Stephen K. Bannon and Linda Sinkiewicz join host Stephen K. Haanwell in the War Room to discuss abortion, immigration, and the Catholic Church's position on abortion and the lesser of two evils. They are joined by special guest and conservative icon Joe Biden.
00:12:09.640Just a letter affirming that a name and the name of the letter of which there's no proof that the person presenting that letter is the person contained in the letter, presumably.
00:12:35.160We have, after the break, Marley Hornick coming on, who said, and I'm going to confront her with this, because I remember when she was last on the show, she said, and this is levelatory to me, but I'll need to clarify it with her after the break.
00:12:47.580She said something along the lines that it is the obligation, the legal obligation on the state to prove, to demonstrate that those voting have the eligibility to do so.
00:13:00.540I'm going to run what you said, Pastor, because I can see huge legal challenges on this, because they're obviously not fulfilling their own state and federal statutory obligations.
00:13:17.240So tell me briefly, we've got like a minute before the break, or perhaps we might indeed need to hold you over the break.
00:13:24.840What are you guys doing to oppose North Carolina and Connecticut on these maneuvers?
00:13:33.060Well, we're not actually opposing them because we're not into the litigation process, but the RNC in North Carolina, again, is stepping forward with that fight as far as they have a lawsuit.
00:13:48.140This is their fourth lawsuit against North Carolina.
00:13:52.100Us, we're just getting the word out there.
00:13:54.280We're working on a number of other things here in Connecticut that we should have together another week or so, that if you think you are astonished at the lack of responsibility and making sure that elections are absolutely only U.S. citizens and only people that live in the states, you're going to be surprised what we found out.
00:14:14.780So we also are having, as we had before, a number of people requesting our double-registered, double-voter data.
00:14:23.700We've got the new data ready, and it's been going out.
00:14:27.400We've been getting it to thousands of people.
00:14:30.880This will help you with either your challenges, even on Election Day, or know the people that should have been removed.
00:14:37.900So you just go to our website, fightvoterfraud.org.
00:14:41.420We've had thousands of people sending letters to the Secretary of State when we promoted a few weeks ago about the Nevada Secretary of State and how to find the illegals.
00:16:22.220Linda Sinkowitz, two other pieces of news that you're bringing to the posse's attention this morning.
00:16:31.980Some mixed use from New Hampshire and some better news in Pennsylvania.
00:16:36.420Okay, so in New Hampshire, Governor Sununu has signed into law a bill that would require people to be not only U.S. citizens, but they would have to show their ID or a passport.
00:16:52.180And it also has to do with the fact that there will be no exceptions at all, which is phenomenal.
00:17:00.180So there's not going to be provisional ballots how they've had them before, you know, that you bring ID later and everybody always counts those anyway.
00:17:37.160I don't think there's anything more sinister because sometimes laws don't go into effect for several months.
00:17:44.540I just think it's great the fact that it was actually signed.
00:17:48.900So in the future, you know, we'll know and people will know that New Hampshire is one of the ones on board that actually respects our election integrity.
00:17:58.340Yes, fantastic result, a model for all of the states in the union.
00:18:03.780Okay, so Pennsylvania has, with their mail-in ballots, I guess I've never seen one myself, but you have to put the date on the envelope that comes in.
00:18:18.520Well, the Democrats had brought forward the fact that it was just too much for people to be able to comprehend on how to put a date and that it would be a problem for people.
00:18:29.280And that their absentee ballots would get kicked out.
00:18:32.540So the lower court said, oh, yes, you're right.
00:18:35.380You don't, you know, it's too much for people to put a date on this.
00:18:39.420And it was brought to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
00:18:42.180And the Supreme Court said, no, no, they need to put the date on there to make sure it complies with state statutes.
00:18:50.580So, again, that was another win for Pennsylvania trying to ensure election integrity.
00:18:56.620Even though it's one small step, I think it's fantastic.
00:20:17.180And only U.S. citizens should vote in the United States.
00:20:20.460By the way, Linda, I saw something on YouTube yesterday, some publicity there, that it was advertising, and I used the scare quotes, Americans abroad to vote in the forthcoming election register to make sure that they register to vote in the forthcoming election.
00:20:41.960Obviously, they were stressing that this program is for Americans who are overseas and who need to vote.
00:20:49.240But given, as you've been recounting this morning, the pretty low threshold or non-existent threshold necessary to demonstrate that, one wonders – I've not seen this kind of –
00:21:00.740I've obviously – my YouTube account is obviously registered in Italy.
00:21:05.340So when they're throwing that advert out in this territory, they know what they're doing, and I'm sure they're doing it elsewhere.
00:21:44.020The states have an ironclad responsibility under the second section of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution to both prevent any qualified eligible citizen voter from having their vote denied, right?
00:21:59.660Everyone who is allowed to vote has to be able to vote, and they have to prevent any invalid registrant from casting an invalid vote procured through corruption.
00:22:12.880The states have to equally protect against denial of the vote and dilution of the vote.
00:22:18.680And the only way to protect against dilution of the vote is for the state to prevent themselves from giving anyone a ballot who doesn't meet the qualification and eligibility requirements of state, federal, and constitutional law.
00:22:34.820So what the question is then is, can you prove that the state has done that?
00:22:39.160And that is exactly what the United Sovereign Americans' mandamus lawsuits already filed in nine U.S. states covering 173 electoral college votes have prepositioned as an argument at law, is that the states have already done this.
00:22:57.440In 20 states, United Sovereign Americans found 29 million facially invalid registration records.
00:23:05.540This has nothing to do with citizenship.
00:23:07.620These are people named asterisk who are registered to vote equally to you.
00:23:17.280There's multiple ways to be illegal in the voter rolls.
00:23:21.880And out of those 29 million registrants, the states allowed 10 million of them to cast votes.
00:23:29.520They counted these votes equally to qualified eligible citizen voters' votes, which is a deprivation of rights acting under color of law.
00:23:39.220Our lawsuits clearly state this civil rights abridgment, this fundamental civil rights abridgment of the founding principle of United States of America, representative government, already happened in 2022.
00:23:57.380It already took place because here's the law and here's the state's records and boom, they did it.
00:24:03.160Now, what we're arguing is all of our plaintiffs, many of whom have been spending the last, you know, two to four years of their lives doing nothing other than researching these issues and bringing them to the attention of the states, they haven't been able to get the states to remedy the problem.
00:24:22.580So what we have prepositioned is that if the states, so the mandamus orders the state to follow the law in 2024, because we have 51 days left.
00:24:32.420We can't start talking about what a strategy would be.
00:29:43.380Before we go to Bruce and hear about his challenges, Marley, could you just repeat what you were saying before the break about these two legal actions that you were involved with in Michigan and Montana?
00:29:57.600Well, just to clarify, we're involved in legal actions under Bruce's representation.
00:30:05.160He's our litigation manager for United Sovereign Americans.
00:30:07.960We filed lawsuits in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Colorado.
00:30:17.740What I was going to bring up is issues from the primary elections in Michigan and Montana that United Sovereign Americans analysts have already returned data for indicating that the problems are continuing and that the need for permanent restraining orders is very likely to be real during the administrative process.
00:30:37.580And Bruce can talk about how we've prepositioned that.
00:30:47.740Well, the lawsuits have the thread that runs through all of them, that there are minimum standards that Congress has put into place that require that elections meet a certain threshold before they can be certified.
00:31:07.700So the idea is that anything by man is going to have the possibility of being imperfect.
00:31:16.120So the question is, how do we make it as close to perfect as possible so that you can have confidence in the outcome of the election, that the results are worthy of certification and of belief?
00:31:27.400And it turns out that Congress has passed a couple of laws that give us a formula for deciding what that threshold is.
00:31:36.680And the United Sovereign Americans people in their analysis have demonstrated, to my satisfaction anyway, that the states in which we filed lawsuits did not meet those threshold requirements in the 2022 federal election, which was the last federal election.
00:31:53.500And despite being told of these problems in the interim, have done nothing to fix them, so that in 2024, 2026, et cetera, the federal elections will continue to have the same problems, presumably, and that the federal court needs to step in and tell those government officials that are required to enforce the law to do their jobs,
00:32:17.040starting with the federal elections, starting with the federal elections, who is supposed to see that congressional mandates are carried out, and then those state officials whose job it is under the U.S. Constitution to act as quasi-federal officials in supervising federal elections to do their jobs.
00:33:06.380I mean, the concept of mandamus is you target a specific duty that a government official is required to perform, a ministerial duty.
00:33:18.380So we can't ask the federal court to tell the public officials how to go about doing their duties.
00:33:24.380We can just ask the federal court to order the public official to do it.
00:33:28.380And in this instance, we have statistical proof that in 2022, the elections were not done in accordance with congressional mandates.
00:33:38.380And the federal and state officials responsible for making sure that those mandates are carried out haven't done anything in order to repair the issues so that in 2024 and subsequent federal elections, they would be done correctly.
00:33:57.380So I'm not asking the federal judge to order the attorney general and the secretaries of states of individual states how to do their jobs.
00:34:07.380I'm just ordering them to to make them do it.
00:34:10.380And that's the difference between a mandamus action and an injunction where an injunction is requiring public officials to do a particular thing here.
00:34:25.380And the end result of doing nothing then the end result of doing nothing is appears to be a civil rights violation to all eligible citizen voters because the main thing the states failed to do is prevent against clear dilution of the vote when their error rates are wildly in excess of the maximum error Congress allows for.
00:34:50.380So I think I've understood the difference between an injunction and a mandamus action.
00:35:06.380So Bruce Cassidy, just to put it in your in terms of your own definition, an injunction is is illegal getting a court order effectively constraining a public official to do a certain function.
00:35:18.380And among mandamus order, presumably, then it's just that they do something to use your own definition.
00:35:26.380What are the consequences of them not doing it?
00:35:32.380Well, to pick up on what Marley said, the the point of all this is that every person who votes expects their vote to be counted the same power as every other person who votes.
00:35:43.380So if there are a whole lot of votes that should not have been counted, it dilutes the value of the individuals who followed the rules and voted correctly and had the machines count their vote correctly and had the tabulators properly index their their vote.
00:36:00.380So it reduces the power of any individual in the vote that they cast, because if you have 150 people voting and 50 of them aren't supposed to have been able to vote, your vote now counts a lot less than if it was 100 out of 100, because you're one out of 150 when you should have been one out of 100.
00:36:24.380And that's the that's the main deleterious effect that comes out of failing to follow the rules.
00:36:31.380So the upshot of all this is I'm sorry, go ahead.
00:36:38.380The upshot of all this is is is is there there is a specific series of things that these public officials are supposed to do.
00:36:51.380I'm looking at this in a linear fashion.
00:36:54.380I'm asking the federal judges in the states in which we filed to to ascertain that we are right, that the that there were these violations of congressional mandates and order the attorney general of the United States and the relevant state officials to do their jobs and make sure that these errors don't occur in future federal elections.
00:37:18.380Now, beyond that, anybody who has been damaged as a result of having their vote count less, I suggest, have a civil rights cause of action against anybody who failed to do their duty and are damaged in respect of having not been able to participate in the electoral process at the same level as they were supposed to have been able to do.
00:37:44.380And they could have causes of action, civil causes of action, and in some cases even criminal causes of action against the public officials that fail to do their duty upon notice.
00:38:20.380What is the consequence for a public official then?
00:38:23.380If you win, if you win before the federal court with these mandamus actions, what is the consequence?
00:38:33.380What would be the consequence if the receiver of this court order just ignores it?
00:38:40.380What would that would be the consequences then?
00:38:44.380Well, if the court ordered the public officials to do what we're asking and then they refuse to do it, there would be fines associated with that.
00:38:53.380And and upon sufficient failure to comply would be jail terms.
00:39:03.380I'm old enough to remember when federal judges were ordering state officials to engage in desegregation and carry out congressional mandates involving civil rights in schools.
00:39:17.380And what happens is federal judges then take over the process and demand constant updates and reports and appoint officials to monitor that the state officials are carrying out the congressional mandates as as ordered by the federal judge.
00:39:35.380And, you know, if the if they're not doing it or the state officials not doing it quickly enough where the United States Attorney General is not enforcing the court's order, then those officials can be brought before the court and and sanctioned in in usually financial ways.
00:39:54.380But in extreme cases can be sanctioned in in civil contempt proceedings to put them in prison until they will comply.
00:40:04.380But those things historically haven't happened.
00:40:06.380And it's, you know, an entire generation, probably two generations of people don't remember when federal courts did these sorts of things, when they saw massive ignoring of congressional mandates by the states.
00:40:19.380And the only mechanism to make states do what Congress is requiring is to get federal judges to step in and order that the that the congressional mandates be followed.
00:40:36.380But ultimately, what I envision happening is the judge will order a a procedure where whereby individual states are monitored by court appointed officials and report back to the court on progress in implementing the court's findings.
00:40:54.800And in the short term, I envision the court requiring the use of provisional ballots that would then be counted when there was more time after the election, but pre-certification and ascertain each one whether they were properly cast.
00:41:11.940This is going to be a very difficult thing, but it isn't as though we haven't done this in history.
00:41:16.940I mean, it has happened plenty of times where Congress has imposed its will on the states and the states have refused to follow congressional requirements.
00:41:25.940I wish I wish I wish we had a whole hour to break this down because it's so important.
00:41:32.940But thank you for the exposition on what you're doing.
00:41:36.940Molly, just quickly in the 30 seconds, where can folks go to get involved and participate more in this in what you're doing?
00:41:47.940Sure, unite for freedom.com is where you can sign up to get involved.
00:41:53.940That's where you can learn about how you're going to help us gather real time evidence starting at early voting and through the administrative process.
00:42:00.940Because if we can demonstrate already on a material basis in real time that the states have failed to follow a lawful process in the counting of votes,
00:42:12.940that will significantly improve our chances at blocking what would be certification on a basis of perjury of a sham process.
00:42:21.940The citizens of America have to protect our right to vote when we see all across the country, the election officials, state officials, they're going to stand down on this.
00:42:32.940But we cannot stand down because there's too much on the line.
00:42:36.940We have a beautiful history here. We've inherited a wonderful opportunity to live in liberty and perpetuity and to protect that for our children and our children's children.
00:42:46.940And we cannot let up when one hair, we cannot let up.
00:44:20.940What if you could have the brightest mind in the war room providing you with financial research every single month?
00:44:26.940As listeners know, Jim Rickards is our wise man in the war room.
00:44:30.940His unparalleled understanding of the intersection between geopolitics and capital markets is invaluable.
00:44:36.940Imagine having access to Jim's insights every month.
00:44:40.940His newsletter, Strategic Intelligence, is a must read for anyone concerned about the financial future of our country and protecting your own wealth.
00:44:49.940Jim has a knack for making the complex simple.
00:44:52.940Strategic Intelligence cuts through the noise and delivers actionable financial guidance.
00:45:20.940Mortgage rates, which have fallen to the lowest level since February of 2023.
00:45:25.940What does this mean for the housing market?
00:45:28.940It's a good news, but not amazing news.
00:45:31.940We're down about 6.2%, which, by the way, is the lowest since 2023.
00:45:36.940But, you know, one of the problems, and we've talked about it before on this program, is you have this lock in effect.
00:45:43.940So many people who got 30 year mortgages in 2018, 19, 20, 21, and perhaps even before that, you know, at rates that were, you know, 3%, 3.5%.
00:45:55.940And so the monthly cost of selling your home and moving is still so much higher.
00:46:02.940And so you have this mobility problem, physical mobility problem, but it's also impacted, by the way, the labor market.
00:46:08.940Because people are less willing to say, you know what, I'm going to go take a job in another state because I'm going to have to sell my home, and then I'm going to have to buy a new home.
00:46:15.940And even though the new home may cost the same as the old home, my monthly cost is going to be that much higher.
00:46:20.940So it's good news that rates are coming down, there's no question.
00:46:23.940But we are still so far from where we were two and three and four years ago that I think it's going to be very hard to, quote unquote, feel that effect, at least in the immediate term.
00:46:33.940So it seems to me that MSNBC are struggling to put their lipstick on a pig there.
00:46:43.940Sophia George, you study quite attentively all movements in the housing market.
00:46:50.940And both MSNBC and Axios are going big on the fact that the 30-year fixed mortgage rate is down to the lowest point since early 2023.
00:47:05.940The reason I suggest that they're trying to put lipstick on a pig here is they're entirely forgetting proceeding basically 15 years.
00:47:14.940That's just being airbrushed away. And hopefully, I think the strategy is hit people over the head so much talking about joy that they'll completely forget that that's the case, that the figures, that the housing rate, the 30-year average, had actually gone down, been going down, trending downwards for 15 years beforehand.
00:47:37.940What's your reading on this? And then I want to know specifically about what's going on because you've been studying this to do with the consumer price index in the battleground states.
00:47:48.940This is, you know, this is the reality, the economic reality that I think the Democratic Party mainstream media complex really don't want folk thinking about.
00:47:59.940Yes, absolutely. So what we've been seeing is that 62% of current homeowners have mortgage rates that are less than 4%.
00:48:10.260And 86% of these homeowners have rates that are less than 6%.
00:48:15.480So this lock-in effect that they were referring to is real.
00:48:19.780We have an inventory problem in the country in regards to housing.
00:48:24.040There's not enough houses out there for the demand.
00:48:26.500The affordability has dropped off, but it has not dropped, the amount of demand has not dropped off at the same rate as we are seeing the inventory.
00:48:36.840During the Trump administration from 2017 to 2021, interest rates actually decreased by 32%, from 4.1% to 2.8%.
00:48:48.640From 2021 to date, we have seen the rates increase from 2.8% up to 7%.
00:48:55.600So that is really the key figure here in our analysis of these rates.
00:49:01.540Sophia, let me just – we've got to wheel back and repeat those figures.
00:49:05.700Because they're doing cartwheels on MSNBC, talking about 6.2%, as if this is a great achievement for the Biden regime.
00:49:16.120What was that figure you said, just mentioned, the lowest point under Donald Trump?
00:49:39.820As I think it was at Morning Mika, I think, in her segment, was doing cartwheels at 6.2%.
00:49:47.600That's an interesting two figures for people to compare and contrast.
00:49:53.120That's what, folks, that's what you get – that's the choice you have.
00:50:00.720You have mean tweets and 2.8% 30-year fixed mortgage, or the adults in the room and normalcy at 6.2%.
00:50:12.980And that's how you're going to feel that in your pocketbook.
00:50:20.200And I also just want to add – I also just want to add that even that speculation of reducing the mortgage rate by 0.25%,
00:50:28.200it may actually cause home prices to go up because it's not going to be enough to have these homeowners out there come out of that lock-in effect.
00:50:38.080It may be just enough to get a few more buyers out there looking for homes.
00:50:42.520So all that's going to do is increase the demand and potentially increase prices.
00:50:47.400I think the attempt, my reading on this, is that they're desperate for the Fed to lower rates,
00:50:55.020to give a sugar rush to the economy or to the consumer,
00:50:58.480so that they feel desperately in the remaining time before November that they still – that they're doing well financially.
00:51:05.660And hopefully they'll forget the preceding four years.
00:51:10.320Look, we're going to have to go into a break in just a couple of moments.
00:51:13.940Can you just say something in 30 seconds?