Stay ahead of the censors - Join us warroom.org/join Aired On: 2/6/2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
|
ICE Around the Polls
00:09:02
|
||
| Trump's call to nationalize voting, and it reads in part, voter fraud happens, and the price of freedom is vigilance. | ||
| But the idea that non-citizens are swaying national elections isn't borne out by the evidence. | ||
| There is no shortage of panic in the press after Mr. Trump's FBI recently raided an election office in Fulton County, Georgia, seeking something, anything, to lend credence to his claims about the 2020 election. | ||
| Yet that mischief won't save him in November. | ||
| MAGA mouthpiece Steve Bannon suggested that Mr. Trump have ICE surround the polls and call up the 82nd and 101st airborne. | ||
| Yeah, after Mr. Trump's political debacle in Minneapolis, independent voters would love that. | ||
| There are two things about Donald Trump we all should be very, very firmly astute to. | ||
| One, he's a liar. | ||
| And two, he will steal the elections this November. | ||
| He's setting this in motion as we speak. | ||
| I don't know how people, you know, kind of look at this, but everything Donald Trump does, he tells you ahead of time he's going to do. | ||
| So if we know that, you know, there are going to be ICE agents at polling places, we know he's going to target the 15 states or the 15 jurisdictions that are predominantly Democratically controlled, small capital D Democrats. | ||
| And we know, we know that he's already banted about the idea of the Insurrection Act. | ||
| What should we be doing as citizens right now to get ourselves ready for what will not just be a long, hot summer, but a very difficult fall when it comes to elections in this country? | ||
| Well, I think that there's certainly an argument to be made that we've got to be vigilant. | ||
| We have to be on guard now. | ||
| And I think when we try to game out what it is that Trump might try to do, I'm much more worried about the back end of the election than the front end. | ||
| I don't think we're going to see ICE agents swarming polling places. | ||
| I think you'd get massive public resistance. | ||
| I'm much more worried about when ballots are being tabulated. | ||
| You know, we saw last week that Trump's FBI, in an unprecedented move, went to Fulton County, Georgia and seized actual ballots that were used in the 2020 election, supposedly for some kind of criminal investigation. | ||
| You know, maybe that's just to please Donald Trump's fantasies about having won Georgia in 2020, but I worry it's kind of a test run for what he can get away with in 2026. | ||
| If we have a very close congressional race, is he going to say that there's a problem in how the election was run and try and go in and have federal agents seize ballots? | ||
| So we've got to prepare for that right now. | ||
| Steve Bennon recently said, quote, we're going to have ICE around the polls come November. | ||
| Is that something that the president is considering? | ||
| That's not something I've ever heard the president consider. | ||
| Can you guarantee to the American public that ICE will not be around polling locations or voting locations in November? | ||
| I can't guarantee that an ICE agent won't be around a polling location in November. | ||
| I mean, that's frankly a very silly hypothetical question. | ||
| But what I can tell you is I haven't heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. | ||
| It's a disingenuous question. | ||
| He's openly fretting about the possibility of Republicans losing the midterms and a Democratic Congress impeaching him a third time. | ||
| So he's demanding that Congress nationalize the elections. | ||
| And Republicans are taking a step in that direction through a piece of legislation called the SAVE Act, which purports to solve the non-existent problem of non-citizens voting in our elections by forcing voters to show documentation like a passport or a birth certificate at the polling booth in America, a country where you don't need to show your papers, a passport or a birth certificate. | ||
| We're soaked in lies. | ||
| We're drowning in disinformation. | ||
| We're drowning in real time. | ||
| You can juxtapose what he says and then he'll deny it immediately. | ||
| And then it's kind of, it's joined with the history of the country, right? | ||
| Detroit, Atlanta, Philly, massive corruption, right? | ||
| Because at the same time that he's talking delegitimizing, he's also engaging in setting the stage for purging voter rolls, undermining the ability of people of color to vote. | ||
| So I think we need to see this as a five-alarm fire and not just simply try to deal with Donald Trump's inconsistencies. | ||
| The man lies like he breathes. | ||
| So we need to understand what is really at stake here. | ||
| I think there's an optimistic story and a pessimistic story about Kelsey Gabbard being involved. | ||
| The optimistic story is they don't have anything for her to do. | ||
| They don't trust her. | ||
| She's not on board when they're going into Venezuela or going into bomb Iran or something like that. | ||
| So they give her voting fraud as one of the things she should investigate. | ||
| And they'll keep her busy and she can line up with the conspiracy theories that Donald Trump has put out there. | ||
| And the reason they were in Puerto Rico is because there's some conspiracy theory about a Venezuelan connection to the voting machine. | ||
| So that's not going to go anywhere. | ||
| The pessimistic story is much worse. | ||
| It's that not only is it going to be DHS and ICE and the FBI, but it's going to be the entire intelligence apparatus that's going to be used to try to put doubt on the integrity of the election by claiming potentially foreign interference in the elections by just making things up that can be a pretext for potentially trying to do the things we were talking about earlier in terms of interfering with the counting of the ballots. | ||
| I think the focus between now and November should be on Republicans whose names are on the ballot. | ||
| Because I'm very curious, my fellow Republicans, do you subscribe to the idea of ICE agents being at polling places? | ||
| Do you subscribe to the idea that you, as a Republican official, should take control of elections in another state, a state that you're not on the ballot in? | ||
| A state you're not running in? | ||
| That the federal government, could you imagine Barack Obama, Mr. Republican senator or Republican congressman or Joe Biden, President Joe Biden in the 2024 election decided, you know what? | ||
| I think we're going to look at all the red states and we're going to make sure that we take control of the ballots in those red states. | ||
| Could you imagine, Mr. Republican, senator, or congressman, what your response would be? | ||
| Share that with us because that's the response you should be having right now. | ||
| And I think the more, Eddie, we put that pressure out there to make Republicans, because the president is acting in their name. | ||
| He's the titular head of our party. | ||
| And the head of our party says, we're going to federalize, nationalize elections, even though he then comes back and goes, I didn't say national. | ||
| No, you didn't say national. | ||
| You just said take control of. | ||
| What's the difference? | ||
| You know, Mike, I hear you. | ||
| And I'm sitting here thinking, well, in a reasonable world, that seems like that would work. | ||
| But it also seems to suggest a faith that you have yet to put aside. | ||
| That is to say, your eyes have repeatedly seen these Republicans behave in a way that they don't care about the hypocrisy. | ||
| They don't care about the contradiction. | ||
| They're either fearful or they're just simply committed to holding on to power by any means necessary. | ||
| And so I'm sitting here, not as an expert about elections. | ||
| I'm sitting here trying to think about the moral rock that has put us in this place where the president of the United States can lie repeatedly to us, can say that he's going to basically try to take over our elections, right? | ||
| And Republicans will sit back and nod and bend the knee and do whatever we want to do. | ||
| And we are kind of barreling our way to the midterms, trying to figure out what we're going to do in the face of what we already see and what we see every single day. | ||
| So I'm not so sure, Mike, revealing the hypocrisy will actually get us out from under all of these BS that we're drowning in. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going to medieval on this people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
| MAGA media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
Why Scalia Matters
00:04:45
|
||
| Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | ||
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| It's Friday, 6 February in the year of the Lord, 2026. | ||
| I want to thank my own production team here at the War Room and of course the Real America's Voice Guys Endeavor for putting together a magnificent cold open. | ||
| Now I know why some of my staff continually walks around depressed because they've got to curate MSNBC and CNN. | ||
| And I want to thank Paul Gijot in the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal for formally naming me MAGA Mouthpiece. | ||
| Thanks, Paul. | ||
| Normally, your editorials kind of hit us the wrong way, but that was quite interesting this morning. | ||
| From the ridiculous to the sublime, to someone, we got a lot to go through, but I want to start with something that's a seminal moment in the MAGA movement and the conservative movement. | ||
| James Rosen joins us right out of the box. | ||
| James, Associate Justice Scalia, a giant of the 20th and 21st century on the Supreme Court, your magisterial first volume, Rise to Greatness, his, I think, three-part biography. | ||
| You're coming out with the second part next week, and we want to give everybody a heads up to get on top of this book, ASAP. | ||
| You've got the Supreme Court years, Volume 2, at least the first part of the Supreme Court. | ||
| I think it takes up to 2001. | ||
| Why is Scalia important enough, James, given you're one of the top reporters in town that you appear in reading the book and look at the research? | ||
| Every waking moment of any time you have left over from reporting is spent working on this book. | ||
| Why would you do that? | ||
| Why is Scalia so important that you would dedicate basically your life to this? | ||
| That's weird, Steve, because your question echoes one that is persistently asked by Mrs. Rosen. | ||
| But first, I just want to say I'm grateful to be with you, a longtime listener, first-time caller, as it were. | ||
| And I'm joining you from my office at Newsmax, where I am the chief Washington correspondent and feel very privileged to work. | ||
| And yes, this book is out this coming Tuesday. | ||
| It's called Scalia, Supreme Court Years 1986 to 2001. | ||
| It covers the first half of Justice Scalia's nearly 30 terms on the Supreme Court. | ||
| And as you mentioned, the first book came out about three years ago, published by Regnery Skyhorse. | ||
| That was called Scalia, Rise to Greatness, 1936 to 1986. | ||
| There were two previous biographies of Scalia, one he cooperated with, one not at all. | ||
| They both came out while he was alive. | ||
| And both books ended in the same place, Steve, which is to say, openly hostile toward Justice Scalia's personality, conduct, philosophy, and jurisprudence and his legacy. | ||
| So this is the first admiring biography, or as I like to say it, it's the first biography of Antonin Scalia, written by someone who has his head screwed on straight. | ||
| That first volume took you up until the moment he sat down on the Supreme Court. | ||
| And he had a fascinating career before he even became a judge, working under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and then being nominated by President Reagan to the appellate bench and then the Supreme Court. | ||
| This new book, Out Tuesday, Scalia, Supreme Court years 1986 to 2001, covers his first day as a justice all the way up through the national trauma of Bush v. Gore. | ||
| Bracing it was, Steve, for this reporter to realize that there sits today on the Supreme Court only one justice who sat on Bush v. Gore, and that is Clarence Thomas, who was interviewed for this project. | ||
| But you asked, why is it important? | ||
| And I'm really glad you asked. | ||
| Antonin Scalia is not just one of the most important Supreme Court justices in history. | ||
| He's one of the most important Americans of the last hundred years. | ||
| And it's because of the philosophy he brought to the business of being a judge. | ||
| When Scalia came along as a federal judge in the early 80s and then rose to the Supreme Court in 1986, confirmed by the United States Senate 98 to nothing, which always bothered him, by the way, well into the 21st century, Scalia would be saying, let's just call it 100. | ||
| He was ticked off that two senators didn't vote. | ||
| But in any case, when he came along, there prevailed in America, and particularly in the law, this notion of a living constitution. | ||
| This is still taught to schoolchildren every day. | ||
| And the living constitution idea, which is subscribed to by liberals on the Supreme Court, the Living Constitution holds that the document, the Constitution itself, and indeed every law that's been enacted ever since the Constitution, should be interpreted by judges, | ||
|
Antonin Scalia's Originalism
00:10:53
|
||
| which is their central business of interpreting the laws, telling us what the law means, in a way that allows the judge to expand the meaning of the Constitution, of a given clause or any law, to in effect, alter the meaning, to modify the meaning, to graft their latter-day policy preferences onto the existing law. | ||
| And the idea behind it is that the Constitution should expand to cover phenomena that the founders never could have envisioned, such as nuclear weapons or the internet. | ||
| Scalia's answer to Scalia stood athwart all of that. | ||
| And Scalia believed in something called originalism. | ||
| And his idea was that he didn't care what the intent behind the Constitution was or the lawmakers' intent behind a given law was. | ||
| Their intent is embodied in the text that they voted up or down. | ||
| And if they voted it up and a president signed it into law, that's the intent. | ||
| The first place we should be looking in order to interpret a law is its text. | ||
| And that text carries a meaning and not a meaning changed by latter-day judges, but the original meaning it was widely understood to have at the time it was a change. | ||
| Hang on one second. | ||
| We'll take a short commercial break. | ||
| Texturalism, originalism, next. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's James Rosen. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| I wanted to spend an hour with James today, given the seriousness of this book and the topic. | ||
| And I want to thank Newsmax for cutting loose and letting me have a little bit of time. | ||
| We're going to have him back on Tuesday. | ||
| He's got an amazing piece coming out this weekend in the New York Times about law for Richard Nixon, all of the topics we've talked about. | ||
| But the demands of Newsmax today, we've only got James for a half hour. | ||
| I want to thank the Newsmax team for doing that fantastic work. | ||
| We love you guys over there. | ||
| I'm going to come back to originalism, textualism, things we want to get into today. | ||
| Here's the book is so, and to know that they had another guy that actually had cooperation. | ||
| The book is so well researched. | ||
| But as you know, the Warren Posse, we have huge readers on here. | ||
| We did the, you know, we sent the Buckley book of Sam Tenhouse to two or three new printings. | ||
| We're readers and it's beautifully written. | ||
| How do you find the time? | ||
| You're chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax, which is, you know, in a dogfight with Fox every day for ratings and for breaking news. | ||
| How do you actually find the time to do the research and to take the time it takes just to make sure this thing is so beautifully written, James? | ||
| Well, you're very kind, Steve. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| The short answer is I steal the time from my family. | ||
| And in the acknowledgement section to this book, I apologize to my wife and two sons for how much time this project has required me to be away from them. | ||
| I never intended, it was never intended to be a three-volume book. | ||
| It was intended to be a concise biography, believe it or not. | ||
| But as you could tell from our first segment, Steve, I don't do anything concisely. | ||
| I did want to finish the discussion we were having before the break about why Scalia is such an important American in the history of this country. | ||
| It's because he persuaded mostly through dissents, but really through his brilliant writing, his genius, his affability, his literary gifts, his charm, his use of language. | ||
| And mostly in dissent, he wasn't frequently on the winning sides of cases, but he changed the way we draft the law, we argue the law, and judges and justices decide the law. | ||
| When he came along, people were talking about the living Constitution and how we need to expand its meaning to account for new phenomena and how we need to look to the intent behind a law, not just the text of the law. | ||
| We need to know what they meant. | ||
| So we should look back at floor speeches on the House and Senate floor, and we should look at committee reports. | ||
| Scalia said no to all of that. | ||
| Nobody voted on a floor speech. | ||
| Nobody voted on a committee report. | ||
| They voted on the text of a law and that text doesn't change and its meaning doesn't change. | ||
| By the time Scalia died in his 30th term on the court, and we're coming up on the 10th anniversary, February 13, since Anton and Scalia left us, no less a figure than Justice Eleanor Kagan, an appointee of President Obama, pronounced, because of the Scalia revolution in the law, we are all originalists now. | ||
| What was it? | ||
| Was it in his opinions? | ||
| Was it in his lectures? | ||
| Because originalism and textualism, that was a long struggle. | ||
| What was it that drove that point home? | ||
| What was it made someone like Kagan, who had been solicitor general, and from, I think, Dean at Yale Law School or one of the powers at Yale Law School? | ||
| What was it specifically over time that drove even the most liberal jurist and lawyers to this point? | ||
| It was the clarity of the philosophy itself, the idea that the words have meaning and that meaning doesn't change just because some judge decided the meaning should change. | ||
| So that was very attractive. | ||
| And of course, Scalia helped found the Federalist Society, which grew enormously over time and popularized the idea of originalism. | ||
| You mentioned textualism. | ||
| It's important that people understand what these concepts are. | ||
| As I explain in these books, textualism is kind of the metal detector that is used to divine the original meaning of the text. | ||
| And so you pay close attention to text. | ||
| If the text is ambiguous, and many laws have clauses and sentences that are ambiguous, that leave us scratching our heads as to what they mean, then Scalia decided that the next feature of originalism to divine the original meaning of a law would be that you would have to look at historical traditions and to look at whether there is a long tradition on behalf of something, even if the law is ambiguous. | ||
| That was his argument against abortion. | ||
| And Professor Scalia was arguing against Roe v. Wade as early as the 1970s on PBS. | ||
| And in essence, there was nothing in the Constitution that mentioned abortion, and there was no historical tradition that protected abortion, quite the contrary. | ||
| I interviewed Justice Alito for this project. | ||
| And in addition to the New York Times story that you mentioned, next week in Politico, I'm going to have an op-ed that is based off the interview I did with Justice Alito and Chambers. | ||
| We talked about the Dobbs opinion, which of course overturned Roe v. Wade. | ||
| And I asked him, is there a direct line from the writings and speeches of Anton and Scalia in the 70s and 80s to Dobbs? | ||
| And he said, absolutely there is. | ||
| So Scalia's impact is still with us in a very big way. | ||
| And again, it was his magnetic personality. | ||
| It was his genius with words. | ||
| It was his humor. | ||
| It was his constant evangelism on and off the bench that swayed whole generations of lawyers away from the living constitution construct from the Warren Court era and over towards an original meaning construct, which is more rooted in the Reagan era. | ||
| How did we get? | ||
| Part of this is the first book, and I strongly recommend, particularly if you have young people in your life that are thinking of careers in law or thinking of careers and somehow they want to get some sort of, at least even if they're getting undergraduate education, want to get some legal background. | ||
| This book is inspiration for anybody and particularly Scalia's, not just rise to greatness, but how he had such a massive impact on American life. | ||
| So not just for yourself, this book is a great gift for young people and it's a page turner. | ||
| So you're going to love it. | ||
| Given the disasters we had, the suitors, and I even think Sandra Day O'Connor, when I say picked by Republicans that became quite moderates or liberals on the bench, how was Scalia selected? | ||
| And how did he possibly go 98 to nothing? | ||
| If you had Scalia today, brother, we would have a firefight. | ||
| You know, given his Catholicism, given his traditional Catholicism, given everything, it would be a firefight. | ||
| How did he get selected? | ||
| And how did he, given all the bad choices that had come around him? | ||
| And how did he get, how did he get a nominated confirmed 98 to nothing? | ||
| When President Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court in June 1986, Scalia had spent four years, having been previously nominated by President Reagan, on the DC Circuit. | ||
| That's the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. | ||
| It's the Court of Appeals that's one rung below the Supreme Court. | ||
| And the DC Circuit is often described as the second most powerful court in the United States because its work so frequently shapes the output of the Supreme Court. | ||
| But also, so many justices are plucked from the ranks of the DC Circuit. | ||
| At one time, on the DC Circuit, what a murderer's row of judicial talent we had from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Antonin Scalia to Robert Bork to Kenneth Starr to James Buckley, Larry Silberman. | ||
| Truly an extraordinary array of judicial talent. | ||
| And so when the vacancy arose in 1986, because the Chief Justice since 1969, Warren Berger, retired, President Reagan was very adamant that the only types of people who would be able to demonstrate that they shared his judicial philosophy of original meaning, | ||
| moving away from the living Constitution expansionist role for judges, would be if they had been judges already on the appellate bench, because they would have a track record as opposed to mere writings, which could be moved away from, different from a judicial opinion. | ||
| So he chose William Rehnquist, who had been an associate justice on the court, nominated by President Nixon, seated since 1972, to elevate him to the chief justiceship. | ||
| Rehnquist for many years was the only conservative on the court. | ||
| He issued so many loan solo dissents that his clerks once gave him a Lone Ranger doll. | ||
| So it was seen as a kind of a reward for all those lonely years of service in the 60s, in the 70s and 80s. | ||
| And then they had to decide who were they going to try and nominate for the vacancy created by elevating Rehnquist. | ||
| And it came down to Bork and Scalia. | ||
| And the first book, Rise to Greatness, really delves deeply into that friendship between these two brilliant men. | ||
| That friendship effectively destroyed by the competition between them and by Scalia's elevation in 1986. | ||
| We know what happened to Bork when he went up a year later. | ||
| And you asked, how did Scalia get confirmed 98 to nothing? | ||
| Chiefly because of the distracting figure of William Rehnquist, having been the lone conservative on the court for so long, the Senate Democrats who claimed control of the Senate in 1986 in the fall election, so it was controlled by the Republicans when Rehnquist and Scalia went up. | ||
| Nonetheless, they were out for bear with Rehnquist. | ||
| They hated his opinions for the last 15 years. | ||
|
A Friendship Destroyed
00:04:11
|
||
| He was ultimately confirmed after a very ugly process, 65 to 33. | ||
| And as Justice Alito told me recently, gosh, if a confirmed nominee got 33 votes, you'd call that and it went 65, 33. | ||
| That'd be a landslide. | ||
| That would be bipartisan. | ||
| In 1986, 33 was the highest number ever recorded for a confirmed nominee. | ||
| And so Rehnquist, in what they called the Rehnquisition, took all the fire. | ||
| Scalia, with his charm, sailed through 98 to nothing. | ||
| James, where do people, I want everybody to pile in on this book over the weekend? | ||
| It's released at publishing date is Tuesday. | ||
| We're going to have you back on Huge Peace in the New York Times. | ||
| Where do people go to the site to get the book? | ||
| Where do they find out more about you? | ||
| What's your social media? | ||
| How do they get all your hits over at Newsmax? | ||
| So you can watch me on Newsmax or Newsmax 2, our streaming service known as N2. | ||
| You can find me on X at at James Rosen TV. | ||
| That's at James Rosen TV. | ||
| The book, Scalia, Supreme Court Years, 1986 to 2001, coming out Tuesday, want to emphasize it's written for all readers, not just for lawyers. | ||
| And frequently, it's hilarious, as in my lunches with Justice Scalia, where we broke bread and wine and he overruled my lunch order. | ||
| This can be ordered on Amazon and anywhere books are sold. | ||
| Steve mentioned my coming New York Times piece that Sunday morning. | ||
| It's the secret history of the deep state. | ||
| It exposes some newly declassified evidence about deep state activity against Richard Nixon, and it makes the parallels with today's scene as well. | ||
| No, it's magnificent. | ||
| Look forward to see you back here on Tuesday. | ||
| You want to thank Newsmax because I know you're busy. | ||
| Chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax, James Rosen. | ||
| This book is magisterial. | ||
| I could not recommend a book more. | ||
| We'll be talking about it throughout the morning. | ||
| And tomorrow morning on Saturday, I'm going to break down part of it. | ||
| James Rosen, we'll see you on Tuesday. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| Folks, I got to tell you, the effort to write something like this when you've got a full-time job is just unbelievable. | ||
| Anyway, short commercial break. | ||
| in the war room in a moment here's your host stephen k van okay if grace and mo and uh elizabeth if we can be force multipliers we'll get your clip of this uh Here's the reason we have giants in our movement, people that have changed the direction of American history. | ||
| On the Supreme Court now, we're very fortunate to have two, Associate Justice Thomas, and of course, we're not two now, but Anton Scalia. | ||
| He is a giant. | ||
| The other biographies of him have been obviously not up to par. | ||
| The first volume of James' three-volume Scalia, the Rise to Greatness. | ||
| And this volume starts at the very first day he takes his seat in the Supreme Court and goes all the way through the hotly contested 2000 election of Bush versus Gore in the decisions that were made there. | ||
| So you will absolutely love this book and you'll learn a lot. | ||
| Learn a lot. | ||
| This is why the Buckley book was so important. | ||
| This is why this book's so important. | ||
| You not just get a feeling for the, it's just not a biography. | ||
| It's the type of biographies I love where you actually get a sense of the times that the man or the woman lived in. | ||
| And very, very powerful. | ||
| And just to know Rosen, who's an incredibly busy guy, when you're chief white White House or chief Washington correspondent now for an operation like Newsmax that's covering Washington, D.C. so intensely, right, to have the time to research and to have the time to write and to take your time and to write beautifully is, to me, is extraordinary. | ||
| So Scalia, the White House years, what I think 86 or 87 to 2001 is the first part of his time on the Supreme Court. | ||
| And you will learn a lot of this. | ||
| We'll also learn Sheila Matthews. | ||
| We're learning from you every day. | ||
| So it's interesting. | ||
|
Why This Book Matters
00:08:56
|
||
| I try to get a call open for Sheila Matthews. | ||
| Folks, one of your favorites and one of our biggest contributors in the years in the wilderness. | ||
| In fact, he started coming on the show the first week that President Trump was sent to the wilderness in 2021, right? | ||
| That first week it was Russ Vote. | ||
| And then Russ formed CRA and we were big sponsors of CRA. | ||
| All do their conferences and always talk and just magnificent. | ||
| Of course, so many of the people from CRA went into the government, particularly in the OMB. | ||
| They got a great team over there now as the second wave. | ||
| They're doing magnificent work. | ||
| But Russ Vote, there was an assassination attempt on Russ Vote. | ||
| A guy went to his house with a gun and I guess neighbors called and the police eventually came and he's arrested. | ||
| But he's got a commonality. | ||
| And when I read this, I reached out to the one and only Sheila Matthews. | ||
| Sheila, and I want to continue to drive this because you are almost like a voice in the wilderness, but the dots all connect. | ||
| Tell me about this guy and what connects him to like Butler. | ||
| This is a problem. | ||
| This is not a problem. | ||
| This is a crisis. | ||
| And it's a crisis about how the radical Democrats and this cultural radicalness of these people obviously is trying to change the culture, but they're also trying to destroy, I think, young men. | ||
| Walk me through. | ||
| And by the way, we could not find a clip. | ||
| I don't think anybody's covered this today. | ||
| Actually, on television, we haven't been, we're trying to be as thorough as possible, but we couldn't find a good clip to use. | ||
| There's a couple of newspaper articles, but they're buried back in the tire heads, the director of offices of management and budget and one of the two or three most important people in this administration, an assassination attempt at his home. | ||
| And now the guy's locked up and being charged. | ||
| But why does this connect directly to Butler, ma'am? | ||
| Well, because Colin DeMarco from Maryland, the man who went to Russ's house, was treated. | ||
| He was in the psychiatric facility and he was diagnosed. | ||
| And so we don't know who treated him, what meds he was on. | ||
| And that's the common issue here. | ||
| Like Butler in Daily Mail this morning is JD Vance making these comments regarding not knowing the motive of the alleged would-be assassin, Thomas Crooks. | ||
| His parents were behavioral health experts. | ||
| How did they miss that he was building a bomb in his bedroom next door? | ||
| Why can we not question him? | ||
| When now next week, we're going to have a case in front of Georgia where a 14-year-old boy killed four people, injured 11 in the state of Georgia, 14 years old. | ||
| He's going to make a plea deal and they're going to charge the father for giving him access to weapons. | ||
| Who gave him access to the mental health diagnosis and the drugs? | ||
| What do his mental health records show? | ||
| So the commonality here is we have a billion-dollar industry that is feeding off our children and pumping them filled with mind-altering drugs. | ||
| And we cannot get behind the scenes there. | ||
| We can't get to the treating psychiatrists. | ||
| Who are these treating psychiatrists? | ||
| But hang on, but hang on, but hang on, hang on, hang on. | ||
| I know the theory of the case and it hangs together. | ||
| It's a multi-billion dollar industry. | ||
| Why can't we, we've done it now. | ||
| You see, in the transgender ideology, we're getting to just had the $2 million court ruling. | ||
| The people, the Terry Schillings, those guys against the transgender radical ideology have used a sharp enough stick to puncture and get through it. | ||
| What do we need to do? | ||
| Because this is outrageous. | ||
| And you see these shootings happen all the time. | ||
| You never get to who the doctors were, what they prescribed, what the drugs are, what the big pharma is making on this. | ||
| Why are is their cartel cabal that strong that we can't puncture, we can't push through this, ma'am? | ||
| Well, the transgender issue falls under psychiatry. | ||
| So I would say that is the umbrella that we need to go after. | ||
| And the state and federal government is in bed with this industry. | ||
| So that's why we can't get access to the treating psychiatrists. | ||
| They're training the FBI agents. | ||
| They're training our teachers. | ||
| So it is a big issue here. | ||
| And the bottom line is we need the mental health records. | ||
| And we shouldn't be assuming that the motive is not traceable. | ||
| It is. | ||
| It is to, if we're concerned about the guns, we should be more concerned about what led that child, the 14-year-old, that's going to make a plea deal. | ||
| So we're not going to get access to those records in Georgia of the little boy who picked up his father's gun. | ||
| They're going to charge the father. | ||
| Yet Butler, those parents aren't dragged in. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| So we have parents just like with the ones in Utah. | ||
| They're not running in. | ||
| You're going to see, I've been telling people, oh, wait to the trial. | ||
| You're not going to have a trial in Utah. | ||
| They're going to cut the, you watch Georgia, they're going to cut the same type of deal to get away from the death penalty and get a life in prison without parole. | ||
| You're never going to see any of this stuff at trial. | ||
| I've been saying this from the beginning. | ||
| Sheila, I know you get a bounce. | ||
| You've got a big anniversary coming up, a big event. | ||
| I want everybody that's in the area or wants to come in from around the country to support you. | ||
| Where do they go? | ||
| We go to ablechild25.com, ablechild25.com, and they could get tickets there. | ||
| It's going to be in West Palm Beach. | ||
| And really, people, we need signs on this petition to get federal hearings. | ||
| We need legislation. | ||
| We're trying to kill massive bills coming in. | ||
| And we have a proposed bill. | ||
| We need a sponsor in Georgia. | ||
| So lawmakers, please start listening to us so we can get to some safety for these children. | ||
| So, yeah, ablechild25.com. | ||
| We're celebrating 25 years, two moms who started out of the abyss. | ||
| So we need your help. | ||
| We want to stay valuable to children and we want to help the government. | ||
| We want to help. | ||
| We want to save lives. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We want these people. | |
| What we want to do, what we want to do is stop this destruction, particularly of young men. | ||
| It's bad in women, but young men that are trying to destroy it. | ||
| Sheila, one more time, where do people go? | ||
| Ablechild25.com for the tickets and ablechild.org for our petition. | ||
| So thank you so much, Steve. | ||
| We're honored to be here, Reparter. | ||
| No, it's outrageous. | ||
| Thank you, ma'am. | ||
| You look at the connectivity. | ||
| Look at the commonality in all this. | ||
| All these young men are on these psychiatric drugs. | ||
| Who prescribes this? | ||
| Who's accountable for this? | ||
| It's constant. | ||
| Also, Russ Vogt, the guy said he did it because Russ Vogt was one of the key architects of Project 2025. | ||
| Have you seen an outrage in the community in Washington, D.C.? | ||
| Have you seen an outrage in the media that a courageous public servant, a courageous public servant is an assassin, a guy goes to his house to assassinate him. | ||
| And just by grace of God, Russ doesn't happen to be there. | ||
| And some neighbors, I guess, turn this guy in and there's some footage on it. | ||
| And the authorities are involved now. | ||
| It's just like in Butler, we don't know. | ||
| I mean, the Butler situation is a travesty. | ||
| And I keep saying, and Pesobic and these guys can prove me wrong. | ||
| I just don't think you're ever going to get to a trial in Utah. | ||
| I think they're going to pull the same thing they're going to pull here. | ||
| They're going to try to cut some plea deal, get him off of capital murder, away from a murder charge. | ||
| And we're never going to get the facts. | ||
| And I think there we have to see the facts. | ||
| We have to see all the details, all the interconnections, because I'm still not, at least what's been out there, I just don't believe a guy got up there because he, you know, he thought his tranny, you know, roommate or whatever, however you define this other guy who hasn't been charged with anything, no accessory, no, no accessory either before or after the fact, nothing. | ||
| It's just still this, was it Tyler Robinson? | ||
| I'm just not buying it. | ||
| Maybe they'll put out evidence otherwise. | ||
| I just don't think you're ever going to go to trial. | ||
| And this situation, the psychiatric drugs and destroying these young men has got to, we've got to get to the bottom of it. | ||
| I don't know if we, do we have the clip of Betts? | ||
| Can I play Betts' clip? | ||
|
Buy Gold: Birch's Insight
00:05:44
|
||
| Do we have that? | ||
| My great producer? | ||
| Do I have it? | ||
| Let me play that for I'll bring on Thayer for a second. | ||
| Let's go ahead and play. | ||
| This is from Ben Harnwell does the Friday show, tries to coordinate six o'clock, all the great reporting coming out of and things coming out of Europe. | ||
| This is very important when we talk about civil war. | ||
| Let's go and watch. | ||
| Yeah, I do want to stress that I'm really not making a party political point here. | ||
| I'm not trying to. | ||
| That's not most of what I'm talking about. | ||
| In fact, all I'm talking about are structural issues. | ||
| This is not political point scoring. | ||
| I'm not trying to. | ||
| I'm not trying to be that sort of pundit. | ||
| And your earlier remarks about the UNA party are entirely accurate. | ||
| And people understand that to be the case, which is what is fueling this. | ||
| I think this is the fundamental thing that is fueling this pressure cooker you talk about, because once people have fully internalized that voting doesn't matter, then that is an expression of basically a complete lack of confidence in the legitimacy of the existing system. | ||
| It is a complete lack of confidence in the ability of politics to solve collective action problems in that society. | ||
| And it's really hard to row back from that. | ||
| And to the point of your specific question now about reform, I have to say I'm not terribly optimistic on this front. | ||
| Reform as currently just doesn't look to me to possess the sense of urgency, to possess the desire to conduct the sort of radical changes to the society, | ||
| which would be implied by a reasonable apprehension of the problems which we face. | ||
| Moreover, even if we get to the next election. | ||
| Professor Bitts, let me just clarify that. | ||
| You think that these forces are in the UK? | ||
| I'm going to come back with a punchline with Ben Harnwell and bring in Dr. Thayer. | ||
| Taj Gill is going to join us. | ||
| Oren Kass has got a magnificent piece, two big pieces coming from the New York Times over the weekend. | ||
| Orin Cass basically calls out the entire finance industry, Wall Street, as a complete and total grift. | ||
| And what should you do with the grifters? | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break here in the worm on a Friday Super Bowl weekend. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | |
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when they're no more. | ||
| Let's take down the CCP. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bass. | ||
| Crypto is in a, how do I say this, historic plunge. | ||
| Gold is not. | ||
| And I think that's the difference between something being a hedge, an entity being a hedge, and maybe not. | ||
| And you don't want to find out about this when it's plunging. | ||
| We've done something different here, I think, than other people that just, hey, go buy gold, buy gold, buy gold. | ||
| We want to teach you, the purpose here with Birch Gold over the last four or five years is to teach you to understand the process, not the price of gold, but the process that drives the value, both as a hedge against times of financial turbulence, but now as a new kind of financial asset class, which has happened as the central banks have stepped up here and the U.S. dollar comes under assault. | ||
| We started this at the beginning of the Biden regime, the illegitimate Biden regime. | ||
| Why? | ||
| We only had an inkling. | ||
| The first thing he did was about opening the borders. | ||
| We knew it was going to be detrimental to the country and insane. | ||
| I shouldn't say insane. | ||
| It was logical for them because they wanted to destroy the American Republic. | ||
| What he did in the spending was to destroy the financial stability of the country and destroy the dollar, 25%, depreciation, devaluation, lack of purchasing power in the dollar in four years. | ||
| It's one of the reasons the BRICS Nations, who are all enemy, virtually all enemies of the United States, led by the Chinese Campus Party, looking at alternatives, as we've reported. | ||
| And we sent Philip Patrick and his team down to Rio for the Rio reset. | ||
| But even I think the Bricks Nations, as much as they hate the United States, they do have kind of a point when they talk about an alternative given what Biden did to the dollar. | ||
| Anyway, that's a long-winded way of saying, talk to Birch Gold. | ||
| Many ways you can get there. | ||
| End of the dollar empire. | ||
| Go to birchgold.com, promo code Bannon, end of the dollar empire, seven free installments. | ||
| The eighth installment is on my desk, and we're going to be getting it out for all of you. | ||
| And we'll have Philip Patrick on here to discuss. | ||
| Most important thing of whether you take your phone out and text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N, at 989898, gets you to the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump, including silver. | ||
| It gets you access to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| And they love it when the war and policy connects and you don't have to buy gold. | ||
| We're going to teach you the process of what drives the value of it and why the guys at Birch Gold think there's a long way to go in that valuation. | ||
| But you come to your own decisions. | ||
| What we're going to do is put the information out there. | ||
| I want to finish with Ben Harnwell. | ||
|
Dr. Bradley Thayer On Civil War
00:05:19
|
||
| Betts is the tenured professor at King's College and one of the world's leading experts, if not the world's leading expert, on modern warfare and every aspect of it, including color revolutions and civil war. | ||
| Let's go ahead and play Ben again and I'm going to bring in Dr. Bradley Thayer. | ||
| Professor Betts, let me just clarify that. | ||
| You think that these forces in the UK are so already entrenched and the momentum is there that not even an eventual hypothetical reform government would be able to stop the civil war in the UK that you see that you hypothesize as being on the horizon. | ||
| It's that bad. | ||
| Yeah, I don't see that. | ||
| Yes, in answer to your question, it's that bad. | ||
| As I said, the issues are structural. | ||
| They're not casually political. | ||
| They're not superficially political. | ||
| They're deeply social. | ||
| And that's that bottom line is the political system is not able to cure itself. | ||
| This is why Trump, that was from last Friday. | ||
| This is why President Trump won in 2016. | ||
| There's something deeply wrong with the American political system, including the Republicans. | ||
| This is why they're controlled opposition. | ||
| This is why now the Wall Street Journal is hammering President Trump every day. | ||
| And look, people can throw the Tories out of the pram. | ||
| They can pull their hair out. | ||
| They can cry. | ||
| It doesn't make a difference. | ||
| We're never going to allow ever again to have the globalist and the elitist and the people that hate this country to steal another election. | ||
| Those days are over, and we got to rev it up to make sure we hold accountable who stole 2020. | ||
| Look what they did to our country, financially, culturally. | ||
| 15 or 20 million illegal alien invaders. | ||
| Look at these cities. | ||
| Dr. Thayer, you've written a quite brilliant piece. | ||
| I'm so glad the Federalist has put it up. | ||
| I just love the Federalist site about why you kind of take Betts' theory and you take it one step farther and saying, hey, it's coming and we have to win it. | ||
| And President Trump has to lead us to victory. | ||
| Talk to us about it, sir. | ||
| Yeah, Steve, thanks. | ||
| The piece is available to Federalists today. | ||
| And the two arguments. | ||
| One, there's a civil war in the West. | ||
| From London to Texas, we see that from Ireland to Italy, from Canada to Australia, we see the same thing. | ||
| We have an increasingly authoritarian political class, and we have their principal weapon of immigration, of flooding Europe, Canada, Australia, the United States with many tens of millions of immigrants. | ||
| So we're locked in a civil war between those who want to destroy the West and those who want to save it. | ||
| It's an old struggle, really goes back to the Bolsheviks 100 years ago who started it, but it's being realized now. | ||
| Now, what needs to be done? | ||
| Well, the Trump administration needs to save Western civilization because he's the only one who can, and he's opposed by Australian government, Canadian government, the EU, and Keir Starmer in the UK. | ||
| What the Trump administration has to do is right now, today, get serious about developing strategies to stop this and to turn it around through remigration. | ||
| So there's much that has to be done. | ||
| First, tariffs. | ||
| Professor Betts makes a great argument, but he seems to assume the 11th commandment is that Europe is going to go Muslim, right? | ||
| That's not true at all. | ||
| It's a result of policy decisions, and policies can be reversed if the cost to the EU and the cost to Keir Starmer's government in the UK are high enough. | ||
| So let's get Peter Navarro to put 500% tariffs on the EU. | ||
| Okay, that's going to start moving the European Union in the right direction. | ||
| Secondly, let's talk about developing strategies. | ||
| Hang on, ho, ho, ho. | ||
| I want to go through all of them. | ||
| We're going to take a short break. | ||
| Are you saying put 500% tariffs on the EU to force them to have policies that reverse the immigration of Muslims into Europe, into England, particularly, which I think is now going to a significant part of the population? | ||
| Is that, I got 30 seconds. | ||
| Is that what you're saying? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Not only reverse, but to do so on a truncated timetable, right? | ||
| To do so with next week, they're going to be at this number. | ||
| The week after, they're going to be at double that number. | ||
| Okay, hang on for a second. | ||
| Hang on. | ||
| I'm going to take time. | ||
| We're going to get it all done. | ||
| We're going to take a short break. | ||
| Warren Casawko and join us. | ||
| I'm going to recommend right now we set up an Office of Re-Migration. | ||
| And I'd strongly recommend to President Trump and the administration that Dr. Bradley Thayer be the very first person to step in there and take that position. | ||