July 4, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
47:50
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. | ||
| Here in the War Room on Wednesday, July 3rd in the year of our Lord 2024 in what can only be described as a historic and quite busy week. | ||
| Almost makes sense why they're weaponizing the federal government, not just to silence this show, but to come after the War Room Posse, the MAGA movement writ large, and frankly, any American that dares to speak out against the ruling class, the regime. | ||
| I'm honored to be joined in this show for the first time by a true investigative reporter, someone who actually does the work, believe me, much to the dismay of the national security state. | ||
| Ken Klippenstein, formerly of The Intercept, he now has a wonderful sub-stack I know the War Room Posse might not be familiar with you, but they're definitely familiar with your work. | ||
| You were behind some really wonderful reporting that came to sort of the big tech collusion with the federal government, all kind of taking place at CISA, DHS, how they've been colluding to deprive us, not just of our First Amendment rights, but to really weaponize the federal government against people who dare to criticize Joe Biden and his fellow apparatchiks. | ||
| But you have a wonderful story that I've been wanting to get you on the show to discuss. | ||
| For a very long time, that shows how this true weaponization—I use that word in its truest sense—has extended all the way down to the IRS, showing new documents that you obtained that they are now going after—again, sort of a vague description—but people who threaten their, quote, ability to govern, whatever the heck that means. | ||
| I'll let you just take a stab at it and sort of walk the audience through this story, and on the other side of it, we can get into more detail. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, so that language ability to govern appears in the IRS manual, which was changed in December of last year. | |
| And so that's kind of a vague term, but one which doesn't appear in any of the previous IRS manuals that, you know, provides the basis upon which they can launch investigations, what they prioritize, how they go about conducting, you know, the criminal investigations that they do. | ||
| And so the question is, so what does that mean? | ||
| Another point in the IRS official documents, they define the U.S. government's | ||
| ability to govern, collect taxes, conduct policy. | ||
| So, this could mean any number of things. | ||
| And I think that this is worth looking at critically, because when you look at the reporting | ||
| on the IRS, a lot of the discourse on it is tax the rich, so on and so forth, which people | ||
| have their views on. | ||
| But when it comes to the national security application on that, that gets almost no coverage | ||
| whatsoever. | ||
| And so the question is, how are they deploying that? | ||
| And I think that the reason people should be paying attention to this is because after | ||
| 2020, two events in particular. | ||
| January 6th, and then also the George Floyd protests, you see the part of the federal government and the national security community in particular really prioritize turning their attention inward, away from the traditional target they've had post 9-11, foreign terror groups like Al-Qaeda, and ISIS and looking at domestic groups. | ||
| So, in 2021, shortly after—I think the day after Biden's inauguration, he announces | ||
| the first-ever—directing the intelligence community to produce its first-ever domestic | ||
| terrorism national strategy. | ||
| So, this is a huge shift, you know, comprising the entirety of the intelligence community, | ||
| and one which I think has not gotten a whole lot of the attention as we focus on Ukraine | ||
| and we focus on the Middle East. | ||
| I think this is kind of fallen by the wayside and deserves more scrutiny. | ||
| Speaking of this shift and reading the story, you can see, you know, words obviously matter to these people a lot. | ||
| And I think that's how you can kind of discern where they're going with it. | ||
| We focused a lot on this show, you know, stochastic terrorism, sort of rebranding what the DHS, the CIA, basically the intelligence community is focused on, right? | ||
| It used to be sort of external threats. | ||
| It seems like they're now focusing more so on domestic terrorism, whatever you want to qualify that as. | ||
| But they sort of swapped out, from what I understand, the purview of narcotics and terrorism for the concept of, quote, national security. | ||
| So, I'm curious, from your perspective, in looking at that phrase, you know, going after people who, quote, threaten their ability to govern, from your reporting and the documents that you've obtained, Focusing on the first part of that sentence, what does, you know, going after look like under the auspices of the IRS? | ||
| What are the abilities that they have to go after Americans? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, so they have an army of investigators called, the same thing as the FBI actually, special agents. | |
| And so these are the guys that go in there, the IRS, you know, people think of it as just, you know, they they're who you pay your taxes to. | ||
| But they're a member of all kinds of different task forces involving, you know, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
| And in fact, if you look at how the IRS has described It's purview in the context of budget allocation. | ||
| They say we are not going to impinge, you know, we pledge not to impinge on the FBI's collecting of informants and sources. | ||
| So they're clearly deconflicting and working closely with these other agencies. | ||
| You know, a particularly strong example being in regards to these counter narcotics efforts that have gone back a number of years. | ||
| But again, we've seen a realignment in terms of the strategy. | ||
| And this is something that not just gets scant attention to the media, and to some extent, | ||
| you know, obviously, I wish the media did better in this respect, but I'm a little bit | ||
| sympathetic because they don't make it easy to report on these things. | ||
| You really only get hints like the kind that you mentioned at the beginning of this interview, | ||
| the change in language in the operating manual, mentioning national security more, mentioning | ||
| the government, the U.S. Washington's ability to govern. | ||
| And so you really have to read the tea leaves because they're not forthcoming about what | ||
| any of this means. | ||
| And so to some extent, your guess is as good as mine, but it has a huge national security | ||
| mission and component that I don't think should be should be overlooked when we when we when | ||
| we think about this agency, which, again, people think of as just, oh, that's where | ||
| I pay my taxes to. | ||
| I think there's an interesting juxtaposition to be drawn to because back in 2022, when | ||
| they were duking it out over the Inflation Reduction Act and all of that fiscal debate, | ||
| which we obviously obviously covered very intensely here in the war room, you know, | ||
| there were such strong demands for what was it, nearly 100 billion dollars more for the | ||
| IRS to expand their budget to, you know, when you have a Congress that's campaigning and | ||
| campaigned on cutting not just federal spending, but going striking the heart of the beast | ||
| government weaponization, and then you see them giving $100 billion to, I think, America's | ||
| least favorite agency. | ||
| I don't know if it polls better or worse than the mainstream media. | ||
| But the IRS, it's sort of an interesting thing, because they're not really making the case | ||
| to the American people why they need, right, these additional funds. | ||
| I'm just curious, from your perspective, how do you think that additional influx of cash, | ||
| again, coming from being okayed by Republicans, who in the same breath are telling us that | ||
| they're doing everything to stop government weaponization, do you think that is only continuing | ||
| to embolden these agencies like the IRS, like the FBI, to be able to continue to go after | ||
| the American people? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, that's one of the most frustrating aspects of being a reporter who focuses on national security is how much less candid they are in this domain than any other that I can even think of. | |
| And then, you know, when you try to investigate these things, how much you're stonewalled in terms of, you know, asking the public affairs people what's going on. | ||
| There is just a reflexive secrecy that is characteristic, I think, of the entire national security community. | ||
| And very often, I use that word reflexively, to mean they don't even think about it. | ||
| So there have been cases, I've been doing stories, I'm trying to find out what the, | ||
| what say an intelligence agency is doing. | ||
| I find out what it is. | ||
| It's not actually, in some cases, it's not even harmful. | ||
| It's just that they have this regimented attitude of do not talk about these things. | ||
| That, you know, I think it contributes to the distrust. | ||
| And, you know, there's a lot of discourse about concern about people's belief in conspiracy theories. | ||
| Well, one way to combat that is to stop being so secretive about things | ||
| so that people don't have to create their own theories about what's going on. | ||
| Tell people what it is that you're doing. | ||
| Disclose what it is, what the purpose of this mission is. | ||
| Because again, all we have is these few stray references and the, I think, sorted history of the IRS to use as a guidepost. | ||
| And I mentioned some of the history in my story, which people can find on Substack. | ||
| I didn't know this. | ||
| I was amazed to learn that since its inception, There have been cases of it being deployed in a political fashion. | ||
| First by Franklin Delano Roosevelt against his populist firebrand opponent, Huey Long, and then subsequent to that by Richard Nixon, and then, you know, by all kinds of administrations since then. | ||
| So there's a rich history of shenanigans, let's say. | ||
| And so I think there's a reason for, you know, people to be skeptical about how this is being deployed, again, as distinct from the collecting of revenue, which is necessary for any government to do. | ||
| And, you know, if you look at the polling around collecting revenue for corporations, that tends to be quite good. | ||
| So I understand that. | ||
| But this part has, I mean, I couldn't, when I was researching for the story, I couldn't find any coverage of this whatsoever. | ||
| No, they're their own worst enemies, if they actually wanted to curtail the spread of conspiracy theories, disinformation, whatever they want to euphemistically refer to it as. | ||
| The way that they kind of launch these initiatives, which are concerning when you look at the words that they're using, they certainly don't help themselves. | ||
| And I'm sure you know very well, as do I, it's not like You know, they're holding press conferences to announce these new initiatives. | ||
| These are files that are uploaded secretly that I don't even think they actually know the links are public that you can only get by, you know, algorithmically manipulating certain aspects of websites. | ||
| And then once you've put up the story, they're deleting the files and then they don't talk about The committee's anymore, so it's an interesting thing. | ||
| If you want to talk about how you do your reporting, feel free to go off a little bit. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And the press is kind enough not to use the stray references that I've been talking about so that they don't have to worry about it. | |
| That's much to my benefit. | ||
| Very often I find them and I'm like, oh my gosh, how did nobody find this before? | ||
| I can't believe this is just sitting there. | ||
| Because the reality of the way the federal government operates is it's such a huge system | ||
| with so many moving parts that I can actually be pretty bullish about the possibilities | ||
| of investigative reporting because of the nature of this sprawling, I think you used | ||
| the word beast before, it's really hard for them to control every aspect of it and make | ||
| sure that details don't tumble out. | ||
| And so, for that reason, you know, I'm really hopeful about what you can find and try to, I mean, you know, you can't always find the degree of detail and, you know, the kind of resolution that you want to figure out exactly what they're doing. | ||
| But you can get a pretty good rough idea just by reading carefully government reports, talking to people in the community who've retired, who will introduce you to people that are still inside. | ||
| And, you know, just being attentive to what records these agencies are producing, as opposed to, I think, what much of the rest of media relies on, which is the other media. | ||
| And just, it becomes an echo chamber where they're just copying what other people said, reliance on, you know, NGOs that produce reports that are, you know, kind of pre-produced for you, and you just sort of write it up. | ||
| That can be a way that media, which is losing a lot of revenue in recent years, to try to cut costs. | ||
| They've really cut costs around this sort of investigation I'm talking about, just doing the homework, reading the | ||
| documents. | ||
| And so what that means is that they're not going to stop. | ||
| They still need to have stories. | ||
| So then they become more dependent on think tanks. | ||
| They become more dependent on advocacy organizations. | ||
| They become more dependent on Congress, on the White House, on both parties to provide them with the investigative work that they lack the time to do. | ||
| And the people that lose out, I mean, the press gets to go home with a 900-word story that they didn't have to spend a lot of time on. | ||
| The NGO and the think tank and Congress gets to have a story put out that is in their interests. | ||
| the party that loses out is the American people because they end up getting | ||
| reporting that is biased in favor of the interest group that provided it to the press. | ||
| So that's kind of generally my modus operandi for approaching reporting. | ||
| And I like to think that it's served me pretty well. | ||
| It's really... | ||
| It's time-consuming, but I don't think it's particularly hard. | ||
| You just, again, have to have fidelity to the primary source documentation. | ||
| It's almost like I think of the Protestant Revolution. | ||
| You want to read the holy text. | ||
| You don't want to rely on some guy who's going to convey it to you. | ||
| So I always encourage people, try to read the—don't even listen to me. | ||
| Just go through it. | ||
| In my stories, I try to link to everything so people can come to their own conclusions and find the language that we've been talking about in the IRS Operating manual and decipher themselves and that's something that the media crucially does not do there's so much paraphrasing that they do that I think You know, there's there's a loss of fidelity to the to the source text when you do that. | ||
| I I'm curious. | ||
| You are someone who, like I said, you don't come from the typical MAGA world, right? | ||
| Of guests that we, we have on the show. | ||
| So it's fun to have someone who I can ask these questions to, but from your perspective as someone who's probably a little closer to that kind of mainstream media, just, just world, right? | ||
| You understand you sort of come from it. | ||
| In your opinion, do you think, you know, for example, right, we play montages on the show all the time of anchors and people on, you know, CNN, MSNBC, but what seems to be regurgitating the same exact phrasing, the same exact talking points, whether it's, you know, safe and effective or, oh, for our democracy, right? | ||
| These words that they don't, they don't come out of nowhere. | ||
| From your perspective, sort of drilling down on what you were saying about how they're now getting these talking points, these stories from whether it's think tanks or NGOs, the White House, you name it. | ||
| Do you think that that's a result of incompetence and these people just being, you know, lazy? | ||
| Or is there something more, not nefarious going on, but is this trickling down? | ||
| You know, I'm inclined to think about the story that you broke about the Influence Perception Management Office going up at the Pentagon just a week after the Ukraine invasion happened, right? | ||
| Is there some level, whether it's coming from the federal government or whoever, that is sort of coordinating the messaging on these stories? | ||
| What's your take on it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I think the problem you're describing is particularly acute when it comes to national security, because the federal government uniquely has a stranglehold on the flow of information about these agencies, unless you're willing to do the things that we were talking about before, which is read these reports very closely for a stray reference. | |
| You know, I have a wonderful editor who's been a national security reporter for close to 50 years. | ||
| And so he helps me go over these things. | ||
| And because of his experience, he's able to notice, kind of like, you know, if a variable changes in the matrix | ||
| and he says, wait a second, that wasn't there last year. | ||
| What is this? | ||
| And then we try and we compare it, go back and try to see if there's any references. | ||
| No, that's new, it's a change. | ||
| What does that mean? | ||
| And you start calling people and asking them, either in the agencies or outside of the agencies, | ||
| there are so many consultants that make wonderful sources because they are not, you know, | ||
| they're not vetted in the same fashion that current. | ||
| They don't have the same set of interests. | ||
| They're not worried if they get fired for leaking. | ||
| So they can help point you in the right direction for certain things. | ||
| But to answer your question, you know, is it nefarious how much this stuff is being directed? | ||
| I have to say, I think a lot of it has calcified into habit. | ||
| Like I was saying before, there is a reflexive secrecy, there is a reflexive process by which reporters rely on these, you know, kind of pre-written investigations by these NGOs, by these groups. | ||
| I'm sure the White House, I mean, there's no question the White House plants stories. | ||
| I mean, so many of the stories you read in CNN, in Politico and the New York Times will have come from the | ||
| National Security Council. I know this for a fact, having lived in Washington for a number of | ||
| years, being friends with many of the, you know, national security reporters who I think, you know, | ||
| I don't see this as a black and white thing. I think people can do good work and other times they | ||
| can rely on parties that perhaps they shouldn't. The strong sense that I get in media is people | ||
| either trying to do their best within a deeply broken system. | ||
| Other people are just outright corrupt and will use things from parties that are interested. | ||
| They either won't disclose that, won't be honest about it, or they'll even obscure it. | ||
| So, I mean, it's kind of like anything else. | ||
| There's all kinds of different motives that different people and different reporters have. | ||
| I mean, I find good reporters at all. | ||
| That's one of the things I learned very quickly when I first became a reporter. | ||
| I'm thinking, OK, what are the good Sites, what should I read? | ||
| And I realized, okay, well, there are good and bad people at all kinds of sites representing all kinds of different political philosophies. | ||
| And there are people within that, there are people capable of both good and bad stories. | ||
| I certainly know that's true for me as well. | ||
| I've had stories that I look at when I'm younger and think, ooh, I could have done a lot better with that. | ||
| So I think it's complicated, but for sure, stories get planted. | ||
| Um, uh, I think with respect to national security, again, the problem is particularly severe because of how much control they have over the information, not just with the classification system, but with the culture that exists, the culture of secrecy. | ||
| There was a book written, I think 1970s, a camera by the author's name is called the cult of intelligence. | ||
| And kind of what he's describing is just the sense indoctrinated and inculcated into folks, um, in that, in that, in that system, um, to, you don't talk to that. | ||
| You don't talk to people outside. | ||
| about these things. | ||
| And so it gets to the point where I'm talking to somebody and they're talking about something that's completely unclassified. | ||
| There's no criminal sanctions for talking about it. | ||
| They're scared to even mention it because they have just been driven into their heads that, you know, if you talk about this stuff, you are a traitor. | ||
| And so that makes natural and, you know, in the context of the leak prosecutions under the Bush, Obama, Trump, and I think there was one of the Biden administration that creates an atmosphere in which people don't want to talk. | ||
| And that just magnifies the problems we've been talking about. | ||
| It makes the press more reliant. | ||
| on the official organs for information because they can't get that information from the unauthorized | ||
| sources. So many leaks you see are what's called authorized disclosures. That's an actual term. | ||
| So unauthorized disclosure refers to a criminal leak of classified information, | ||
| but there is a technical term called authorized disclosure. | ||
| You can actually look at the documents released under FOIA showing that the White House actually authorizes the release of secret information to certain reporters. | ||
| And this is not a conspiracy theory. | ||
| I encourage people to look that up. | ||
| That's a real thing. | ||
| That's defined by policy. | ||
| Ken, we'll definitely have to have you back. | ||
| I want to drill down into that Ukraine story, and I'd love to get your kind of vantage point on how the mainstream media is spinning all the Joe Biden debate aftermath, and I'm sure there's some unauthorized leaks going on there. | ||
| But Ken, in the meantime, if people want to follow you, get your Substack, read it, support you, where can they go to do all that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Check out my Substack, kenklippenstein.substack.com. | |
| I think I'm pretty sure I'm the only one with a name anything like that. | ||
| So shout out to me there. | ||
| I try to respond to any comments or questions that people have. | ||
| Ken, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks for having me. | |
| Of course. | ||
| What an interesting interview. | ||
| We'll definitely have him back. | ||
| He really does some great reporting. | ||
| Just a wild story on the Influence Perception Management Office that the Pentagon established just less than a week after Ukraine was invaded by Russia to basically spread propaganda, spread and counter misinformation, so i.e. | ||
| spread misinformation about what was going on there. | ||
| Another individual who has, I'm sure, been accused of spreading misinformation, although | ||
| I think she maybe takes it the next level. | ||
| You guys are probably committing your own form of lawfare, as the Biden regime would | ||
| spin it, is of course the one and only Tiffany Justice from Moms for Liberty, who comes on | ||
| the show with some good news. | ||
| We don't try to just blackpill you here in the war room, but I hear you guys have had | ||
| a victory for, what is it, the fifth time or something like that in federal court when | ||
| it comes to Title IX. | ||
| So why don't you walk the audience through that? | ||
| Yes, the Biden administration and the Department of Education has been rebuked again by another federal judge. | ||
| This is a win in the 10th Circuit. | ||
| This is the Moms for Liberty case that was brought by Southeastern Legal Foundation and Mountain State Legal Foundation with Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. | ||
| This is a great win. | ||
| This means that every kid in any public school, no public schools can implement these new Title IX changes, and we'll talk about what those are in a second. | ||
| In Kansas, Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, or the schools attended by the members of Young America's Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty members. | ||
| So now's the moment, right now, if you're listening, email your kids, your friends, send a text, let people know, go join Moms for Liberty by July 15th, and your school will not be allowed to implement Title IX changes. | ||
| This is no joke. | ||
| It's a really interesting position that the judge took. | ||
| You know, we were looking for a nationwide preliminary injunction. | ||
| Moms for Liberty is in 48 states with over 300 chapters. | ||
| And so we're really excited that our chapter members and their kids are going to have protections here. | ||
| We wish this extended to every kid in America and every school in America. | ||
| And if people sign up to be joined as Moms for Liberty members, we can make that a reality. | ||
| Natalie, I want to tell you what the judge said about this rule. | ||
| First of all, we know that the Title IX regulations, what the Biden administration wanted to do ultimately was redefine sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation. | ||
| What did that mean, practically? | ||
| That meant that you would have boys in your girls' sports teams, boys in your girls' private spaces, locker rooms, bathrooms, and vice versa. | ||
| And then this idea of gender ideology and secrets being kept from parents, which is basically getting a rubber stamp from the government. | ||
| Well, this judge said no. | ||
| No, no, I'm sorry, Miguel Cardona and President Biden and the DOE. | ||
| You can't just redefine sex. | ||
| This is a rule that was made by Congress. | ||
| The Department of Education lacks the congressional authority to make this rule, to change it. | ||
| The rule is contrary to law. | ||
| The judge also said that the rule violates the Constitution's spending clause, that the rule violates the First Amendment because it is impermissibly vague and overbroad. | ||
| And the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary and capricious. | ||
| So this judge just basically laid down the law, Natalie. | ||
| And, you know, I think the Biden administration is getting worried. | ||
| There were some changes about some of the ways they're talking about so-called gender-affirming care. | ||
| And if we have time for that, I'd love to tell you why I think they're worried. | ||
| Yeah, no, please drill down on that. | ||
| Okay, so it's really interesting. | ||
| Four days ago, the Biden administration told the New York Times that they oppose gender surgeries for kids. | ||
| That was news to me because they have a man pretending to be a woman, Admiral Levine, who is the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, who goes by Rachel, but his real name is Richard. | ||
| This is a man who had children. | ||
| as a father and then transitioned, supposedly later in life, to be a woman. | ||
| He is on record as talking about how blessed he feels to have been able to be a father | ||
| and to have children before he became a woman or, you know, before he started pretending | ||
| to be a woman. | ||
| I'm very clear about this issue. | ||
| There are men and there are women. | ||
| There are zero genders and infinite personalities. | ||
| And so this man, Admiral Levine, we found out that he had actually pushed to have age | ||
| restrictions taken away from WPATH, which is this organization that kind of governs | ||
| and gives recommendations regarding transgender health. | ||
| Admiral Levine wanted age restrictions taken away. | ||
| And so we found that information out through FOIA. | ||
| Now you have the Biden administration telling the New York Times they oppose gender surgeries for kids. | ||
| We would like for that to be the case. | ||
| But then the White House said to 19th News, which is funny, 19th News, apparently they think they're speaking on behalf of women. | ||
| They're not. | ||
| But they said that they continue to support gender-affirming care for minors like mental health care and respect the role of parents, families and doctors for these decisions. | ||
| Now, what we've seen is watchful waiting, Natalie, in Europe. | ||
| We see that mental health care, watching, working with the child is what's best. | ||
| The best approach when we're handling any issues of gender confusion in kids. | ||
| But again, this has not been the White House's position. | ||
| Well, four hours later, the 19th News edited the article claiming that it had been updated to clarify the nature of the White House's response, that the White House still opposes surgeries, but now says we continue to support gender-affirming care for minors, which represents a continuum of care. | ||
| Here's the deal. | ||
| What's the DOE, the DOJ, what are they going to do with these new Title IX regulations? | ||
| Again, they've had five federal judges say no, not happening in these states, not happening with these plaintiffs. | ||
| So they have a choice to make. | ||
| Are they going to wait and put a stay and not try to implement these changes? | ||
| Are they going to keep trying to shove gender ideology into all of our throats? | ||
| My message for the Biden administration is this. | ||
| You're losing on this issue. | ||
| You are losing more Americans every single day. | ||
| Truth is coming forward. | ||
| And stopping the natural, healthy development of children is wrong. | ||
| This is a common-sense thing that all Americans know and understand. | ||
| So, my advice to President Biden, if he wants a chance of getting reelected, or Kamala Harris, if she actually thinks that she's going to become the president, is, you need to stop with the gender nonsense. | ||
| Parents have had enough. | ||
| You're going to lose the election because of it. | ||
| And I'm going to do everything we can at Moms for Liberty to make sure that that's the case. | ||
| We love it. | ||
| Action, action, action. | ||
| Tiffany, if people want to follow you, support you guys, how can they go and do all that? | ||
| Go to momsforliberty.org. | ||
| Click to join as a member. | ||
| If you have kids in public school, this means that your child will be protected. | ||
| Your public school will be barred from putting in Title IX changes. | ||
| Tiffany, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| We'll definitely have you back. | ||
| Warren Posse, stay tuned. | ||
| We got the one and only Mike Benz for what is a can't miss interview coming up. | ||
| We'll be right back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All this nonsense, all this spin, they can't handle the truth. | |
| Welcome back to The War Room. | ||
| I'm always honored and pleased to be joined by the one and only Mike Benz. | ||
| Now, with today's news cycle, frankly, this last week, I was like, there are so many threads to pull, and I think Mike Benz could pick and pull all of them. | ||
| Probably we could do hours of content. | ||
| But we've got you for 20 minutes, so we've got to cram it all in. | ||
| I'd love to get your thoughts, particularly on the whole debacle that is, you know, is Biden going to stay in the race? | ||
| Is he going to step down? | ||
| But particularly, Through the lens that you've been really hammering on Twitter of kind of the intelligence community's lack or silence on the matter, why they're not weighing in, how you think it's going to play out. | ||
| I will just let, I'll let you rip because you, you do my job for me. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I've got my Natalie Winters pink on today, actually. | |
| It's a very whimsical. | ||
| And it's Wednesday. | ||
| There you go. | ||
| On Wednesdays we wear pink. | ||
| It's an incredible moment in American history to watch this all play out. | ||
| I mean, I think the top headline of this all is that the parasite is looking for a new host body. | ||
| You have this blob class in the DC power structure, this foreign policy establishment that spans our war industry. | ||
| Our instruments of statecraft in our intelligence community. | ||
| These are the keeper of our national secrets and of our American empire. | ||
| And Joe Biden has been a faithful servant for over 40 years to that blob class. | ||
| And in fact, if you go back and look at the contemporaneous headlines of Joe Biden running for president, the mainstream media referred to his run for presidency in 2020 as the revenge of the blob. | ||
| And what you see right now is, I think, this incredible moment of weakness of Joe Biden, where the, you know, whatever you want to call it, the weekend at Bernie's presidency, the sort of Boris Yeltsin, you know, old, stumbling, frail, all of these things which are hidden, essentially, from mainstream access. | ||
| Although we're very evident to anyone with eyes and ears who's paying attention on places like X or Rumble, have now all broken open and it has put Trump way ahead in the polls, even in extremely left-wing polls, even in CNN. | ||
| You know, they are reading these things where Trump is up six points and the general is up in all seven swing states by huge margins. | ||
| And you're seeing this collapse of the perceived The perceived victory potential of Biden on the basis of votes. | ||
| And so because of that, you have this huge structure within the Democrat Party clamoring for a new president, a new presidential candidate, because they perceive that Biden will lose on the basis of votes. | ||
| And what I've been pointing out all week is the very strange silence of the intelligence community On an issue of grave concern, you would think, to national security. | ||
| That is, the commander-in-chief cannot keep his eyes open past 4 p.m., and when the clock strikes about 9 or 10 p.m., he turns into effectively a total vegetable. | ||
| He's having to take afternoon naps that are only really approximated by people in old-age homes or people below the grade of kindergarten. | ||
| And so because of this, you know, national security emergencies happen every week. | ||
| In some country, somewhere, there are issues of grave concerns to the CIA, to the Pentagon, to the State Department, and to our whole National Security Council interagency process that require the president to be cogent to make a decision to either green light something or to veto it. | ||
| And Joe Biden, who is dubbed Mr. Foreign Policy in his rise to the presidency by the Council on Foreign Relations, who spent 40 years at the top of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. | ||
| So, I mean, his stretch in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee goes so far back that he actually blocked Jimmy Carter's CIA director nominee back in 1977. | ||
| That's how far back Joe Biden goes with his role with the blob. | ||
| You know, he, of course, became the senator at the age of 29 years old. | ||
| So he has had this long trust of the blob. | ||
| He has had this favors-for-favors relationship, and he has been their man in Washington. | ||
| He has been the perfect vassal host body for them for now literally half of a century, from 29 until now 81. | ||
| And the issue is, is they need another host body who is as pliant, who will green light everything. | ||
| And the issue is, is there not that many great people in the Democrat Party to pick from. | ||
| The Democrat Party has a lot of folks who are focused on domestic priorities, who are focused on things like DEI and CRT, and who are not as, or climate, and who are simply not as well-versed In the secrets of the American empire, what we're doing to seize Eurasia from Russia, what we're doing with all of our interventions around the world, all the cloak and dagger work that the CIA does. | ||
| Now, Kamala Harris was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. | ||
| And if you go to my ex ex feed at Mike Ben cyber, you'll see near the top of it. | ||
| I posted news articles that showed bipartisan report support From both the DNC and the GOP wings of the Senate Intelligence Committee for Kamala Harris. | ||
| Now she, that of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee is oversight of the CIA. | ||
| But the fact is, is she was very green. | ||
| She was like Barack Obama, who was a junior senator when he ran for president. | ||
| But between his own past with his own family's strange relationships, to CIA cutouts like USAID and the Ford Foundation and | ||
| others through his mother, and the diplomacy role of his father and things like this. | ||
| You have, he was still very green. He was only a couple of years into Congress when he ran for | ||
| president. And it's a very similar thing with Kamala Harris. So I think that if Harris is going to | ||
| be the pick, they're going to need a Biden-like figure to be the kind of shadow president as Joe | ||
| Biden was for Barack Obama on all things foreign policy for those eight years. | ||
| And the issue is, is outside of Hillary Clinton, it's hard to think of anyone in the Democrat Party who really is as versed in the dark, deep secrets of the American empire. | ||
| I'm curious your thoughts on the reporting coming out that Hunter Biden is involved in high-level White House meetings now. | ||
| Do you think that that is something that has been going on for a long time and the media is deciding to weaponize it now in the news cycle, sort of against him in this evolving, weird civil war that will either lead to Biden's ouster or not? | ||
| What do you make of that? | ||
| I think it's absolutely fascinating. | ||
| I mean, it has to be pointed out immediately that it puts the lie to every statement we've been told in the press and by the presidency over the past four years, which was that Joe Biden does not talk to Hunter Biden about business. | ||
| And Hunter Biden does not talk to Joe Biden about what he's doing as president. | ||
| And there's this Chinese firewall, shall we say, between the two. | ||
| Never the twain shall meet. | ||
| Hunter Biden is off doing his own thing with cocaine and prostitutes and foreign dealings. | ||
| And Joe Biden is off doing his own thing in the Oval Office. | ||
| And then magically, as soon as Joe Biden falters, suddenly Hunter Biden is effectively acting as his proxy, teleporting into the West Wing to directly participate in essentially presidential matters. | ||
| Which should not be a surprise to anyone, I think, who's been following my work and reporting on this matter, because Hunter Biden is a figure who is cloaked in this intelligence and national security and military world. | ||
| He, of course, was a military officer, effectively, in the Navy. | ||
| And then he did this incredible suite of foreign dealings where he had the head of Chinese intelligence As his client, he was involved in, effectively, biolabs with metabiota. | ||
| He was involved in foreign dealings with Mexico, as Natalie, you've covered, through Iplata. | ||
| And, of course, most famously, he was involved in Burisma on the board of directors, sitting right next to Kofor Black, the 30-year CIA veteran in the Directorate of Operations there, while the State Department had an in-process plan to kill Russian gas pry it off of Europe and build up Ukraine's endogenous gas supply to replace the Russian gas using Burisma. | ||
| And now when the State Department declares that as a foreign policy goal, that activates the CIA to do plausibly deniable work within the region to support that foreign policy goal. | ||
| So that That to me is why Hunter, among many other things, I mean, I've listed Hunter's military roles and his roles as sort of intermediating these foreign dealings, which touched the State Department. | ||
| But then, of course, you have the fact that Hunter Biden was on the Chairman's Advisory Committee of the NDI, the National Democratic Institute, which is the DNC wing of the CIA's top cutout, the National Endowment for Democracy. | ||
| Which was effectively established in a letter from the CIA director under the Reagan administration, William Colby, to get back the powers the CIA used to have before the church committee hearings in the 1970s, but by cloaking it at a National Endowment for Democracy instead of having the CIA do it directly. | ||
| And lo and behold, Hunter Biden, in the midst of all these other intrigues that touch The CIA and State Department and military worlds ends up on the Chairman's Advisory Committee of the CIA's number one cutout. | ||
| So to see Hunter Biden now in the West Wing, effectively acting as a proxy commander in chief, is not surprising to me because Hunter Biden is read into | ||
| the secrets of the Biden family. | ||
| As I just mentioned, Biden has been the keeper of secrets for half a century for the CIA and the | ||
| State Department and the U.S. military. That knowledge was passed on to his son. His son | ||
| brokered these international business deals that kicked up a percentage to the big man. | ||
| He was the bag man for Joe Biden's representation of the blob. | ||
| And so they need a trusted advisor in there to intermediate that. | ||
| And I think that there are basically two forces within the White House that fit that. | ||
| One of them is Hunter Biden. | ||
| The other one is a man named Mike Donilon, who has been advising Joe Biden since 1981. | ||
| So for, you know, Basically, 43 years, Mike Donilon has been the effective political groomer of Joe Biden. | ||
| Now, why is that important? | ||
| Well, Mike Donilon's brother is a guy named Tom Donilon. | ||
| Tom Donilon is the chairman of the BlackRock Investment Institute. | ||
| He is the guy who makes the determining judgment on how BlackRock's $10 trillion of assets under management Get allocated. | ||
| So you have you put that together with the fact that Joe Biden only ran for president after he got the green light from Larry Fink at a meeting in January 19 at BlackRock headquarters. | ||
| And you basically have Biden as a BlackRock president. | ||
| Who's simultaneously serving the interests of the blob within the U.S. | ||
| Pentagon intelligence and statecraft structure. | ||
| And there is that, of course, feedback loop between the international business of BlackRock and the affairs of the CIA, the State Department, and the military to maximize the profits of those commercial forces. | ||
| Speaking of the kind of enmeshment, not just of family members and foreign policy, though I think that is too euphemistic a term, you picked up on some interesting developments going on at USAID, specifically with Samantha Power, who, as you rightfully note, is kind of overseeing and help ushering in this invasion Of our country, not just of illegal aliens, but of, you know, new Biden voters. | ||
| They know American people aren't going to, although maybe if you look at his debate performance, it makes sense, right? | ||
| If you speak English, you're not going to, you're not going to vote for him. | ||
| So that's maybe why they need illiterate people who don't speak English. | ||
| But her husband also recently got an appointment at the department of Homeland security to help kind of oversee immigration matters. | ||
| Can you walk us through all that? | ||
| Yes, so first it's important to understand that USAID is not a charity. | ||
| USAID is a CIA front. | ||
| USAID was created in 1961 because the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon were all tripping over each other about all the different money that they were funneling, all the different resources, all the different arms and munitions that they were funding to political resistance groups, to journalists on CIA payroll, to academics being funded by the State Department, to paramilitary groups, And so because you had all these different agencies in the national security world, all trying to provide logistical aid for their own purposes, they needed a central coordinating body to centralize that aid so that it was all streamlined and efficient. | ||
| And so USAID was created. | ||
| In order to effectively serve as this intermediary between the overt and covert support needs of the U.S. | ||
| military, the U.S. | ||
| State Department, and the U.S. | ||
| intelligence community. | ||
| And there's a million examples of this that you can read, even in the past several years. | ||
| I mean, famously in 2014, for example, while Joe Biden was president, a USAID created in Cuba a Twitter knockoff app called ZunZuneo. | ||
| Where USAID gave millions of dollars to a company to develop a literal Twitter knockoff, just copying its entire UI, but only for the people of Cuba. | ||
| And in their own documents, USAID described how they were doing this in order to get all of these people within Cuba to start using this app and using this social media thing. | ||
| Over time, they would change the messaging and the algorithms of the app in order to get them to revolt and overthrow their government by sending them messaging and by pushing messages on social media that would psychologically influence them to overthrow their own government. | ||
| And just a few years ago, USAID was then caught funding The same summer unrest in 2020 in Cuba, where the USAID literally put rap groups on their payroll in order to write songs instructing fellow Cubans to take to the streets. | ||
| USAID was busted, for example, in Colombia and Venezuela running fake AIDS clinics. | ||
| That is, setting up things that look like it was aid for health clinics, but actually running armed paramilitary and guns through these AIDS clinics in order to try to overthrow the government of Venezuela. | ||
| And you can go country by country on virtually every country on planet Earth, and this pattern repeats and repeats and repeats to the point where they're now, as of a few years ago, actually getting kicked out of several countries Because the gig is up. | ||
| Everyone knows what they are. | ||
| And again, just to say this, this really should be emphasized because USA was created in 1961. | ||
| But for the first time ever, Joe Biden, when he became president, he elevated USAID to a permanent seat on the National Security Council. | ||
| The National Security Council is that very small, sort of select elite group of national security institutions, the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA, and USAID was given a permanent seat right next to them. | ||
| That is how important they saw USAID as a cutout of these statecraft initiatives. | ||
| Now, why is this all important for the 2024 election? | ||
| USAID is the primary entity responsible for our illegal immigration crisis. | ||
| USAID is the top funder of the constellation spiderweb of NGOs that are importing illegal immigrants from Venezuela, from Panama, from Mexico, from Guatemala, from Honduras, from El Salvador. | ||
| We are emptying their prisons and USAID is funding NGOs to transport them directly from these foreign countries' prisons Up through our southern border. | ||
| And those same NGOs have a pattern and practice of participating in ballot harvesting type activities. | ||
| At least several of them do. | ||
| And so you have this weird situation where USAID, the CIA front, after the CIA already was effectively responsible for Russiagate, it was the January 6, 2017 CIA memo, basically calling the 2016 election illegitimate because of | ||
| Russian interference that created the intelligence community consensus that Trump was a Putin | ||
| puppet. | ||
| And then you add the CIA behind the Ukraine impeachment in 2019 with Eric C. Amorella. | ||
| You had John Brennan and that crew, you know, basically already clamoring for Trump's indictments | ||
| and predicting his indictments even as early as 2018 that Trump would not escape justice | ||
| when he was done his term. | ||
| And lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. | ||
| But now you have this C.I.A. | ||
| fund. | ||
| USAID gets more funding annually. | ||
| And Mike, we're coming up against the end of the show. | ||
| I know the audience gets very mad at me. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's only when I interrupt you, because they say I've only been interrupting you for 20 minutes already! | |
| I know, I know! | ||
| You can blame Steve Stern. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We have to go to him, but we'll have you back. | |
| We'll have you back. | ||
| I was told by production that apparently I don't smile as much when I'm not in the Palm Beach studio. | ||
| So this is me smiling and laughing now, but it's serious times, serious stuff. | ||
| Mike Pence, we're going to have you back. | ||
| I promise this is not me cutting you off. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I will have you back and I won't interrupt you. | |
| If people want to follow you in the meantime, where can they go and support the foundation? | ||
| Where can they go to do all that? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So, at MikeBensCyber on X. That's at MikeBensCyber, all one word. | ||
| And FoundationForFreedomOnline.com is my foundation's website where we do investigative journalism on the censorship industry. | ||
| Check me out there. | ||
| We're prolific. | ||
| This episode is really going to anger the national security state, and I'm here for it. | ||
| Mike, thank you so much for joining us. | ||
| We will have you back, I promise. | ||
| Great. | ||
| Talk soon. | ||
| Steve Stern. | ||
| I think we have you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We gotta do it. | |
| There we go. | ||
| And what is the world's most beautiful shirt? | ||
| Let the audience know how they can get it and everything that you guys are working on. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So with Bannon.com, you can get that. | |
| We're going to be 10 days now delivery. | ||
| We sold so many in the last couple of days. | ||
| So it's going to be about another 10 days. | ||
| So I want to wish everybody a happy 4th of July. | ||
| Uh, I just did a big interview this morning with epic times, uh, and they were talking about patriotism and, you know, Steve always talks about patriotism, and we talk about theflagshirt.com. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We talk about precinctstrateg.com. | |
| So, because Steve always talks about force multipliers, we're going to ask every committee man and every committee woman, after the Fourth of July holiday, to bring one person in. | ||
| We have 200,000 members. | ||
| We need another 400,000, but we'll settle for 200,000 to fill all the spots. | ||
| So, go and buy a shirt. | ||
| Help Steve. | ||
| StandwithBannon.com. | ||
| We want it everywhere so that people can see what's happened to Steve, what's happened to other patriots in this country that have a voice, and they try to silence the voice. | ||
| You know, they haven't silenced me yet. | ||
| I guess I'm not that important, so I just get on it. | ||
| Although I hear you are taking a vacation to Europe. | ||
| We'll get into that the next time you're on the show. | ||
| Steve, we've got to bounce. | ||
| Thank you so much for joining us and thank you for everything you do for this great country, warm and posse. | ||
| I will see you tomorrow, July 4th, hosting this show again. |
Export Selection