Episode 5235: Grassroots Fight Back Against RINO Candidates
Stephen K. Bannon frames a "medieval" fight against RINO candidates like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham, predicting runoffs due to grassroots backlash over foreign alignment. The episode critiques the White House AI framework for shielding tech oligarchs while prioritizing machine rights over human safety, contrasting it with Senator Marsha Blackburn's child-focused proposal. Simultaneously, military discussions detail a Marine Expeditionary Force deploying from Japan to Carg Island for a potential nuclear retrieval raid, highlighting veteran skepticism about endless conflict. Ultimately, the segment argues that both domestic political betrayal and unchecked technological expansion threaten American sovereignty and human dignity. [Automatically generated summary]
Saturday, 21 March, year of alert, 2026, first day of spring.
Was it the vernal equinox?
Do I have that right?
First day of spring.
Really want to thank Eric Bowling, and I want to thank Captain Finnell particularly for giving us a great update, situation report, the best situation reports on this war and the complexity of it, and make sure we stay focused on through the fog of war, what's important.
We'll get back more of that later in the show.
Also, tomorrow, for the duration of this conflict, we'll be doing a Sunday show at the same time we do our beloved Saturday show, 10 a.m. to 12 noon Eastern Daylight Time, to get updates on everything that's going on.
Tomorrow we are going to do a little bit on Diego Garcia.
As you remember, we made that a big deal as eventually Starmer and the British realized it was a big deal.
And now with this war going on, it's a very big deal.
And the Iranians were trying to take it out with a ballistic missile last night.
Cleo Pascal would join us, Ben Harnowell from Rome.
We're going to have a tremendous show tomorrow morning already, I can tell you.
Domestic politics in Texas, huge issue with the school choice situation.
We're going to get more into that the first couple of days this week with people from Texas talking about it.
Also at CPAC, I'm going to carve out some time.
We got to get our hands around this exactly because so many people in the conservative movement and MAGA have been so pro-school choice.
We've got to really think this thing through, particularly given this court ruling yesterday.
But Ken Paxton, now two polls in Texas.
Ken Paxton's up 16 against Cornyn in one, 18 against Cornyn in the other, as I predicted that there's just no way the more Cornyn puts out this money for these negative ads, really trying to destroy Ken Paxton, the more the grassroots base and the MAGA base turns against him.
It's just a, it's pretty ugly and pathetic, but I told you the math would turn here and the math is now turning.
And we'll have more on that on Monday and Tuesday.
South Carolina, we had Noel Frisch, a friend that showed National File.
Noel also, besides running National File, which are a great little news operation, is also advising the candidate Lynch, Mark Lynch, down in South Carolina.
And they commissioned this poll with Mark Mitchell and the great team of Erasmus.
And it was a thousand respondents of likely voters.
I mean, this is a real poll.
And as we told you over time, it's just the law of political physics was going to catch up with Lindsey Graham.
There's just too much over the top.
You know, he and Levin and these guys just too over the top.
And Lindsay's actually, Graham is just, you know, beclown himself going on TV, talking about perpetuity defense deals with the Saudis, but they got to get in the fight.
I mean, it's just, it's very scary to have, especially when the world is watching all of this.
Vish Burrough joins us.
Vish, a former producer of The War Room, one of our original producers back in the old days, also the producer.
Think I can say this, as much as Matt Gaetz is a star and we love Matt Gaetz, Vishburgh made the Matt Gaetz show as producer, the original launching producer, a big hit.
Vish, you certainly know how to produce.
You're actually, you're working for Paul Danz of Project 2025, a great friend of the show.
Paul's also in the race down there.
You're working with him.
I don't want to really get into the candidates.
We really didn't get into Mark Lynch yesterday too much when Noel was here.
It's just that this poll was done.
I realize you guys didn't commission it, but Rasmus has done it.
And this thing is now out.
It's pretty shocking that Lindsey Graham, with the Senate leadership fund in back of him, and President Trump's already, he's already endorsed him.
Unlike the Corning situation, he's already endorsed Lindsey.
And look, the reality is President Trump's close to Lindsey.
He likes him.
And he takes his advice, both good and bad.
I happen to think it's bad, but there's other people around the president who think it's good.
But Lindsey Graham's below 50%.
You guys are hurtling towards, I think it's April primary.
And I believe the rules in South Carolina, he's got to get over 50%.
He go to a runoff.
I mean, these numbers shock me, but you do this for a living.
Well, what you're seeing, Steve, right now is the dissatisfaction of South Carolina voters with Lindsey Graham.
The first thing that most of these voters, when we approach them on the ground, the question they ask is, where the hell is Lindsey?
So a lot of the extenuating circumstances on the ground are working against Lindsey Graham.
As the war continues in Iran and, God forbid, the death toll goes up of U.S. soldiers, that's going to work against Lindsey's numbers.
As the gas prices tick up at the rate that we're seeing now, that's going to work against Lindsey's numbers.
And I've traveled all over the state with Paul.
We're doing hundreds of events.
The number one thing that people will say about Lindsey is, bless his heart, but it's time for him to go.
The guy is saying all sorts of crazy things on TV.
And so what you're seeing in these numbers is that the primary runoff that's going to happen on June 9th is inevitable.
The same thing that you saw in Texas with Paxton and Cornyn is exactly what's going to happen here in South Carolina.
The reason being that voters here are tired of the Senate, the lack of productivity out of the Senate, the lack of prioritization of the people's needs here in America out of the Senate.
And they are attaching that to folks like Lindsey Graham, to folks like John Cornyn and these guys who run Buddy Buddy around the retirement home that we call the Senate.
And so Lindsay's numbers are going to dwindle no matter what.
Everything is working against him.
This is a fight for second.
And so we have there.
So Paul Dan's his momentum is rising.
And we haven't even spent any money in this campaign as of yet.
We're actually dropping a big digital buy as of tomorrow that's going to work on basically increasing his name ID across the state.
You're going to see his numbers surge there.
Lynch is running his campaign, but this is a fight to second place because the June 9th primary runoff in South Carolina is inevitable.
Which is, by the way, really quick, really relatively quick after the first round, unlike Texas.
But just before you bounce, your theory of the case is that Cornyn as another 24-year-old, a 24-year incumbent couldn't get it done in the first round in a runoff.
The grassroots, the separation becomes real.
The grassroots has one person to focus on.
They can get around it.
They see everything that these old senators have been doing to block really the MAGA movement and really block President Trump.
And that comes to the forefront.
In the case of Lindsey Graham, isn't he just going to say, hey, look, the reason I wasn't here and going around to these small town halls and maybe things I should have done, I'm helping President Trump win the war in the Middle East.
What's going to be that?
What do you think the, not the response of the candidates, what do you think the general response of these great patriots in South Carolina?
Because you know South Carolina has got a very strong participation in the military, sir.
Well, the questions that these folks are going to ask is: I get it that you haven't been around in these town halls at these little meetings and everything.
You haven't shown up here, but not only do you go to show up bi-weekly to Israel, or you go and you're buddy-buddy with the sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, but you're going there with checks.
They complain about the 200 billion and the billions we send to Ukraine.
Wait until the 200 billion on the Iran supplemental hits the waves.
10 million illegal immigrants flooded into this country while Joe Biden was president and the Democrats were in charge of the Senate.
And now Democrats want to make it easier for them to have an influence in our elections in the United States.
I believe only citizens of this country ought to vote in American elections.
And I believe you need to show and prove you are who you say you are with a photo ID in order to vote.
It's common sense.
You have to show a photo ID to board a plane, to buy a beer.
Why not to vote?
It's overwhelmingly popular with the American people.
They agree you need to show a photo ID in order to vote.
You know, the Save America Act that we're talking about here and have been through the week on the floor of the United States Senate.
It is the only way that we can make sure we have safe and secure elections that reflect the viewpoints of the American people.
But what the Democrats are doing, they are standing with the extreme minority who say you shouldn't have to show a photo ID.
They're also standing with the extreme minority that don't believe we need a Department of Homeland Security because they continue to vote to keep it closed.
Every one of them is now on the record.
The Democrats in the United States Senate are standing on the side of open borders and illegal voters.
We have the Department of Homeland Security closed right now because apparently my Democratic colleagues are more afraid of ICE than they are of Iran and the challenges that we face now in the conflict internationally that we know that we have threats back in the homeland, but my Democratic colleagues in the Senate just refuse to even pay attention to that at all.
Stacked on top of that is the issue we've been talking about for weeks and we're still working through this weekend to be able to negotiate.
And that is the most basic thing in American life, voting.
The 1965 Voting Rights Act begins with all citizens.
This should not be controversial.
It is already federal law that requires only citizens vote in the United States.
But my understanding from Jenny Beth and Cleta and other people working on this, Neil McCabe, is that behind the scenes, Mike Lee and these say, hey, look, this hasn't been done in 50, 60, 70 years.
We're doing it now, and you're going to get the chance to, you're going to get the chance to actually see legislation that they are committing.
They're going to get to the standing filibuster.
And then from there, they will actually get victory.
Although Tuberville's pretty upfront, he doesn't think we've even got the 51 votes on the Republican side.
Even if you didn't have the filibuster, even if you didn't have the 60 vote to get closure, or even if you didn't have a standing filibuster where they eventually collapsed, he's saying he doesn't think you got 51.
And you heard Makowski yesterday kind of come out against it.
So we're going to cover all that on the Save America Act.
Want to bring it?
Do I have Kobe Bloomfield Gons?
Kobe, the founder and CEO of Chapters.
Kobe, I got to tell you, and we've gotten so much feedback directly from the Warren Posse.
I don't think we've ever had a launch with somebody that's been this positive and kind of a breath of fresh air.
People say, my God, the cavalry finally arrived.
Just talk about the $100 billion of fees out there that in this whole complexity, and I said, and we're going to, I'm going to use you guys too, in that the fact that I have used one of these advisors, right?
And it's very confusing.
And like I said, I worked at Goldman.
I went to Harvard.
But it's too confusing for me.
And I didn't really even understand the deep structure of the industry about these $100 billion of fees annually until you explained it to us.
Also, the fact that you made a point that I think a lot of people forget.
This is not a welfare program.
This is not a social welfare program.
This is something people pay for.
So they ought to get the absolute best deal they can possibly get.
Yeah, as you said, that $100 billion is the amount of money that Americans are overpaying on their Medicare every single year.
It's $100 billion of overspend because the Medicare industry is so complicated and so rife with misaligned incentives.
I started the company after seeing my parents and family struggle with those misaligned incentives and get on the wrong plan.
They had been working with a Medicare advisor who didn't do what was right for them.
And as I peeled back the onion on the industry and learned more about it, because I didn't come from a healthcare or an insurance background, I came from a how do we use data background, I learned that the incentives here are so misaligned and so heavily pushing people towards the insurance carrier.
Every single Medicare advisor in this country, with the exception of chapter, is trying to push people into a plan that earns the insurance carrier more money.
That is just how it works.
That's how 99.9% of the industry works.
And that's really what we're trying to fight against.
And so how do you guys, and by the way, the feedback we've gotten from the testimonials from people, I mean, what's been your, and the companies from the time you came on with Warwick and Posse members.
What's your general assessment of what people had to say?
Because they've come to us directly.
And I mean, it's like, seriously, the besieged homesteaders had the cavalry finally arrive.
When I started the company, I, of course, talked to a lot of the Medicare brokers and the legacy industry, and they all told me that what I wanted to do was either illegal or impossible.
And then I actually read the laws.
I said, okay, is this illegal?
No, it's not.
It's not actually illegal to do what's right for the consumer.
You just don't do that.
And then I looked at all the data feeds and is it possible to get data on every Medicare plan?
It's very hard, but it is possible.
So I took some of the best engineers I worked with at the prior company I worked at, recruited some amazing technical talent from across the country.
These are people who can get jobs at the large tech companies you'd know, but prefer and decide to work on a mission-driven problem that we work on a chapter and join us.
And we take data from every Medicare option across the country.
We take your individual inputs and then we match you with the right plan, whether or not chapter earns any money.
Our team doesn't even know how much money we earn if we earn money.
So every single day, we're signing people up for plans on which chapter earns nothing.
And I just view that as a cost of doing business and a long-term orientation to make sure that people get the right plan for their needs.
And so in that way, we're able to align incentives entirely with the end user.
And if you have all the data, if you have a really good team that is aligned with the incentives of the consumer that they're actually serving, and you set up all the processes and systems and infrastructure, you can do very well by doing very good by people.
And that's really my philosophy and our philosophy as a company.
I'm going to go back, Thuna's coming back to the sticks.
We're going to go back there in a second.
But before I lose you, Kobe, a lot of people have texted me and said, hey, what about if we're in the shape of Kobe's mom?
What about if we did sign up for something and it sucks, but we signed up for it?
Can we still give them a call and can they help us?
Is there any way we can unravel this?
Everybody that's already made unbeknownst to them a bad decision or a decision that's maybe suboptimal, can they still call you guys and you guys will try to work it through with them.
This is a okay, absolutely tell.
Just give me the process of where do people go, what do they call?
Because a ton of people said hey, if I had a clean slate maybe i'd do it, but i'm already locked into this thing and yes, I got anxiety, I got angst and I don't know what I did.
But is it too late for me sir, if you're, if you're already on a Medicare plan, give us a call at 845 Warroom.
That's 845 Warroom.
We are, we have our Medicare advisors, will tell you if you're already on the right plan, if there are options to help you switch, we will help you switch.
It's free to work with us.
Um, and there's really no downside.
Um, if you, if you can save money and get better health coverage, we'll help you do that.
If you're stuck and there's, you know there's less that you can do well, we'll tell you that too, and so at least you'll have confidence in, in the plan that you have.
And uh, if you can save a lot of money, we'll help you do that.
Why, considering the pressure of the president and the right, why would you eventually move to end debate on this if this is so important, especially to the president?
But at the moment, what we are trying to do is ensure that we are having a fulsome debate on an issue that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and one that puts everybody on the record one way or the other.
And so today, obviously, we're going to have a vote later this afternoon on whether or not biological males ought to be able to vote or ought to be able to compete and play in women's sports.
But then we will move to something that Senator Husted.
addressed and that was the piece of legislation he tried to get brought up and passed on the floor and objected to by the Democrats the other night, and we will move to that.
Put that every Democrat on the record.
So the photo id amendment will be the next amendment, and I think all these um things in the Save America Act, as we've all said, are common sense.
We think they're supported by overwhelming majority of Americans and, and in many cases, as senator Housted also pointed out, you had 36 states that have adopted photo id laws.
Why wouldn't we have a nationwide one?
And to hear the Democrats or the leader of the Democrats say, in response to a question, we're not opposed to photo id, but then to block even getting it up and considering it and furthermore, to offer an alternative that bans and prohibits specifically photo id.
I think speaks to where they are.
But we're gonna they're all gonna have to cast that vote.
So we're gonna continue uh, to debate this and at some point we'll uh decide, after we have a sufficient number of votes and and we have um had the opportunity to have that fulsome debate on the floor uh, we'll, we'll decide what to do next.
unidentified
Two questions about specific dispatch on the bill that includes under motivations.
I've heard this pass.
One is that it's effective immediately.
The Greenland Decorate, for example, was phased in ultimately over 20 years.
So there's a lot of ownership in those states to move around.
Because there are just getting sent a Gabbadagook.
And I don't know why, guys, when we spend, I don't know, $7.5 trillion.
Can you put microphones in so people can just use a microphone so the audience can hear them?
Just a recommendation to your comms department.
Tubberville, they're going to get Tubberville's amendment up later on men and women's sports.
They're going to vote on that.
Then Husted, they try to do a unanimous consent.
Was it Merkley of Oregon, which knew one Democrat's going to say, we're not going to do that?
They're going to put that back up today just on photo ID, one item out of the Save America Act and force a vote on that to put the Democrats on the record.
These are what would be called messaging votes.
And then they're going to continue to grind through for the weekend.
And people in the know say that Senator Mikely and others, just because you can kind of sit up there and say, hey, they're making up as they go along.
There is a legislative process here to try to get through this debate and into an actual force them into a standing filibuster.
The good guys that actually want to force this thing and make sure that we can actually break a filibuster and get a piece of legislation to the president of the United States.
President Trump once again reiterates that, you know, the two things that domestically he's hammering nonstop is Tina Peters in a Colorado prison and that you've got to get voter ID and no mailing ballots and all that into the, you know, as a law to grind through this.
So anyway, the Senate, and we're going to be covering this in Real America's voice going to have coverage.
Grace and Mo will have it up streaming so we get to see all of it as we always do.
Is Jan up?
Jan, do I have you?
I know you only got a limited amount of time.
I want to make sure everybody gets access to you and your book as you drive to the New York Times top 10 bestseller.
I think it's now the Chinese Communist Party.
President Trump's told the CCP, hey, if you want to keep the straight of Hormuz open, you ought to have at it.
They're kind of saying, well, no, we're really focused on the Taiwan Straits and what we want to do there.
We do know, and Joe Allen and Mark Beal are going to join us in a second to talk about AI.
The Chinese Communist Party, once again, caught red-handed illegally with espionage, taking $2.1 billion of advanced chips from NVIDIA through a basically a front organization for the Chinese Communist Party that happens to trade publicly in the United States of America.
People, to understand the depth of depravity of this regime, right?
You know, the one thing that's really crazy to me, I'll just be straight up with you, okay?
They've got the leg up on us on a whole bunch of technologies, including EVs, solar, and stuff like that.
That's been their strategic policy, basically dump into our market, get rid of those companies basically because they can't survive, and then basically build into it and then start selling to us, right?
So we still have the upper hand in AI.
You know, there's an amazing testimony recently by a Georgetown assistant professor, Rush Doshi, about this.
We still have the upper hand in AI, but we're kind of like way too easily kind of giving it away and allowing for these loopholes.
And perhaps this particular insanity, I mean, these chips, these servers that were basically taken, those have all sorts of military applications.
This is the top end stuff.
We cannot allow this.
We have to not just have the export controls, but have the teeth to stop this stuff from getting out.
It's just, I think they've taken advantage of our greed.
I mean, I don't know.
I can't speak to any individual person, but I'm just scratching my head.
Like a world, listen, this is, I keep saying this, right?
If China under the Communist Party runs AI and builds those language models and starts to dominate, we're going to have the worst kind of mindset.
This is kind of the big themes in my book, okay?
So it's a bit about this horrible forced organ harvest industry, but a big part of it is how this is the perfect way to understand the mind of the CCP.
And the mind of the CCP is psychopathic.
That's one way to describe it.
And, you know, and we know that whatever our biases are, however we think gets into these language models, we don't want that.
Guys, like it doesn't matter how much money it is.
Listen, this issue is something I couldn't even talk to people about for the longest time because they would basically zone out literally in the middle of conversations.
It's too macabre, right?
But right now, in all books on Amazon, U.S. Amazon, number 131, we might be able to take it through the top 100, right?
And get on some major bestseller lists.
And that this issue then gets blown into the mainstream.
And I mean, this is what I've been dreaming about for years.
Okay.
Why?
Because it's so critical.
It's not just a horrible crime against humanity, which we need to end and at least end our own complicity.
I think we can do that, but it's also we have to understand who we're really dealing with.
Joe, we had this big, you know, the Warren Posse stood up with your leadership.
We shut down the big, beautiful bill and the amnesty bill.
We shut down in the NDAA, a must-pass piece of legendary, the amnesty bill.
In fact, they pull it out.
They were so humiliated.
They promised and they came back with a framework.
Now, the President of the United States, he's got wars and economy and everything in the world on his shoulders.
This thing came out.
In fact, I'm going to let the audience hear from our own Joe Allen.
Joe, because, Joe, one thing I think people have learned about you in the last five years, you're a good man.
You've got a good heart.
You're not a political guy.
You're not part of the DC swamp.
Although now, unfortunately, I think you would say you have to spend a lot of time in D.C. What is your frank and blunt assessment of this framework, sir?
Well, Steve, I got to say, hanging around D.C., I definitely have some high rubber boots to wade through the swamp and the other nasty fluids floating around here.
Yet the national policy framework was just released by the White House.
And if you are a tech executive or a tech worker, then this is basically anything you want to do handed to you on a silver platter with the possibility that you may get a light slap on the wrist if people notice that you are flooding the entire culture with non-human minds that have been created by your data and are used intentionally to replace you.
If you are a tech worker, you're good until, of course, your coding job is replaced by one of these non-human minds.
If you're a CEO, you're great.
If you are in Congress, at the very least, you don't have to concern yourself too much with what you're going to do about it because the national policy framework basically instructs Congress point by point by point from child protection to copyright to the preemption clauses.
It instructs Congress not to do this, not to do that, particularly on child protection.
Yes, they do say that the Take It Down Act should be enforced, and so any image that's created of a child should be pulled down.
That's great.
Good job.
They also state that the companies should enforce some kind of age gating, which raises a lot of questions about digital identity and rights online, but at least it's an attempt.
But it also includes the recommendation that Congress not hold these companies liable.
Remember, these are companies like Meta who had in their own internal standards the use of generative AI to seduce children as young as eight years old.
Those companies, according to this policy framework, should not be held liable and be embroiled in any sort of undue and burdensome liability accusations.
And then I think maybe the most onerous of the recommendations is that copyright and free speech should be the privilege of AI companies and their systems, meaning that if an AI company uses copyrighted material to train their model, which then goes on to create anything from artwork to literature, whatever,
that the companies themselves should be shielded from any kind of copyright litigation.
It also goes on to say that free speech should be protected, not free speech of human beings, free speech of artificial intelligence systems.
You know, we've talked a lot about AI personhood, AI being treated as if it were a person.
What they are talking about is that if an AI reads your book or if an AI watches your movie, then it's that AI's right to create something on the basis of it.
If an AI is spitting out Hitler slurs or if an AI is spitting out a bunch of woke stuff, it is the AI's right, the free speech right.
And all of this is wrapped in preemption, that the states, with a few exceptions, with law enforcement and education, the states should not be passing laws related to artificial intelligence.
It should be the federal government.
And of course, the instruction is that Congress should not do much of anything.
And look, he's absolutely correct that we have to be the dominant player, there's no doubt.
But you saw yesterday that the Chinese Communist Party is using every means possible to get the chips from Jensen Wong.
We got to cut that off 100%.
We have first, in any military campaign, number one, you make sure that the enemy is completely shut off, completely shut off.
This is a big question now in Iran about to Secretary Besant.
Where's that $14 billion going?
Is it going to pay for this?
Is it going to pay for this war or is it going to go to the MULAs to help them pay that 140 million barrels?
Well, same thing here in this situation.
The Chinese Communist Party should have no access whatsoever to anything in the ecosystem of AI, including the chips.
So President Trump is naturally an acceleration in that regard, right?
And that's not a problem.
What a problem is the oligarchs, their ideas of acceleration and President Trump's ideas of acceleration, because in his executive order, there are some of these things that were covered that are not covered in this framework.
The duty of care totally shifts to the parents in a world of overwhelming technology, overwhelming money against you, overwhelming to get every access to your kid possible, right?
As much and hard as you try to do as a parent.
And look at those people Joe Allen interviewed in the streets that day when they had that quorum, all the heart-rendering stories, as good as they tried to do, the social media got to them, right?
The duty of care goes to the parents.
No, no, this is not going to happen.
And you overplayed your hand again.
They're up in your freaking grill.
These people don't learn until you play Smash Mouth.
So, Sachs, you want to play Smash Mouth?
Bring it.
We're ready.
Okay.
Once again, this is no different than the freaking amnesty bill you stuffed in there.
It's no different than the second time you try to put in the NDA.
You try to do a little bit better.
And this is in your face.
And this is why the country's on fire.
And quite frankly, this gives the moral high ground to Ron DeSantis.
You want to do preemption and stop the states.
You're just going to fire up the states.
People say, hey, look, we gave you, the president signed a thing, gave you 100 days or 90 days to come up with it.
And all you did was get up on our grill with something that's not acceptable at any level.
Joe, hang on for a second.
Mark Beal, I realize you're much more level-handed in this.
But look, Marsha, let me just take an example.
Marsha Blackburn, the guys in the house, Marsha Blackburn has gone out of her way to say, hey, look, I'm really concerned about this one thing of the children's protection.
She's tried to do something.
They blew her off.
They're blowing the states off.
They blew people in the house off.
They think they got the money.
They got the power.
They got the lobbyists.
They got the law firms.
They got media in back of them.
They got it all, right?
And they got these stooges on the right that are sitting there going, oh, you guys are just for woke II.
We're not for woke AI, but we're not going to let a bunch of progressives, you morons, you're sitting there with the most progressive guys in the universe that have already screwed up social media, and you're nothing but paid hacks for them.
Hey, Steve, yeah, it's a bit of a tale of two AI policies right now in Washington, D.C. and the Republican Party.
You had this framework that was released by the White House, and then you have the counterproposal by Senator Blackburn.
And I think if you look at the White House proposal, it is a little bit of a head scratcher.
These guys had three months or something, then they came out with a couple of bullet points with three, you know, 31 space spacing in the middle of that document.
And then Marsha comes out with a 291-page, like very detailed proposal that actually tries to solve some of these core issues.
And I think, as you mentioned, the duty of care is something that I think many Americans felt we got wrong for social media policy.
People may be aware of something called Section 230, which was basically an amnesty bill for the tech industry.
And then I think people want to do this again today with AI.
And I think the American people have had enough of it.
Well, I think we remember, I mean, I grew up in the 9-11 era and the global war on terrorism.
And I remember the kind of tech industry sitting out most of that.
And to hear them come in in the last 10 years talking a lot about China and national security, I think, right to be a little skeptical of that.
Because if you want to win against China and you want to do so in a way that remains consistent with American founding principles, then you don't go about doing the things that you're doing.
And so I think China, the specter of China winning this AI race has become a bit of a boogeyman, a bit of a cudgel to use to basically avoid any kind of accountability.
And remember, Steve, this industry, really for the last 30 years has not ever been told that it can't do something.
And so in some respects, it's having a little bit of a temper tantrum right now when the public is resisting some of these things, or at least trying to, I think everyone recognizes, like, America has to win on AI.
And we have to do it in a way that's consistent with what our constitutional framers put In place in 1789.
And in order for us to do that, it means we cannot beat China.
We cannot come China to beat China.
That's unacceptable.
We have to figure out the American way of doing this.
And right now, this proposal on the table is not that.
Folks, with everything going on, and I don't mean to say this in a bad way, but the Save America Act and the effort they're putting in there is nothing that behind the scenes, the real fight for control of this country and control where this country is going is right here.
And we're 1,000 million percent for the Save America Act.
But we're also for mass deportations and for making sure the oligarchs do not make the decisions about AI and where it goes as a country, not technologically.
You don't have medical freedom until you have the freedom to talk to a physician or talk to a medical professional and get the prescriptions that you need and need today.
I want people to know they want to know where to go that you've got up now at JoeBot and also at Humans First and get more information.
Folks, for the next couple of weeks, this is going to be another firestorm we're going to have to be involved in.
And I would love to tell you that it's not, but it is, because this is a big fight for the direction of the country, the world, humanity, and our species.
I don't know, just something small like that, right?
Joe, you're at Humans for you've helped kind of launch this Humans First.
I didn't feel a lot of Humans First in this framework.
Give me a minute on that, sir, and then tell me where to go over the weekend and get more information.
You know, Steve, my path here to DC over the last 10 months has been traveling around the country, talking to all kinds of people, including tech workers.
And what I see is we have families, we have people trying to build and support those families by working.
And we have people who are praying for prosperity, survival, and if they screw up, praying for forgiveness.
Now, you look at who this national policy framework is enabling.
It's enabling people like Google, enabling people like XAI, Anthropic, OpenAI.
What is the predominant goal of every single one of all the heads of those companies, most of the people in those companies?
It is a trans-human future.
And for some of them, a post-human future.
They want to build machines that replace your work.
They want to build machines that have access to and are influencing or even controlling your children.
And they want to build machines that are the equivalent here on earth to God.
It is profoundly anti-human.
And the reason I support a humans-first policy is because that's who we are.
That's who the government should be defending, not giving copyright protection to AIs, not giving free speech protection to AIs, but to us Americans, human Americans.
And so that is very, very simple, I think.
It should be ridiculous to say, but it has to be said.
We have to have humans first in politics, in culture, and in our religion.
There are two Marine Expeditionary Forces with the USS Boxer leaving San Diego from Japan, the Tripoli, 5,000 fleet Marines, combat Marines ready to go if called for capability.
They're also talking about commando special forces on a raid.
If not in Carg Island, then to get the nuclear material out.
So it'll be special for, once again, SEALs, Army Special Forces, Rangers, Green Berets, Delta, all of it called once again.
Hopefully we can find an off-ramp before we actually have to put boots on the ground.
Then if we do, the question is, where are they going to put them on Carg Island?
And if we do take Carg Island, the next question is, what's the end game?
How long do we hold this island for?
And at what cost?
Because the whole Iranian coastline has caves and mountains and they have people hiding in there with weapons all over the place.
So that's the question.
Then the special operations side, did they go in and get the 60% enriched uranium at what cost?
And do we know exactly where it is?
I guess that's a big thing at what cost.
The special operations guys are going to be good at it.
We have 82nd Airborne on standby also, but I just hope that we don't get sucked into another endless war.
Hopefully, I think the boots on the ground, the special operations piece can be done relatively quick, but the Carg Island holding that, that's very questionable.
Most of them are not enthusiastic, but there's a few that are.
I mean, there's always going to be, I think it's a split decision, you know, but most of the guys I talked to are not enthusiastic about this because most of the guys voted for no more wars.
So here we are.
But, you know, I know guys that support it big time.