with endless foreign labor, but just expand their marketability and market access. | ||
| I Look, honestly, don't get invited to those dinners. | ||
| Go figure. | ||
| But I can tell you when you're standing down on the House floor, there's a lot of conversations about making securing our southern border a priority. | ||
| And it has gotten stronger. | ||
| It's gotten louder. | ||
| I'll be honest, Natalie, the posse is who we can count on. | ||
| I cannot believe that there is not an incredible cry from across our nation, from everyone, when they see the human trafficking, the sex trafficking, That we hear that we're losing 100,000 lives a year here in our country due to drug overdoses. | ||
| The vast majority of that, which is coming from fentanyl, which is coming across our southern border. | ||
| The components are coming from China. | ||
| We know it's a chemical attack from China that's initiating this. | ||
| We know that for a fraction of what we're talking about sending to Ukraine, we could secure our southern border. | ||
| We can finish up the wall. | ||
| We can finish up the security system that goes along with it. | ||
| And we can implement the policies that are necessary to keep folks from streaming across our border. | ||
| Just to defend the asylum status. | ||
| That if people cross several borders, they're not coming to the United States to claim asylum. | ||
| They've already come across several borders. | ||
| The remain-in-Mexico policy. | ||
| If we just implement the policies that President Trump had put into place and were so effective leading up to 19 and 20, we would be in really good shape. | ||
| Gotta bring back the remain-in-Mexico policy, especially amidst this probably pressure campaign to bring in a host of Gazan and Palestinian refugees. | ||
| Maybe we need a remain-in-Gaza policy. | ||
| But Representative, before I let you go, Um, the path forward, um, in terms of the speakership race, I know things are always fluid. | ||
| Um, but more importantly, the war room posse, you know, who do they need to call? | ||
| Is there any thing or, you know, certain action item that they should be doing, saying, calling, focusing on? | ||
| So everybody needs to listen this weekend. | ||
| This is going to be critically important. | ||
| Jim Jordan has withdrawn, unfortunately. | ||
| He's withdrawn. | ||
| So Jim is not going to continue to pursue the, uh, speaker's seat. | ||
| We're going to have names that we were told after the conference meeting that they were going to adjourn and that we were going to return at 6.30 on Monday. | ||
| They would announce the speaker candidates. | ||
| Everyone has to have their name turned in by Sunday at noon. | ||
| That's Eastern Sunday at noon. | ||
| So we should know by Sunday evening who those candidates are. | ||
| And at that time, we're going to need the posse to be ready. | ||
| To mobilize and to start getting on the phone lines to make sure that we support the most conservative, strong member of Congress to be the next speaker. | ||
| Any front runners emerging as of now or no? | ||
| I left that meeting and I've come in here to do the interview with you guys and I have not heard any names yet whatsoever. | ||
| So I've got to get back outside of the office and hear whose names are starting to be floated. | ||
| The posse knows, the war room folks know who the folks are that they can count upon. | ||
| They know who's willing to stand up and be counted to fight for our nation, to reduce the amount of spending that's going on, to make sure that we start implementing policies that do put America first. | ||
| And so once we get that list, we're going to be sharing it with you and your listeners so that we can make sure we get that support rounded up quickly. | ||
| Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| Now, I have to say, I think there's probably a direct correlation between coming on War Room and not getting invited to those swampy dinners, but I hope that's a trade-off that you're willing to make. | ||
| If people want to support you, follow you, stay up to date with everything you're working on, where can they go? | ||
| On the official side, you go to at RepRosendale. | ||
| All my platforms, I keep it simple, at RepRosendale. | ||
| The unofficial side, you can go to Matt Ford, MattFORMontana.com. | ||
| Thank you so much, Congressman. | ||
| Have a nice weekend. | ||
| Thanks for having me on, Natalie. | ||
| Always good to be with you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Of course. | |
| I think we got Mark Paoletta joining us now, too, to sort of at least conclude this show's discussion of everything going on in the House, the Speaker race. | ||
| We got some great new guests to the show coming after us to talk about some really bombshell investigator reporting. | ||
| Mark, I know you worked in the Trump administration. | ||
| Now, of course, people can see from the background behind you, the Center for Renewing America, you guys have really been leading the charge on this whole speaker race since January. | ||
| So I'm just curious, your thoughts, not just everything that Congressman Rosendale said, but sort of where we stand, Jim Jordan, who potential frontrunners could be, what happened, everything. | ||
| How about it? | ||
| Disappointing day. | ||
| A messy day. | ||
| Not surprising. | ||
| I think Jim Jordan would have been a great speaker. | ||
| Um, and I think the swamps struck back, uh, but we can't let them win. | ||
| That's the most important thing. | ||
| Um, you know, and I, and I would urge Jim Jordan to reconsider. | ||
| I just heard, uh, Congressman Rosenthal say that, uh, Jordan is withdrawn, but I hope he reconsiders and thinks about, uh, running again, because there was no policy reason, right? | ||
| There was no substantive reason for any member to oppose Jim Jordan. | ||
| Uh, and so. | ||
| Um, he is by far the most popular, um, member of Congress, uh, Republican conservative in the country. | ||
| Um, and so I'm, I'm hoping he reconsiders, but we, we need to make sure, right, that there is no coalition, um, uh, government, uh, that was floated, that was an absurd idea, but could make its return. | ||
| Um, I also think that this needs to be done out in the open, uh, and have people vote and be accounted for in terms of these votes. So they should just stay on the floor and vote until they have a speaker. And it needs to be someone, again, as Congressman Rosendale said, that's going to fight for the American people, that's not owned by the swamp, that's going to rein in spending, secure our border. That's the most important thing, Natalie, as you said. | ||
| I worked, I was the general counsel of OMB during the Trump administration with Russ Vought as the director, and we found that money and helped devote that money to the wall and building the wall. | ||
| And when Joe, Joe Biden came in, he obviously just completely stopped it. | ||
| And I, my, I believe that he, um, uh, impounded those funds. | ||
| Um, but, uh, and, and more importantly, he just allowed our border to be overrun, um, and wide open, but we need to get back to work. | ||
| The house needs to open back up for, to do its work, to, to prevent Biden and the Democrats from running this town. | ||
| Um, and, uh, as he, as, as Congressman Rosendale said, there'll, there'll be a candidate for him, I guess, on Monday. | ||
| We'll hear who those, those people are that are running. | ||
| Uh, as I said, I think, uh, I'd wish, uh, Jordan would reconsider, but, uh, we need a conservative that's not part of the swamp to run the house. | ||
| This may seem like a, you know, naive rhetorical question, but I think the audience, it's probably on their minds, just like it's always on mine. | ||
| Why do these damn congressmen take so many long weekends, take so many breaks, so many periods? | ||
| It just doesn't make sense, which I would argue, nefariously, it's when the lobbyists get in there and work their magic, but from someone who's sort of been behind the scenes, you know, why do you think they're doing, why is there not this appetite to just continue to hold the votes? | ||
| You know, even why did Jim Jordan call the secret ballot on himself? | ||
| Yeah, you know, I think Jim Jordan is a good man. | ||
| I think he wanted to get the conference's view. | ||
| And that may have been his undoing, but I think he thought, I want the conference to buy into this. | ||
| And I think the best, you know, the larger issue, Natalie, of going home and not staying in Washington, I think Congress should stay in. | ||
| I spent 10 years in Congress as a chief oversight counsel. | ||
| Um, back in the, uh, early, uh, mid nineties. | ||
| So the early two thousands. | ||
| And, uh, I think Congress should stay in more and get the work done. | ||
| Uh, and they should have stayed in, you know, through the weekend to get this done because, you know, like anything, the more you take breaks, uh, the more secret deals are cut or people, you know, the, the special interests try and affect things. | ||
| I think this needs to be as again, Jim Jordan was the most popular Republican member of Congress. | ||
| In the nation, and you saw the grassroots get activated for Jim Jordan. | ||
| You saw them calling members. | ||
| You saw members of Congress being annoyed that they were getting calls from people, which is pretty astonishing, right? | ||
| And so I think you just, they need to come back and they don't, you know, when they start voting, they need to not stop voting until they have a speaker. | ||
| And as, as you said, we'll find out who these names are when they file their candidacies on Sunday by noon. | ||
| And then of those, of those You know, people who have filed, let's figure out who the best person is, who's going to represent the American people's interests. | ||
| Just curious, you said, I didn't know that you had worked with House Oversight for nearly a decade. | ||
| Your thoughts on sort of the ongoing debate about the efficacy of these investigations, where do you think they're ultimately headed? | ||
| Do you think we need to shake up the leadership? | ||
| I'm just curious your analysis. | ||
| Yeah, I was on the Energy and Commerce Committee as the Chief Oversight Counsel. | ||
| Um, I think they just need to press and keep, I think they are, they take time. | ||
| Um, but I think in terms of, you know, issuing subpoenas and seeking contempt, uh, and, and bringing people in for, um, you know, uh, depositions, but also hearings so that the American people can see, uh, you know, the answers to these questions and help, you know, drive, uh, getting to the truth. | ||
| So, um, I think the, The Biden folks have been stonewalling and people around them. | ||
| And they need, you know, they need to continue to keep pushing. | ||
| And Jim Jordan's a fighter. | ||
| I mean, I've been watching his investigation and he's going to go back if he doesn't reconsider and get on looking into the Biden administration. | ||
| But I think that needs to be a one number one priority or continue to be. | ||
| They take time, unfortunately, in terms of, you know, Issuing subpoenas and laying the groundwork so that if you're going to hold somebody in contempt, you know, you can you can you can win on it. | ||
| But a lot of it is public exposure and bringing these people out, making them account for themselves publicly before Congress, before the American people. | ||
| I saw a lot of people who said one thing, you know, behind closed doors and then, you know, in a hearing, they either took the fifth or they They changed their testimony or their tune when they were before the bright lights of Congress. | ||
| Mark, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| If people want to stay up to date with everything you're working on, where can they go to find you? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Thanks, Natalie. | ||
| At Mark Paoletta is my Twitter handle or my ex handle. | ||
| And website is markpaoletta.com where I post a lot of op-eds and things I write, some of my testimony. | ||
| And I'm at the Center for Renewing America as a senior fellow. | ||
| Mark, thank you so much. | ||
| Have a nice weekend. | ||
| Thanks, Natalie. | ||
| Now, War Room Policy, in the meantime, before we go to break, if you want to check out, we have a new story breaking on warroom.org, exclusive Google-backed, Biden-linked tech firm behind Central Bank Digital Currencies fund, a new program that fines and penalizes users for sharing misinformation. | ||
| The company Ripple Labs, which has not only seen a former advisor join the Fed under Joe Biden, he was nominated, he's going to help advise Policies on crypto regulation, but they're now funding research into implementing blockchain technology on social media platforms that could lead to you potentially being fined if you share stories that are deemed fake news or misinformation. | ||
| They don't exactly get into what constitutes either of those monikers, but I can tell you it's probably at odds with the theory of the case on most issues that we hold Here at the War Room, this company has also enjoyed funding, believe it or not, from Google and a host of Chinese Communist Party-linked venture capital firms, which we'll actually be getting into after the break. | ||
| But believe it or not, they've also met with representatives from dozens of countries to help implement the CBDC, which you guys may have heard about, the Central Bank Digital Currency, which we have a lot of fears that they'll be using that to usher in a sort of social credit score-like system. | ||
| Uh, here in the West. | ||
| So I would say this story may just confirm the worst. | ||
| So head over to warroom.org to check that story out. | ||
| We got two great reporters after the break. | ||
| So hang in there and we will be right back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room Battleground with Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| you Raja and I both agree that American firms should not be capitalizing Chinese military companies, Chinese surveillance companies, and the Chinese Communist Party's human rights abuses. | ||
| Sequoia has a history of investing in companies that do that, like Eversec, 4Paradigm, DJI, DeepGlint, and so we want to understand how this new split between Sequoia U.S. | ||
| and Sequoia Capital China, or Hongshan, What this means, whether we'll actually prevent American capital from flowing to such Chinese military companies or whether we'll actually unintentionally or intentionally allow Sequoia Capital China to avoid scrutiny from the new executive order from the Biden administration. | ||
| Welcome back to The War Room again, what you just watched. | ||
| Keep in mind, there's more than just the speaker race going on up on the hill right now, and like Steve always says, the investigation, which we've been doing here a lot in The War Room and to Sequoia Capital, its ties, of course, to the Chinese Communist Party, it's going to be a bombshell that is probably going to rock the city of Washington, D.C. | ||
| Notorious for scandals, but for a very long time, for years to come. | ||
| And someone who has done really some great reporting Not just on Chinese Communist Party infiltration. | ||
| I think we have a shared love for the China-United States Exchange Foundation and the United Front. | ||
| That's what I used to do a lot of my reporting on. | ||
| He's a great investigative reporter for the Daily Caller, whose name I hope I don't butcher, so I'll give it a try. | ||
| But I think it's Philip. | ||
| You know, I'm just going to let you pronounce your last name because I'm going to butcher it. | ||
| But you have an amazing new story up that has to do with the ties between, of course, venture capital firms Well, thank you so much for having me. | ||
| particularly advancing their economy, really at the cost of ours. | ||
| We know our pension funds back a lot of these firms. | ||
| I'd love if you could walk us through that story, specifically the Sequoia Capital angle, because that's something we're very interested here in the war room, and then we can get into on the other side, you know, how it plays into everything we're seeing going on unfold right now on the investigation front. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, thank you so much for having me. | |
| You're as, you know, wise as you are beautiful, and not trying to pronounce my last name. | ||
| It's. | ||
| I'm a reporter with the Daily Caller News Foundation. | ||
| And yes, indeed, we do have a shared passion for looking into, you know, the Chinese Communist Party and their influence operations. | ||
| But anyhow, we just did a story. | ||
| And in order to kind of understand this, I would ask you and your audience, To sort of think back to, you know, 2009. | ||
| You know, what was going on then? | ||
| We had, of course, you know, Barack Obama taking office, as painful as it might be to remember. | ||
| And we had, you know, Avatar premiering. | ||
| We had Michael Jackson dying. | ||
| And in the summer there, right around the same time, we had the premiere of the ABC show Shark Tank. | ||
| Now, the reason I bring this up is that the Chinese Communist Party, several years later, Launched a program which is suspiciously similar to sort of the core premise of Shark Tank. | ||
| Now what essentially they did in 2012 was they began to run what are called thousand talents plan startup contests. | ||
| And this is a vehicle to realize the core goals of the Thousand Talents Plan, which had been launched in 2008. | ||
| And that's more or less to try and incentivize talent, scientists, researchers to come back to China, bring that information to China in order for the Chinese government to use however they may wish. | ||
| Now, In this story, what we found was that they began to run these contests in 2012 out of a city in eastern China near Shanghai called Suzhou, and that a number five, in fact, venture capital firms in the United States, as well as dozens more from China and elsewhere, participated in these contests. | ||
| And it's really a combination of the Chinese Communist Party getting these individuals to come back and bring their information. | ||
| You've got the individuals who are incentivized to take part in these contests and capitalize or commercialize their ideas. | ||
| And then you've got these venture capital firms that are putting forth the money. | ||
| And we'll then get first crack at investing in Chinese government-backed projects. | ||
| So that's this, you know, unholy trinity, if you will, that was hatched. | ||
| The firms themselves that we looked at, these five, you know, they all were noted as being angel investors or participating institutions. | ||
| So that's at the institutional level. | ||
| And then each of them have multiple executives that then also took part in these contests either as judges or steering committee members. | ||
| So this has been going on now for a decade and is still going on until this day. There's a 2023 contest that all five of the U.S. venture capital firms that we looked into have individuals So the firms in question are, um, GSR and GGV Capital, IDG Capital, Walden International, uh, as well as Sequoia Capital, um, which you mentioned at the top of the show. | ||
| Now we know Sequoia Capital and Sequoia Capital China, it was recently spun off, we would argue because of, you know, the wonderful work of investigators like yourself. | ||
| And of course what they've been doing. | ||
| Over on the hill. | ||
| But I'm just curious, again, I think it's sort of a moot point now when you hear people try to say that Sequoia Capital is not in bed with the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Neil Shen, their managing director, is, you know, a Chinese Communist Party member, advisor, high-level advisor at that, through and through. | ||
| But when you see, for instance, the clip that we played in the open, you know, talks about investigating Sequoia Capital, using your story, I think, sort of as a perfect anecdote, you know, to demonstrate the ties that exist between this firm And the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Do you think that when this committee starts to really investigate the issue that is Sequoia Capital, when they start to sort of turn over the stones and look underneath what is under the hood, as Steve would probably say, I'm not the best at car references, but I try. | ||
| Do you think they're going to find continued collaboration on some of the most deadliest and nefarious ventures all the way up to military technology with these venture capital firms? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, you know, I don't want to speculate, but yes, absolutely. | |
| And, you know, it's totally clear based on what we've seen so far, at least when it comes to Mr. Shen and what was going on with the China arm, that yes, there's certainly some extremely suspicious activities going on there. | ||
| And I can tell you that while looking into this, you know, there's a ton more that, you know, we just haven't reported on yet. | ||
| And I really hope that others, you know, dive into this because there's just a lot of ugliness. | ||
| And so, as you mentioned, you know, Mr. Shen was a representative at the, you know, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. | ||
| And This shows. | ||
| This body is said to oversee the United Foreign Work Department, which is a Chinese intelligence service, and it's for diehard Chinese Communist Party supporters. | ||
| This isn't just some social club. | ||
| What I will show a little skin here is that There are similar such, you know, affiliations, if you will, to the United Front that we found among the other executives involved in our investigation. | ||
| And if we were to pull out just a little bit, we were really looking at, you know, US-based firms. | ||
| But if we were just to pull out just a little bit and see even just I can't believe for all the years that I've ever done War Room and hosted that it's taken me this long to have someone come on to talk about the United Front. | ||
| that have a very interesting through line that goes right back to the United Front Work Department. | ||
| Can't believe for all the years that I've ever done War Room and hosted that it's taken me this long to have someone come on to talk about the United Front. | ||
| That's where I first got all my investigative reporting. I would say CHOPs had to do with QSAP and all of these very friendly, very nice sounding groups. | ||
| But their motives and their methods and really their motivations are nothing to be described as nice. | ||
| Now you sort of told us where you're going to be going with your investigations. | ||
| I'm just curious, and I think I probably know the answer to this, but you guys over the Daily Caller and especially your work, you really have been leading the charge on exposing a lot of the CCP infiltration. | ||
| You know, of the committees that exist currently in Congress right now, have they reached out to you guys at all to ask more on these stories, the information, the work that you guys are doing, particularly on the Sequoia capital front? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't kiss and tell, but yeah, we're talking to folks on the Hill and I appreciate that. | |
| That's the way this business works. | ||
| We try to understand what they're finding and they try to understand what, you know, can happen with our work. | ||
| So that's just the name of the game. | ||
| But no, there's no plan as to how things will go forward. | ||
| I certainly hope that the select committee continues in the same fashion as they've been. | ||
| But, you know, time will tell. | ||
| Well, that's truly great to hear. | ||
| I think that's just the good news that the War Room Posse was probably looking for on this Friday afternoon. | ||
| Philip, and I'm not going to say your last name again, because I still don't even think I could do that, but if people want to follow you, stay up to date with everything you're working on, we'll definitely have you back on when you break those forthcoming stories, but where can they go to find everything you're doing? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'd direct you to go to The Daily Caller, and you can also find me on Twitter at Which must be really easy for folks. | |
| But anyhow, you can find me. | ||
| Thanks so much for having me on, Natalie. | ||
| You guys are doing great work. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| Thank you so much for coming on. | ||
| And you'll definitely have to come back. | ||
| Any person who knows what the United Front is and what QSF stands for is a friend of mine. | ||
| So thank you so much for coming on. | ||
| Now, I think we got another clip pivoting to, I would say, another link to the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Not directly talking about Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but we're talking about the National Institutes of Health and the new director that Joe Biden wants to have confirmed who's going through her Senate confirmation process, not as we speak, but probably just yesterday. | ||
| If we want to roll the clip, we got someone from the American Accountability Foundation joining us to unpack what she is talking about. | ||
| Trigger warning, it's pretty ridiculous. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So here's my question. | |
| Should taxpayers fund gender reassignment experiments or research that are purely cosmetic, redestroy healthy tissue and organs, or when they use FDA-approved products off-label with significant negative irreversible impacts? | ||
| Again, this off-label use isn't treating diseases or illnesses. | ||
| Should taxpayer funds be used to do research or fund these irreversible, horrifying, irreversible procedures and the use of these hormones off-label? | ||
| So, Senator, thank you very much because it's very clear that you share my concern over the well-being of the LGBTQ community, especially young, vulnerable people. | ||
| What I can tell you is that if confirmed, I will commit to leading NIH to conduct the research that will achieve the very best health for these I'm sorry to cut you off, but right there, do you believe that it's okay to fund this type of research where these irreversible procedures are being done? | ||
| Do you think there's any experiment that you can think would justify irreversibly damaging these poor little boys and girls who are 14, 15 years old? | ||
| Will you fund that type of research? | ||
| Any research that we do, Senator, with regard to human subjects has to be done in a way that does no harm and produces the maximum benefit to the people that are participating in the research. | ||
| And that will be the principle with which I approach any research, especially for this vulnerable population. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| Pretty radical saying the quiet part out loud. | ||
| Joining me now is Jitz Friedman, who works with the American Accountability Foundation, who does really, really fantastic work on all things. | ||
| I feel like you guys are sort of like a ringer, but you're really good at every issue, whether it's the indoctrination of kids in schools, Anthony Fauci, it's a great organization. | ||
| Um, but we just played that video talking about who the new National Institutes of Health director is probably going to be, if confirmed, hopefully not. | ||
| Um, but I'd love if you could walk through the radicalness that we just saw, and then maybe we can get into some of her other conflicts of interest, particularly with Pfizer and big pharma. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Absolutely. | |
| First of all, thank you for your very kind words. | ||
| It's a, you know, we really appreciate that, especially coming from you. | ||
| That's a high praise. | ||
| Um, yeah, so her name is Monica Bertagnoli. | ||
| She's the, uh, she's the nominee to be the next, uh, you know, the head of, the director of the National Institute of Health. | ||
| Um, she was lobbied for personally by Dr. Fauci himself, which, um, should, should already kind of raise some red flags. | ||
| Um, what we just saw is, you know, she's being asked by, you know, by senators who are concerned, like, what will you be participating in all the gender kind of madness we're seeing in the world today? | ||
| And she refuses to say. | ||
| No. | ||
| This, you know, the Senator's asking here, are you going to be funding, are you guys at the NIH going to be funding irreversible, you know, he says irreversible a few times, irreversible experimental gender stuff? | ||
| And she can't say the easiest word in the dictionary to say, no, I'm not going to do that because that's crazy. | ||
| Everybody knows that's crazy. | ||
| And you know, she, she's, this isn't like a, you know, a new thing with her. | ||
| She actually worked at this, a cancer institute called Dana-Farber. | ||
| Where they were actually posting about how they're very concerned about men with cervixes. | ||
| I told that to my wife and she just burst out laughing. | ||
| But this is a serious thing, unfortunately. | ||
| They also talk about women with prostate issues. | ||
| It's just incredible. | ||
| People used to think that in the future we'd be living in one of these dystopian sci-fi movies It feels like instead we're living in like an Abin and Costello Three Stooges movie instead, because this is just nuts. | ||
| You know, we need a prostate exam for Mrs. Johnson. | ||
| Like, this is the level of stuff that we're dealing with here, and this is who Biden wants to run the National Institutes of Health. | ||
| And she also has some interesting ties. | ||
| I think I had had your executive director or someone else affiliated with your foundation on to discuss some of her ties. | ||
| To Big Pharma, but she is, I was gonna say, a bad hombre, that's what Trump would probably say, but I guess she's not an hombre. | ||
| Although, you know what? | ||
| Given what she just said, maybe that's a perfectly apt way of describing her. | ||
| But if you could just walk the audience a little bit through some of those concerning ties, and just in general, more to the idea of who exactly this lady is. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, this is where it gets interesting, because she also said during the hearing about her, you know, she tried to kind of downplay her ties to Big Pharma. | |
| Um, by kind of fudging the facts a little bit. | ||
| Uh, when we actually look at, you know, what, how these things actually work, it looks like big pharma basically bankrolled her entire career, but not directly. | ||
| So she has that deniability, but it's very clear that all of her research was funded by big pharma. | ||
| She's worked for, you know, on the, served on the board of different pharma companies. | ||
| Um, it's, and it's very concerning. | ||
| I mean, we just saw during, you know, COVID and all that going on, how there's, you know, the potential for serious corruption in our health agencies. | ||
| Um, and, you know, this is another just huge red flag. | ||
| Again, this is a person who was endorsed by Anthony Fauci. | ||
| So that's, you know, red flag number one. | ||
| Uh, she doesn't know what kind of a person has a prostate versus what kind of a person has a cervix. | ||
| Big red flag number two. | ||
| And her entire career was bankrolled by Big Pharma. | ||
| Um, I think three strikes and you're out. | ||
| I think the, uh, the endorsement by Anthony Fauci is what we call a non-starter, frankly. | ||
| It's the, uh, the kiss of death, maybe a masked kiss. | ||
| Of death. | ||
| But before I let you go, I know you guys have also done some great work exposing who runs, I forget the exact name of the organization, but again, a very radical, specifically on the gender front. | ||
| It was at the American Public Library, American Librarian Association. | ||
| But you guys were really instrumental in exposing her. | ||
| And I think you guys had an interesting follow up. | ||
| You guys followed her because Barbara Bush gave her an award because of course she did. | ||
| But just to sort of wrap up on that story, what happened there? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, well, sure. | |
| We've been tracking the American Library Association for some time now, and their president, a person named Emily Drabinski, who describes herself as a Marxist lesbian. | ||
| And this is the American Library Association. | ||
| This is a kind of a nonprofit that has a lot of influence at libraries across America. | ||
| They're a very old institution. | ||
| They're very, very influential. | ||
| And then, yeah, like just a couple weeks ago, the Barbara Bush Foundation for Children's Literacy gave this organization an award, and we thought, you know, we owe it to the public to make sure everyone knows what this group is really about. | ||
| So we kind of crashed their party, their, you know, we crashed this fancy DC cocktail party. | ||
| We put up a nice big truck outside with billboards, you know, saying the truth about it. | ||
| I don't know if I could say it on TV, but, you know, the billboard said the American Library Association wants your kids to read about anal That is so awesome that you guys did that. | ||
| I love that. | ||
| gave up flyers showing pictures from the books the American Library Association is trying to put in front of our kids. | ||
| And I think that really says it all. | ||
| You don't really have to make an argument. | ||
| You just show people the images of these extremely sexually graphic books that they want in libraries across America. | ||
| And I think people can make up their minds from there. | ||
| That is so awesome that you guys did that. | ||
| I love that. | ||
| Our side needs more people like you and so frankly to the children of this country. | ||
| Yes, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| If people want to follow you, the foundation, support everything you guys are doing, where can they go to do so? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, thank you so much. | |
| Please follow us on Twitter or X. I'm not sure which one we settled on yet. | ||
| Exposing Biden. | ||
| At Exposing Biden, we've run into a little bit of trouble from posting some of the images of these books that they're showing to kids. | ||
| Apparently these books are too graphic. | ||
| Yes, thank you so much. | ||
| And I have to say, exposing Biden I think may be the best Twitter handle that I've seen. | ||
| I'm going to want it from you guys. | ||
| I'm going to have to steal it. | ||
| Thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| Have a good one. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you so much. | |
| And Warren Posse, thank you for hanging with me. | ||
| Got to tell you, after watching that segment, specifically the Sequoia Capital stuff, if you think the people up on Capitol Hill, the people in the Biden regime care at all about you and your financial future, you are sorely, very sorely mistaken, which is why you've got to go to birchgold.com slash Bannon to make sure that you put your financial future in your own hands. | ||
| And speaking of your future, if you care about drugs, your health, medicine, wellbeing, all that, you also got to check out jacemedical.com. | ||
| I think it's promo code war room. | ||
| I probably should know that. | ||
| Um, but if you just go to the website, you can see how you can get, uh, see if they have what you need. | ||
| Um, they probably do. | ||
| They have a great selection of, uh, drugs and medicine, everything like that. | ||
| Um, that's not made in China. | ||
| That's not reliant on the Chinese Communist Party, which I would say is always a good thing. | ||
| All this talk about the United Front and Chinese Communist Party infiltration makes me nostalgic for the good old days a few years ago, where that seemed to be the biggest news story we were focusing on. | ||
| We weren't talking about World War III. | ||
| Nuclear war, but I guess that was probably also because we had President Donald J. Trump in office. | ||
| Warren Posse, make sure you call your congressman 202-224, rather 225-3121 this weekend. | ||
| As they say, no days off in the war room, because we've got a country to save, and Steve knows that, so that's why he'll be back tomorrow at 10 a.m. | ||
| Again, Warren Posse, thank you so much for hanging with me. |
Export Selection