Stay ahead of the censors - Join us warroom.org/join Aired On: 12/23/2025 Watch: On X: @Bannons_WarRoom (https://x.com/Bannons_WarRoom) On the Web: https://www.warroom.org On Gettr: @WarRoom On Podcast: Apple, iHeart Radio, Google On TV: PlutoTV Channel 240, Dish Channel 219, Roku, Apple TV, FireTV or on https://AmericasVoice.news. #news #politics #realnews
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| You're done'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 line? | ||
| 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
|
Waroon, here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| Tuesday, 23 December, Year of the Lord, 2025. | ||
| Katherine O'Neill, because you started a company, the company's on fire, and we need entrepreneurs, particularly your generation. | ||
| We need hundreds of thousands of them. | ||
| You're going to stick with the company and not go and jump in a congressional race. | ||
| Also, I guess the Dumla is not the most exciting place for a young entrepreneur like yourself to spend your time. | ||
| But tell us about the company, particularly. | ||
| I mean, we can't sell any more beef because all the subscription people take it off. | ||
| So people want to support you. | ||
| They love the product. | ||
| Where do they go and what is even available to buy? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Thanks, Steve, for having me. | ||
| As you know, I'm the CEO of Meriweather Farms. | ||
| Just very happy to be out west running this amazing business with some really incredible people that we have working for us. | ||
| So we are actually sold out of stakes for the year, thanks to you guys for your loyalty. | ||
| We've had a surge in subscribers this year, monthly subscribers. | ||
| So our first priority is taking care of those people that subscribe monthly. | ||
| But we do have a special today on our tallow, cooking tallow. | ||
| So if you go to the, or at the site, meriweatherfarms.com, you'll see right on the homepage two different sizes of tallow jars. | ||
| And you can use code word warroom for 25, 20% off. | ||
| This is an amazing product. | ||
| I use it every single day when I cook. | ||
| His great flavors adds great flavor to your, whatever you're cooking. | ||
| It has a super high smoke point. | ||
| It's way healthier for you than any seed oils or other oils. | ||
| So meriweatherfarms.com, go to the homepage and you'll see the tallow right there. | ||
| And you can use code Warroom for 20% off. | ||
| Where do they go? | ||
| I want them to spend time on the rest of the site when stuff frees up that they can get into the subscriptions or some of the ground beef, all that. | ||
| So tell me about the website itself, because as you know, the posse loves details. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So most of the things you'll, unfortunately on our site, you'll see are sold out for the year. | ||
| But don't don't worry. | ||
| We'll be up and running in 2026. | ||
| And actually, Steve, we have some really interesting and exciting new products coming in 2026. | ||
| So you can stay tuned for those. | ||
| We have some, well, I'll give you a sneak peek. | ||
| We have some bone broth coming. | ||
| We have some other tallow products. | ||
| We have dog treats coming, all made from our beef products. | ||
| So very exciting things down the pike. | ||
| So don't worry about being sold out for now, but go to meriweatherfarms.com and you can see the tallow deal right now on the home page. | ||
| As always, you can use the code War Room for 20% off. | ||
| Ma'am, thank you so much. | ||
| And I think very wise decision. | ||
| This is one of the great little companies out there. | ||
| We need more entrepreneurs your age. | ||
| I think it's a very smart decision. | ||
| No need to schlep back to Washington, D.C. right now. | ||
| You honestly couldn't pay me enough to go back there. | ||
| Respectfully, I love President Trump and would do anything for him, but you could not pay me enough to go back to Washington, D.C. | ||
| So I'm very happy here with my kid and my husband. | ||
| Yeah, you did your duty. | ||
| You did your duty. | ||
| Catherine O'Neill, thank you so much. | ||
| We're going to send everybody over to the site today. | ||
| Merry Christmas. | ||
| Bye. | ||
| Joe Allen, I want to tee people up and particularly to get them over the next couple of days where they can read and catch up. | ||
| A massive political fight as soon as we get back. | ||
| I mean, it's already behind the scenes right now, but it's going to burst into the foreground. | ||
| Is this situation about artificial intelligence? | ||
| The numbers that came out today, you kind of hear it. | ||
| You know, even EJ and Tony said this productivity increases in this big GDP number is still to be seen if we're going to have the wage increases that come along with a growing economy. | ||
| I think one of the reasons we may not be is that you're going to start to see the artificial intelligence taking a bite. | ||
| My point is that this topic of AI, the regulatory apparatus for AI, what the four horsemen are doing, the four horsemen of the apocalypse and the frontier labs, their control of the national labs, all of it, these are going to be front-burner political issues for the country and then for 2026. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What do you got for us, sir? | |
| Well, Steve, returning to the America Act, I think this really is a huge step forward. | ||
| It's going to open up the conversation as to what the proper role of government is in all of this. | ||
| You hear all the time from people like David Sachs, people like Mark Andreessen, to some extent, Sam Altman, Elon Musk. | ||
| You hear that over-regulation will slow down the industry. | ||
| Patchwork of state laws will cripple the industry and allow China to push ahead of us. | ||
| I don't really buy any of those arguments for the most part. | ||
| I can see some validity to the idea that if you had, say, California passing draconian laws, that it could really impede the development of AI. | ||
| But personally, I don't care. | ||
| The thing is, it really doesn't. | ||
| Like, for instance, SB 53, which passed in California, this is the framework for the Trump America AI Act in regard to risk assessment. | ||
| And it explicitly says that it's only frontier companies that'll be under the scrutiny in the case of California, their regulatory bodies in the case of the Trump America Act put forward by Senator Marsha Blackburn. | ||
| It would be only frontier companies that are regularly evaluated by OSTP, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. | ||
| So the argument that this is going to cripple like small AI firms, that's just simply not there. | ||
| That's something on out in the future. | ||
| The argument that it would be. | ||
| Is that a loophole? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hang on. | |
| Hang on. | ||
| Is that a loophole, though, that's too big? | ||
| I mean, we don't want to over-regulate, but you are one of the things that they're talking about, I guess, the concept of the moat, but you're regulating the guys that are the farthest out there, have the most capital and are driving this, but you are making a decision not to go off to little smaller companies. | ||
| Part of that is just manpower and the ability to do it. | ||
| The other is this assumption that they can only get you in so much trouble, correct? | ||
| Are you comfortable with that loophole in what we're talking about, this federal apparatus? | ||
| Then why are you comfortable? | ||
| Well, you know, I don't see it as a loophole. | ||
| I see it really is, especially in regard to risk assessment, I see it as something that for the most part leaves the smaller AI firms alone. | ||
| It allows even, you know, a lot of my friends work in AI. | ||
| They work for small companies and it won't really affect them in any way. | ||
| The larger companies, yes, they will have to regularly publish what their capabilities are. | ||
| Yes, they'll have to regularly publish where they're getting their training data. | ||
| And that second part, to be transparent about where you're getting your training data, one of the big arguments you hear about the downsides of AI is that any person, an artist, a filmmaking company, anyone can have their data scooped up, fed into the AI system, and then someone can simply use it to make a derivative work from that. | ||
| Basically, copyright infringement, you know, the artwork theft, content theft. | ||
| And so, you know, I don't really see it as a loophole. | ||
| I see it as an attempt to hold these companies accountable for massive content theft and data theft, for massive recklessness in regard to rolling out their product. | ||
| Three big things about, for instance, Blackburn's Trump America AI Act. | ||
| Number one, child protection. | ||
| It would demand the duty of care. | ||
| It would demand that these companies would have to evaluate their AI systems for foreseeable risks. | ||
| And we know that those foreseeable risks include AI systems that coax children or adults into suicide. | ||
| So it's a pretty reasonable thing to ask, for instance, that a car doesn't, you know, goad you into driving off the road. | ||
| You know, if you had a car that constantly told you that it was time to drive off the bridge, you would consider that a defective product. | ||
| And so it would just hold them up to that. | ||
| The second big part of it is copyright. | ||
| It simply states the Trump America AI Act, at least the framework, that you cannot publish or your system cannot produce derivative works by artists, right? | ||
| So you can't have a company train on Star Wars and then make kind of a generic Star Wars for anybody. | ||
| That's simply theft of copyrighted property. | ||
| And the third is the risk assessment, like what are the dangers of these systems? | ||
| So that would be a system that would be able to tell a terrorist how to make a bioweapon. | ||
| It would be a system that was in charge of a critical piece of infrastructure that hallucinated or had other kind of glitches that caused a massive catastrophic failure. | ||
| And I don't think that that's unreasonable either. | ||
| You'll hear from people like David Sachs, oh, these systems aren't really that powerful. | ||
| Or Mark Andreessen, oh, you know, all of these fears are overblown. | ||
| Well, if that's the case, then what does it matter if you have a regulatory body that's overseeing this sort of thing? | ||
| If that's not a problem, then the regulatory body has nothing to find. | ||
| So yeah, this is, like I say, this is the beginning of a long, drawn out fight. | ||
| And I think that it's a really positive step forward, even if the final kind of one federal rule doesn't end up anything like Marsha Blackburn's framework. | ||
| One problem that we have, though, Steve, is that whatever ends up being this one federal rule, it's not going to be implemented anytime soon. | ||
| I don't foresee sometime, say, in mid-2026, Blackburn's Trump America AI Act being passed. | ||
| The only way around that is to have states who move much more rapidly and respond much better to their local communities, have states continue to pass their own laws. | ||
| And the possibility of Trump. | ||
| Ron DeSantis, yeah. | ||
| The possibility of President Trump signing an executive order that would implement these rules. | ||
| Yeah, but yes, but Ron DeSantis, the states are going to be a big part of the leverage here because they're heading down the path and they're going to do it. | ||
| That's going to be part of the negotiations. | ||
| This gets down to, you know, Lincoln said, if you've got the popular consent of the people, nothing can stop you. | ||
| I knew we had a winning hand here. | ||
| Now we've got to figure out we're outgunned. | ||
| There's no money. | ||
| There's no consultants. | ||
| There's no lawyers. | ||
| The oligarchs have everything. | ||
| But two things have led me to think that we're not in terrible shape. | ||
| Number one, we won the two biggest fights. | ||
| Every time they've come up against the bulk of the populist movement, they've lost catastrophically. | ||
| And these guys aren't used to losing. | ||
| That's number one, the first time they try to slide it into the big, beautiful bill, the AI amnesty. | ||
| The second is when they try to get into the NDAA, which is a must-pass piece of legislation. | ||
| And that even got a worse treatment. | ||
| They didn't put it to a vote. | ||
| They yanked it out after a couple of days of treatment by the warrant posse. | ||
| The president's executive orders, I think a lot of people have told me, including people close to him, not so sure how they can even be executed in court. | ||
| So you've got a mess right now. | ||
| If these states sit in there until we see what this federal regulatory apparatus is, the other thing I know we're winning, you brilliantly eviscerated today this poll put out by Tony Fabrizio. | ||
| Remember, Tony, I think, in my mind, is probably the most significant pollster for the president. | ||
| He was our pollster. | ||
| He was the lead pollster in 16. | ||
| And Tony knows what he's doing. | ||
| He put those numbers out, which show, I think it's 90% of the American people. | ||
| This is a topic that unites Americans. | ||
| It's like, whoa, we got to slow down. | ||
| What exactly are we doing and how we're going to do it? | ||
| And of course, they're putting this threat of the Chinese Communist Party up when they're selling them the chips. | ||
| They're giving them the education. | ||
| They're giving them the training. | ||
| They're sending them to Harvard, all of that. | ||
| We could shut the CCP down on this in a second. | ||
| But the overwhelming nature of it from the American people that wants at least some modicum of control on this and then to know that it was, because if you read it, it sounds weird. | ||
| It sounds like the populist movement siding with the states against, oh, yes, certainly you need a federal regulatory apparatus. | ||
| Well, no, you guys wanted nothing. | ||
| Zero. | ||
| Zero. | ||
| That's why we came up with the states. | ||
| That was just a leverage point. | ||
| Certainly, we've been arguing you've got to have one standard and you got to hammer that standard out. | ||
| To know that Elon Musk, that his PAC or super PAC were paid for the poll and then paid for the Fribrezio kind of rewording of it to make it like, oh, yeah, well, the oligarchs are going to take care of you here. | ||
| No, they're not going to take care of anything. | ||
| If you're dependent upon them, that is the chicken. | ||
| That's the chicken in charge of the hen house. | ||
| So, and the other reason I knew we had we were on the right side or the side of the angels is just following you around the country. | ||
| Whether you were going to these big tech, you know, meetings, all these technology, technological superstars, or whether you're going to Hollywood and you're hanging out with celebrities, or you're going to these simple little churches in the backwoods of America, and everybody's kind of united and feeling like, hey, we got to get our arms around this. | ||
| So that's why this is going to be a titanic battle because the four horsemen are not, they're going to pull every trick in the book to get their way, which is basically government financing, government guarantees, government secure on the debt, all of it. | ||
| Because you know right now, the business model for the for AI doesn't quite look maybe as promising as it did 30 days ago. | ||
| So they're going to be looking for bailouts, guarantees, turning over weapons labs like they wanted all of it. | ||
| And we got to make sure that we're there working with people that the American public cannot get screwed. | ||
| Joe Allen, your thoughts? | ||
| Yeah, you know, I think Brendan Steinhauser of the Alliance for Secure AI put it best. | ||
| He's always told the reporters or audiences when I've been in attendance at his talks that they have the money, but we have the people on our side. | ||
| Meaning that you have these tech oligarchs who are pouring at the moment, it looks like about 100 million plus into the leading the future pack to push pro-AI candidates and all the other cash flowing through the system to make sure that they come out smelling like a rose. | ||
| Whereas on our side of the aisle, it's mostly the popular will. | ||
| And in a republic, the popular will should win. | ||
| You also do have some money potentially coming into our side. | ||
| The Public First PAC, assuming that they can get everything moving, they should be able to fund candidates who are willing to stand up to these companies. | ||
| Maybe to put it in Jim Morrison's terms, they got the guns, but we have the numbers. | ||
| And I think that without a doubt, if my experience traveling around, not just America, but also in conversations with people in Europe, people are terrified of what these systems could do to their children, what they could do to their livelihoods, what they could do to an enemy population, especially if you end up on the wrong side of it, should these weapons systems, weapons systems turn out to be as effective as they're billed to be. | ||
| So the people don't want the future that these tech oligarchs are putting out there. | ||
| The laws will do a lot to slow that down. | ||
| The laws will do a lot to shield the most vulnerable and even the strongest among us should these systems get powerful enough. | ||
| But one thing that these laws will not do is stop the long-term goal of Elon Musk or Sam Altman or Dennis Asabas or Larry Page. | ||
| Those goals, the goals of creating human level AI and replacing every worker from coders to white-collar to blue-collar and to create a system that becomes the final authority on what is and isn't real. | ||
| Those goals are only slowed down by the state. | ||
| It's possible that it's impossible that you cannot create such a system, that such a system is not possible due to the laws of physics or the mechanics of the systems themselves. | ||
| Or it could be that we won't have enough resources to pour into it. | ||
| But one thing is for sure, that that is the final goal. | ||
| And for the most part, no American or any normal person around the world wants to see a future like that. | ||
| The only person who would want to have a future in which they were basically cradled by robots and they become pets to the machine are the kind of blobs that you would find that seek out welfare. | ||
| It's simply not popular. | ||
| So, again, these laws are not perfect, whether they be the state level or the federal level, but I do see them as both a way to keep these companies accountable, to put up guardrails for the worst effects of what they're putting out, and to mitigate some of the economic damage that is most likely going to occur. | ||
| But long term, it's going to take widespread will. | ||
| It's going to take the collective will of the people to say, We do not want to live in a future like that. | ||
| Either if they get the machines right and actually are able to replace people, or what I see is most likely that they will shove it down the throats of every corporation they can. | ||
| They will integrate it into the military in every facet that they can, into schools in every way they can. | ||
| And these systems simply won't live up to the promises. | ||
| If you think about children, I'll end on this. | ||
| If you think about this generation of children coming up right now who are told that machines will be able to do anything better than they can do, they are demoralizing an entire generation of students. | ||
| And those students are expecting, those who believe the line are expecting that they aren't going to have an active role in the future. | ||
| If the systems work, well, then they won't have an active role. | ||
| But if these systems are not as good as human beings, and I suspect that will be the case, then you will end up with a huge swath of the young generation who's not prepared to go into the world as an active participant. | ||
| They will have been told that everything's taken care of, and then reality will smack them in the face. | ||
| And then for us, we'll be at the mercy of a young generation some 10, 20 years down the road who's completely ineffective. | ||
| One way or the other, Steve, I'm quite confident that the will of Americans will prevail, but this is going to be a long, long fight, a lifetime fight. | ||
| Yeah, but it's going to start off hot in January. | ||
| And of course, Joe Allen and the war are leading it and the warm policy is the muscle. | ||
| Joe, you're going to spend now your Christmas Eve with your mom. | ||
| We're going to let you go. | ||
| Can you give people where to go to get all your writings in case they want to curl up with either your book or some of your writings over the next couple of days? | ||
| But yeah, you can get the book. | ||
| You know, nothing like spending Christmas reading about the dark Aeon. | ||
| You can get Dark Aeon Transhumanism and the War Against Humanity. | ||
| Anywhere books are sold. | ||
| I recommend bookshop.org. | ||
| I have an analysis, a review of the Trump America AI Act up at joebot.xyz really quick. | ||
| It will give you a really good sense of what the potential is for such legislation and also what the long-term problems are that it doesn't address. | ||
| And of course, my social media slave chain at J-O-E-B-O-T-X-Y-Z. | ||
| Merry Christmas, Steve. | ||
| Merry Christmas, Joe Allen. | ||
| Good on you. | ||
| Say hi to your mom. | ||
| Joe Allen, fighting the good fight on artificial intelligence. | ||
| I'm going to bifurcate the next interview. | ||
| Peter Kirby is going to join us, an expert on geoengineering and all things. | ||
| Chemtro has got a new book coming out from Skyhorse later in January. | ||
| And Peter Titzo is going to join us because this kind of, I guess, emergency ruling came out of the Supreme Court today on the president as the commander-in-chief. | ||
| I can tell you, President Trump's not particularly happy about that. | ||
| We got a couple minutes on this side. | ||
| So, Peter, this topic is so controversial. | ||
| Let's take geoengineering. | ||
| Can you explain just simply, what is geoengineering? | ||
| Why has this become so controversial? | ||
| Like, who's in back of geoengineering? | ||
| Who's trying to do it? | ||
| It sounds in many regards scarier than artificial intelligence. | ||
| The floor is yours, sir. | ||
| Well, Steve, thanks for having me. | ||
| It's an honor and a responsibility. | ||
| You know, there's a whole group of people that inhabit many of the nation's top academic institutions, such as Harvard, calling themselves geoengineers. | ||
| Now, geoengineering, of course, if you know geo means earth, and then engineering means engineering. | ||
| So, we're talking about changing the earth for strategic advantage or to accomplish certain objectives. | ||
| Now, there's a lot of different things that are encompassed in geoengineering. | ||
| There's things they talk about things like laying surfacants over lakes or sequestering carbon dioxide. | ||
| All of these things are geared towards the bottom of the story. | ||
| Hang on, let me let me ask a more basic question. | ||
| Make sure I understand it. | ||
| Is the theory in back of this for the geoengineering part is that the world, the biosphere, let's say, is a complex system and that that complex system, like any engineering problem you have, right, can you can go in, break it apart, understand it. | ||
| And if you want to try to optimize it, parts of the system, you can tinker with it, make some changes to it, maybe make some fundamental changes to it, and optimize certain parts of it. | ||
| Or if parts of it are detrimental to people, that you can then take those away. | ||
| Is that the general theory that the world that we have a system, a material system that's just like any other system, although obviously with enormous complexity, and that humans can actually go in there, understand it, and tool around with it, sir? | ||
| Yeah, they're talking about engineering the earth to achieve different objectives. | ||
| As I say, there's different areas of it, but about 80 to 85 percent of it, well, more like 90, more like 90 to 95 percent, probably more like 95. | ||
| Most of it, these geoengineers, they talk about spraying things out of planes to bounce sunlight back into space to save us from global warming. | ||
| Now, I hear the music starting, and this is a huge topic. | ||
| It goes back to the term geoengineering is synonymous with a term called planetary engineering, which is something that the former Manhattan Project scientist Glenn Seaborg came up with after World War II, and he was a big advocate of it. | ||
| Really, geoengineering is a nice term for geophysical warfare, and there's a lot here. | ||
| There's a lot here, Steve. | ||
| So, I hope we can continue this conversation. | ||
| Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, we're going to continue. | ||
| Just we'll take a short commercial break. | ||
| In fact, this is one of a series. | ||
| The book comes out when, uh, Peter, book comes out at the end of January, I think, January 20th or 25th. | ||
| Comes out January 20th. | ||
| It's being published by Skyhorse. | ||
| If you don't see me again, please go to my website, peterakirby.com. | ||
| No, well, and uh, Tony Lyons, who we're very close to, is very big on this book. | ||
| He's really looking forward to it. | ||
| I think it's 500 pages long. | ||
| You can pre-order it right now on Amazon, correct? | ||
| Oh, yeah, the pre-order page has been up for some time. | ||
| I'm promoting it as much as I can, and I thank you very much for having me on your show, Steve. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| No, hang on, you're going to stick around for the second part. | ||
| Eric Tietzel from CRA is going to step in here. | ||
| Eric's going to explain to us about this 6-3 loss at the Supreme Court today of President Trump on troops on federalizing the National Guard. | ||
| Birch Gold, take your phone out, text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N-9-8-9898. | ||
| Get the ultimate guide, which is free and you have no obligations for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump. | ||
| Check it out today. | ||
| Talk to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| Gold all-time high, silver all-time high today. | ||
| The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has blocked the Trump administration from federalizing and deploying members of the National Guard in Illinois. | ||
| Joining me now, MS Now Legal Affairs Reporter Fallon Gallagher. | ||
| Fallon, what can you tell us about this decision? | ||
| Yeah, Ariel, this is a significant loss for the Trump administration. | ||
| The court had been weighing this bid since October. | ||
| This is one of those cases that came through the emergency docket. | ||
| The Trump administration had asked to allow the deployment and the federalization of the National Guard in Illinois. | ||
| Now, they've been sitting on it for a while, which caused us to speculate. | ||
| Maybe they were waiting to see whether this happened in another city and maybe there was a circuit split. | ||
| But now they've decisively ruled against the Trump administration, saying that he cannot deploy or federalize the National Guard in Illinois. | ||
| And I want to read very briefly from this ruling. | ||
| They say that the government has not carried its burden to show that the statute permits the president to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect the federal personnel and property in Illinois. | ||
| We need not add and do not address the reviewability of findings made by the president under the statute or any other statute. | ||
| The application is denied. | ||
| This, I want to say, also appears to be 6-3, as with regular emergency docket applications. | ||
| You don't have to get that breakdown of how the justices voted. | ||
| We know that Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito all wrote dissenting opinions. | ||
| So it appears that it's 6-3. | ||
| It appears that Barrett and Roberts sided with the liberal justices here. | ||
| But again, this is a massive blow for the Trump administration. | ||
| So just for a second, speak about the possible wider implications of this ruling on the attempts to federalize the National Guard in other places in the country. | ||
| Yeah, the Supreme Court has now set this precedent here that the Trump administration cannot federalize or deploy the National Guard under this specific statute. | ||
| So this is a decisive victory or a decisive loss for the Trump administration. | ||
| Okay, Eric Tietzel from the Center for Renewing America joins us. | ||
| Eric, we've been on quite a roll at the Supreme Court. | ||
| Is this a speed bump or is it something we should be more concerned about? | ||
| And President Trump's, as you know, what Russ Vogt worked on, what you guys worked on for so many years, this inherent powers in the broader context of the Article II powers of the president, whether he's a chief executive officer of the administration and the government, or whether he is the chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer, or most importantly, as commander-in-chief. | ||
| And this went to the commander-in-chief part. | ||
| So make this make sense for us. | ||
| Is this temporary? | ||
| It can be worked around, or is this a death blow to federalizing the National Guard to both protect police in these out-of-control sanctuary cities and to have the back of ice as you start doing mass deportations, sir? | ||
| No, anything but a death blow. | ||
| It's hilarious listening to our friends over there at MSNBC spike the football in this. | ||
| They should know better. | ||
| Chicago is comeback city. | ||
| We just saw that with the Bears over the Packers this weekend. | ||
| And it's going to be the same story with the president here. | ||
| This is indeed a legal speed bump. | ||
| The administration asked for them to remove a stay while the legal proceedings carried forward in this case. | ||
| And the Supreme Court today simply said, we're not going to lift a stay, but the arguments can continue. | ||
| And then they even went further than that. | ||
| And Brett Kavanaugh, who ultimately concurred in that decision, he sided with the bad guys. | ||
| He did leave kind of a legal roadmap for what he thinks the winning strategy would be moving forward. | ||
| And I'm pretty confident that ultimately the president will prevail. | ||
| And the reason is simple, and you pointed to it. | ||
| Article 2 gives the president of the United States extraordinary deference when it comes to his powers as commander-in-chief and as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. | ||
| He didn't even try to invoke those fundamental constitutional powers in these arguments. | ||
| Instead, he relied merely on a federal statute. | ||
| It's 10 USC 1246, which allows the president to deploy the National Guard when he can't do so using, quote, regular forces. | ||
| Now, as often is the case with federal law, the framers of that article did not bother to define what regular forces mean. | ||
| And so it's up to judges, unfortunately, to fill in the blanks. | ||
| And in this case, the judges said, well, we think regular forces means the U.S. military. | ||
| The Trump administration is arguing that, no, actually, regular forces refers to things like ICE and the FBI, which have proven unable to keep federal personnel and federal property in Chicago safe from the acts of violence being perpetrated by bad guys in Chicago. | ||
| That's a winning argument. | ||
| And ultimately, it's going to prevail one way or the other. | ||
| You have the Insurrection Act, I think Posse Comitatus. | ||
| Why did Stephen Miller and the team focus on using this aspect of federal regulations or federal rules? | ||
| Why did they do that? | ||
| And was that the big question they asked here at this level? | ||
| And they want them to come back and rethink it about really using the Insurrection Act. | ||
| You know, I can only guess as to what the legal strategy devised by the White House was. | ||
| But if I had to venture a guess, I would say if you can win a court case by invoking sort of the easiest, most basic standard, rather than trying to tackle an 800-pound guerrilla like Posse Comitatus, why not go for the lowest possible standard? | ||
| So that's probably what was driving here. | ||
| They should have won on that very easy, basic standard. | ||
| The court stepped way out of its bounds and made arguments that the state of Illinois didn't even make in this case to sort of get to this point. | ||
| But that's why I say there's lots of hope for winning either by fixing these technical arguments around 10 USC 1246 or invoking things like the Insurrection Act or the Posse Comitatus Act. | ||
| Eric, just help the audience and myself think this through. | ||
| You have the major, these major urban areas, and I mean world cities, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, that are sanctuary cities. | ||
| They flout all the federal rules and regulations about what we are as a sovereign country, what we are as a sovereign people on immigration. | ||
| You have a presence that's trying to, in the most basic way possible, to not just assert federal power, but to make sure that those laws are enforced and to get people that shouldn't be here out. | ||
| Why the federal courts seem to be going out of their way to protect essentially insurrectionists? | ||
| I mean, these guys are equivalent to elements of the Confederacy in 1860. | ||
| Are they not? | ||
| They're saying, hey, Chicago is going to run like Chicago is going to run, and Pritzker's there running for president on this very topic. | ||
| And I think people see today that they're coming after President Trump and trying to use troops to go in there, you know, federalizing the National Guard for good order and discipline, for safety, you know, order versus chaos. | ||
| And yet you have the federal courts protecting people that are flaunting the most basic laws on immigration, sir. | ||
| It's totally backwards. | ||
| It's technical legal fiddling while Chicago burns. | ||
| We have got to restore an understanding of the unitary executive, the president's fundamental constitutional Article II powers. | ||
| First and foremost, protect the people of the United States. | ||
| That's what he's trying to do. | ||
| We saw this in my hometown, unfortunately, of Washington, D.C., where the president brought in the National Guard. | ||
| And at first, all the leftists in the city, including the mayor, Mayor Bowser, threw a fit, only to realize that crime went down. | ||
| And the residents of Washington, D.C. were happy about that. | ||
| They felt safe. | ||
| And she basically had to cry uncle and say, yeah, this actually worked. | ||
| We're going to go ahead and let it roll. | ||
| I have a feeling that the people of Chicago are not happy with the federal courts stepping in and standing in the way of the president's ability to protect them and their livelihoods and their families. | ||
| Eric, where can people go over to CRA to get more information on this? | ||
| I know you guys are covered. | ||
| In fact, much of that theory and the expanded interpretation of Article 2 came from so many of your staff, including your head, Russ Vote, who are now over at OMB and inside the government making these decisions. | ||
| Where do folks go? | ||
| Yes, sir. | ||
| Russ, Mark Paoletta, Jeff Clark, a whole bunch of heroes who've done the spade work here, Ken Cuccinelli and more. | ||
| You can go to americarenewing.com and find links to all of our work on Posse Comitatus, Insurrection Act, and more. | ||
| You can also find me on X at Eric Teetzel, and I'll link to all of this stuff. | ||
| By the way, tomorrow I'll be talking about as we're in Bethlehem and in Rome for Christmas Eve, talking about your, well, we're going to do it. | ||
| We got teams there. | ||
| I'm just going to be anchoring from the worm. | ||
| But we're going to talk about your great reports on Islam and Sharia and all that. | ||
| So you go to CRA, you've got tremendous reports about the dangers of the rise of Sharia supremacists. | ||
| So, Eric, thank you so much. | ||
| Merry Christmas. | ||
| Tell everybody over there. | ||
| Merry Christmas. | ||
| Love you guys. | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| Merry Christmas to you and God bless you. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| So, Peter Kirby, let's go back. | ||
| Planetary, was it planetary engineering and then geoengineering? | ||
| Go back to the planetary part. | ||
| That started right after World War II? | ||
| Yeah, it was mostly promoted by Glenn Seaborg, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. | ||
| And as you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was what became of the original Manhattan Project. | ||
| And then the Atomic Energy Commission turned into today's Department of Energy. | ||
| And it's no coincidence that today's Department of Energy has a lot of connections to the biggest scientific effort in history. | ||
| And that's what this is. | ||
| This biggest scientific effort in history is evidenced by the lines that we see in the skies. | ||
| Now, maybe some of your audience has not noticed these things, but I suspect that a lot of them have. | ||
| If you start looking for them, you'll see, maybe you've seen them already, that there are these lines that stretch from horizon to horizon. | ||
| They come out of jet airplanes and they just kind of stay there and expand and turn into cloud cover over the course of hours. | ||
| Now, this is not how water vapor behaves. | ||
| If the jet fuel is unadulterated and it's just a normal plane flying over, you don't see these gigantic clouds coming out the back of these things. | ||
| If it's just water vapor, it dissipates very quickly and disappears. | ||
| But since we're looking at these long lines from horizon to horizon, doing what they're doing, this is particulate matter. | ||
| Hang on for a second. | ||
| You already lost me. | ||
| You got to keep it simple. | ||
| I want to go back. | ||
| You're telling me the guys that are in back of the Manhattan Project, which is the greatest engineering project probably in mankind's history, to get a bomb, to get a nuclear weapon. | ||
| If you've seen the movie Oppenheimer or Ready in the Books, to get a weapon in just a couple of years and have this massive industrial process that could do it, the people, and I think this is one of the reasons your book's called the New Manhattan Project, that the people in back of the Manhattan Project, this guy Seaborg and others, thought, given that they went to the core of nature, you know, and sub-atomic, you know, quantum physics to get to the secrets of the universe to build a weapon that, | ||
| and obviously then later nuclear energy and power and power plants, that they also felt that they could re-engineer the planet. | ||
| Was that the thinking? | ||
| Oh, yes, absolutely. | ||
| You know, after they detonated the bomb in 1945, the bombs, they were essentially placed at the top of world power. | ||
| And so, you know, they went about promoting the production of more nuclear bombs. | ||
| They went about promoting, you know, nuclear power. | ||
| And the other thing that they went about promoting was weather control. | ||
| And that's what the biggest scientific effort in history is all about. | ||
| You know, there are other tangential things that are associated with what's going on. | ||
| Hang on, but hang on, but hang on. | ||
| But weather, okay, so weather control, and they wanted to control the weather because you can both increase your productivity in a country, but you could also, like in economics, you could use it as a weapon against other countries. | ||
| You could turn them into deserts. | ||
| I mean, was it a thought that if we start to perfect weather as a system, right? | ||
| Which they think everything's a system, we can make it better for ourselves and worse for our competitors. | ||
| Is that what the original thinking was? | ||
| Correct. | ||
| It was both. | ||
| It was mostly, it was developed, mostly what we're looking at today. | ||
| The system that we're looking at today, what I call the New Manhattan Project, was developed as a weapon system. | ||
| But there are many instances in the historical weather modification literature that talk about these type of systems being used in peacetime, i.e., domestically. | ||
| So, you know, there was both of those things going on. | ||
| Most people have heard about weather control in the context of what I call the conventional weather modification industry. | ||
| That started right after World War II as well. | ||
| And this involves the dispersion of silver iodide mainly, sometimes other materials like lead iodide, but mainly silver iodide. | ||
| And this is what the bulk of the historical weather modification literature pertains to. | ||
| But if you look closely and read into it a lot, like I did, I think I exhausted all avenues of investigation in the conventional weather modification literature. | ||
| I think, and I found many instances of the use of electromagnetic energy as well to control the weather. | ||
| Now, this is the defining aspect of this second generation system of weather control. | ||
| It's a binary weapon system. | ||
| With the traditional weather modification technology, you're just spraying things out of planes or dispersing silver iodide from ground-based generators that cause precipitation to happen from cumulus clouds or suppress hail or suppress lightning. | ||
| So it's just a singular element that you're dealing with. | ||
| But when you're talking about spraying things out of planes and then hitting those particles with electromagnetic energy, well, then you're looking at something that opens the doors to comprehensive weather control, not just doing a few things with silver iodide. | ||
| And that is the essence of what I call the new Manhattan Project, this binary weapon system. | ||
| They saturate the atmosphere with these small particles that come out of planes, and then they're hitting those small particles with electromagnetic energy. | ||
| And the most basic thing that can be done with that is creating a high-pressure system. | ||
| And I think that this is what has been done over California for many years now, especially when we have times of drought. | ||
| They're causing the drought over California by creating high pressure systems. | ||
| When you have an atmosphere that's saturated with these small particles and you hit those small particles with something called the resonant frequency of those particles, they heat up. | ||
| And you can create a high-pressure system over large areas. | ||
| Hang, hang, hang, hang, let me, because this is going to take, obviously, several sessions. | ||
| Isn't the risk, because like in Oppenheimer, in creation of the bomb and the hydrogen bomb. | ||
| One of the things that was one of the parts of the processes that took up so much time was the risk mitigation of having like the web, something happened underneath Soldiers Field in Chicago, right? | ||
| When I think it was Fermi that was there. | ||
| They were always very concerned about a reaction that got out of their control. | ||
| And so one of the reasons they had pressure on them to get to the bomb and get it done before the Germans was this risk mitigation. | ||
| In your study of this new Manhattan Project, aren't these engineers or people that look at geoengineering, isn't there concern that the global system so complex that if you try to do a build a high pressure system or, you know, this happened during the rains down in Texas when that the camp for the little girls got swept under by the raging waters, I think outside of Austin, that somebody had been actually seeding, and he came on the show, | ||
| he had been actually paid to seed clouds for a couple of months. | ||
| Aren't people in charge so concerned that the system's so complicated that you could end up doing something that's small, like a high-pressure system over California? | ||
| Not that that's small, but that that could affect everything and you could turn potentially California into a desert? | ||
| I mean, don't these people have that type of concern? | ||
| Well, you know, you're looking at it from the mindset of somebody who cares about life on this planet and wants things to be good and nice for people. | ||
| And, you know, maybe ways we could use these technologies to make life better for people. | ||
| But I don't think the people behind the new Manhattan Project are looking at it this way. | ||
| They're looking at it as a way to just control everything, control the weather. | ||
| And, you know, weather has an effect on so many different things. | ||
| But I don't think their motives are good because, I mean, they're spraying us with a substance that is highly toxic. | ||
| It's been determined by a world-famous PhD, as well as at the time these papers came out, a sitting director of the Monroe County, Florida Department of Health. | ||
| They wrote a series of peer-reviewed journal articles where they have determined that the substance that we're most commonly being sprayed with during these operations is something called coal fly ash. | ||
| Now, you probably know what that is, but a lot of people don't. | ||
| It's the smoke that rises from burning coal. | ||
| And it's been collected for many decades by these devices called electrostatic precipitators, otherwise known as scrubbers. | ||
| This is why you don't see gigantic clouds of coal fly ash coming out of coal-fired power plants because the ash is sequestered. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So, what you have, Peter, yeah, we got to bounce. | |
| I'm going to do more of this with you. | ||
| We're going to break it down. | ||
| Right now, I just need what site, give your website that everybody can go and get all your research and all your backup. | ||
| And I want people to go where they can order the book. | ||
| It's Sky Horse is coming out on the 20th of January. | ||
| It's for pre-order now on Amazon, or I guess that's Skyhorse. | ||
| So, we got about a minute. | ||
| Where do they go to get all your writings and all the articles you've got up? | ||
| And then, where do they go order the book? | ||
| Yes, The Confusion Ends January 20th. | ||
| If you read my book, you will have crystal clarity as to what's going on here. | ||
| I have solved the unsolvable puzzle. | ||
| Now, if you want to see everything that I'm doing, I have links to everything that I'm doing on my website, peterakirby.com. | ||
| And the book, Chemtrails Exposed, The New Manhattan Project, is scheduled to be released on January 20th. | ||
| It is now available on Amazon. | ||
| I want everybody to order it. | ||
| And I will tell you, Peter, fans of yours and your work, like my kid's sister, there's not a closer person, maybe Mo, but besides that, my kid's sister and my brother are the two closest people in the world. | ||
| And when you mention chemtrails, she's all in. | ||
| She thinks I'm an absolute boron. | ||
| Well, people can also check out people can also check me out on the Tucker Carlson show. | ||
| I did that. | ||
| You got to click on View All on his homepage. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But yeah, I did one of those shows. | |
| Person. | ||
| Peter, thank you so much. | ||
| Look forward to having you back. | ||
| I want everybody to go to the site now and order the book, what is it? | ||
| The uncertainty, the confusion ends 20 January, 2026 from Sky Horse Press. | ||
| Chemtrails, the new Manhattan Project. | ||
| Fascinating. | ||
| Leave you with the right stuff. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think they might have left a chemtrail or two. | |
| Kidding. | ||
| Okay, we're going to be back here 10 a.m. Easternstein tomorrow morning. | ||
| We're going to be in Bethlehem with Jason Jones, and we're going to be at St. Peter's Square with Ben Harnwell on Christmas Eve. | ||
| Jordan, it's going to be special. |