March 18, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:52
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| about Donald Trump increasingly sounding like a fascist, a dictator, mimicking them, and using words that are clearly out of the pages of some of the most powerful autocrats or dictators of our time in the world. | ||
| And I guess the fear is that for some Americans who may not be informed about history, there's There's that vulnerability that Trump preys upon. | ||
| Um, and then there are those who are making the choice. | ||
| And I need to understand that. | ||
| Is there any precedent? | ||
| Or is this how fascism works? | ||
| Are they sucked in and brought in on different terms? | ||
| Whether Trump has something on some Republican leaders or others are just so uninformed, they don't care. | ||
| Is it a mixture? | ||
| How does it work? | ||
| Is there a precedent? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I totally agree with what you've just said, Mika, and that's how fascism and totalitarianism and, in Germany's case, the Holocaust came to Germany, which had been a country where there were big institutions of democracy until, as you well know, the early 1930s. | |
| In a way, Donald Trump has done us all a favor, because if you and I had been talking, Mika, let's say 20 years ago, and we had been talking about what would have seemed like a very abstract and distant subject of how fascism and dictatorship might come to America, You probably would have been more wiser. | ||
| I would have said you would have had some smiling person pretending to be a normal candidate like all the candidates for president who had gone before all the way back to 1789 and suddenly after getting elected that person would use the enormous powers of the presidency that are given to that person by the Constitution. | ||
| In a way Donald Trump has made it easier because when he tells you he'll be a dictator for a day We all know that dictators don't resign after a day when he uses the word bloodbath. | ||
| Yes, it was in the context of an automobile industry speech, but he knew exactly what he was saying. | ||
| When he talks about suspending the Constitution or migrants as animals, you know, this is him. | ||
| He's telling you what this choice is. | ||
| So you were asking, Mika, is there any precedent for this? | ||
| No. | ||
| I hate it when people treat this race as if it's just one more presidential campaign, you know, with lots of jokes, you know, both sides, you know, applause in both candidates. | ||
| Yes, these are two old candidates. | ||
| One of them is mentally stable, Joe Biden, whom I saw give a great speech at the Gridiron dinner on Saturday night. | ||
| Donald Trump, if you look at one of his speeches at these rallies, this is not someone who seems to have all his marbles. | ||
| So all I'm saying is, apologize for the long answer, but it's important. | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
As we talk about this campaign, as it unfolds, we have never seen anything remotely like this in American history. | |
| A major party candidate is saying, you elect me, there's going to be dictatorship, bloodbath, violence, retribution against my political enemies. | ||
| That equals what we saw in Italy and Germany and other places. | ||
| If Americans do not get that, if they choose that voluntarily, then this country has changed in a way that I do not understand. | ||
| If you think you shouldn't take this seriously, one should believe him. | ||
| At this point, the violence of January 6th is something that he talks about in a wistful way. | ||
| He wants to help these people, these people who have committed crimes. | ||
| And we look at global threats around the world, and it seems that the threat of violence within I'm reading a lot lately about people concerned about more violence here in the U.S. | ||
| promulgated by Donald Trump. | ||
| And when he does that, you can see that he's serious about it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, look, I don't really need much context to understand what he's saying. | |
| I know that people have been going over and over his words. | ||
| It's very clear what the use of the word bloodbath, and that subclause, when he says, oh, and by the way, if I don't get elected, means. | ||
| As Joe said, auto analysts don't usually use terms like bloodbath when it comes to upturns or downturns in the auto industry. | ||
| It's very clear what he's saying, and the context is, you know, eludes people like Elon Musk, who apparently thinks this was an auto commentary, but is absolutely plain to anybody listening to that. And you only need to listen to it once and you don't need a language expert to know what he's saying. And he's not just saying I'll pardon the hostages, as he calls them, the criminals who were put away for | ||
| January the 6th. He's signaling the future such acts have a green light from him. So this isn't just a commentary on the past on the January 6th convicts. This is an enabling statement about people who are going to help him this coming election. So the bloodbath comment I think is absolutely unequivocal. There's there's no need to pass this. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Bye. | |
| Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| I got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
MAGA Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. Here's your host, Stephen K. Babb. | |
| It's Monday, 18 March, Year of Our Lord 2024, a massive day. | ||
| We're going to start at the Supreme Court with an incredibly important hearing today. | ||
| Dr. Pierre Khoury, one of the leaders in the medical freedom movement, joins us on the steps of the Supreme Court. | ||
| Dr. Khoury, what is being argued today? | ||
| Why are you at the Supreme Court? | ||
| Well, I think this is one of the most important cases in our time. | ||
| I mean, this, essentially, this case is about our federal government censoring private American citizens. | ||
| And they do this, they did this rapaciously throughout COVID. | ||
| You know, there's a rally here now, there's a lot of press here. | ||
| It was put on by Children's Health Defense. | ||
| I just gave a speech of about 10 minutes. | ||
| And Steve, I just talked about how I, I am one of the more censored physicians in this country, and I detailed all of the forms of censorship that I've endured. | ||
| And it wasn't just social media. | ||
| That was just the tip of the iceberg. | ||
| I mean, this is across media, across medical journals. | ||
| And we've gotten taken down off of PayPal, Shopify, Presswire. | ||
| We can't put out press releases. | ||
| And the most important censorship, Steve, is when they go after me, my reputation, my colleagues, our expertise and credibility. | ||
| That's how they go after truth tellers. | ||
| They just want you to appear as uncredible as possible so that the power of your voice and of your knowledge doesn't go far. | ||
| Dr. Corey, can you go through your bona fides and because they have deemed you or targeted you as one of the most dangerous professionals in not just the United States, maybe the history of the United States. | ||
| Your response, sir. | ||
| Yeah, I mean, that is absolutely shocking. | ||
| Prior to COVID, I was extremely well known in my specialty, not only nationally, but internationally. | ||
| So I'm a pulmonary and critical care specialist. | ||
| I ran ICUs and taught in ICUs over decades. | ||
| And I was the former chief of the critical care service at one of the largest academic medical centers in the country. | ||
| That's University of Wisconsin. | ||
| I was the director of their ICU. | ||
| My textbook on the field called critical care ultrasonography has been translated to seven languages. | ||
| It's in its second edition. | ||
| I traveled the world teaching that skill, and I was highly published. | ||
| And that's just me. | ||
| My five colleagues in my organization, which is flccc.net, you know, we're some of the most highly published experts in our specialty. | ||
| And they want to call us dangerous? | ||
| I mean, we have long careers. | ||
| We've been celebrated. | ||
| We've won awards. | ||
| I've won awards at every major center I've taught at. | ||
| And suddenly now I'm public enemy number one? | ||
| This is absolutely absurd. | ||
| During the pandemic, what was it specifically that you and your colleagues found and started coming out with as part of your normal professional understanding of events that got you banned? | ||
| Well, let me list the ways, Steve. | ||
| Number one, I wrote in May of 2020 that this was an aerosol-transmitted disease. | ||
| That was completely ignored by the CDC for another year and the WHO by two years. | ||
| They now admit that. | ||
| We could see it plain as day in April, and yet they still locked us down, they still had us socially distancing and wearing masks. | ||
| The second thing is, I testified in Ron Johnson's hearing in May of 2020 about the critical need for corticosteroids. | ||
| I did that at a time when every national and international healthcare organization recommended against it. | ||
| Guess what, Steve? | ||
| Three months later, it's the standard of care worldwide. | ||
| We could have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, had they listened to our expertise on corticosteroids. | ||
| And then the most famous was in December of 2020, I testified on ivermectin and that testimony went viral. | ||
| Our paper, which showed that it was life-saving efficacy in all phases of disease, was retracted Other papers were retracted, hit jobs, and the media started coming at us. | ||
| And it's because, Steve, we identified a low cost, one of the safest medicines in history, most available, and lowest cost. | ||
| It threatened the markets for the entire vaccine campaign, all the competing antivirals like Molnupiravir and Paxlovid and Remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies. | ||
| And that's when our lives all went sideways. | ||
| My career is now over for my advocacy, but I'm still standing. | ||
| Talk to me about what is the government and big tech going to argue today against you guys? | ||
| What is the argument of the government and what is the argument of the big tech, this kind of techno-feudalism, the oligarchs? | ||
| What are they going to argue against you and your colleagues? | ||
| Alright Steve, I'm going to preface it by saying I'm a little outside my lane because I'm not a lawyer here, but my sense is that they're going to argue that somehow this is in the public interest. | ||
| I mean, I don't understand what other rationale they could come up with that suddenly could support the violation of the First Amendment. | ||
| I mean, they're going to try to say that what we say is dangerous, our scientific opinions are dangerous. | ||
| I think that's largely what they're going to do, is that they're going to say it's their right to control speech if it's in the public interest. | ||
| And that is absolutely absurd. | ||
| You know, our forefathers saw this. | ||
| And that's why we have this amendment. | ||
| And I think it's inviolable, right? | ||
| Only hateful or violent speech should ever be censored. | ||
| And none of this, scientific opinions, do not rise to the level of that, ever. | ||
| Has the scientific evidence to date, as we get more receipts in, have they backed your points that you made early on? | ||
| The data that comes out, Steve, it just continues to support everything that we've advocated for. | ||
| The data for ivermectin still comes out positive. | ||
| They're still trying to distort it. | ||
| The data against the safety and efficacy of the vaccines continues to pile up. | ||
| The data for natural immunity continues to increase. | ||
| I mean, the scientific consensus, the grounds on which it rested, if it ever had anything remotely solid, I mean, it's splintered, cracked, and it's crashing. | ||
| Dr. Corey, before I let you go, one more time, just go through your debank— No, I was going to say— Go ahead, go ahead. | ||
| No, I was going to say— Why wouldn't he know that? | ||
| Although we know that—you know, because no one—because, again, we're going back to this topic of censorship. | ||
| They're never going to admit they're wrong. | ||
| They're still putting out stuff in media and newspapers and journals about safety and efficacy. | ||
| I mean, I'm looking at papers where they're literally saying it's now been proven that it's safe in pregnancy. | ||
| Nothing more absurd could be, could be the truth. | ||
| And so they're still censoring the truth. | ||
| Walk the audience through one more time. | ||
| You got deplatformed, debanked, able to process transactions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Just go through the litany of things that happened to you. | |
| So, everything really started after that Ivermectin testimony. | ||
| Two days later, the Associated Press did an interview with me where I buried the reporter in data, in trials from all around the world showing the efficacy of Ivermectin. | ||
| 24 hours later, they published a paper Which literally didn't... barely talked about ivermectin. | ||
| It just said it's another drug to debunk like hydroxychloroquine. | ||
| They talked about some couple who drank fish cleaner. | ||
| I mean, it was an absurd article. | ||
| We complained. | ||
| We had an ethics complaint against the AP. | ||
| Didn't go anywhere. | ||
| But here's the interesting thing, Steve. | ||
| I just learned one week ago that that article, which is from December 11, 2020, was just removed from the Associated Press website. | ||
| You can only find it on Wayback Machine. | ||
| But that was the first thing they did. | ||
| Then they retracted our papers. | ||
| You know, even though they had passed peer review, the highest level of peer review, we had senior scientists, colleagues of Dr. Malone's from the agencies pass peer review and then the publisher refused to publish. | ||
| They retracted. | ||
| Colleagues in the UK and Japan had papers retracted. | ||
| Uh, and then continued hit jobs in the media. | ||
| And then came the social media things. | ||
| They were trying to disappear us from the internet. | ||
| You know, the worst was YouTube. | ||
| Twitter at that time was absolutely horrible. | ||
| We were shadow banned, deplatformed, LinkedIn dropped us, Instagram, Facebook, we couldn't post anything on there. | ||
| But then they went further, like, we were trying to get donations through PayPal. | ||
| PayPal said they would not process payments anymore, so they're trying to starve us financially. | ||
| Then Shopify, where we were selling clothes, you know, for non-profit donations. | ||
| They dropped us as a client. | ||
| And so, and then Newswire, that we were trying to put our press releases on our findings. | ||
| They wouldn't carry our press releases. | ||
| And then I gotta tell you, I'll finish here by saying, then came the medical boards, Steve. | ||
| They've weaponized these medical boards. | ||
| You started to see medical boards coming after doctors all around the country who are using ivermectin. | ||
| Or saying that Ivermectin was effective. | ||
| They're threatening our licenses. | ||
| And I spend a lot of time now doing expert defense testimony, and I do it pro bono for doctors around the country who are trying to save their livelihoods. | ||
| They're literally trying to take their licenses. | ||
| And so, they don't stop. | ||
| They want us, they want to, you know, declare credibility. | ||
| Just hang on for one second. | ||
| We're going to take a short break. | ||
| We're going to come back to you on the steps of the Supreme Court. | ||
| Okay, we've got a lot we're going to get to today, including the defense, the Homeland Security bill may be shutting down the government at the end of the week. | ||
| Or over the weekend, we've got this Tyson's boycott people are talking about. | ||
| Raheem is going to be with us. | ||
| Josh Hammer is going to be with us. | ||
| Sam Faddis, Frank Gaffney. | ||
| So we're packed. | ||
| Before I go back to Dr. Peter Corey, Naomi Wolf has joined us. | ||
| Naomi, I don't say this flippantly, but you are a fire-breathing defender of the First Amendment on the political left. | ||
| I don't think your positions have changed at all, yet today the Supreme Court, people would, they've written a whole book about how you're a fire-breathing First Amendment advocate now on the far right. | ||
| Why is this hearing today so important? | ||
| And what happened politically? | ||
| Because there's been a massive realignment in this, as you have the big tech oligarchs combined with the government, arguing today that Dr. Pierre Corey and many others, including Naomi Wolf, Natalie Winters, Stephen K. Bannon, War Room are dangerous to American civilization and society. | ||
| Ma'am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Well, I agree with Dr. Corey and you all that this is one of the most important days in American history. | ||
| I mean, literally our first and most important amendment, the one upon which all the subsequent amendments rest, right? | ||
| Without free speech, you don't have any other freedom, is under threat today or at stake and what the Supreme Court that decides is going to determine whether we live in a remaining remnant of a free society or whether we are just another banana republic. | ||
| I empathize with Dr. Corey's emotions too, because his description of his credentials, his credibility, his high status in the establishment of medicine being literally overturned overnight | ||
| You know, I also experienced it in the world of journalism, and dozens and dozens of us have experienced it, and all of us have that same kind of question as we stand in the middle of the rubble of our lives, which is, how could this be if we are telling the truth? | ||
| How could this be if we're living up to the highest ideals of our professions? | ||
| Which he clearly has done, and all of the people who are the plaintiffs today clearly have done. | ||
| I mean, so what happened? | ||
| Everyone should know exactly what happened. | ||
| Louisiana and Missouri, to their credit, claimed that their speech was stifled when Twitter and Facebook, et cetera, restricted posts after pressure from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
| How non-intimidating is that? | ||
| A Louisiana District Court judge then found that seven Biden officials did, in fact, coerce these social media companies. | ||
| And that's the issue, Steve. | ||
| whether there was an effort to persuade or intimidation coercion. | ||
| Then the U.S. | ||
| Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit decided the White House officials and the FBI did violate the First Amendment right via this suppression if they said that federal employees could not coerce a platform. | ||
| So that's all as it should be. | ||
| Our Justice Department appealed. | ||
| The White House appealed. | ||
| That was not good enough for the Justice Department. | ||
| So that's why everyone is here today. | ||
| And the last thing I want to say is that I've been looking at the legacy media, trying to find the details about this case. | ||
| And I, you know, when you said what's changed, this is yet another symptom of what's horrifically changed, changed utterly, right? | ||
| Which is you can't find what the plaintiff said, who the plaintiffs are, or whether they were right or not. | ||
| In the legacy media, they do everything they can to cover up and smudge that information under the guise of misinformation. | ||
| So the plaintiffs are some of the most credible people in the United States of America. | ||
| They include Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, formerly of Harvard, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, Michael Schellenberger, who's one of the most distinguished reporters in America. | ||
| And those are the people who are being erased in the coverage of this incredibly important case that people can't assess. | ||
| What did they say? | ||
| Who are they? | ||
| And lastly, what they said turned out to be true, just as what Dr. Corey said. | ||
| But I just want to take one step back before I pause and say, the First Amendment doesn't just protect speech that is true. | ||
| What I was deplatformed for was true. | ||
| What Dr. Corey was deplatformed for was true. | ||
| All these people said true things. | ||
| You know, Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Kulldorff, We're trying to warn about the catastrophic effects of lockdowns. | ||
| But the First Amendment protects speech that's not true. | ||
| The First Amendment even protects hate speech, just to make a note. | ||
| There are very limited carves out on what is not speech protected by the First Amendment. | ||
| Threats of violence, for instance. | ||
| So, you know, of course, the famous yelling fire in a crowded theater. | ||
| So really what matters today, and everyone should look at the legacy media and recognize that they are lying to them. | ||
| In trying to say, oh, this is about how far the government can go. | ||
| No, the government cannot. | ||
| The government cannot use third parties to suppress the speech of Americans. | ||
| The First Amendment protected speech of Americans. | ||
| That is a thousand percent clear. | ||
| And the legacy media is doing this mission creep thing they do of trying to obfuscate that and suggest they can do it a little bit or they can do it, you know, short of intimidation. | ||
| That's nonsense. | ||
| And I hope and pray That the Supreme Court sticks to the Constitution. | ||
| And finally, I will say many incredible leaders who happen to be women are often written out of history. | ||
| And one incredible woman at the center of this case is Jeanine Eunice, who is a friend. | ||
| And the most extraordinary lawyer of her generation in many ways, I think, and she is representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the National Civil Liberties Alliance as their special counsel. | ||
| So they have the best, you know, one of the greatest lawyers arguing for them. | ||
| She deeply understands the First Amendment and her life, too, is turned upside down. | ||
| By this kind of bullying and harassment and unlawful censorship. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So Godspeed to her. | |
| The buried lead you talked about is so glaring, it's shocking, that the paper that did the Pentagon Papers, the New York Times, the one that broke Watergate, the Washington Post, are virtually silent on this. | ||
| This morning all the talk shows, it's all about Trump's bloodbath and Trump's a dictator. | ||
| Almost no coverage. | ||
| Traditionally, these would be wall-to-wall. | ||
| They'd have five or six analytical pieces. | ||
| They'd have crews down there. | ||
| They'd be talking non-stop about it. | ||
| Their silence shows you how concerned they are about the state apparatus actually being taken away from them, ma'am? | ||
| Oh, you're so right, but I would go further. | ||
| I mean, in my lifetime until just a few years ago, all the journalists in America would be on the side of Janine Yunus and these plaintiffs. | ||
| Every newspaper and You listen to Michael Beschloss. | ||
| I mean, a great historian is basically, you know, misinforming people, right? | ||
| But when it comes to the First Amendment issues, historically, that's their means of reaching their audiences. | ||
| You know, that's their means of reaching their audiences. | ||
| But the news apparatus is trying to get into bed with the Justice Department, and that is another example of our decay as a democracy. | ||
| Dr. Pierre-Corey, on the steps of the Supreme Court, any closing thoughts? | ||
| And how do we get your book? | ||
| How do we get access to all your content, sir? | ||
| Yeah, I think I just want to finish with the most important thought of all, is that censorship is tyranny. | ||
| And this country was built on fighting tyranny. | ||
| And like you guys just discussed, I'm really saddened to see such large swaths of our society who don't recognize that, that we all need to unite and fight tyranny. | ||
| But as far as for me and my work, Let me just tell you briefly, my non-profit, which is flccc.net. | ||
| My private practice, which is DR, so drpierrecory.com. | ||
| I treat vaccine injury and long-haul COVID. | ||
| And then my book is The War on Ivermectin. | ||
| Probably best to get that on Amazon. | ||
| And then I have a substack, which is pierrecorymedicalmusings.com. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| Dr. Corey, go with God. | ||
| We've got your back. | ||
| You're one of the bravest guys I've met, so keep hanging in there, sir. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks. | |
| The War on Ivermectin is a blockbuster book too, I think from Sky Horse. | ||
| Make sure we'll put it up and link to Amazon. | ||
| If you haven't read it, you've got to. | ||
| Natalie Winters, your thoughts, observations? | ||
| You were deemed, I think by Brookings and a bunch of press organizations, misinformation of 2022. | ||
| Your thoughts about this, ma'am? | ||
| Yeah, I think of all the titles that we get hurled at us working in the War Room, that's the one that I am the most proud of. | ||
| I think we forgot to commemorate our one-year anniversary. | ||
| I believe it was February 8th of this year that the Brookings Institution, in coordination with, of course, the New York Times, said that we were the top spreader of misinformation for all of our work in 2022. | ||
| Here at the War Room. | ||
| But I think that that story is sort of a good anecdote to extrapolate to what we're seeing going on today at the Supreme Court. | ||
| And you know, us here in the War Room, we're very critical of what elected Republicans do, whether that be at the state level or, of course, in Congress. | ||
| But I think today is actually a day that we should celebrate, because I think this is what actually getting accountability looks like. | ||
| In other words, I mean, let's celebrate for the fact that the deep state, these federal agencies, CISA, the CDC, the CIA, even federal agencies within the Biden White House, the Surgeon General, they are having to answer for their actions today. | ||
| They are having to make the case that what they did is legal. | ||
| And I think that that is so kind of far past the goalposts that we're used to seeing with these agencies, because what they're doing, right, their agenda, their intentions, it's very rare that it's ever actually unearthed or sort of, you know, flies above the radar. | ||
| But with COVID and particularly with election fraud, I think they really kind of overplayed their hand and their cover-up efforts. | ||
| The Praetorian Guard sort of became too intense, where that's why you're seeing the case being tried today. | ||
| I thank God for Eric Schmidt out of Missouri for bringing this case. | ||
| But I think that this is a very important day. | ||
| Again, don't get lost in the minutiae, I think, of all the ways that they've censored us. | ||
| I think people are well aware. | ||
| I'm sure most people watching this show probably have their Facebook accounts banned. | ||
| But I think for so long there's sort of this question of, you know, when we say, oh, they're trying to do this, they're trying to do that. | ||
| You know, who really constitutes the they, right? | ||
| Who are these forces, at least from the federal government level, that are conspiring to deprive us of our rights? | ||
| And I think today we're going to get the answer to that. | ||
| Natalie Winters, you hang on. | ||
| You're going to be co-hosting with him for a while. | ||
| We're trying to get Naomi back up. | ||
| We've got Raheem Frank Gaffney. | ||
| A lot going on here in the War Room. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're going to return to the Supreme Court in a moment. | |
| I mean, if there is, as a regular basis, the kind of back and forth between a spokesman and a member of the media, what a reasonable person might view as coercive might not in that context. | ||
| You know, maybe the press secretary yells on a regular basis, and if their volume increases enough, that might be viewed as coercion. | ||
| So I think that points up the context sensitivity. | ||
| I think as is usually the case when the court says it's a reasonable person test, it's a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts. | ||
| And I think that would include the prior course of dealing between the relevant government official and the relevant recipient. | ||
| I think here that really strongly reinforces the idea that there wasn't coercion. | ||
| These were sophisticated parties. | ||
| The Supreme Court is streaming the audio. | ||
| Grace and Mo are going to put that on an alternative channel if you want to listen to it. | ||
| I know Naomi's going to want to go over there. | ||
| Naomi, closing thoughts. | ||
| We're going to have you back on hopefully this afternoon to talk about how this turned out today, at least the arguments. | ||
| Your thoughts on what people should be watching for in this today. | ||
| Well, what they should be watching for is what I've already heard in that clip, which is that It's worrying that the Justice Department seems to have moved the goalposts to how how much coercion is too much, right? | ||
| Instead of the clear, bright line of the Constitution, which is the government cannot use third parties to silence the speech, the first minute protected speech of citizens. | ||
| So that's a concern. | ||
| And I just want to remind everyone, because this happened to me and I saw the emails that my lawyer got me, my case disclosure, you know, is going to be affected by this outcome as well. | ||
| The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security, you know, think about those organizations. | ||
| If you're a doctor, the CDC saying behind the scenes in writing to Twitter, Facebook, you know, this is misinformation. | ||
| You need to take action on this, harrying, bullying them. | ||
| But also just as a citizen, when I found out that, you know, law enforcement agencies were looped in, And the Bureau of the Census, who knows where we all live, right? | ||
| How many children we have, where our children are. | ||
| I mean, it's absolutely terrifying. | ||
| And so I hope that the justices don't get swayed by the obfuscation, mystification that clearly is the tactic of the Justice Department. | ||
| And I hope citizens will go take out their constitution and read the First Amendment and defend their rights and do everything they can to support leaders And organizations that are helping them defend their First Amendment rights because we have nothing without that. | ||
| And Natalie Winters just said that this is actually a joyous day because this is the beginning of real accountability of the oligarchs, the tech titans, the government, people that did this. | ||
| Is this why you said this? | ||
| You believe this is one of the most important days in American history? | ||
| I mean, partly, I love Natalie's hopefulness, but I'm not sure I share it. | ||
| I mean, I know exactly through the FOIA emails that we've seen and through disclosure from my attorney and through the work of the NCLA who is behind it. | ||
| It was a, it really was what the plaintiff's lawyers are calling a grand sprawling censorship edifice within the federal government paid for by our tax dollars. | ||
| So I hope It's a good day for accountability, and we will see more of the people whose names are on those emails whom I can list. | ||
| But I worry too that if it goes the wrong way, it sets a precedent for, you know, now it's COVID misinformation. | ||
| What's next? | ||
| If you are praying for someone to have an abortion, is that misinformation? | ||
| If you are critical of the government, is that misinformation? | ||
| I mean, keep in mind that the outcome of the 2020 election is also categorized as misinformation by the Justice Department. | ||
| If you don't like the outcome of a future election, are you going to be targeted by law enforcement agencies? | ||
| I mean, that is literally what happened in this case, and that is not America. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I hope she's right. | |
| Is the empirical evidence that you've seen to date that has come out over time support the fact that Dr. Cori and others were actually speaking the truth of that time and would have gone a long way to making the pandemic not as bad as it was and also to give warnings on the vaccine when they should have been given? | ||
| Yes, without question. | ||
| I mean, when Dr. Corey was trying to kind of marshal all the evidence, I understood his effort because there's so much evidence now confirming that if they had been allowed to have their say and Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff who were warning, you know, what you sent me, the clip from the New York Times saying that children and low-income children are now behind catastrophically in school. | ||
| You know, all the people who went hungry, all the people who died, the catastrophic social policies as well as the catastrophic medical treatments, they've all been proven so abundantly right that it's difficult to summarize. | ||
| But I really want to always say it doesn't matter if they were right or not. | ||
| It doesn't matter. | ||
| If you look at the history of science, things people believe, you know, that's medical consensus one year turn out to be, you know, nonsense and thrown in the trash heap of science in two or three years. | ||
| So, and that's how science works. | ||
| People have to sometimes ask questions, even if they're not right, or raise concerns, even if It doesn't turn out to be right. | ||
| It's not just the First Amendment doesn't just say your speech is protected if it turns out you were right about ivermectin or your speech is protected if it turns out you were right about mRNA vaccines causing menstrual damage. | ||
| It protects our speech. | ||
| The government cannot. | ||
| I mean, imagine the world that is going to be opened up today if the Supreme Court rules the wrong way. | ||
| Not just Twitter and Facebook will be the target of pressure. | ||
| And this was aggressive pressure from The Biden administration, this was like threats of retribution, right? | ||
| Legal threats, policy threats. | ||
| But any other organization, you know, the people who own your car, the people who hold your mortgage, they can all be leaned on by the government if your speech crosses some imaginary line. | ||
| And I can tell you, Steve, from my study of totalitarian societies throughout history, there's always a moving line of what is unsayable. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And that's the point of creating something that is unsayable or punishable speech and thought. | ||
| Look what's happening in Canada. | ||
| People are, you know, going to be arrested for pre-crime, you know, for thinking thoughts. | ||
| So look what happened in France and Ireland. | ||
| I believe there are laws that are in process against criticizing drug companies. | ||
| So this This is not going to stop here, right, if the justices roll the wrong way. | ||
| It's going to open the door to every single entity around you being subject to the government saying, oh, Joe Smith, Jane Smith, I don't like what they're saying publicly. | ||
| You've got to lean on them. | ||
| Lower their credit score. | ||
| Make sure their kids don't get into college. | ||
| And then we live in China. | ||
| Naomi, where do people go to get particularly all the great information you're putting out on the vaccines, on Pfizer, Moderna? | ||
| Where do people go to get all of it? | ||
| You should go to dailycloud.io. | ||
| I need you all to download the election integrity bill and send it to your elected officials at the state level. | ||
| You can order the Pfizer papers coming out in May, a new book. | ||
| With the latest reports on Amazon and on our website and you can find me on Substack and the podcast is Outspoken and the essays are Outspoken. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Dr. Naomi Wolf, thank you so much for joining us today. | ||
| Great work. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Natalie, your original investigative reporting on Dr. Fauci, this was the process started by now-Senator Eric Schmidt, when he was Attorney General, that had the monumental deposition of Dr. Fauci. | ||
| Dr. Fauci said things in that deposition that he didn't say publicly, right? | ||
| It's one of the reasons of this whole court case. | ||
| Talk to me about that. | ||
| Your investigation, the information you came up with about Wuhan, about the virus, about the sources of it. | ||
| I think Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is out today saying the United States should be looking at huge reparations the United States should pay because of Dr. Fauci's work. | ||
| Dr. Fauci publicly was quite different than Dr. Fauci in his deposition, was he not, ma'am? | ||
| Well, I'm sure his Chinese paymasters are happy about those comments. | ||
| And I wasn't actually talking about Fauci when I said that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think that applies to both Dr. Sachs and Dr. Fauci. | |
| I get PTSD whenever you bring up my old reporting on Fauci. | ||
| But look, I think the key issue here, you know, I could rattle on for hours about everything that we uncovered. | ||
| Not just the lies that Anthony Fauci was telling, but even just the cold, hard facts, right? | ||
| The deleted webpages from the Wuhan Institute of Virology's website showing that they were lethally manipulating bat coronaviruses, and then when they were caught, they said, oh, well, it was in the efforts of pandemic prevention, yet we're also the same group that's profiting immensely to the tune of, you know, millions of dollars, and in terms of just political power from these pandemics actually happening, which is really, I think, the greatest conflict of interest that has existed. But why I think they really don't want us to get to the | ||
| bottom of the origins of COVID is because it basically goes up against what I think their broader global agenda is, which really draws a nice contrast to what they're trying to do right now with the pandemic treaty. | ||
| And what I mean by that is that with the pandemic treaty, what they're focusing on is basically how to get us to all be, you know, submissive and really just, at the end of the day, comply with big pharma's profit margins and their kind of bigger agenda, right? | ||
| The focus of the pandemic treaty, it also dovetails quite nicely with misinformation. | ||
| They like this concept of social listening, where they basically are tracking Basically what you're thinking, what you're saying on social media before you even know it, before the next pandemic even happens with regards to vaccines and masks and PPE. | ||
| But if they can strategically drive the conversation away from the blame that should be adequately placed on the Chinese Communist Party, but more precisely the risky gain-of-function research that was okayed and supported and defended by Anthony Fauci and his entire ilk at NIAID and the National Institutes of Health more broadly, Then they really can control the narrative about public health and pandemics and the way that you address it, right? | ||
| The solution to the problem. | ||
| If the problem is just, oh well, we weren't effective enough in our gain-of-function research, we need to create more pandemic strains proactively and preventatively, then big pharma's profits, these research institutions, the Chinese Communist Party network of, you know, PLA-run labs, It's a win-win for them. | ||
| Whereas, if you actually get to the bottom of why COVID-19 started, because of the Chinese Communist Party's quest to basically tank the Trump campaign and, of course, reassert or rather assert their global hegemony and replace the United States in the global world order, well, you come to some very, very different conclusions about how you have to rectify that problem. | ||
| And I can tell you a pandemic treaty that cedes more of our sovereignty Not just to the Chinese Communist Party, but to Big Pharma certainly isn't the answer to that. | ||
| So I think that is why you've seen so much kind of boardy chess from their side when it comes to shaping the narrative about COVID. | ||
| And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that today we're going to see, you know, true, true, true accountability, but just think about it. | ||
| You know, a decade ago, you didn't even see these deep state entities, these deep state figures on trial. | ||
| They were still doing censorship campaigns like this, maybe a little less in terms of magnitude, but they never had to answer for it. | ||
| It was just a normalized part of American life. | ||
| But thanks to shows like yours, like the work of the guests you've had on before, it is at least being exposed and they at least now have to have their, not just metaphorical, but literal day in court. | ||
| As a great co-host, she just teed up our next guest, Frank Gaffney. | ||
| We've got about a minute here. | ||
| Tee up what Natalie's talking about. | ||
| This World Health Organization, the Committee on the Present Danger of China, has made this their number one target, at least for right now, on kind of an emergency basis about how we need to take action, action, action. | ||
| Tell us what the problem is for a minute. | ||
| I'm gonna hold you through the break here and come back. | ||
| Okay, I think I got a muted Frank Gaffney. | ||
| Frank Gaffney's going boomer on me. | ||
| That's okay. | ||
| Or Denver. | ||
| Here's what we're going to do. | ||
| We're going to unmute Frank and bring him back after the break. | ||
| My very dramatic toss to him. | ||
| Thanks, guys. | ||
| Okay, birchgold.com. | ||
| You think it's turbulent? | ||
| Today at the Supreme Court, I have to agree with Naomi Wolf. | ||
| One of the most important, least important days in the Supreme Court's history. | ||
| We're streaming it over at our other sites on Getter and on Rumble. | ||
| Grace Chong and Mo are doing that. | ||
| We're going to be back in a minute. | ||
| We're going to talk about the WHO treaty, as Natalie just teed it up. | ||
| They're working on bigger, to build back better. | ||
| That means to take your sovereignty. | ||
| And it's pretty far down. | ||
| This is a whole week of negotiations. | ||
| We're going to make sure that you're not only in on it, But that your voice is going to be heard all the way in Geneva. | ||
| Of course, this tree is supposed to get started at the beginning of the ratification process, I think in May. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Make sure you go to birchgold.com slash Bannon. | ||
| The end of the dollar empire. | ||
| Find out what gold has been a hedge against times of turbulence and times of turbulence we're in. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Okay, Frank Gaffney has taken his, Frank Gaffney is off mute. | ||
| Frank Gaffney, why is what's happening on Capitol Hill at the Supreme Court right now, and you can go, Grace will show you guys how to pick up the audio on our other channels on Getter and Rumble, but why, connect the dots here, but what's happening on Capitol Hill, what they've done to us, | ||
| All the heroes over at Committee on the Present Danger, China, War Room, all of our colleagues, the Basobics, the Charlie Kirks, Rav, all these great doctors that are really the hero doctors and scientists and researchers. | ||
| Connect that to what's happening in Geneva and the World Health Organization new treaty. | ||
| Well, this couldn't be more providentially timed, Steve, that the Supreme Court of the United States is considering whether what the Biden administration has been doing to suppress all of the people you've just mentioned, and many, many more, is through a bank shot, to be sure, of getting the social media platforms to do their dirty work. | ||
| But how can the court do other than conclude that this is a violation of our constitutional First Amendment rights? | ||
| But at the same moment that's taking place, the Biden administration is beavering away and the Senate is poised to give it the green light to give up our First Amendment rights to, wait for it, the World Health Organization. | ||
| Now, how does that work? | ||
| Well, we've talked about this a good bit. | ||
| It's a priority, yes, for the Committee on the Present Danger, China, because this is the Chinese Communist Party's leading edge of what they call global governance. | ||
| But we also have a wonderful organization, pickup team, Sovereignty Coalition. | ||
| You can find it at SovereigntyCoalition.org. | ||
| And we've been warning about this for well over a year, that what the administration is doing is not just surrendering our sovereignty, To make public health policy in our own country, to decide when we have an emergency and what we must do about it. | ||
| They're going to give that to this guy Tedros Ghebreyesus, a Marxist from Ethiopia, for heaven's sakes. | ||
| But beyond that, they're going to give Tedros Ghebreyesus a digital surveillance mechanism. | ||
| That we'll be able to monitor everybody, and Naomi was talking about that kind of problem, on steroids. | ||
| Every human being on the planet will have a digital ID that will be the social credit system of China in the making. | ||
| But here's the kicker. | ||
| In addition to all of that, And we've heard from both Naomi and Natalie now about this pandemic treaty. | ||
| There's another agreement, by the way, amending international health regulations. | ||
| They do both the same thing. | ||
| They're both treaties according to the Congressional Research Service. | ||
| But what the treaty in particular will do, and they don't call it a treaty because you're not supposed to call it a treaty because then the Senate has to consider it, but the Senate doesn't want to consider it. | ||
| But it is a treaty, as is the International Health Regulations, and this particular pandemic treaty will require member nations of the World Health Organization to adopt mechanisms for preventing speech that is disinforming or misinforming. | ||
| In other words, doing exactly the kind of thing that the Biden administration was doing on its own. | ||
| Only this time around, conceivably, Steve, no matter what the Supreme Court rules, you could have a treaty imposed upon us, not again by Senate action, but by executive order, but with the force of a treaty that becomes the supreme law of the land, and therefore would trump our First Amendment freedoms. | ||
| This is why it's vital that this Friday, | ||
| The House of Representatives insists upon its formal position in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that there will be no further funding of the World Health Organization, not this year, this fiscal year, which is halfway through now, and not in the future, unless the United States Senate considers and advises and consents to these agreements that are in the works. | ||
| Absent that, there should be no funding. | ||
| The Senate is trying to say, no, no, no, no, no, we're going to give them full funding and we're not going to take this stuff up as treaties. | ||
| That is unconscionable and we need the war room posse to get engaged right now. | ||
| This conservative movement and a lot of others are spinning up about this, but we need the help of this posse because if you'll go to the SovereigntyCoalition.org website, There's an Align Act campaign right there at the top of the page that puts you directly in touch with your representative and says, stand with the House position. | ||
| Do not surrender our liberties, our medical freedoms, yes, that's bad enough, but also our First Amendment free speech rights as well. | ||
| So once more time, where do people go? | ||
| Sovereigntycoalition.org. | ||
| There's two things there, Steve. | ||
| One is this direct appeal on the appropriations measure. | ||
| That's urgent. | ||
| That needs to be done right now, because I'm sorry to tell you this, but it won't surprise you, Steve. | ||
| You've got Chuck Schumer, the guy who hates Israel. | ||
| You've got, unfortunately, Mitch McConnell, who seems to be pretty much in the Chinese pocket. You've got Yacoub Jeffries, of course, who's just a Marxist. And then you've got Speaker Johnson. And what has happened when those four get together on all of these appropriations measures, these CRs, whatever they're calling them now, to this point is all of the House language goes over the side and the Senate position prevails. | ||
| That must not happen with respect to the World Health Organization, because too much is riding on this. | ||
| If we lose this, Steve, it'll be the biggest surrender of our sovereignty since the Panama Canal Treaty, and we need a fight equivalent to, in fact greater than, because the stakes are infinitely higher. | ||
| We're not talking about a canal somewhere distant that has great strategic import, yes, And, by the way, all of the horribles that we thought were going to come out of this have, as you know. | ||
| But, Steve, this will touch every American's lives, because everybody's medical freedom will be impacted by Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus becoming your next doctor. | ||
| How about that? | ||
| Thanks for knowing that. | ||
| The Panama Canal tree pales. | ||
| Real quickly, Frank, where do they get to you? | ||
| How do they find out more about this? | ||
| All of it, really, at this point, is two great sites. | ||
| One is Door to Freedom. | ||
| That's the project of our friend and colleague Meryl Nass, doortofreedom.org. | ||
| And you can also find these action items, as well as a great deal of additional content, at sovereigntycoalition.org. | ||
| President of Asia China is always one of my favorites, as is securefreedom.org and securingamerica.tv. | ||
| Thank you so much, Frank Gaffney. | ||
| We'll get into this more about the call to action or the use of agency. | ||
| I think this is as big as the Panama Canal Treaty was, even for its time. | ||
| This is a hundred times bigger and something the War on Posse has been on since the beginning. | ||
| We beat back a lot of this last year at this time. | ||
| I guess it was in April or May. | ||
| We're starting earlier. | ||
| HomeTitleLock.com, the combination of cyber and artificial intelligence. | ||
| It's coming searching for your Basically your house. | ||
| The home equity in your house. | ||
| HomeTitleLock.com. | ||
| Go immerse yourself in information. | ||
| Find out how you can beat back the cyber criminals. | ||
| Combination of cyber and artificial intelligence. | ||
| Danger. | ||
| HomeTitleLock.com. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Get some more Path Coffee. | ||
| Get jacked up. |
Export Selection