Dec. 9, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
51:50
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you'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? | ||
| MAGA media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| 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
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| It's Monday, 8 December, Year of the Lord, 2025. | ||
| We are very packed today. | ||
| Natalie Winner is going to join me and some of my co-hosts to go through huge news on artificial intelligence and chip sales. | ||
| We'll get to that in a moment with Natalie. | ||
| Also, Senator Mike Lee, huge argument at the Supreme Court today. | ||
| Senator Mike Lee will join us a little later. | ||
| I want to go to the pressing business about 2026. | ||
| Remember the theory of the case here: you got to win the redistricting war to win the midterms in 2026 and therefore to keep the Trump revolution going. | ||
| John Fredericks is live in Indianapolis. | ||
| It moved over to the Senate today. | ||
| We were very successful in the House last week, John. | ||
| Turning points rally on Friday. | ||
| You having the John Fredericks MAGA bus there helped. | ||
| How are we doing in the Senate, sir? | ||
| Well, today's a big day, Steve. | ||
| We're here at the state capitol. | ||
| Thank you for having me. | ||
| We're about 30 minutes away from the final vote on the committee. | ||
| There's been hours of testimony. | ||
| A few hours ago, this rotunda was absolutely packed, mainly about 300 anti-districting protesters. | ||
| Some I interviewed, all of them coming from an organization, whether it be Planned Parenthood or something else that has kind of thinned out now. | ||
| As the testimony gets done, there's, let me just bottom line this. | ||
| This thing has got to get out of committee within the next hour. | ||
| There are nine committee members. | ||
| We need five votes. | ||
| There are four hard nose, two Democrats, and two Republicans who are voting no. | ||
| They're with Roderick Bray. | ||
| So we need the other five. | ||
| We think we've got three of them solid. | ||
| Two of them, we expect to vote in favor of getting this out of committee. | ||
| This should be about six o'clock Eastern time. | ||
| Once it gets out of committee, then we start going through the three readings. | ||
| We're going to get this vote to the floor. | ||
| And then we're looking at Thursday night or Friday, where there's going to be a vote of the full Senate. | ||
| We need 26 votes. | ||
| Right now, I'm told, as of right now, this moment, we have 23 solid votes. | ||
| We're down three. | ||
| We're working them hard. | ||
| Mike Braun, governor, just made a statement. | ||
| He was pretty confident that he would get this over the finish line, but it's going to be a lot of work between now and then to get to 26. | ||
| You hear some of the protesters screaming behind me. | ||
| You know, there's a lot of people here that are very upset, obviously, but we need these three votes. | ||
| Here's one thing that's concerning. | ||
| One of the senators, Rick Neymey, who I talked to last night, should be with us. | ||
| He's Southern Indiana. | ||
| He's 50-50. | ||
| His cousin is running for Congress. | ||
| But here's what's disturbing. | ||
| He got a personal call last night, Sunday night, from Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and he didn't commit to Mike Johnson. | ||
| So this is not a good sign. | ||
| I think we can still get there. | ||
| But when you're a state senator, you got the Speaker of the House calling you up, and you can't commit to him on the phone on a Sunday night. | ||
| You know, that is not the best. | ||
| Let me get out of the glare. | ||
| That is not the best sign we're going to have. | ||
| What MAGA is saying is they're going to primary all of these people that vote no. | ||
| This is not turning point. | ||
| This is MAGA ink. | ||
| They got a billion dollars plus. | ||
| They're going to primary. | ||
| Also, they're telling me that money that's going to Indiana and SMPs, which are the nuclear reactors, USDA hubs, all of this, the White House is saying we're cutting you off. | ||
| You're not getting a dime. | ||
| So that message is getting out. | ||
| The stakes here in Indiana are tremendously high, not only for the redistricting, but very high for getting money from the White House. | ||
| These guys are playing hardball, Steve. | ||
| They're not going to take no for an answer. | ||
| And so any of these people vote no and this thing goes down on Friday. | ||
| The primary is going to start immediately. | ||
| They're shipping Chris Lasavita here. | ||
| They're going to spend over seven figures apiece and they're going to cut the state off from the funding you're getting and some of these goodie bag things that they're allocating for Indiana, Steve. | ||
| Talk to me about the footage you sent me earlier about what happened today for their rally. | ||
| Of course, turning point's always quite positive. | ||
| The people today, that got a little ugly, didn't it? | ||
| The rally they had of the opposition. | ||
| It was very ugly. | ||
| Look, they had about 300 people here. | ||
| They got here early and they were screaming and shouting as they went through the testimony on TV. | ||
| Obviously, you can't get that number of people in the chamber, but they were all out here in the rotunda. | ||
| I interviewed a couple of them. | ||
| I mean, they're just mad. | ||
| But none of them, this is the thing. | ||
| Nobody I talked to just got up and decided to come here. | ||
| This was all organized by either Planned Parenthood or some other left-wing organization, right? | ||
| That's why they all got here. | ||
| And so, but then look, they came out. | ||
| There were about 300 of them. | ||
| I mean, I found a handful of supporters of redistricting here. | ||
| They came on their own. | ||
| Some of them camped out in the lieutenant governor's office. | ||
| That's Micah Beckwith. | ||
| He's with us. | ||
| But it was probably, you know, 350 to 10 as far as against and for, but it was getting really, really, really nasty here. | ||
| Look, they want to stop this. | ||
| All the signs are all about Trump, fascists, you know, one-party system, all the things they're doing. | ||
| It was interesting because I asked one of the ladies the question who has said, you know, this isn't the Indiana way. | ||
| And, you know, the Republicans shouldn't do this. | ||
| And I'm like, well, are you a Democrat? | ||
| She said, yes, I said, well, what about California and Virginia and all these things that don't have a single Republican representative? | ||
| How does that square reconcile with what you're saying? | ||
| And of course, you get the same answer you always do. | ||
| Hey, we can't control them. | ||
| We can only control Indiana. | ||
| But the anxiety I felt from the leftists that were here, basically, the people that are here are Marxists, Steve. | ||
| That's the bottom line. | ||
| They want a communist takeover of the country. | ||
| They're out in force. | ||
| That's what they want. | ||
| Indiana's right now on the front lines to stop that. | ||
| Let me ask you, you know, the optics here are very important because correct me if I'm wrong. | ||
| You're saying the committee is nine people. | ||
| There's already four hard no's. | ||
| That means we have to sweep the rest of them. | ||
| Anyone would be looking for anything to hide behind of the testimony today. | ||
| In Texas, we went through three days and there was not one Republican or not one group that stood up and did a positive. | ||
| There was three days of negative to set today in front of the Senate. | ||
| Were there any people there pitching for this is the fair thing to do? | ||
| Or was all these Marxist groups, organized groups there just to intimidate senators? | ||
| That's a great question. | ||
| And unlike Texas, I was not there for the whole time. | ||
| I was there for about two of the, this thing went out for about four or five hours. | ||
| When I was there, it was 50-50. | ||
| So they did a good job in getting somebody for and somebody in opposition to it. | ||
| And a lot of the speeches were maxed to two minutes. | ||
| Two minutes came, you were cut off. | ||
| So the ones that were opposed to it, obviously they get big cheers here because it's on TV. | ||
| Those that were for it, you get basically a boo or a hiss or whatever, but it was about 50-50. | ||
| So they did a good job of that. | ||
| John, you've been in some pretty tough gunfights over the last 10 or 12 years doing this, in particularly taking the bus around. | ||
| Explain to the audience how nasty and how tough these redistricting fights are, sir. | ||
| This is probably the nastiest thing that I've been involved in. | ||
| And, you know, I started this thing in 2015 with President Trump in Iowa, okay? | ||
| And I saw Ted Cruz and Jeff Rowe steal the caucus by making up lies about Ben Carson, right? | ||
| Just said he was out of the race. | ||
| He didn't have enough people at the caucuses. | ||
| He went home to get a suit, and they said he was out of the race and beat him. | ||
| So I've been through a lot of nasty stuff on both sides. | ||
| This is a nasty fight, Steve. | ||
| And I tell you what, it is not for the squeamish. | ||
| It is not for the faint of heart. | ||
| If you're in this fight, you're going to be in it to the end. | ||
| And for these state senators, the stakes are going to be hot. | ||
| And if you bail on us, there are going to be repercussions. | ||
| You might as well find a new line of work because you're not going to remain a state senator. | ||
| I can guarantee you that. | ||
| And it's also going to cost Indiana hundreds of millions of dollars. | ||
| You know, the White House decides where to put these things, like a USD hub. | ||
| That's their decision. | ||
| Right now it's going to Indiana. | ||
| They lose this vote. | ||
| That's gone. | ||
| These senators are gone. | ||
| But the opposition here is dug in because they see the stakes. | ||
| They know that if we start winning these redistricting fights, we got a fighting chance to keep the House as bad as things appear now and their power slips away. | ||
| Indiana is more than two votes. | ||
| It's like, well, why are you doing all this for two votes? | ||
| No, it isn't two votes. | ||
| It's 20 votes. | ||
| Because if we win this, it's going to give the backbone to other Republican state houses to do the same thing, redistrict and get us state, get us like New England, who's got six states without a single Republican representative, including Hawaii and others. | ||
| So we need to do the same thing. | ||
| You can't go to a bazooka. | ||
| They have bazookas. | ||
| We want to go into with a pop gun and we're getting slaughtered. | ||
| That's really what the difference is. | ||
| That's why we're all here. | ||
| If we can take the fight with them here and win this fight, you got to remember when we got here on Tuesday, this thing had about a 10, 15% chance of passing. | ||
| It didn't have a shot. | ||
| It already got beat until Mike Bron brought it back. | ||
| And they told me when I got here, this is a long shot bid. | ||
| Well, we're all long shot bids, Steve. | ||
| Freedom is a long shot bid. | ||
| When Trump went down the escalator, he was at 3%. | ||
| That's a long shot bid. | ||
| So you got to lace them up, lace them tight, dig in, action, action, action. | ||
| Okay, we got to sweep the five folks right now on the Senate. | ||
| We got four hard nose, nine-man committee, got to come out of committee today. | ||
| We got to get all five votes. | ||
| That'll happen sometime around six o'clock. | ||
| Before I lose you, we'll follow the logistics here. | ||
| Before I lose you, our beloved Commonwealth of Virginia, I understand you had some state convention or state gathering this weekend. | ||
| And what people tell me, there wasn't a lot of intense focus on this April redistriction. | ||
| The people in the Commonwealth right now understand that when you talk about momentum, because you're a degenerate gambler in football, you know it's a momentum game. | ||
| That when you talk about momentum, the momentum we would get here in Indiana and other places with victories would be washed out by a blowout loss in Virginia in April, where they would go 6-5 to 10 to 1. | ||
| Sir, any update on that? | ||
| Oh, they're going to get blown out. | ||
| They have no plan. | ||
| There's no party. | ||
| They got a beeper and a couple people. | ||
| And I think maybe they got somebody got a cell phone. | ||
| There's absolutely no infrastructure there. | ||
| The only way to beat this referendum, if it actually goes to a referendum, because the Supreme Court of Virginia may put a stall on it, that's unlikely. | ||
| It's going to go to referendum. | ||
| I said this the other day. | ||
| They have a ridiculous strategy. | ||
| They want to beat it with good governance, get Democrats together, get George Allen, get the old guard, go on, try to tell people about good governance. | ||
| Okay, that is going to fail. | ||
| You want to beat this thing. | ||
| You want to get the Trump voters out. | ||
| You're going to go up and down I-81. | ||
| You can't stop. | ||
| That's what you got to do. | ||
| You got to put millions of dollars behind it in order to stop this. | ||
| Otherwise, you're going to get beat two to one, just like they did with their good governance plan in California. | ||
| How'd that work out, Steve? | ||
| It's a joke. | ||
| McCarthy and Schwarzenegger didn't invite. | ||
| They kept Trump out, lost by 30 points, a blowout, and launched Gavin Newsom's presidential campaign. | ||
| This is why someone in the Commonwealth has got to get focused. | ||
| You're only going to win this by getting Trump involved and getting Trump voters out. | ||
| Am I off base on that, John? | ||
| No, you're 100% right. | ||
| But that, too, is going to be a long shot because if they put it on the rep on a referendum, look, we couldn't get Trump voters out this past election for Jason Mieres to, you know, beat a beat a guy that wanted to assassinate the speaker, his wife and children. | ||
| They just didn't want to come out. | ||
| They were uninspired. | ||
| Now you could try to get them out for a referendum. | ||
| They don't even know what it is. | ||
| Here's the other problem. | ||
| If the Democrats put this on the ballot, they're going to tie to it a gay marriage, same-sex marriage. | ||
| They're going to tie to it codifying abortion up to birth. | ||
| They're going to codify that. | ||
| They're going to get things in this referendum to spar their base and get them out. | ||
| And this thing is going to be very tough to beat without a strategy that is hardball. | ||
| I mean, they want to play softball. | ||
| It's like they want to tee the ball up. | ||
| And then when it's on the tee, they want to bunt. | ||
| I mean, you got to swing for a whole run. | ||
| It's incredible. | ||
| Let's lay down a bunch. | ||
| John, social media, where we get the bus, where we find out the results of this vote this afternoon. | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
| I got to put it right up. | ||
| Go to at JF Radio Show. | ||
| I'm on Instagram, TikTok. | ||
| Everything is there at JF Radio Show. | ||
| And you can follow me 6 to 10 a.m. Monday to Friday at JF Radio Show. | ||
| I'm on all social media, all our radio stations. | ||
| Download our app, and you're good to go. | ||
| But I'll put something out right after this vote tonight, and then it's on to Friday. | ||
| John Fredericks, thank you very much. | ||
| Reporting live from the state capital, Indiana in Indianapolis. | ||
| Great. | ||
| The Hoosiers, number one seed in the college football poll. | ||
| The folks in South Bend not even invited. | ||
| Pretty shocking. | ||
| Okay, short commercial break. | ||
| Take your phone out. | ||
| Text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N-98-9898. | ||
| Get the ultimate guide, which is free with no commitment from Birch Gold for investing in gold and precious metals. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Kill America's Voice family. | |
| Are you on Getter yet? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| What are you waiting for? | ||
| It's free. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's uncensored, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. | |
| Download the Getter app right now. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
| It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. | ||
| You want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking? | ||
| Go to Getter. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's right. | |
| You can follow all of your favorites. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Steve Bannon, Charlie Hook, Jack the Soviet, and so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sign up for free and be part of the new thing. | |
| Okay, financial markets kind of in turbulence again, although the market's got a, I guess from the market's perspective, some good news today. | ||
| Make sure you find out why gold has been a hedge. | ||
| And I think it's going to be a bigger hedge going forward. | ||
| Birchgold.com, promo code Bannon. | ||
| Get to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| Have all types of free content. | ||
| But I think it's now time that you get a relationship with Philip Patrick and ask Philip why has gold been a hedge for, I don't know, a millennia more, 5,000 years recorded history. | ||
| Check it out because I think you're going to need a hedge. | ||
| Natalie Winters, so much has gone on today. | ||
| I'm going to toss to you, introduce, you got a cold open here. | ||
| And part of this, I want to get back and talk about the chips. | ||
| You know, you've got the AI. | ||
| We've got now a president's told us they're going to have an executive order. | ||
| We've defeated the AI amnesty twice. | ||
| The tech bolegarks are kind of misleading the president about where these things stand. | ||
| I'm sure he's not, I'm sure they're not telling him, hey, we're getting wiped slick. | ||
| That's what we need in EO. | ||
| But part of this, as you know, Natalie, and your beat has always been the Chinese Communist Party as the strategic existential threat to the globe, to the United States, to the Lao Beijing, to East Asia, all of it. | ||
| And yet here we are worried about them. | ||
| You know, we have to do everything in the world, have to turn over everything in the world to turn it to the brolegarks, to turn the national labs over to them because we've had a Sputnik moment and we're in this race with the Chinese. | ||
| And then on the other hand, Jensen Wong and these other arms dealers, because that's what they are as arms dealers, are convincing people that they've got to sell the advanced chips to guess what? | ||
| Keep China into the AI race. | ||
| Those two thoughts I can't hold in balance. | ||
| So, ma'am, I'm going to turn it over to you and let it rip. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Well, I think existential threat aside, obviously that's how we view the Chinese Communist Party here in the war room. | ||
| I also think we're uniquely interested in China because it always sort of seems to be the punching bag and the cop-out that whether you want to call them the tech bolegarks, the military-industrial complex, take your pick. | ||
| They sort of create to be this enemy that they don't actually want to address. | ||
| They only want to address it with kid gloves, but they use it as sort of a distraction or a shiny toy to justify whether it's a bloated defense budget, that of course coming from the Pentagon, whether it's these tech people saying, oh, well, we got to just give them every chip in the book. | ||
| Or frankly, it's how you justify the H-1B madness, right? | ||
| It always goes back to China. | ||
| But then when we say, well, hey, let's actually confront the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Let's, for example, delist them from the stock exchange. | ||
| Then all of a sudden, you know, oh, no, no, no, it's all about collaboration. | ||
| We're one and the same. | ||
| We have an interesting story up on my sub stack today, which I think dovetails quite nicely into the broader chip discussion, which I know we'll have. | ||
| I want to tee up the clip because I think we should play it because I think it's most powerful to hear those Americans that choose to sell out to the Chinese Communist Party in their own words. | ||
| I won't paraphrase it. | ||
| But the person that you're about to see speak, this is someone who has taken in millions, upwards of $5 million, that's responsible for over 80% of the operating budget of the Bush-China Foundation, speaking in Hong Kong at a forum put on by the China-United States Exchange Foundation, the tip of the spear of the communist influence kind of global network that the Chinese Communist Party, their Ministry of State Security runs. | ||
| Bad enough that Neil Bush, the son of George H.W. Bush, like I said, one of the leaders of the Bush-China Foundation, is speaking there. | ||
| But listen to what his plans are, including making you guys, the war room audience, quote, less fearful of China. | ||
| Let's roll the clip. | ||
| I spent very little time. | ||
| David does all the heavy lifting for the Bush Foundation. | ||
| I'm a businessman, and I think it's pretty imperative that we have more interaction between government leaders. | ||
| So let's give credit for the presidents meeting. | ||
| The more they meet, the more they'll have better understandings, the lower the tension will get. | ||
| And hopefully, the more normalized the relationship will look and the less fearful Americans will be of China. | ||
| We need more minister-to-minister. | ||
| We need more student exchanges. | ||
| We need more exchanges on all fronts, cultural and all fronts, including business. | ||
| And in fact, the business relationships that exist today from after 40 years of development, the roots of those relationships are so deeply embedded. | ||
| American companies doing business in China, American companies buying stuff from China, Chinese companies participating on the American U.S. stock exchanges. | ||
| You know, there's a deeply rooted relationship, and that's, I think, going to be kind of the ballast for the relationship going forward. | ||
| So I'll give you one example of a collaboration that I've participated in. | ||
| There are two areas of, there are many areas of low-hanging fruit for business cooperation. | ||
| One is climate. | ||
| So I've been working with an American company that has an interesting storage technology. | ||
| It's never been built on a commercial scale. | ||
| We brought a Chinese partner in to invest in the U.S. company. | ||
| They also bought an exclusive license, and now they've spent over $100 million building this gravity-based storage solution in the renewable, in the renewable business in Rudong, China. | ||
| So it's a great example of an area where there's less of a fewer barriers to collaboration, climate, where U.S. technology and know-how and intellectual property is being implemented by Chinese that happen to be pretty good at building stuff and doing it at scale. | ||
| And so I'm not as discouraged, I think, as many of you are that there can be no more business done there because whether it's climate, food security, aging, you know, there are so many areas, health-related things, where there are collaborations. | ||
| There need to be more collaborations, and those walls, you know, need to be broken down. | ||
| Collaborationists is right. | ||
| Is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Bushes, this is the same family that when Deng Xiaoping slaughtered 10,000 people and freedom fighters and students, art students, building the Goddess of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, he sent over his general, head of the National Security Council, to say, hey, look, we just got to figure things out. | ||
| You've got to tone this down, and we'll get you into the World Trade Organization. | ||
| We'll get you into most favored nation. | ||
| Is that the same family, Natalie? | ||
| Well, I'll also raise you this. | ||
| You got Richard Nixon's grandson also there at the event speaking, giving not just a keynote address, but also participating in a panel discussion. | ||
| So I guess there's like a genetic prerequisite for selling the United States out to China to speak at this forum. | ||
| And of course, the Carter Center had multiple representatives there. | ||
| We also had people who were formerly working at State Department working on the sort of China desk, also people who used to be at the National Security Council, and even the CIA working on China matters. | ||
| I would probably tell the DOJ to get on that one because something tells me there are probably a lot of documents ending up there in the hands of China that shouldn't be historically. | ||
| That's always been their playbook, right? | ||
| Sort of co-opting these Western intelligence officers into giving them whatever they so seek. | ||
| But why I think, Steve, this story is so emblematic of sort of this H-200 chip decision. | ||
| People like David Sachs, right, all these people who think they're such intellectuals, the smartest people in the room, I guess it's a pretty small room, but those people are going to be responsible for ensuring that what I think is the lie of the Thucydides trap, which is the sort of lack of agency that the United States has in terms of being overtaken by China, by the rise of China, they are solidifying that fate by giving China these chips. | ||
| It's like refueling our enemies' jet engines mid-war. | ||
| I was looking at historical examples of where people have ever given their enemies that they are in active combat against such an influential and impactful device, technology, weapon, take your pick. | ||
| There's absolutely no example of it because it is just unprecedented. | ||
| And when you look not just at conjecture, but if you look at Chinese law, their industrial plans, their military strategy, they are openly admitting not just that AI, but more importantly, that the buildup, the actual kind of making these chips domestically, that's one of the key tenets of what they are trying to do from a military strategy standpoint. | ||
| And it is not just, I mean, you can't plead ignorance. | ||
| It is intentionally, I mean, nefarious to be giving the Chinese Communist Party access to these technologies when they're absolutely nowhere near these capabilities. | ||
| They're clear leapfrog technologies that can allow them to then basically surpass the United States. | ||
| And it's just so David Sachs and these types can make a quick buck. | ||
| It's, I've covered the China issue for a very long time, as you know, on this show, and it brings me a lot of sadness to see the Trump administration doing this. | ||
| I want to go back to something you say. | ||
| Let's not bury the lead. | ||
| It's about the Thucydides trap and kind of the architecture of how our elites look at this. | ||
| This is the famous discussion Graham Allison and Henry Kissinger had about the rising, you know, Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian War, the rising power and the declining power. | ||
| And Graham Allison one time came over to the Breitbart Embassy that sits atop the war room, had lunch, and we went through it. | ||
| He had a book at the time, Destined for War, I think was the title of it. | ||
| He put the Thucydides trap theory in there. | ||
| And I asked him, I said, is there any example where on the way down that the dominant power, the elites, made more money on the way up? | ||
| And I think this example today is perfect. | ||
| I think what you mean by we don't have agency is that you actually let Jensen Wong and these guys talk you into and David Sachs talk, you know, allow the country to basically arm. | ||
| If we're concerned about artificial intelligence and if we're concerned about a Sputnik-like moment, an inflection point, like we were against the Soviets, and if you're worried about that, we're in this race and we have to turn over everything, including our weapons labs and our national labs to the oligarchs so they can have a giza rent-free to do what they want, and it's because of this, then why do you do anything to assist our enemies? | ||
| You crush them, you shut it down. | ||
| No kids in college, no people over here being trained, no access to equity capital markets, no access to debt, no financial markets, no help, no assistance, no logistics, and certainly no chips. | ||
| You can't have it both ways. | ||
| You can't say that we have to have unfettered control by the oligarchs of AI because we're concerned with the Chinese Communist Party and at the same time arm our greatest enemy and the enemy of the Chinese people, the Lao Beijing, the common man. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| Natalie Winters on the other side. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Natalie, we talk about agency a lot. | ||
| One of the reasons for this show as a platform for the grassroots leaders of the MAGA movement is people using their agency to make a difference, to change the arc of history. | ||
| What do you mean about that in regards to the selling of chips, advanced chips, to the Chinese Communist Party about the country doesn't have its agency? | ||
| What do you mean? | ||
| Well, I think the Thucydides paradigm is uniquely applicable here. | ||
| I think, as you would say, you would maybe call it the law of thermodynamics. | ||
| Well, maybe you call it the law of physics, right? | ||
| What goes up must come down. | ||
| But there's this sort of, I think, predetermined belief or idea that China is the rising power and therefore it will rise and it will overtake the United States. | ||
| And I'm not sitting here like other China hands for decades, you know, who've been warning, saying China's going to collapse. | ||
| China's going to collapse, though their economic reality right now doesn't look too strong. | ||
| I'm not negating the obviously transition and the economy that they have, but it doesn't necessarily imply that they are going to overtake the United States. | ||
| But I think that that narrative, which make no mistake, that the Chinese love the Thucydides drap concept, right? | ||
| That's why they mainstreamed it, because it's sort of, I think, the American foil to what is the number one piece of propaganda that you hear come from Beijing, which is the idea that China's economy is just going to rip and roar and overtake the United States and there's nothing we can do about it. | ||
| And I think American elites have really internalized that, not just for one, because they view them obviously it's the market access wanting to expand and do business over there, but it also sort of, I think, absolves them of the moral culpability of partnering with, like you said, not just an existential threat to the United States, but look at the human rights abuses, look at their whole track record on anything that we at least pretend or purport to value here in the United States. | ||
| So it's only through that mindset, right, if you assume that China is going to overtake the United States, that you could justify giving them these chips. | ||
| And you sort of see that trend line right in the ideology as to why we have to give it to them, because otherwise, what? | ||
| They're just going to continue to dominate us in a field where they actually historically will not. | ||
| Even if you look at exactly where these H-200s are in comparison to where they are, obviously the very, very heavy restrictions, blacklists, whatever we've put a lot of their chips on from Huawei to SMC, take your pick. | ||
| Giving them these chips really speeds up that timetable by orders of magnitude that otherwise wouldn't be accomplished. | ||
| So I think that at the end of the day, in the same way you see that trend line in the H-1B debate, the idea that you are betting against America, you are needing foreign talent, right? | ||
| The idea that just America being the number one country is not enough. | ||
| We have to somehow, I don't know, import a bunch of foreigners, or in this case, we have to export a bunch of technology to foreigners. | ||
| It's this really backwards calculation that I just don't really quite know how you square it. | ||
| And Steve, the key point here is that this was supposed to happen in the dead of night. | ||
| This was supposed, they're supposed to pull the rug, the wool over your eyes, and this was supposed to just go through, whether it's the AI stuff or the chip stuff. | ||
| And thank God for the show, for Joe Allen, people who raised awareness. | ||
| But I asked Joe when I was hosting, I was like, this was supposed to just be rolled out and sort of quietly tucked in, whether it was the NDIA done as its own thing through Congress. | ||
| Now it's the executive order. | ||
| But it's the same thing. | ||
| If this is such a good idea, then pitch it to the American people. | ||
| But they're not. | ||
| They're only now trying to make a really dumb, asinine pitch to the American people that it's what's somehow good for the United States economy to maintain a competitive edge with China by giving away our only competitive edge because they've been outed by shows like this, by you. | ||
| So it's so dumb. | ||
| I wish we had a better argument to engage with. | ||
| I'd encourage them to read the Thucydides trap and then maybe read some, I don't know, founding documents, some revolutionary spirit and understand that nothing is predetermined or predestined, certainly not the Chinese Communist Party overtaking the United States. | ||
| I realize when Nixon did the geopolitical move, it was because we were after the evil empire, at least the beginning stages of it. | ||
| But it's interesting that both Nixon, the two Nepos, Neil Bush and he had Nixon's grandson, both there. | ||
| I want to remind people, and Natalie, we've got to go back down memory lane on this. | ||
| I think this was late 2019, or I think it was early 2020, the first month, January, when we shifted the one hour of war room impeachment to war room pandemic. | ||
| And of course, Raheem and Raheem stuck around. | ||
| Jason Miller said, I don't know, you guys have lost your mind. | ||
| Warroom impeachment's on fire. | ||
| What are you doing? | ||
| But I believe you had been an intern, people don't know this. | ||
| Natalie's worked with us forever. | ||
| You were an intern first for Raheem over at Nashville Pulse, and then you segued over. | ||
| If memory serves me correctly, your very first story, the very first scoop you ever broke was about the Bush, this foundation, and they literally lost their minds, did they not? | ||
| They are the gift that keeps on giving. | ||
| You know, we're always about exposing the people who are traitorous sellouts to this country. | ||
| They were busy shipping masks, not that we like masks here in the war room, but to China back when we didn't know what was going on with COVID and we thought maybe we might need these masks. | ||
| Instead of giving them to people in Texas who may have ostensibly needed them, like I said, it was the early days. | ||
| Don't worry, I'm not pro-mask. | ||
| But they sent me the equivalent of like an email, cease and desist, saying, change the article. | ||
| This is not true. | ||
| People are calling us, pulling their donations. | ||
| They're really upset. | ||
| And I was 19 at the time, maybe 18. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know. | |
| And I was like, no, it's true. | ||
| Fact check me. | ||
| Intern in high school, just graduating. | ||
| Natalie, where do people go to get all your stuff on Substack and all your content? | ||
| Where are your coordinates? | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| Natalie G. Winters on all platforms. | ||
| And it's NatalieG. Winters.substack.com. | ||
| You can read the piece, watch the clip, and share it and mock the bushes because why not? | ||
| Thank you, ma'am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Appreciate you. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Senator Mike Lee, in fact, Real America's voice has been good enough. | ||
| I think we're going to blow the last break and go all the way to the end of the show. | ||
| Senator Lee is going to join us here momentarily, I think, by phone. | ||
| A very important endeavor over at the Supreme Court today that could set a new direction, particularly about presidential power. | ||
| I want to go back to this about artificial intelligence. | ||
| There is a, and we're not, although we're not accelerationist, we understand the great potential of artificial intelligence. | ||
| It does. | ||
| It has incredible potential, but it also has incredible downside. | ||
| The only thing people are talking about here are some sensible controls. | ||
| And people are not arguing that the state should have all the power here, but absent any federal regulations at all. | ||
| Like I said, there's more regulations on Capitol Hill right now to open a nail salon or to braid hair than there is in one of the most dangerous technologies that mankind's ever had. | ||
| And you've got to be very careful about this technology. | ||
| This is not coming from me. | ||
| This is coming from the top experts in the field. | ||
| And so you have to have a modicum of some at least regulatory apparatus like we had for the Atomic Energy Commission and other regulatory apparatuses that we have. | ||
| And President Trump is the leader in the deconstruction of the administrative state and taking on the deep state, but he still keeps a regulatory apparatus. | ||
| Look at this, this basically investment banking gunfight you've got going on right now for Warner Brothers. | ||
| You You now have Paramount jumping in here in a hostile takeover. | ||
| You have Netflix trying to make an offer people think could drive up your streaming bill. | ||
| All those have to be worked out. | ||
| The FTC and the main justice on antitrust are two of the groups that get in there. | ||
| You have some sort of regulatory apparatus. | ||
| What the tech oligarchs have done, and I'm not sure they fully informed President Trump twice, not once, but twice on two must pass probably. | ||
| Just let me know when Senator Lee's up so we can get into the cold open. | ||
| Not once, but twice in the last couple of months, within 100 days of each other, they tried to put in and must-pass legislation. | ||
| The first being the reconciliation or the big beautiful bill, the second being the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must-pass piece of legislation that tees up the spending of the appropriations bill for the Defense Department and the spending of the defense budget for our national security. | ||
| Twice they tried to put in this slip in the AI amnesty, which basically overruled any state regulations whatsoever in the absence of any federal regulations. | ||
| And a number of people on both sides of the aisle, you talk about, you talk about working together. | ||
| You have people that are Democrats and many Republicans are sitting there going, well, hang on for a second. | ||
| We don't have any control for our children, oversight for our children, our communities, our creators, conservatives to be blocked out, all of it. | ||
| And that's just the start. | ||
| We also don't really know where these people are going. | ||
| A lot of this is funded by the federal government. | ||
| More importantly, the financing for data centers and for energy and ultimately water will be trillions of dollars. | ||
| The chief financial officer of OpenAI admitted that. | ||
| She said at the time, this is just weeks ago. | ||
| And this was verified by Zero Hedge, that the overall looks like build out right now, the capital budget as it exists today, is going to be, I think, something to $5 to $6 trillion. | ||
| And $4 trillion of that may be put up by debt and lending at private lending markets, private capital markets, private equity, public equity. | ||
| But at least a trillion, even on their first cut, was going to have to be somehow going to be involved in some sort of government financer guarantees. | ||
| In fact, the CFO, when she was kind of outed and read the Riot Act by people over at OpenAI and other accelerationists and artificial intelligence, said, why did you say that? | ||
| Why did you say the quiet part aloud? | ||
| She said it was at least a trillion dollars. | ||
| 48 hours later, I went to a briefing for some of the smartest people in the world on this very topic. | ||
| And I was told point blank, Steve, we really think, as we calculate, we think the number is closer to $9 or $10 trillion for the build out of this. | ||
| And that would mean, and I said, well, gosh, that would mean that you would actually have more involvement by equity and debt capital markets. | ||
| Said, no, That other $4 or $5 trillion is probably going to have to come with some sort of government guarantees. | ||
| So you've got an active big part of this. | ||
| The whole EO assigned the other day on the national labs and the weapons labs. | ||
| We have no earthy idea about what the costs associated with that and who's going to pay that. | ||
| Should it just be the taxpayers? | ||
| We're going to have to get to a very tough conversation. | ||
| It's going to be tough about the equity ownership of those companies and who actually owns the equity or who owns all the equity. | ||
| Should it just go to management and the existing investors? | ||
| Or if this is going to involve tremendous access or full access to our government labs and national labs, which you pay for the taxpayers, and if it's going to take trillions of dollars of debt, that's going to have to have some sort of guarantee or maybe direct lending by the government, who knows? | ||
| Because it hasn't been discussed. | ||
| Shouldn't the American citizen get his beak wet? | ||
| Shouldn't the American citizen just get a piece of the action? | ||
| Not the government. | ||
| I'm talking about the American citizens themselves. | ||
| If this is going to be a trillion-dollar land grab and all this value is being created, this is not socialism. | ||
| This is true capitalism. | ||
| One of the problems in our system today is that it is almost like state capitalism. | ||
| Right now, you have a handful of companies that are the frontier labs that are driving this. | ||
| They seem to be getting most of the government benefit and most of the control of the labs. | ||
| And potentially, I guess these government guarantees they're talking about. | ||
| Now, that was waived off initially, but hey, they're going to start coming back and say, well, look, to build these, to create these jobs, you're going to have to do this. | ||
| Doesn't the American people, shouldn't the American people participate in this? | ||
| If this is a whole of government approach, if this is a whole of society approach, shouldn't society take advantage of that? | ||
| Shouldn't society have a piece of the action? | ||
| More on this tomorrow. | ||
| I want to know, Senator Mikely is with us. | ||
| We have a cold open for Senator Lee, an incredibly important day at the Supreme Court. | ||
| And anytime we're talking about the Constitution, we want Senator Mikely of Utah to help us break it down. | ||
| Let's take a cold open for Senator Lee and we're going to go right to him. | ||
| Supreme Court is considering even more power for the executive, in this case, President Trump. | ||
| And during oral arguments today, the administration tried to convince the justices that the president has the ultimate authority to fire anyone he wants in the executive branch, including members of what are considered independent federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. | ||
| Specifically, in this case, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the FTC who the president fired back in March, because he said she did not align with his agenda. | ||
| The conservatives on the court appeared open to siding with the president, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not. | ||
| Here she is laying out her core concern with the case. | ||
| Isn't it problematic, given what we know about the founders' vision, that what this is going to amount to at the end of the day is putting not only all executive power in the president, but an incredible amount of legislative/slash rulemaking power and judging in the president's hands. | ||
| Is it still a smart idea for all of us individuals to base our judicial theory or legal theory based on a bunch of guys 250 years ago guessing at what might be a good system of government? | ||
| I think it is, and I think this president proves it better than anyone else ever could. | ||
| The entire theory of the separation of powers was if you break up power both between the various branches and between the federal and the state governments, then our liberties are protected. | ||
| And what we have done over the last 250 years is ignore that lesson and give more and more power to the federal government and then more and more power to the executive branch of the federal government. | ||
| Now we have one person with way too much power over all of our lives. | ||
| And I actually hope that what we learn from this is Congress, as Lisa notes, could set these rules itself for clean air and clean water. | ||
| And hey, what about 50 state governments? | ||
| They can do some of this stuff too. | ||
| We don't have to put all of our eggs in one direction. | ||
| They know that, at least according to Gallup, their sort of acceptance and approval rating among the public is as low as it's ever been since Gallup has been asking the questions. | ||
| And yet, they seem to want to do everything in the vein of immunity and helping Donald Trump with his political project, which is to consolidate power. | ||
| So there's a legal aspect and there's the real consequence that Claire talked about. | ||
| Legally, this is what's so just unbelievable about what they're doing. | ||
| Congress has created these agencies that the executive then oversees. | ||
| And Congress, in creating them, has put in very few restrictions. | ||
| They have reporting requirements. | ||
| You can't fire people without a reason. | ||
| And that's not a big deal. | ||
| You can still fire people. | ||
| You have to actually have good cause. | ||
| So, Congress is spending and has the power to spend, and they can create these agencies, and they have conditions. | ||
| And now you have the Supreme Court. | ||
| Mike Lee, the author of Saving Nine, every time we have a constitutional issue, sir, we turn to you. | ||
| You're phoning in today. | ||
| What happened at the Supreme Court? | ||
| What are the stakes here, sir? | ||
| Look, the stakes are high, Steve. | ||
| In this case, we're dealing with the president's ability to be the president, to act as the president. | ||
| The fundamental premise of Article 2 of the Constitution is that all the executive power within the U.S. government is vested in the president. | ||
| The president of the United States, a single individual, is the executive branch. | ||
| And what that means is that he can undertake what an executive does for the entire U.S. government and should be able to fire anyone, any employee of the executive branch, any officer, certainly, of the executive branch, save only the vice president, because the vice president is also elected on the same ticket as the president. | ||
| So that person can't be fired midterm, but everyone else should be able to. | ||
| And certainly any officer wielding policy authority, making decisions, enforcing the laws, as is the prerogative of the executive branch. | ||
| Those people should always be removable by the president for any reason or no reason at all. | ||
| We've got a nearly 100-year-old precedent, a case called Humphrey's Executor, which concludes that it's okay to have a special carve-out for a de facto fourth branch of government within the executive branch that's untouchable by the president. | ||
| That is lawless. | ||
| It's led to a long train of abuses, and it's a big problem. | ||
| And I think that by the end of this term, the Supreme Court is very likely to undo Humphrey's executor. | ||
| You're saying this is the president going after the administrative state and deconstructing the administrative state. | ||
| We already had the case on the chevron, I guess, exemption, but this is actually on the Article II argument where he can actually go in and let people go. | ||
| And what this really gets down to, correct me if I'm wrong, is Russ Vogt as his own B director talking about riffs, talking about not just taking out the head of the FTC or some of these people that are so controversial at the top in these alphabet agencies, but this is really the president actually being the executive and determining that, hey, I'm going to get rid of these people over to USAID. | ||
| What is the scale of what we're talking about? | ||
| Yeah, good question, Steve. | ||
| This certainly relates to all people within the executive branch. | ||
| I think an opinion could easily go that far. | ||
| This case doesn't necessarily require it to go that far because this case deals specifically with members of the Federal Trade Commission. | ||
| President Trump fired Commissioner Slaughter earlier this year, not for cause, as the statute contemplates. | ||
| The statute contemplates that once somebody has been nominated by a president, confirmed by the Senate, that they serve for a term of years. | ||
| And until that term is up, they can be removed basically only if they commit a crime or something like that or some kind of wrongdoing or complete malfeasance in office. | ||
| But my point is that when the president designates officers of the U.S. government, that should go along with the same mindset that allows the president to fire anyone of those individuals for any reason or no reason at all. | ||
| In other words, they serve at the pleasure of the president. | ||
| That's how it ought to work. | ||
| Certainly with an officer as important, as powerful as a federal trade commissioner. | ||
| You've been a student of Washington's court explaining it to us. | ||
| I think we've won 21 of 23 or 22 of 24 at the Supreme Court. | ||
| And it seems like the Roberts Court is going out of its way to say we're not the Warren Court. | ||
| We're not going to be interventionists. | ||
| And that they continue to say in some of their opinions, these are political issues and it should be settled politically. | ||
| Do you still see the trend line on that, sir? | ||
| I do. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I do. | |
| Look, in my lifetime, we have not seen a Supreme Court that is more dedicated to the rule of law, that's more dedicated to the idea that the law has meaning. | ||
| Meaning is established based on the words and how they were used, how they were understood by the public at the time of their enactment. | ||
| And answering a legal question, deciding a legal dispute, necessarily is going to turn on what those words mean and how they were understood by the public at the time they became law. | ||
| And that sort of thing, while it may sound obvious to us today, it has not always been obvious. | ||
| And in our lifetime, we've had a lot of judges who haven't gone in that direction. | ||
| This court, I believe, is going to continue as it has so far to make decisions based on what the law actually says rather than based on some weird theory of social justice or what professors at this or that Ivy League institution are telling them to rule as the law. | ||
| They're interested in what the law says, not what they wish it said. | ||
| Senator Lee, where do we get your book, which teaches about the Supreme Court Saving 9? | ||
| And where do we go for your coordinates on social media to keep up with all this? | ||
| Yeah, Saving 9 can be found on Amazon or pretty much anywhere books are sold. | ||
| And if you want to follow my commentary, my personal commentary on things, you can go to X at Base Mike Lee. | ||
| At base Mike Lee. | ||
| That's where I provide a lot of this commentary. | ||
| And I recorded a brief video today, shortly after leaving the Supreme Court and after watching these arguments, giving my reaction to that case. | ||
| We're going to push that out. | ||
| The video was great. | ||
| Senator Lee, you're quite based. | ||
| Thank you very much for joining us, sir. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| Thanks so much, Steve. | ||
| Good to be with you. | ||
| Huge day at the Supreme Court today. | ||
| So at six o'clock, I've got the head of AFD, Alternative for Deutschland, talking about guess what, losing their country to Islam in the fight. | ||
| They're trying to shut their political party down because they're fighting it. | ||
| Also, Raymond Ibrahim, the author of Two Swords of Christ about the military orders and all the wars we fought against Islam and the courage of the Christians. | ||
| Mike Lindell, we got three minutes. | ||
| Give me a minute on what you're doing in Minneapolis, sir, to fight the good fight, because you've got a Muslim attorney general who's trying to shut down a Christian network that focuses on saving people from drugs, alcohol, and other abuse, sir. | ||
| Yep, absolutely. | ||
| And we worked on that all afternoon head to head with Keith Ellis. | ||
| And remember, everybody, he's trying to shut down my online platform to help addicts get off of their addictions and get to Jesus Christ. | ||
| And this is doing right in the middle, right in the middle of all the fraud that I believe he's part of the cover-up. | ||
| And who knows how much money he ended up with, all the fraud that's come out of Minnesota for his campaigns. | ||
| And so we spent the afternoon. | ||
| Steve, we've got a very, we're kind of going on the offense here. | ||
| You're going to be hearing a lot about it, but we're not going to let this happen. | ||
| We're not going to let him stop the Lindell Recovery Network from helping people. | ||
| That's all it is, a big help center to help addicts. | ||
| And this is back in the day, you know, when I came out of addiction, it was all about helping treatment centers and people in Minneapolis, teen showing the Salvation Armies and the people in the streets. | ||
| So we're not going to stop, Steve. | ||
| We're on the offense. | ||
| We're always on the offense. | ||
| And I want to quick tell you how we get on the offense is keep my pillow supported, you guys. | ||
| You guys have been great. | ||
| And we've won. | ||
| We're still standing here at my pillow. | ||
| And we're giving you the best specials in history on our five flagship products. | ||
| This is our Christmas special, exclusive for the War Room posse, free shipping on your entire order. | ||
| Starting with the My Towels that came in, all the colors get all the colors. | ||
| They're half price, $39.98. | ||
| You have the premium MyPillows. | ||
| You save over 50%. | ||
| The Giza Dream Sheets, as low as $29.98. | ||
| You got the slippers, $39.98. | ||
| You guys get all your Christmas gifts, free shipping on your entire order. | ||
| Go to mypillow.com forward slash war room. | ||
| You're going to see the crosses, the best Christmas gifts ever made in the USA. | ||
| You got all the five products. | ||
| And you guys, right now we have those five pack of Bible pillows for $29.98. | ||
| You get five Christmas gifts. | ||
| Here they are right here, you guys. | ||
| Five of them. | ||
| You're getting five of these pillows for $29.98. | ||
| Free shipping on your entire order. | ||
| Call 800-873-1062. | ||
| I am going downstairs. | ||
| I enjoyed taking some of your calls today. | ||
| Reach out to my reps. | ||
| Tell them you love, love our products, and we love you. | ||
| And you're free shipping promo code Warroom. | ||
| We'll see you down on the phones, Mike. | ||
| Let's dial them up right now. | ||
| Get Mike Lindell on the line. | ||
| Mypillow.com promo code war most powerful promo code in the business. | ||
| Stick around. | ||
| Next hour, go from Berlin, an alternative from Deutschland to the first crusade in the taking of Jerusalem. |
Export Selection