Aug. 27, 2024 - Bannon's War Room
48:39
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pray for our enemies. | |
| Because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| President Trump got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The people have had a belly full of it. | |
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you've tried 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. | |
| Tuesday 27th of August, anno Domini, 2011. | ||
| Harnwell here at the helm, filling in for Steve Bannon. | ||
| So we're not going to dig into this story today about Telegram and the founder, Pavel Durov, being arrested in France, though I have many things to say about that. | ||
| But that's the backdrop, I think, to our first segment with Mike Davis, which is Mark Zuckerberg's submission to have judiciary. | ||
| Because the backdrop is, is the regime, no matter where in the world you are, the regime, that globalist, anti-democratic organization, mis-running, mal-running your country into the ground, wherever you are in the West. | ||
| The regime is trying to take away your right to freedom of speech. | ||
| Under The rather more genteel terminology of content moderation. | ||
| That's the game right now. | ||
| And there has been an astonishing submission. | ||
| Astonishing because it exists on paper. | ||
| The revelations themselves aren't new. | ||
| The Worm has been covering these things, like from the laptop, from health for years. | ||
| But these things are on are now becoming formalized and becoming formalized. | ||
| They offer great opportunities to fight back. | ||
| Mike Davis, good morning to you. | ||
| Let's start off with three fundamental points in this letter from Zuckerberg to Jim Jordan. | ||
| Right. | ||
| The covid, the fact that the Biden regime was pressurizing Facebook and that Facebook sort of rather supinely complied with regards to Covid. | ||
| There's the laptop from hell. | ||
| And then there's the rather sort of more minor issue, perhaps to do with the Charles Zuckerberg initiative, which many people think was just a front for election interference. | ||
| Let's go through these things in the order of Zuckerberg's letter to Jim Jordan and the COVID misinformation. | ||
| So basically, as Zuckerberg can hear himself, I say this is not new, but the fact that these are now, these facts are coming out black on white. | ||
| The Biden administration in 2021 successfully put pressure Excuse me, the Biden regime put pressure on Facebook with regards to information being exchanged on COVID-19, on the pandemic. | ||
| And many of the things Mike, here on this show, I think the show is a pioneer pushing out the truth in face of government lies. | ||
| Firstly, what's your take here then on this paragraph here with regards to the fact that a government, federal government, was putting pressure behind the scenes on a social media platform? | ||
| And what are the consequences of this? | ||
| I can't think of anything more dangerous in a democracy than the federal government Putting their hands around the neck of a trillion dollar big tech monopolist, whether it's Facebook or Google. | ||
| Or Amazon or Apple, and essentially coercing that big tech monopolist, in this case Meta or Facebook or Instagram or WhatsApp, they're all the same company, they're all part of the same organization, and telling them if you need to censor so-called COVID misinformation, and that COVID misinformation Ended up being correct and that censorship likely led to many Unnecessary deaths and other misery because we have the federal government's censoring doctors and scientists and Policymakers and other experts, you know the whole scientific debate the whole scientific methods got shut down because of | ||
| The Biden-Harris regime, including Tony Fauci, shutting down dissent. | ||
| They wanted people to believe that the six-foot rule was going to protect us from COVID and cloth masks were going to protect us from COVID. | ||
| That ended up being completely bogus science. | ||
| Tony Fauci admitted that the six-foot rule essentially was bogus science. | ||
| Look at how much damage and destruction That censorship did the because of those policies because we couldn't question the six foot rule or we couldn't question the cloth mask mandate. | ||
| Just just imagine what look at what look what happened to kids in schools, particularly minority kids in schools, poor black kids and Hispanic kids. | ||
| in schools that Democrats pretend to protect and champion. | ||
| Look at how badly they were damaged during COVID because of these bogus lockdowns based upon | ||
| this six-foot rule and this cloth mask mandate. Mike, Steve Bannon has said on this show over | ||
| a number of years that these social media companies need to be managed as effectively as if | ||
| they are utilities, state utilities, because of their effective monopolistic share of the market. Now, | ||
| obviously, some libertarians will take a step back from that and say, you know, it's not | ||
| really the government's responsibility here to be commandeering private institutions, though that | ||
| is effectively what has already taken place. What would you like to see from an incoming Trump | ||
| administration, with Steve's suggestion in the background there, what would you like to see from an | ||
| incoming Trump administration so that this This never happens again. | ||
| Well, I will say this. | ||
| The only thing President Biden has gotten right just about is his antitrust law enforcement against Big Tech with Jonathan Cantor at the Antitrust Division and the Justice Department and Lita Khan at the FTC. | ||
| They've actually followed our century-old antitrust laws. | ||
| And are moving to break up these trillion-dollar big tech monopolies, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. | ||
| Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is terrible on these issues. | ||
| Trump is great on antitrust. | ||
| Kamala is terrible. | ||
| Kamala is beholden to her big tech California billionaire donors at Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. | ||
| She has Anita Dunn, a Google lawyer, doing debate prep for her right now. | ||
| So that tells you where Kamala stands on big tech. | ||
| When President Trump is back in office. He needs to continue what he started. | ||
| And President Biden and his antitrust division and FTC, to their credit, have continued, which is | ||
| breaking up big tech. | ||
| If Facebook competed against Instagram and WhatsApp instead of acquired it, | ||
| they wouldn't be censoring Americans. If Google competed against YouTube instead of acquired | ||
| YouTube, they wouldn't be censoring Americans. | ||
| They would be competing for Americans. | ||
| They wouldn't be trying to curry favor with the federal government for their antitrust amnesty and their Section 230 immunity if there were 10 big tech companies instead of four, right? | ||
| And that's the key, is we need to update and enforce our century-old antitrust laws. | ||
| We need to target these anti-competitive tumors. | ||
| Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, we need to break them up so they do not have gatekeeping power over information and commerce and the federal government doesn't hijack or commandeer their gatekeeping power and have these big tech platforms censor and otherwise violate our constitutional rights, which the federal government can't do. | ||
| What they're doing, when these big tech platforms collude with the federal government to censor Americans, | ||
| they are violating federal law. | ||
| It is a crime to conspire to deprive Americans of our constitutional rights, including our | ||
| constitutional rights of free speech and association. | ||
| That is a violation of 18 USC 241 and 242. | ||
| On that point, when and if, if and when, in November, President Trump gets his hands on | ||
| the weaponized DOJ? | ||
| Can he do something about this if federal law has been broken? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| The Trump 47 Justice Department should open a criminal probe on day one with this what appears to be a clear criminal conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of Americans, their free speech rights. | ||
| You have the federal governments colluding with these big tech monopolists to censor Americans. | ||
| That is clearly a deprivation of rights under color of law. | ||
| That is clearly a conspiracy against rights. | ||
| Again, 18 U.S.C. | ||
| 241 and 242. | ||
| And so you can do that on day one. | ||
| You can also fire people on day one. | ||
| You can also bring civil lawsuits on day one. | ||
| You can reassign people with a career civil servants who are impossible to fire. | ||
| So if there are people, for example, who have been coddling Big Tech and the Justice Department reassign them to | ||
| changing diapers on the southern border until they quit. | ||
| I mean, there are a lot of things that you can do to change this. | ||
| Mike, moving on to the laptop from hell, Mark Zuckerberg says rather sedately, look, the | ||
| background of this is that there was a poll that came out, you'll remember this, that | ||
| where the majority of the American people said, had they have known that the laptop | ||
| from hell was genuine, that would have changed their vote. | ||
| And when I say a majority of people said that, enough people had said that in that poll, I think it was like a year, 18 months ago, that that would have changed the result of of 2020. That's the takeaway point here, that enough people | ||
| were misled by you had all the 50 signatories from the Deep State Intelligence Services to | ||
| the New York Post. You had all this going on. People said if they knew that that story was true, | ||
| that would have changed their vote. And enough people have said that that would have changed the | ||
| election, right? Given that reality, given that reality, the few lines that Mark Zuckerberg | ||
| dedicates to the laptop, which was an election-defining story, | ||
| So on this point, let's not get into the stolen election aspect, but that in itself was an election defining issue. | ||
| Six, seven, eight lines here just to say, oh, look, we've implemented some processes to make sure this doesn't happen again. | ||
| My question is, Donald Trump was criminally indicted in New York because of a payment To Stormy Daniels, which was considered to be, retrospectively, a campaign expense that Donald Trump tried to avoid declaring. | ||
| Is this that this had a massive influence on the 2020 election, that part of it which wasn't stolen, right? | ||
| Is this not an aid to an election campaign in kind? | ||
| What the secret services, what the services, intelligence services, what they did with their letters, what Facebook did in suppressing, which it admits here, the New York Post story. | ||
| These things had election consequences. | ||
| Why aren't they being calculated in the same way with the same degree of fanaticism? | ||
| that Donald Trump's payment to Stormy Daniels was considered. | ||
| Why is the DOJ, which Merrick Garland claims says the law that it's the no one's above | ||
| the law. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Why? | ||
| Why is this going to stay here and nothing to happen? | ||
| Why aren't there going to be criminal indictments based on that? | ||
| This was election interference. | ||
| Mike Davis. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| So President Trump, then presidential candidate Donald Trump, had a nuisance claim against him by Stormy Daniels. | ||
| And in 2017, when he was the President of the United States, he settled this nuisance claim through his attorneys and he | ||
| put it in his private books as a legal expense. I've settled many nuisance claims | ||
| on behalf of my my legal clients over the last nearly 20 years. I don't know | ||
| what the hell else you would put it in your books under other than a legal | ||
| expense. A legal expense is a legal expense. | ||
| He put it in his private books, not his public books. | ||
| They weren't disclosed. | ||
| It was in 2017 he put it in his private books, and somehow under this Soros-funded Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg, and this Matthew Colangelo from the Biden Justice Department, and this corrupt Manhattan judge, Juan Marchand, who illegally donated to Biden and Harris, and whose daughter, Lauren Marchand, is raising tens of millions of dollars for Biden-Harris. | ||
| Somehow, Trump's payment of that expense in 2017 and putting it into his private books as a legal expense in 2017 somehow affected the 2016 election. | ||
| And we just had a jury find him guilty of 34 felony charges for this nonsense, bogus theory. | ||
| Yet the Biden regime is colluding with these big tech It absolutely is. | ||
| Mike, stand by, we've got a break. | ||
| After the break, we'll also have Katherine Engelbrecht and Jenny Beth Martin talking about Georgia. | ||
| But let's finish off with Mike Davis in two minutes' time. | ||
| Americans constitutional rights under our very clear federal criminal civil rights statutes? | ||
| It absolutely is. | ||
| Mike, stand by, we've got a break. | ||
| After the break, we'll also have Catherine Engelbrecht and Jenny Beth Martin talking | ||
| about Georgia. | ||
| But let's finish off with Mike Davis in two minutes time. | ||
| Stand by. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bamm. | |
| Thanks for joining us. | ||
| Welcome back. | ||
| Finishing off now with Mike Davis, the latest news on the Jack Smith prosecution is that he has, the special counsel has appealed. | ||
| Judge Eileen Cannon's decision to throw out the Trump case. | ||
| Mike, could you just give a quick recap on what it was that Judge Cannon ruled and why the legal basis for Jack Smith's appeal? | ||
| Yeah, so Judge Eileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida dismissed the charges brought by Jack Smith against President Trump related to the presidential records that President Trump was allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act. | ||
| The reason is that Jack Smith's appointment as the special counsel is unconstitutional. | ||
| He is not an officer of the United States and he does not report on a day-to-day basis To an officer of the United States, which makes it unconstitutional. | ||
| Under our Constitution, the executive branch is run by officers, and those officers are created by statutes, like the Attorney General or a U.S. | ||
| Attorney. | ||
| They are nominated by the President, they're confirmed by the Senate, and then they're appointed by the President. | ||
| After confirmation, and then there are people like assistant U.S. | ||
| attorneys who work for the U.S. | ||
| attorneys. | ||
| But in order for Jack Smith's office to be constitutional, he has to be managed, supervised on a day-to-day basis by a constitutional officer. | ||
| And under the Department of Justice regulations, they have intentionally insulated him from day-to-day management by the attorney general or the deputy attorney general or a U.S. | ||
| attorney. | ||
| In addition, he has an unlimited budget, which violates the Appropriations Clause. | ||
| Only Congress can appropriate. | ||
| And to give this appointee, who's not even an officer, this unlimited jurisdiction, unlimited power, unlimited budget is clearly unconstitutional. | ||
| Jack Smith has appealed this to the 11th Circuit. | ||
| It's not going to get resolved before the election. | ||
| President Trump is presumably going to win. | ||
| I hope he fires Jack Smith on day one and opens a criminal probe on Jack Smith. | ||
| Is there any precedent for a special counsel to be Senate-confirmed? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| We used to have the Office of the Independent Counsel that was created by statutes. | ||
| After the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton, Congress didn't like the Office of the Independent Counsel anymore, so they let it lapse. | ||
| And Congress never created a new Office of the Independent Counsel or Office of the Special Counsel. | ||
| And so what did the Justice Department do? | ||
| They just did it by fiat, that the Attorney General thought that he could just create this Office of Special Counsel through regulation, give it an unlimited budget through regulation, unlimited jurisdiction through regulation. | ||
| It's clearly unconstitutional. | ||
| If this does get to the Supreme Court, I suspect the Supreme Court is going to agree with Judge Cannon. | ||
| What should Merrick Garland have done for this to have been constitutional? | ||
| It's pretty easy. | ||
| He could have had his U.S. | ||
| attorney down in the Southern District of Florida run this investigation of Mar-a-Lago instead of putting in this partisan hack. | ||
| Jack Smith, whose wife was a producer for Michelle Obama's documentary, who's clearly a partisan, Look, Jack Smith is the Democrats' scud missile they bring in to take out Republican presidential or vice presidential contenders. | ||
| They did this with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. | ||
| Jack Smith came in and brought these bogus charges against him. | ||
| He was a likely presidential or vice presidential contender. | ||
| He got destroyed with this bogus corruption trial by Jack Smith and this conviction. | ||
| It got reversed by the Supreme Court several years later, eight to nothing. | ||
| It would have been night to nothing, but Justice Scalia passed away, but the political damage was done. | ||
| Again, Jack Smith is a scud missile, right? | ||
| He takes out Obama and Biden and Kamala's political enemies, and then they pick up the pieces years later | ||
| when the damage is done. | ||
| So with that backdrop, because when I was reading upon this story before the show, | ||
| my question to you, He doesn't have jurisdiction. | ||
| that a special counsel should take, should appeal a trial judge's ruling to an appeals | ||
| court, a superior court. | ||
| But from what you're saying, none of this is normal in the first place. | ||
| I don't even know how Jack Smith has the ability to appeal. | ||
| He doesn't he doesn't have jurisdiction. | ||
| He doesn't have an office. | ||
| He doesn't have power. | ||
| I mean, maybe Merrick Garland in the Justice Department can appeal, but I don't know how | ||
| the office of the special counsel, which doesn't exist, which got struck down by Judge Kaine. | ||
| I don't know how they have the ability to appeal this. | ||
| But separate from that, look, this goes to my. | ||
| Sorry, Mike, that's a standing issue then, isn't it? | ||
| Well, it's not only standing, it's jurisdiction. | ||
| I don't know how he has jurisdiction to appeal separate from standing, meaning I don't know how he has the power to appeal. | ||
| That's jurisdiction separate from injury, which is standing. | ||
| I don't know how he has either. | ||
| He doesn't have an office under Judge Cannon's ruling now. | ||
| But let's set that minor hurdle aside He's going to appeal to the 11th Circuit. | ||
| This is going to take many months to resolve. | ||
| This will get a petition for search of the Supreme Court. | ||
| The Supreme Court will likely take this. | ||
| In the meantime, President Trump is almost certainly going to win. | ||
| I mean, if we're on this current trajectory, as long as we get out Trump supporters and vote as early as possible, Trump's going to win. | ||
| And then do you think You don't think on day one that President Trump's gonna get rid of Jack Smith and then open a probe on Jack Smith and all these other Biden and Harris partisan operatives who have been running this illegal criminal conspiracy against him and his top aides? | ||
| Like Steve Bannon, who's in prison right now, and Peter DeVaro, who went to prison, and Trump's attorneys like John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani and Jeffrey Clark, and Trump supporters on January 6th who have been persecuted—yes, persecuted, per the Supreme Court's Fisher decision—there must be retribution here, and that's a big component of justice. | ||
| I think the prospect of retribution is going to take many people listening to this show to the ballot box on November 5th. | ||
| That's, I think, a big incentive. | ||
| I just want to synthesize that I've understood the legal arguments here for this. | ||
| So you're basically saying that Judge Eileen Cannon ruled that Jack Smith's office did not exist. | ||
| And therefore, because of that ruling, he somewhat ironically, therefore, lacks the | ||
| jurisdiction that he would have needed to have had to appeal this case to the 11th Circuit. | ||
| Is that right? | ||
| Is that what you're saying? | ||
| Let's put this in a way that the Democrats can understand. | ||
| Let's say that President Trump's back in office on January 20th, 2025, and he decides he just | ||
| wants to create the office of the viceroy and appoint crazy Mike Davis as the viceroy | ||
| and give me unlimited budgets, unlimited jurisdiction, unlimited power, and very little accountability | ||
| to Congress. | ||
| And even to the Attorney General. | ||
| I just kind of do my own thing. | ||
| Do the Democrats really want that? | ||
| Do you think that during my reign as viceroy I'm going to be kind and merciful? | ||
| Hell no! | ||
| I'm going to exact retribution against Biden and Kamala Okay. | ||
| and Jack Smith and Fannie Willis and Tish James and Judge Mershawn and Laura Mershawn, | ||
| there will be hell to pay if that happens. | ||
| Do Democrats really think it's constitutional that a president or his attorney general | ||
| can just make up this all powerful office of special counsel | ||
| despite what Congress has done? | ||
| This is clearly unconstitutional and Democrats don't wanna play this game. | ||
| Okay, got it. | ||
| Where do folks go, Vice Roy, to stay up to date with your output on social media? | ||
| You can go to the Viceroy's website, article3project.org, article number 3project.org. | ||
| You can donate there. | ||
| You can take action. | ||
| We're really gearing up on election integrity, which is the next battle in the Biden-Kamala lawfare against Trump. | ||
| So take action there. | ||
| You can also follow us on social media. | ||
| Thank you for having me on, Ben. | ||
| Matt Davis, thanks very much. | ||
| You're a star. | ||
| Dan, let's go for the quick two and a half minute clip to herald our Georgia election board hit coming up. | ||
| One of the things that has happened over the last four years since Trump tried to overturn his election loss in 2020 is that the Republican Party has installed election officials in counties and states all across the country who not only parrot Trump's idea that the 2020 election was somehow stolen, but they have started doing what he wanted election officials to do for him in 2020. | ||
| They have started refusing to certify election results. | ||
| Now, they've done this in a number of states around the country. | ||
| Some blue states, some swing states, some red states. | ||
| But the state where Republicans have done this more often than any other state in the country is Georgia. | ||
| Republicans are now trying these gambits to block the certification of election results everywhere, but they have been trying it most aggressively in Georgia. | ||
| And over these last few weeks, a really alarming situation has emerged in Georgia, because there is a newly appointed pro-Trump majority on the official Georgia State Election Board. | ||
| And in recent weeks, they have passed a flurry of new rules that purport to legalize some of these tactics, that purport to empower local election officials to actually do this stuff, to block the certification of the vote or to delay the certification of the vote. | ||
| And this state election board in Georgia is apparently planning to do much more of this, even as we are getting closer and closer to the election date. | ||
| The Washington Post just reported that the election board plans to adopt nearly a dozen additional rules beyond the new ones they've just put into effect over coming weeks. | ||
| Despite warnings from state and local officials that the lateness of the calendar all but guarantees confusion and mistakes. | ||
| But Democrats are prepared, and we will stop them. | ||
| Certifying an election is not a choice. | ||
| It is the law. | ||
| A few unelected extremists can't just decide not to count your vote. | ||
| That's why we have won case after case in court, fending off MAGA efforts to chip away at our democracy. | ||
| We will win this case too, and keep fighting so that every eligible voter can confidently cast their vote, knowing it will count. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So Jordans know that Trump is working to sow chaos and division and to roll back our democracy. | |
| And we've refused to let that happen. | ||
| We are not going back. | ||
| And thanks to state leaders like Senator Nabila Islam-Parks and State Rep Sam Park, these efforts to subvert our democracy, they're not going to go unchallenged. | ||
| There you go, standby. | ||
| We'll be breaking that down with Catherine Engelbrecht and Jenny Beth Martin. | ||
| This is a segment you won't want to miss. | ||
| Georgia is of course a swing state, one of the six swing states. | ||
| Well, it's no surprise that Georgia, being one of the six predicted swing states in the election, 2024 election in November, is now coming under increasing pressure. | ||
| Also, in courses before anyone's even cast a vote just yet. | ||
| And there's a lawsuit, as we just heard, that has been presented by the Democratic Party that said that the Georgia state election board will its rulings, its last minute rule changes, will guarantee | ||
| chaos after the November election if this ruling is allowed to stand. | ||
| Now, we've been talking about this for some time on the show. | ||
| Jenny Beth Martin, you were expounding the implications of this in a very positive way | ||
| just a few days ago. | ||
| Would you like to recap what the SEB had ruled? | ||
| And then we'll hear from Catherine Engelbrecht. | ||
| Sure, thanks so much for having me. | ||
| So the Georgia State Election Board has done several things to improve the processing in getting to the point where you certify ballots, or certify elections. | ||
| And contrary to what Rachel Maddow and the left is saying, If you are on an election board, you still must certify the election. | ||
| The state election board has said that the local boards of election are able to review information prior to certification. | ||
| I think that's extremely important because in 2020, the certification and even in 2022, the certification It happens even when the local election board still has | ||
| questions and they're trying to understand how things went wrong. | ||
| Like in 2022, I mentioned when we last spoke that in DeKalb County, Georgia, in a primary | ||
| election a Democrat person who was running for office came in in third place. | ||
| The machine count showed that she was in third place, but it showed she had no votes in her | ||
| own precinct. And really, after they wound up going back in... | ||
| She's trying to count the ballots again. | ||
| She still had no votes in her own precinct. | ||
| She voted for herself. | ||
| She should have had at a minimum one. | ||
| They counted the ballots, and she was the first place finisher, went on to a runoff, and is now a county commissioner in DeKalb County, Georgia. | ||
| So there are problems, but the board members wondered, are all the rest of the elections correct or not? | ||
| They had to go ahead and certify even though they had those kind of questions. | ||
| This may not completely eliminate that issue because there is a deadline and they must certify by that deadline, but at least they can review information and have access to information so that when they go to certify, they're making the best certification. | ||
| And if that isn't, they're certifying to the best of their knowledge and ability. | ||
| And if that isn't the purpose of the board, The board also did a couple of other things. | ||
| Then why not just let the machine automatically issue a certification? | ||
| If it's all just ministerial, the machine counts the ballots, just let that be the end | ||
| of it. | ||
| Why do you need people involved? | ||
| You need people involved to be kind of guardrails and checks and balances on the rest of the | ||
| election system. | ||
| And otherwise, why have the people involved at all? | ||
| The board also did a couple of other things. | ||
| Let me go through those very quickly. | ||
| They said that we must have tracking of absentee ballots through the United States Postal Service. | ||
| They said that poll watchers from all political parties must have the ability to observe processing of ballots. | ||
| Processing of ballots is supposed to be open to the public anyway, so this shouldn't be a difficult thing to achieve. | ||
| They said that local counties must post the results from early voting prominently either on their building or on their website. | ||
| They have those results, so posting them shouldn't be an issue. | ||
| Just go ahead and put them up. | ||
| If you're sending them on, make them public information. | ||
| and then quickly, make them public information quickly and locally, | ||
| so that you can ensure that the information being transmitted is correct and stays the same | ||
| between the county and the state. And then the last thing is that they said that you've got to | ||
| count the physical number of paper ballots and that has to match the number of ballots that | ||
| were scanned by the machine and the number of ballots that were issued based on the number | ||
| of people who checked into a precinct. | ||
| So each precinct has to count that. | ||
| It's just basic accounting and reconciliation. | ||
| These are not strange, draconian, hard things to enact. | ||
| And the left just, why doesn't the left want these common sense Changes to happen. | ||
| That's a real question. | ||
| It will ensure that people, regardless of political party, can trust the outcome much better than they did in Georgia in 2022, like I just mentioned with DeKalb County, Georgia, or 2020, like we saw as Trump supporters, or 2018 for the people who supported Stacey Abrams. | ||
| It helps both parties to make this a clear, transparent, open process. | ||
| And most importantly, It restores confidence in our elections, which we must all have. | ||
| Catherine Engelbrecht, you have been, and through the vote, has been deeply involved in Georgia and its election shenanigans for a number of years now. | ||
| What does it tell you that the Democratic Party launching this lawsuit less than 10 weeks away from an election, what does that tell you first off? | ||
| About the current state of the campaign? | ||
| Yeah, it tells me that the Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that the fraud that we've seen coming out of Georgia over these last few years, that that remains institutionalized. | ||
| As Jenny Beth rightly says, all that the state election board is asking for in its new consideration of rules is, hey, let's follow the law. | ||
| Let's follow a process. | ||
| And that simply didn't happen in 2020. | ||
| So I applaud the state election board and even more than that I applaud the citizens of Georgia who have fought tirelessly to try to bring elections back to some semblance of common sense in their state, and they're doing a great job. | ||
| The State Election Board seems to finally be understanding that what all the people want is a free and fair, transparent process, and the Democrat Party is opposed for all of the obvious reasons, but I'll state the obvious, and that is that they intend to manipulate and exploit the weaknesses wherever they can. | ||
| Catherine, what do you think of the time frame here for any lawsuit? | ||
| Is there any possibility that there might be a ruling before November the 5th? | ||
| You know, I'm no attorney. | ||
| I can say that it would appear that they're reacting to the state election board's most recent actions. | ||
| So, you know, the timing there makes sense. | ||
| I shudder to think that a court would look upon this case and say, oh, no, the Democrats are right. | ||
| Georgia doesn't need to actually follow the law. | ||
| I mean, certainly stranger things have happened, but I I shudder to think that that would be the outcome of this case. | ||
| And if it is, then, you know, the other side needs to punch back hard and keep fighting this to the Supreme Court of the United States, because we must have an underpinning of process that is transparent and accurate. | ||
| Otherwise, Well, you know, we risk removing this final cornerstone from our republic, the stability of elections. | ||
| It's not something to be tampered with. | ||
| And we're dangerously close now. | ||
| So I hope the whole thing just gets overturned or thrown out. | ||
| But, you know, we shall see. | ||
| Jenny Betts, what are you hearing on the ground there about this lawsuit? | ||
| Well, one thing about it being heard or not, it has to go before Fulton County's court system, and we all know the issues in Fulton County, so who knows exactly what will happen with that. | ||
| I would imagine that it winds up being appealed at least to the Georgia Supreme Court before it's all said and done, if not, like Catherine said, to the United States Supreme Court. | ||
| People on the ground are really frustrated. | ||
| One of the things that they're extremely frustrated about is that the attacks from the left, they're so predictable at this point. | ||
| I've been doing this for so long and I've been called so many names and I know Catherine has as well. | ||
| We're sexist, we're racist, we hate all white women. | ||
| I mean, the list goes on and on. | ||
| Or we hate all women, rather. | ||
| Those are the kind of things that we get accused of for standing up for what we believe in. | ||
| Those kind of attacks are happening right now against the election board members. | ||
| I think there have even been attacks that the board is acting in a racist manner, and one of the board members who has voted for this is a black woman. | ||
| It makes no sense at all. | ||
| And I think that that's very frustrating. | ||
| That lady who is a black woman, Janelle King, she was recently appointed by the speaker | ||
| of the House of Georgia. | ||
| And she put a statement out yesterday saying that she is doing this not to create, | ||
| I'm not quoting her exactly. | ||
| It isn't to create chaos, but to ensure that the law is upheld and that the questions are resolved so that we have confidence in the elections. | ||
| So that is the intent. | ||
| And again, I don't have her quote upright in front of me, so I'm summarizing it. | ||
| But that's the intent of this. | ||
| It isn't to create problems based on the color of your skin. | ||
| It isn't to create problems whether you're a Republican or Democrat. | ||
| It's to restore faith in the outcome of the election. | ||
| And you know, I remember back in the year 2000, after the election, where there were so many questions with George W. Bush and Al Gore. | ||
| The media were allowed to go back into every single county in the state of Florida and recount every single ballot. | ||
| And that put to rest many of the questions that existed regarding that election because you had someone who was independent going in and doing oversight of those election results. | ||
| That's never happened in 2020. | ||
| Every time anyone has tried to do that, there have been stalls and delays, or there have had to be court cases. | ||
| And I don't want what happened in 2020 to be repeated. | ||
| And I think that the Georgia Election Board, regardless of how they voted on these rules, none of them want it to be repeated. | ||
| We need to have elections we can have faith and trust in. | ||
| And that's what these board members are trying to accomplish. | ||
| It's important to remember, I think, that President Trump himself has praised the board's three Republicans, referring to them as pitbulls, fighting for honesty, transparency and victory. | ||
| Catherine Engelbrecht, what can people do to show solidarity with the non-partisan election board here, trying to ensure that, at the very least, in 2024, the election will be fair and transparent? | ||
| Continue to speak out as they have been doing. | ||
| Unfortunately, the state election board just recently moved all of their meetings from in-person opportunities to Zoom meetings, so that new degree of separation I don't think is great for morale, but nonetheless, Georgia citizens staying involved, reaching out to the party or candidate of their choice, and getting engaged in the process to make sure that there is no polling place left unmanned, that there is no absentee | ||
| ballot left unreviewed, that central count has eyes on everywhere. | ||
| Just being there and ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the state election board | ||
| and other patriots to make sure that the laws are being followed. | ||
| And I think the final thing is the mindset. | ||
| We must go into this knowing why we believe what we believe and standing firm on that. | ||
| The season that we've come through where we've been told that up is down and that we can't trust what we see or that somehow following the law is, as Jenny Bess says, racist or immoral, it's this dystopian, narrative, propagandist nonsense. | ||
| Catherine, just quickly, ten seconds, where do people go to the vote? | ||
| Where do they go for more information? | ||
| You can go to TrueTheVote.org and you can see all the projects that we're working on, of course, across all social media. | ||
| And look, we're all in it together, so let's just stand firm. | ||
| And Jenny Beth, where do people go for Tea Party Patriots? | ||
| Ten seconds. | ||
| TeaPartyPatriots.org. | ||
| TeaPartyPatriots.org. | ||
| Thank you both very much indeed. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host Stephen K. Bamw. | |
| The petrodollar is crumbling before our eyes. | ||
| Saudi Arabia just declined to renew the 50-year-long petrodollar agreement, which means the US dollar's global dominance is now riding on fumes. | ||
| How much longer until the dollar crashes in value? | ||
| Nobody knows for sure, but it's always best to be prepared. | ||
| I believe owning gold is the best solution. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| Because gold safeguards your savings outside the dollar-connected financial system. | ||
| So if a crash happens, your hard-earned money will be protected inside precious metals. | ||
| Plus, with the Gold IRA from Birch Gold Group, you can move your IRA or 401k into physical gold without paying any taxes or penalties. | ||
| To learn more, get a free info kit on Gold IRAs by going to birchgold.com forward stroke banner. | ||
| That's birchgold.com forward stroke banner. | ||
| Birchgold Group is the only gold company I trust to help patriots defend their savings. | ||
| So take a stand right now and go to birchgold.com forward stroke Bannon and get your free invocate on gold IRAs. | ||
| Welcome back. | ||
| So my next guest is going to break down some of the recent developments to do with the housing and property market. | ||
| As you know, Constance talking about home title lock and most people's wealth is tied up in their property. | ||
| So what's going on there, I think, will significantly affect People's sense of their own wealth. | ||
| This is important, obviously, as the mainstream media is trying to convince people as we head towards November that they've never been richer. | ||
| Sophia Georges, good morning. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Good morning. | |
| How are you? | ||
| Very well indeed. | ||
| Thanks for coming on the show. | ||
| Can you tell me then, please, if you wouldn't mind, how the increases in interest rates and mortgage rates that we've seen will affect affordability for homebuyers? | ||
| And what are the imminent trends people might be expected to see along that axis? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Absolutely. | |
| So with interest rates I mean obviously what normal people would think is when the interest rates go up that the affordability goes down and home prices go down. | ||
| But in this case we've sort of seen an opposite effect where although the interest rates have gone up. | ||
| We have seen affordability come down, but we've seen home prices go up. | ||
| And, you know, we've got our finger here on the pulse, my agents and I, and you hear a lot of analysts breaking it down, but when you actually give the number of how an interest rate change affects affordability, it's astonishing to people. | ||
| So for every 1% increase in an interest rate, you lose about 9% of buying power on a home. | ||
| And when I tell that number to people, it's a huge number because we went from the 2016 to the 2020 timeframe where you had interest rates that were at 3% and now we're seeing interest rates at 7%. | ||
| Sophia, would you mind just repeating that once again? | ||
| What was that statistic? | ||
|
unidentified
|
For every 1% increase in interest rate, a buyer loses 9% in buying power. | |
| So to put that into perspective, if you were able to afford a $500,000 home, now you can only afford a home that's in the low to mid $300,000. | ||
| And it's an astonishing number. | ||
| And there are statistics also called the affordability indexes, which also plays into that same trend that we are seeing with the loss in the buying power. | ||
| For example, from 2016 to 2020, we saw affordability indexes as high as 160, but they're all over 100. | ||
| And what does that mean? | ||
| That meant that 160% Was the earnings on the income earnings on that you were making over the median price of a home. | ||
| So people were actually able to save money and now in July of 2024, which is the latest statistic that came out that number has dropped to 74%. | ||
| That means that people are only earning 74% of the median affordability for a median priced home. | ||
| So they are unable to save money to afford a home at the current prices. | ||
| I think many people following the show will have seen, and I certainly did, and I was horrified by it, one of the few policy proposals to come out of the House Walls campaign, and that is the proposal to give $25,000 to first-time homebuyers. | ||
| Could you break this down? | ||
| Because this seems to me, in Banana Republic's Famously, third world regimes could buy their citizens' vote by just giving them $10 in an envelope under the counter. | ||
| It seems to me that Kamala Harris is significantly upping the game. | ||
| This seems like a straightforward bribe for votes to me. | ||
| Could you break this down, please? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Absolutely. | |
| Well, the proposal is to give $25,000 to new time homebuyers. | ||
| That was what she recently had proposed. | ||
| It sounds great on the surface, correct? | ||
| But first, let's define what a first homebuyer is. | ||
| A first time homebuyer is a person that buys a home every three years. | ||
| So automatically, you know that that's going to be exploited right there. | ||
| Secondly, you artificially Um, creating a change in the market. | ||
| Um, the problem has been the lack of inventory. | ||
| So, um, if you are not incentivizing home buyer or home sellers to sell their homes, to increase that inventory, to increase, um, you know, the, the number of homes that are currently for sale in the market by flooding this $25,000 into the market, you're just increasing the demand. | ||
| And you're not doing anything to change the number of homes that are for sale, which is the supply. | ||
| And all that's going to do is further drive the home prices up. | ||
| And that $25,000 is just going to go into the home seller's pocket. | ||
| And it's worth pointing out that you taxpayers are going to be paying for this, all taxpayers. | ||
| Everyone who pays taxes will be paying, contributing towards this $25,000. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And nothing is for free. | |
| Yep, and nothing is for free. | ||
| When we saw the foreclosure moratoriums a few years back, you know, the banks had to recoup them somehow and they were recouping them through extra fees on closings and extra points on mortgages. | ||
| So nothing is ever for free. | ||
| Sophia, would you very kindly just stand by for a couple of moments? |
Export Selection