Hearts of Oak Podcast

Todd Bensman - OVERRUN: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History

Show Notes and Transcript
Todd Bensman, a Senior National Security Fellow, joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his book "OVERRUN" focusing on how Joe Biden's policies have led to the current border crisis. He highlights the role of progressive Democrats in this issue and emphasizes that most immigrants are seeking economic opportunities. Todd talks about the collaboration between the US and Mexico, the use of technology for legal crossings, and challenges posed by individuals from terrorism-prone countries. He suggests immediate deportation measures and disrupting support networks as potential solutions to the crisis, stressing informed decision-making. Todd's insights provide valuable perspectives on immigration policies and their implications.
OVERRUN: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History Available from Amazon in book e-book and audio-book  https://amzn.eu/d/233iYg9
Todd Bensman is an editorialist and investigative author of the 2023 book OVERRUN, How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History and also America’s Covert Border War: The Untold Story of the Nation’s Battle to Prevent Jihadist Infiltration. The two-time National Press Club award winner, a former journalist of 23 years, currently serves as the Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a Washington, D.C. policy institute for which he writes reporting-based opinion editorials, speaks, and grants media interviews about the nexus between immigration and national security. He frequently reports from the southern border, traveling widely inside Mexico and in Central America. He has testified before Congress as an expert witness and regularly appears on radio and television outlets to discuss illegal immigration and border security matters.He writes columns and editorials about homeland security and terrorism subjects for The New York Post, The Daily Mail Online, The American Mind, Homeland Security Today, Townhall, The Federalist, The Daily Wire, The National Interest, and other publications. He serves as a Writing Fellow for the Middle East Forum and also teaches terrorism, intelligence analysis, and journalism as a university adjunct lecturer.For nearly a decade prior to joining CIS in August 2018, Bensman led counterterrorism intelligence for the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division and its multi-agency fusion center. Before his homeland security service, Bensman worked as a reporter for more than two decades, covering national security after 9/11 as an investigative staff writer for major newspapers
Connect with Todd...X/TWITTER       x.com/BensmanToddGETTR               gettr.com/user/tbensmanTRUTH              truthsocial.com/@toddbensmanWEBSITE           www.toddbensman.com
Interview recorded  17.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.orgPODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.comSOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connectSHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X/Twitter x.com/TheBoschFawstin
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
I'm delighted to have Todd Bensman join me today, just after he was on the WarRoom, actually. Todd, it's great to have you. Thanks so much for giving us your time.
(Todd Bensman)
Happy to do it. Thank you.
No, not at all. Just for, obviously, people can find you @BensmanTodd on Twitter, and ToddBensman.com is the website. We'll get into all of those. You currently serve as Texas-based Senior National Security Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies. You're the author of Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History, published just over a year ago, and America's Covert Border War, the Untold Story of Nations Battle to Prevent Jihadist Infiltration. I would love to talk to you just on that book, but I'm going to keep it wider on immigration. And of course, you've over 20 years in journalism. And you've got an interesting mix, I think, Todd, of kind of policy intelligence and journalism. And when I mentioned to some friends in the States, I was catching up with you over there. They all said, Todd, he's the real deal. He's one of the few journalists that really understand what is happening in terms of the border and the invasion. Now, obviously, the WarRoom, they know you. Maybe they're UK viewers. We have half and half US-UK. So maybe for the UK viewers, could you introduce yourself, Todd?
Yeah, I thought you did a pretty good job there. But yeah, I work for a think tank out of DC that that deals with immigration.
Prior to that, had a career, full career as a newspaper reporter for 23 years. That's my main background. I got a undergraduate and graduate degree in journalism. And then when I finished my journalism career, I was recruited to join the Texas Department of Public Safety, which is the big state police agency here in Texas to to work in their intelligence division which I did for another ten years after that so I definitely and then I have another master's degree in homeland defense and security from the Naval Postgraduate School, So I have that kind of a hybridized background and now I'm working for a think tank. So I'm kind of bringing it all together in one place, you know, reporting down on the border all the time, down in Central America, all over Mexico, all over our border to kind of get, you know, a bird's eye view of what's actually happening on the ground. And probably interviewed thousands of immigrants down there over the last few years.
Well, maybe I can just start, touch on the book Overrun: How Joe Biden unleashed the greatest border crisis in U.S. history. I've had it as an audio book and I've been listening to it. I know it's available hardback and paperback. And on the back, it says the time has come to acknowledge and comprehend that America is weathering the worst mass border migration event in the nation's history. Millions of foreign nationals have overrun the border starting on Inauguration Day 2021, and millions will flow over until the end of President Joe Biden's term in 2024. Maybe you can tell me why you wanted to put it together, because it is a comprehensive overview of the Biden administration, actually what they have done in terms of mass immigration. So maybe what led you up to beginning to put pen to paper and actually bringing this book together?
[4:12] Sure. Well, remember, I live in Texas. I've been doing journalism in Texas and Intel. So I'm very familiar with the numbers in any average year. And I saw that what was happening that started on Inauguration Day was something really large, unusually large. It was a really mammoth event. I could tell within six months, the numbers had broken every record in the U.S. history books of people coming over. And when you have an event, and then it just kept going, I mean, it was just like, it never stopped. The numbers just were absolutely in the millions and millions a year that we know about, that we just caught, with millions more going through uncaught. And I recognize that we're in the middle of a historic event in American history, history and maybe even world history and to me, maybe it's the old journalist in me it seems like when history is in the making and you're in position to see it somebody should write a book, you should write a book about that, that warrants a book at least, a first brush at recording this history and I hope others will follow in my footsteps and keep going, right now I'm the only one, though.
Yeah, that's what it seems. I mean, what was the there must have been pushback because there have been quite a number of journalists who go to the border. It seems to be for a trip for footage and go away. And you seem to have really understood more of what is happening. I'm sure there must have been some pushback from different sources because the story you tell is a harrowing tale of the destruction and dismantling of American borders.
Well, I mean, it's the book and the story of what happened here today falls right evenly, squarely on the partisan divide. The American left completely ignores my book, will not acknowledge it or even take it on or try to challenge it, which they probably view as providing oxygen to the ideas in it. Or not the ideas, but the actual reporting on the ground of what happened there. And on the conservative right, there's immediate acceptance of all of this information. There's no problem at all. My hope is that 25 years from now or 50 years from now, we won't be in this weird partisan divide. And historians will use my book and find value in it for some future time, really. I mean, I think that's the best I can hope for.
But I mean, there really hasn't been much pushback from the left, except in terms of just sort of indifference, because you can't tackle it or challenge it without creating oxygen flow into the ideas.
So I think the idea is that they've just decided that it's not really happening. This isn't true, that sort of thing, that it's just sort of a blip. And the Biden administration took that position officially for two years straight before they finally acknowledged that something kind of unusual was happening down there. They would deny that there was anything wrong routinely, that anything was up at all. And whenever they did that, the American media would just comply. They would just agree and swallow that and move along.
So, you know, on the one hand, I think that's sort of official denialism and indifference is bad for America. At least this generation of Americans. But for me, as a former reporter and journalist, it's like wheee, this is the best thing. I own this thing. I'm all alone down there with this incredible historic event. And for that, I'm very grateful that they that they did leave off. But I also know it's bad for America. I know.
I mean, it does seem so. Biden has systematically neutralized all immigration enforcement laws.
And obviously, it's not just him, if anything, it's him. But that's a whole other conversation. But there has to be a group within the White House who have planned this because that collapse of immigration does not just happen naturally. There are systems in place. So that had to be dismantled. Does that mean there is a grouping that have come together to actually systematically deconstruct those immigration policies?
Yes, that's exactly what happened. I lay that out in very granular detail in the book, Chapter 4, The New Theologians in particular.
I think it's helpful to understand first that the U.S. Democratic Party historically has not been very far apart policy-wise from the Republicans on border security. Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have always enforced the law to the best that they could and most definitely did not want mass migration. When mass migration influxes would happen, they were right on it to try to wrestle it to the ground and they would pass laws. And, they understood that the U.S. Legal system is very well equipped and written to prevent mass migration crises. So it's not the traditional Democratic Party, but it's what happened in 2020 was that a liberal progressive faction that is on the far fringes of the traditionalists in the Democratic Party who rode the coattails in with Biden for various reasons, partly because he hurried them. He needed their vote. He needed their vote to get the nomination first.
And then he needed his vote to defeat Donald Trump, needed their vote to defeat Donald Trump. And he owed them. And what they wanted was the immigration portfolio.
Those people come from a whole other cut of cloth. They have an ideology. I call them the new theologians because it's like a religion, this ideology, and they took it from Europe. It's the European neoliberal progressives that they took it from, which holds that border enforcement and borders themselves are immoral and cruel and must be abolished in the same way that slavery was abolished once upon a time or in the U.S. Jim Crow laws were wrong and cruel. And they got into all of the positions of authority over the immigration portfolio. And they're smart. And a lot of them are lawyers and they systematically dismantled all of the instrumentality of enforcement at the border and put policies in place that absolutely guaranteed to, like an 80 plus percent chance that if you showed up at our southern border on foot, you were going to get in forever.
I mean, it seems as though some states, some Democrats have woken up as I've read about immigrants getting bussed or flown around. Certainly Texas has tried to make a point on that. And you've got Democrat mayors saying, oh, suddenly they don't like it. They get angry and how dare you do this. Has that woken up? I mean, specifically in New York, when Adam started pushing back on that, has that opened up a rift in the Democrat Party or is that just quietened down again?
Well, the liberal progressive wing of the party, I think, understood that most Americans don't live anywhere near the border, don't see it. It's see no evil, hear no evil, etc.
And I think they were relying on that unique circumstance to get away with what they were doing. And as long as they had a compliant traditional media and the president of the United States and all of his chief lieutenants saying it's not happening, there's nothing happening down there, then they could get away with it. And they did for a couple of years because most Americans aren't down there. They don't understand. It's like, oh, the right wing media is down there.
Let's just, they're lying, you know, disinformation. and eventually the pipeline backed up. To the point with people in all of these cities, because millions of people were just pouring over in massive torrents, unbelievable torrents of humanity all day, every day, just pouring in with no media coverage. But eventually, they had to go somewhere and live. So the pipeline backed up and it burst in all these cities, Chicago, New York, Denver, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, LA, every city in the United States, all over Florida. You couldn't get away with it. You couldn't get away. You could not avert your eyes from it. Now it was in people's backyards and they were mad about it. Did not like what they were seeing, the massive amounts of resources, municipal budgets that were being diverted to illegal immigrants over native born or residents in their cities who needed the money and needed the programs.
Created a lot of anger. And it's in everybody's face. You can go into any American airport and they're all over the place. They're in every terminal, flying still going from here to there. So well
We'll get into flying a little bit another point in the book you talked about kind of the relationship between Mexico and the U.S I think you said within like 48 hours legislation was passed in Mexico and it seemed to be that they were ready in conjunction with Biden with people ready to just push over the border as soon as as Biden came in, tell us more about kind of how that works, that kind of relationship between Mexico and what part they've had to play in this.
Sure. Well, first of all, you have to remember that, you know, when Trump was still in office, he had a mass migration too, but he wrestled it down like Democrats and Republicans always do, until now. He wrestled it down and he put policies in place that were pushback policies. Remain in Mexico, and then after that for COVID. And these were very, very effective. And they resulted in, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of immigrants being captured by Border Patrol, and instead of admitted into the United States were pushed back to Mexico. And that was going on for the full year of the last the last year of Trump in office.
The Mexicans, of course, hated this because they got stuck with the hot potato, right? You know, that game. And it was expensive and they were filling up all of the Mexican detention centers. They were immigrants still pouring into Mexico and being pushed from the United States. And it was this terrible situation for them. And so the Mexicans were listening to the Biden campaign saying, we're going to let everybody in. We're going to be nice and kind and gentle, and we're going to get rid of the COVID pushbacks, we're going to get rid of the remain in Mexico pushbacks, etc. And they waited until the election. 48 hours after the election, the Mexican parliament passed a law that got no coverage, either on the Mexican side or on the US side, that forced, quote unquote, Mexico to empty all all of its detention centers of family units within 60 days or after 60 days. So that by the time Biden was going to enter office, they would be waiting at the border for the transition.
That's what happened. They released tens of thousands to the border. They rushed up there and they knew that on the transition day, Biden was going to let them all in. And even though there was COVID restrictions, he was saying, we're going to get rid of those. We're going to end Title 42, which was the COVID pushbacks.
And in the end, he couldn't do it for legal reasons, but he still opened vast exemptions in the COVID pushback rule so that all of those people could come in. And so at noon, January 21, you could see them just pouring in. It began hundreds of thousands on that day at that hour when the clock struck noon on Inauguration Day. They were on the march and it never ended.
Wow. I thought actually just, I know there's a little pushback on it. Whenever I was over in Texas, I talked to some people and they said, you know, it's not really as bad because if it was, we would be drowning in people. We go about our lives normally in Fort Worth or in Dallas or down in Austin and it seems fine. How do you respond to that? If people don't see it, then they don't necessarily believe it's happening.
Well, I think that there are still places where people can, if they choose, can choose not to see it. But it's in every community. I mean, there's six, eight million people in 36 months across that border. Now, we're a nation of 350 million.
So there's still room to fan out. But if you're talking about Fort Worth, I would just point you to their school district, which is absolutely completely smashed and overwhelmed with migrant kids. And there's no space for them. And Fort Worth is having to pass bond elections that increase taxes to pay for more classroom space and temporary buildings and teachers and all the rest of that. And they can't even close to come up, keep up with it. And, I mean, really any school district in the country is facing something that looks just like that. So Fort Worth is definitely, if you want to see it, you can see it.
What's that movie, Don't Look Up, you know, where the big meteor is coming? There are plenty of people that got away for a long time without looking up and said there's no meteor coming. No meteor coming but they're here and they're here by the millions and all you got to do is look up.
I get that maybe if you go down to California, that a Californian government doesn't really care unhappily for its state to be even more destroyed, where you look at Texas you expect there to be pushback and yes there maybe isn't the wall that was expected but you'd expect the National Guard troops to be there pushing back. But that doesn't seem to have happened in a way that maybe I naively would have expected as a Brit thinking, don't worry, Texas have got this. It doesn't seem to be the case. Is that a fair assessment?
Yes. I mean, Texas has done more than any other state in the country to get some sort of a control handle on what's happening at the border. But ultimately, as a state, they have no authority whatsoever to actually put policies in place that deter the immigrants from coming through Texas. And what I mean by that is, if you're an immigrant and you cross our border and we let you in, you have to be deported in order to have a deterrent. Like if you spend $10,000 on smuggling fees and you get deported afterwards, and that's a loss, a massive loss, you're in debt, you lost $10,000, you're going to stay home. You're going to stay home. But Texas hasn't been able to do that because behind them is the Federal Border Patrol, who are under orders to usher everybody that they can get their hands on into the country forever.
So, if Texas can't deport them and the federal government won't, the federals are going to win out there. I don't mean to diminish what Texas is doing. They're doing a lot of good in other ways. They're catching drug smugglers, lots and lots of them, drug loads, arresting a lot of people smugglers, and breaking up stash houses and patrolling areas where border patrol is not there. So, and with helicopters. And so they're, I think, countering a lot of kind of basic criminality from the border crisis. But ultimately they can't really return immigrants or deport them back to their home countries that's a too big of a of a federal job
Tell us about, because there are two aspects, there's the aspect of governments and how they cooperate and the economic pull and push but it's also the individuals and you mentioned the beginning, you had interviewed many of those coming over but did any of those stand out to surprise you? What were, as you got down the nitty gritty and heard the personal stories, how did that impact you and what did you take away from that?
I mean, in broad brushstrokes, my big takeaway from interviewing literally thousands of immigrants is on their way in before they get lawyered up or before they're in US control or in custody, that they all are coming because we're letting them in. That's like the big take. I know it sounds simple, but you'd be surprised at how many regular Americans can't really get their head around that or just won't believe it, that they're not fleeing something terrible. They're not fleeing criminality. They're not fleeing government persecution.
They almost never talk about that. They're coming for jobs and to earn more money and to enhance their lifestyles. They want to adopt the very famous indulgent American lifestyle. They want to live here. We have a lot of space. We have a lot of money. We're giving a lot of money away. You can earn if you want, or if you don't want to earn, you can get on the public welfare system and live very well. So it's very, I guess, universal, that, that a they're not really fleeing terrible harms at all. They are coming to something much like a good corollary to this would be maybe the California gold rush, where they found a couple of nuggets in the hills in California. And the second word got back east. We had wagon trains and of people rushing to the California gold rushes, not, they weren't fleeing something terrible in Pennsylvania, or they were just kind of poor. And maybe they figured they could do better with this big grand adventure. That I just liken this to that. And people don't really understand that. They're like, oh, these poor immigrants, we must give them sanctuary.
That's not what this is. That's, They're like gold prospectors from 1840, more than they are Vietnamese boat people or Jews fleeing the Holocaust.
And on that, I just want to pick up one or two stories that you put up recently on the website and on Centre for Immigration Studies. And I think last month, the story was a secret finally revealed, Americans can know the US cities, receiving hundreds of thousands of immigrants flying from abroad. That was May last month. And you'd said a House committee data release confirms a Centre for Immigration Studies report that you had done. But tell us about that information, because you'd expect you expect information to be public. And then after a while, you realize when you delve deeper, actually, it's set up.
So the public aren't supposed to really be aware of what's happening. But you're able to list those cities. Tell us a little bit about that.
Well, one thing that the Biden administration felt like it needed to do was remove the appearance of mass chaos of thousands of people. Moving between the ports of entry over the border. Once it got to a certain point, there would be some media would go down there and it just looked awful. And it got in the way of them being able to deny that anything unusual was happening when you would have these huge, you know, surging people. So they came up with programs that would let would-be planning aspiring border crossers to stay in Mexico for a little while longer and apply on a cell phone app.
To cross quote unquote legally. They could schedule their illegal crossings at a land bridge or they could schedule on a phone or on a computer in their home countries to fly directly into the United States from their foreign airports and therefore remove themselves and their numbers from the total coming through illegally so that they wouldn't draw as much attention. Those are called parole programs. There's a flight one where they're flying directly and there's a land one where you can walk across at the invitation of CBP, U.S. Border and Customs and Border Protection over the land ports. To date, we've got almost 900,000 people have entered the United States through these kind of created admissions programs. But then as soon as they announced them, the administration just shut up about them and nobody asked what was happening with them until I came along and I put in Freedom of Information Act requests. I wanted to know how many, which nationalities were crossing at the land, how many were flying in, which airports were they flying into, which ones were they flying from. So the story that's out right now, the most recent one is about the airports that they're flying from.
These are four nationalities for this program, Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. And the idea is we're going to bring them, let them fly in because they're under dire humanitarian stress. We need to rescue them. That's the purpose of the program. We're rescuing people. But when I got my hands on the country of departure list, I found that they were authorizing these flights from all over Europe. Europe, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Iceland, Israel, all of the Gulf states, Australia, from places that could not even remotely be called dangerous or where anybody living there could ever claim a humanitarian need to obtain American protection and sanctuary. So this just kind of gives lie to all of the way that they are justifying this thing, this huge admissions program by air that you need to escape from Japan.
You're a Cuban and living in Japan and you have to escape from Barbados and Aruba and the Virgin Islands, all these kind of vacation spots, these beautiful jewels of vacation wonderlands is just absurd, nobody who knows this information could possibly now accept what the administration is saying about that program or even about the one where they're crossing the land bridges too.
Well we had the same issue in Europe where everyone wanted to to get to the UK despite being in safe country after safe country after safe country in Europe, so we had the same issues.
Right the whole thing, asylum there and here is just a complete bogus lie, all of it is just there is no practical use nobody coming to these countries is really looking for asylum. They're using the asylum system to just get in. And then it's like, deport me. I dare you. Track me down and deport me. And of course, there's no will to do deportations in liberal governments like the Biden administration. There's none at all. And they all know it.
Or the UK. We don't deport either. We just bring people in.
What's the, you talked about the phone app and you talked about disagreement. This isn't agreement with NGO. Is this agreements with countries on how to actually bring illegals back and forward?
Can you rephrase the question?
So you talked about the phone app that people can actually go on and then they can organize it ahead. And you talked about coming from safe countries. Is this movement, is this organized by governments, you seem to say, or is it NGOs?
Right. Well, I mean, most of it is self, I would say, is self-propelled, but it's informed self-propulsion. So, the United Nations has established networks of support all along way stations, all along the illegal immigrant trails in Latin America and also in Europe. They're everywhere. Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical, whatever you need along the route, these organizations, the United Nations, UNHCR, IOM, and many other UN agencies, as well as, you know, hundreds of NGOs have gotten in on the action too. Almost all of it is in the U.S. is funded by the U.S. State Department and taxpayers. I think most Americans don't really understand that the facilitation is that they're funding the facilitation of all of this. And I believe that there are a great many immigrants that would have just stayed home out of uncertainty about the ardour of the trail.
Were it not for all of these NGOs, all along the way, they're getting legal support and coaching and assistance of every possible kind so that nobody ever really want for anything. And that's got to play on the decision-making process to leave home. Of course it does.
It's also the mass economic hit, but it's also the terrorist side. And again, you've put a post up about the recent arrests of the Tajikistani border crossers for terrorism and commented that you had actually testified before Congress on this last year about terrorist entry through the southwest border. Tell us about that wasn't on my radar at all. Do you want to fill us in a little bit on that?
Sure. Well, I mean, this is when I was in the intelligence business and in my last few years as a journalist, I reported and worked extravagantly on the issue of immigrants coming from terror harboring countries over our southern border. And I wrote an entire book about this. I still to this day am the author of the only book about terrorist infiltration and what we do about it here in the United States over our southern border. It's called America's Covert Border War. It's all about this. And I've been warning about this for years. Well, now what we're seeing in the crush of humanity that has overwhelmed all of our counterterrorism programs and protocols down there, we're now starting to see terror attacks, terror plots in very recent times. One of them is the Tajikistanis that you mentioned. That's only the most recent one.
Eight Tajikistanis arrested earlier in June, the first week of June, in three American cities. They all came over the border. One of them used the phone app that I mentioned earlier. The other ones we're not sure. They could have used the phone app or just crossed illegally. And the FBI got a sting operation going and just arrested all of them. And we don't have a whole lot more information about that case. They're sandbagging. But just a month ago, we had two Jordanians illegally present in the U.S. Conduct a vehicle ramming attack with a big box truck on Quantico Marine Corps base. One of them had just the month before in April of this year crossed the southern border from Mexico. He ends up over in the Washington, D.C. area, northern Virginia, doing some sort of a truck attack on a major military installation that also happens to be a big FBI training academy, very, you know, rich in targeting symbology, right? So.
We also have had a Russian cross the border and get caught up. He's from Chechnya area, get caught up in a major terrorism sting. He's sending thousands of dollars to an Al Qaeda group in Syria. The FBI said that they believe that he had they not arrested him in January of this year. I'm sorry. I think it was in 2022.
They arrested him that he would have gone kinetic or they thought he may go violent himself, operational, not just sending money. So we've seen 360 people from the Middle East who were already on the FBI's terrorism watch list cross our border. Biggest record by far that we've ever seen in numbers like that. In the book, America's Covert Border War, I point out in the entire first chapter that Europe suffered a series, an unending series of terror attacks from one end of the continent to the other, including in the UK, from immigrants that came in on the 2014-2015 mass migration wave. And I used that in my entire first chapter to warn that this could happen to the United States, were we to have a similar mass migration event. That book published in January, February 2021.
So it was a little early, just as this thing was getting started. But here we are.
Todd just to finish off can I ask you the solution to this mess and does aTrump administration coming in, does that fix it? Is this too big? has this are there too many people actually in the country and no knowledge of who they are, I mean what kind of is possibly the solution to the mass U.S. finds herself in?
I mean, I believe that the incoming humanity can be shut off in about 30 minutes. That's like as fast as they started it, they could end that by just simply pushing everybody back to Mexico. 100%. Everybody goes back to Mexico. That's what Trump was doing. That's why the numbers were so low at the end of the Trump term. So there's Remain in Mexico, there's policies where you can push people back and not let them apply for asylum. They can apply in Mexico. Mexico is a safe country or somewhere else.
Those are all doable. And nobody wants to spend $5,000 or $10,000 crossing if you know you're going to get pushed back. You're going to lose your money. It's that simple. It's literally that simple.
When I interview immigrants, that's what they tell me. Yeah, we waited until Trump was gone because we would have lost all our money. It's that simple. So it's a cost benefit ratio calculation that every smart immigrant makes, so that the numbers can go down. Now, it's a much steeper hill or mountain to climb to deport eight million people. That is something that the Trump campaign is promising to do. I believe that they will definitely get some kind of a monumental deportation program underway. They're going to take heat for that. There'll be political, there'll be lawsuits, there'll be all kinds of blowback. And so, but the important thing is that when people at home in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, see that the administration is rounding up and wants to round up all Hondurans, they're going to stay home. Just the messaging of some of that is going to deter a lot.
And I also think that the administration probably will punish the NGOs and disrupt their flow of cash and remove the network of support that is so alluring for them. So it's, he may not be able to deport that many people in four years but he may not need to.
Todd I really appreciate you coming on, immigration is certainly the big topic, even here in the UK, and our election three weeks away as it is over with you for November, I think the best place is obviously the books, all the links in the description, people can follow you on Twitter, but I think certainly go to the website, toddbensman.com, and people can sign up to your newsletter. I think that's probably the best way of keeping in contact with the information you're putting out.
Yes, that's right.
Awesome.
Well, Todd, thank you so much for coming on today and sharing your experiences on this huge issue.
Thank you, and good luck over there in Europe, a couple of years ago, they arrested five Tajikistanis there plotting to blow up US military installations in Germany.
Yeah, it's the same struggle we face all across the West, but thank you certainly for highlighting this.

Rob Roos MEP - Dutch Courage: A Maverick's Path in European Politics

Show Notes and Transcript
Rob Roos, a Dutch politician and member of the European Parliament joins Hearts of Oak to discuss his non-traditional journey into politics and his focus of representing the people over personal gain. He advocates for free speech, energy security, and national sovereignty while addressing issues like immigration and digital identity. Rob highlights the complexity of politics, emphasizing compromise and unity among diverse political groups. He stresses the importance of collaboration to tackle challenges like immigration and the changing European political landscape. Rob also shares his views on international relations, promoting peaceful resolutions and maintaining dialogue. As we look ahead, Rob remains dedicated to serving his country and advocating for critical issues, cementing his position as a notable voice in European politics.
Rob Roos (1966) has been a Member of the European Parliament since 2 July 2019, until December 2020 this was on behalf of the Forum for Democracy (FVD) and then until August 2023 on behalf of JA21. Mr Roos was a member of the Provincial Council of South Holland for several months in 2019 and chairman of the political group until July 2019. He is an entrepreneur in the ICT sector and worked in business and is the Vice President of the group of European Conservatives and Reformists.
Connect with Rob...X/TWITTER         x.com/Rob_RoosWEBSITE             ecrgroup.eu/ecr/mep/rob_roosINSTAGRAM        www.instagram.com/robroos.mep
Interview recorded  14.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
I'm delighted to be joined by Rob Roos today, a Dutch politician, was a member of the European Parliament for five years.
Rob, it's wonderful to have you with us.
Thank you for giving us your time today.
(Rob Roos MEP)
Yeah, it's wonderful to be here and I try to explain the things that are happening in the European Parliament and in the Netherlands.
And I'm honoured to have me in the show. Thank you.
Great to have an eye of, as have many, I think, English speakers certainly enjoyed your fantastic short videos on a range of issues and it is, I guess, to see a member of the European Parliament speak sense and speak specifically, I just say what they think, love it. But you obviously were a member of the European Parliament for five years.
I'm still am.
Still am, yeah.
Yes, yes, till July 16.
Okay, till July 16 and you were vice chairman of the the ECR group, and we'll get into the groupings, the European Conservatives and Reformist Party.
But your background, you were in telecoms, and it made me smile because I know I worked with Gerard Batten, who was MEP for UKIP, UKIP leader, and his background was telecoms as well before he got into politics.
Maybe I can ask you just how you ended up being involved in politics.
It was an accident.
It always is.
No, I was never a member of a political party.
My background is I'm actually an electrical engineer.
But I'm an entrepreneur.
I have my own businesses.
I had an engineering company in energy.
That's what I'm doing for 32 years now.
But after a while I started to invest in my own fibre optic networks across the country so, I founded my own telecom company.
It started with the infrastructure but after a while I also had I had my own ISP and we did everything, but in 2016 I sold my engineering company.
And because I wanted to move on with my telecom company, it was a huge success. But then there was a private equity from London who wanted to buy my shares.
And so I did the negotiations for two years in 2018.
They bought my shares also of that company.
I still have one telecom company.
I still own a fantastic gym.
I'm also a boxing trainer.
But then in 2016, we had a new movement in the Netherlands.
It was called Forum for Democracy.
Thierry Baudet was very good at that time.
And, well, I funded his political movement so he can run for our national parliament. But I didn't become a member at the time.
But after a while, they called me. Rob, can you please help us?
You live close to Rotterdam.
Can you do the campaign over there?
I was never involved in politics.
I was always interested in politics since I was a child.
So I said, okay, let's do it.
I'm an entrepreneur.
Let's roll up the sleeves and just do it.
But it was a success.
And from one thing came another.
And, well, before I knew it, I was in the office in Amsterdam.
To them and yeah, building this organization because that is my background I founded nine companies, our board companies, our merged companies, and so I know how to build organizations.
Yeah, from there they said well can you record a video about entrepreneurship and it was so difficult because I was never in front of the cameras really it was maybe 50 takes or something like that it was terrible, but okay, I didn't have that experience, but finally this video was successful and then Rob you should also be on the list and I said absolutely not.
I want to help but I'm not going to be on this, but in the end to make a long story short, in the end I was on the list and I was elected as a member of of the European Parliament.
And, well, yeah, I did it with love and passion, and I loved what I did. I'm not really a politician.
I'm a representative of the people. I think that's a big difference.
Most people who go into politics have very good intentions, but once chosen, they make a career of it.
And, yeah, I didn't do that.
I'm really there for the people.
It's sometimes tough, you know.
They call you names.
But I don't care, you know, it's the right for people to call me names.
That's freedom of speech.
I don't block anyone on social media.
But yeah, I did it with love and passion.
And to be honest, I think I'm going to miss it.
But there will probably be something else in the future.
I keep on fighting for my country, absolutely.
And also for Europe.
Well I want to get on to what kind of your passions and what you wanted to to bring to that role but let me for our UK and half of our viewers are American and I don't know if we'll be able to explain all of the intricacies and little details in in the politics but obviously I watched Thierry Baudet start his movement and you've got all different letters in Dutch politics. So, that's the Forum for Democratie, the FVD.
And then there was, I think, a disagreement.
So things were said, as happens, and then you had broken away with some others and started a new group, the J21.
And then you had represented that and then as an independent.
And I guess there are always difficulties with a new movement or a new group or new party that starts, because it doesn't have the history of what it actually believes and it's evolving and that can lead to clashes I guess.
Yeah, that's true you know, but it's always in politics.
I was in Bangkok two weeks ago.
I was speaking there about food security.
I spoke with the the audience that were all kinds of ministers and and members of parliament of all kinds of Asian countries from Kazakhstan to South Korea, Japan, China, everywhere.
And it's everywhere the same.
You know, politics is just a dirty game.
But the point is for new political parties, if someone is, let's say, difficult to handle, there is no job somewhere else.
The establishment, if someone is not very favourable anymore in the party, they give them a decent job as a mayor or something else.
And this is not possible with a new political party.
So, yeah, that is the problem. But there are more problems.
Politics also attracts strange people.
I agree.
It's incredible.
And I'm just a simple human being.
The only thing that counts for me, I want results. I'm a businessman. man you know and I my my job is to solve problems and to to go straight to the result and I don't want to play all these games, and I don't do it, so it's, I stay, I stick to my principles and then that's why I fight for and if people said you should not speak about this, you shouldn't speak about that, and I said sorry I'm here to represent the people that's why they have chosen me and I will fight for them.
For me the party, a political party is just a tool.
It cannot be the goal and that is often the thing that they make the political party more important than our country and the people and yeah for me the people and the country is that that's the most important thing that's the highest goal there is.
Tell us about you as an MEP you as vice chair of the ECR one of the kind of three groupings on the right and people obviously will know Georgia Maloney her party part of that I think the Law and Justice Party and also I think the Czech Civic Democratic Party are part of that.
Tell us what that was, because obviously you were there for five years.
So you don't have a track record of being in the European Parliament.
That's not your life.
Your life, as you say, is service and serving the people.
Vice-Chairman of the ECR, that is a key position.
How did that come about?
And how did you find your time, I guess, working with the groupings in the European Parliament?
Oh, I love that.
I love to do that.
I can be tough on subjects, but I think I'm a very reasonable person and I can bring people together.
Even I cooperate a lot of times with, for example, the Greens.
I disagree.
On 100% on their climate policy, but I was a member of the industry and energy committee and we were responsible, for example, for the digital identity, etc.
And in the greens you have these pirates, you know, they are very hard on privacy.
So, I made my coalitions with them to create a majority on things.
So, there was also a very left liberal lady in the Renew, and she said, Rob, you are such a nice person, but you have such strange people around you.
And then I said, you have exactly the same.
So you can disagree on subjects, but you can respect each other as human beings.
And this is how I work.
And that is also that I did it in the ECR.
I think, yeah, it's so strange because in my political party, they said, they told me, you should not speak about this and you should not speak about that.
And they really disagree with me on the things.
And they made my life very tough to survive in that party.
But the strange thing is that I can go along with all the people in the group.
Even we have, of course, you have a bandwidth and you have the people.
We are the conservative, but you have people who are on the left side of this conservative movement and also the hardliners.
But I can get along with them very well. And I try to bring people together, because in the end, we have to do it together.
Together, you are strong.
And of course, you can disagree with each other, but you have to find a compromise on things so that you can show your strength.
And being united is very important to achieve the goals.
I was in Bucharest, I think it's now four or five weeks ago, I was the keynote speaker there at Make Europe Great Again.
Oh, yes.
And that was exactly the speech that I gave.
We have the elections coming up and we should be united on the right.
And I hope there are now negotiations going on to create this.
Conservative supergroup.
They try it every time we have new elections.
But this time I really hope it will work because.
We are bigger, if we are united, we are bigger than the socialists in the European Parliament.
And then we are the second largest group right after the European People's Party.
And then we are strong. We have the best positions.
You have the best, yeah, as a rapporteur, you can change things.
You have the chairman of all the committees, et cetera.
And so, yeah, I think we should respect each other as a human being and be tough on the subject, but we should find compromises and work together.
The elections have thrown up some interesting and exciting results.
Obviously, Marine Le Pen doing well. I remember meeting Marine 12 years ago in London, the only time I've met her.
But Gerrit Fielder is obviously doing very well in Holland, and I've met him a number of times.
And you've got two high-profile individuals that really make the left extremely angry.
And to me, that's kind of the part that I like, but also you need to come together.
But then you've got all these, obviously, where Giorgio Maloney fits in.
And then you've got all the conversation about the AFD and the FPO.
And it's an interesting mix.
And you said politics brings together estranged people.
It also brings together people who are extremely ambitious.
And sometimes that doesn't work with groupings.
But what are your thoughts looking across the landscape at what this election has produced?
And how do you see it moving forward with some of those conversations?
If we look at the numbers, then EPP is still the biggest group in the European Parliament.
But let's say the conservatives, if you count the numbers, then we almost have the same numbers. If I count the numbers, EPP can be around 190.
But also the conservatives, the right-wing conservatives, they have also 190 seats if we can merge.
And Renew lost a lot, especially in France. It's a chaos over there.
But also the Greens in Germany, the Socialists in Germany, they did a terrible job.
It was the worst elections for them ever on the European Parliament level.
So, this is a very strong signal from the people in Europe that they are fed up with all this climate communist nonsense. All this gender nonsense, because this is what it is.
It was so horrible the last five years.
Every legislation that we passed was full of gender ideology, climate ideology, and it was absurd, you know.
I was in energy for 32 years.
I really know what energy is about and how to do it.
You cannot do this energy transition with wind turbines and solar panels.
So, there is an alternative, and that is nuclear energy.
And I was advocating for that for a very long time.
I'm not against phasing out Fossil.
Partly, you cannot do it completely, but partly you can phase out fossil fuel.
But then you need something stable.
And nuclear energy is such a wonderful form of energy.
It's really a gift from the stars.
If you have this uranium, but also the new...
New reactors.
New reactors, the fourth generation reactors with thorium and other things.
There is so much energy in this tiny particle form.
And this is really a solution.
But this is the problem.
They don't want that.
So, to come back to the question, the Greens they lost, the Liberals they lost.
And, well, it's time to have a real democracy.
These people are upset.
It was also in the Netherlands, exactly the same when Wilders won the election.
These people are upset, but it's their democracy, it's not the democracy, it's their democracy.
They have a view of how the world should look like, and this is how everyone should behave.
But if it's real democracy, they should start listening to the people.
The people gave a very clear signal.
We don't want this anymore. We want change.
We want a normal life.
Of course, we want to take care of the planet, but we don't want to have this absurd laws where we are losing our freedom, where we are paying so much for just normal energy while it's not necessary.
Our food security is in danger because of the policy on the farmers.
And people start seeing it.
And now they want to go back to normal.
Well, of course, the farm demonstration, they started in your part of the world, in the Netherlands, and then really, really spread out.
But this idea of wanting your own industries, not necessarily relying on the global, of not wanting to, not seeing renewables as the full-on solution may be a part of it, but it can't be. This is where we put everything into.
And the gender ideology debate, the mass immigration that Europe has faced. I mean, but which one has it just been those coming together to give the push to to Gerd Willers, to Marine Le Pen, to Maloney, the Swedish Democrats, the FPO coming top and then even the Vox and Chega doing well in Portugal and Spain.
I mean, it's across the board where all these parties have come first or second or one or two end up third.
But it does seem a change of the guard.
I'm wondering which issue is it that actually is concerning Europeans the most?
I think it's immigration.
You know, we are flooded with people from the Middle East and Africa.
And even in my small village here, very close to Rotterdam, it's changing.
Our children don't have houses anymore the culture is changing.
Well I've seen the videos from London this is not Europe anymore and if these people want the Sharia, if they like to live by the Sharia there are lots of places in the world where you can do that. We should not allow that they are changing our society.
I didn't ask for it.
Most of the people didn't ask for it.
So why is this happening?
You know, it's not the will of the people.
So, I think immigration is something that is the most important issue at the moment.
But the rest, the Green Deal, all this climate policy, the gender policy, changing our identities, taking away our freedom, Yeah, I think we are heading, when I was in Warsaw, I said we are heading to a new kind of communism.
And I really think that is the case.
You know, if you look at communism, it's all central plant economy. Now, that is exactly what the Green Deal is.
As an entrepreneur, I want to make my own decisions.
And if we have new legislation and say, OK, we have to improve the environment, etc. Etc. Okay, make your goals.
And let me, let the market find out what the best solution is.
But they are not only telling you what to do, they are also telling you how to do it.
Like the civil servants in Brussels, sitting on the chair of the entrepreneurs and of the chair of the businesses, if they really think they can do a better job, it's so stupid, you know, that's not the case.
So, immigration is the most important thing.
We feel that everywhere.
We see the bomb attacks, we see the violence.
You should not speak about it, then you are a racist, of course, they call your names again, but also the women in our cities are not safe anymore.
It's just happening.
It started, this started in Sweden, but now we have the same problem here in Rotterdam.
And that doesn't mean that all the people who coming in are are evil, but it is changing our society and if you have too much of it and you cannot integrate in the society there are people here that live really 30 years in the Netherlands and they don't speak our language that is absurd, you know, that you then you are not a part of the society.
I don't believe in a multicultural cultural society, we should have a monocultural society with maybe multicultural people from other countries but multicultural society really means a parallel society you have so but yeah, I think this is this is something that we have to solve and I think the key is now, With Giorgio Maloney.
Fratelli d'Italia.
I really understand their position.
They are my colleagues.
They are very good colleagues.
I love them very much.
But Italy has problems, you know, with their debt.
So, they depend on what is happening in the financial market.
The financial market can break or they can break the government within months, I think. But also the Commission, because they have this money where they can bribe the member states.
They did it with Poland, they do it with Hungary, but they can also bribe Italy, because Italy, I think they still have to receive 85 billion Euros from this next generation EU.
EU, so that is serious money.
But it should not be the case that the government of Italy, of Giorgio Meloni, that they can hostage our whole group.
We in Europe, we have to move on.
So, I understand their position, but still I hope there will be a solution also for this big group, including... Fratelli d'Italia. I really hope that.
We're talking about Giorgio Maloni and you've seen, I guess, Orban with Fidets in Hungary and the Law and Justice Party in Poland really taking a very hard line against the EU and you posted, I think, on Twitter a day ago or so, Hungary getting fined every day.
Giorgio Maloney has taken a softer approach.
I think people have seen that as weakness but maybe she just realizes this is a game you need to play and you don't win everything on day one is that a fair assessment because, I would be talking to some people about my frustration with Giorgio Meloni not going all the way and they said patience this this takes time.
Is that a kind of a fair assessment that she knows how the game has to be played and to get to your goal It takes a number of steps.
Yes, absolutely.
If you are in government, you have to take responsibility.
You have to make compromises.
As long as you have no 51% of the seats, then you have to make compromises.
But also, she has to deal with the European Commission.
She has to deal with the financial markets.
So that is the case.
And even we have these elections in France at the end of the month.
And I really hope there will be, let's say, a common sense politics, because that is what it is, with conservatives, political parties.
But even then, they will lower down the vote.
It's always easier to be in the opposition and to raise your voice.
But if you have the responsibility and you have to solve the problems, yeah, you have to deal with many problems at the same time.
And of course, you have to make compromises, but it is possible.
Yeah, but I hope it's not too much and that there will be a solution to create this supergroup.
It is really necessary to change things.
I'm so happy that we have more and more prime ministers with a conservative background in the European Council, because that's probably the most important thing.
To have this blocking minority over there, maybe even if we look further in time, there will be a majority and we can really change things.
But I hope Maloney and Orban and Le Pen, they can find a solution because they are the most important, yeah, these are the biggest countries, you know, Italy, France, and Hungary.
So, you know, well, I think Orban is at this moment the only Western prime minister with a long-term strategy of the West.
No matter what people are saying of him, I agree on a lot of things with him.
And I hope he can achieve this super group.
Because Orban's sitting, I think, as an independent with Fidets at the moment in the European Parliament.
So to me, if he moved one way, if he said, no, I'm going to join Giorgio Maloney and encourage Marine to do the same, him or I'm going to join ID and encourage or if there's coming together he seems to be the figure that is so well respected and because he has led Hungary forever it seems like for me but you've kind of got individuals like that and is he kind of the the kingmaker the one that can bring them together or does it depend on Marine whether she wins the French elections end of this month.
And is there enough commonality, because obviously the issue with Russian Ukraine is a split with some people there, but there does seem to be enough commonality between everything else that is happening to actually come together.
Yeah, I think if you read the media let's say the mainstream media they blame Orban like Kiefer Hofstad is every day doing of supporting Russia, but that's absolutely not the case.
Orban, he wants peace, and I also agree with him on that, because Ukraine cannot win this war.
It's just as simple as that.
If you look at the numbers, Russia has all the resources to go on with this war, and they have also much more people than Ukraine.
That's just facts.
Should we reward Russia for the invasion in a sovereign country?
Of course not.
There are ways to punish him.
And I think that's right.
So, I'm not saying that we should reward Putin.
Absolutely not.
It's disgustful what happened.
But we have to find a solution.
You know, we cannot escalating more and more and more weapons fighting yet.
OK, you can use them across the border.
It's going on and on and on.
And last week I spoke someone from NATO.
Then I stay a little bit at this one and I come back to your question.
I spoke someone from NATO and they are also becoming very nervous of some politicians who are, for example, Macron.
Let me put it this way.
Macron, of course, he knows he is, before the election, he knew he was very unpopular.
And then he tried to make himself bigger as he was at that moment by saying all these crazy things about the war.
We should bring boots on the ground over there.
Really incredible, you know.
This guy is, he has no roots, you know.
He has no children.
And then I think my son is 22.
He is not going to fight, because Macron wants to set himself in a position as a big leader.
Let Macron put on his own boots and go there and fight.
Pick up a gun and do your job, you know.
But this is, we should, well, this is Ukraine and people are divided. But I think Orban is right.
The rest is, of course, supporting Ukraine.
I'm also supporting Ukraine.
Let there be no misunderstandings about that.
But I think also the people in Ukraine want peace.
You're never going to get back to Donbass.
You're never going to get back to the Crimea.
That is now what it is.
And I hope that the rest of Ukraine can be part of NATO and that we put sanctions on Russia as long as these parts of the Ukraine is in Russian hands.
But let's let's work on peace let's get people to the negotiation table because a war never ended on the battlefield it always ended on the negotiation table and I think the other conservatives also in it like this and they support Ukraine, but I think there can be a solution for that.
I think the kingmaker, that's your question, is Orbán the kingmaker.
I think Giorgia Maloni is the kingmaker in this.
It's her decision and I really know that she has a difficult position because of the financial problems and the market with Italy, but she She has to make the decision.
I think the rest will this.
Orban, Le Pen, Moranjewski, Kaczynski.
They are really ready to create a supergroup.
Because it's, I mean, Europe seems to be marching towards greater and greater confrontation with Russia.
And I think part of that's Boris Johnson's fault, because he was involved in rejecting the original peace deal.
But Europe seemed to have no money left, and yet they're sending it all to Ukraine.
And then the talk about conscription, which you mentioned.
In Britain, we're talking about conscription.
In Britain, it's rumoured that we will be at war with Russia by the end of the year, and that's why the election was called, and Macron calling for conscription.
And it is a very frightening situation for Europe.
Whenever the battle is not ours, it is to other countries that are neighboring countries.
But Europe and partly the US, actually Biden pushing us, we seem to be being sucked further and further into this, which could be a war.
Is these elections, are they enough to kind of break away and change that conversation?
Because the outcome could be extremely destructive for Europe, for all of us.
Yes, I think this is also what the leaders of this country should realize now, that we should unite.
We have the problems we discussed already with the migration, with the Green Deal, with the gender policy, etc.
But the war in Ukraine is also a big issue.
And that's why I hope President Trump will win the election.
I think he will choose a different approach than Biden.
Of course, we should help Ukraine, but we should not make the weapon industry that should not.
Booming weapon industry should not be the goal.
And I think this is what's going on right now.
It's all about money.
And there are people making a lot of money.
No, yeah, it can make a difference.
And even if we have this big group, and it's so strange, the left, and they were always the one who wanted peace, you know, the symbol, and they wanted to make peace, not war, make love, not war.
And now those are the ones who are the warmongers.
And the world has changed so much.
I really, I really, that's maybe also they try to, yeah, how do I say that?
No, let's hope Trump will win the election.
I think they make people very afraid of Trump winning the election because they tell the people he's crazy.
He is maybe a little bit rude in his conversation, but I think he's done a wonderful job in the time he was the president.
He was the only one who didn't start a war.
I even recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize in the European Parliament.
Of course, it was rejected.
I made a resolution to give him, because of this Abraham Accords.
It was a wonderful job and what did the media said?
Oh, this is a very bad thing for the Palestinians.
No, it was peace. It was peace.
It was very good.
But yeah, let's hope that
How does that, because I've had the privilege of seeing him speak it at three different rallies actually over in the states and there's nothing like a trump rally and for my all my years in UKIP.
I've never seen anything like that, but how does it change because in most of your time in the European parliament it's been Biden in charge and with the rise of common sense parties more in the right it could be a different relationship with Europe and Trump.
I'm wondering how you see that because you want bloc countries to actually have commonality and work together and not have disagreements.
And the Trump derangement syndrome, the hatred of Trump, we've seen in many European governments. That could change now with these elections.
How do you see that kind of, is there a better relationship that can be had with the Trump administration and with European Union groupings more on the right?
Yeah, I think that relation is very good.
Of course, Trump is always saying America first, and that is his job.
You know, if he is the president of that country, he should put his country on the first place.
That is also what every leader of a country should do.
But for example, Orban and Trump, they can work very close.
Trump Jr. was yesterday in Hungary also.
But Trump was also speaking on the rally of Fratelli d'Italia.
So, this relationship is also good.
I think, let's say the Republicans and the conservatives here in Europe, they have a very good relation.
I have very good relations also in the United States, we can get along very well and it should be something that it is a global fight.
You know, this this this globalism is a left wing socialist agenda and we should fight it together. Not we see the problems everywhere in the UK, in Australia, New Zealand. South America and Europe, Canada.
We have all this woke ism and there's more warmongers.
And so we should unite and and also fight back together and I think this is something, that is happened that happened in the last uh years with for example CPAC and it started in the United States we have CPAC Hungary, we have CPAC in Mexico, in Brazil, in Israel, so yeah.
We have a movement and we know how to find each other.
And if Trump will be elected, I think there will be a very good relationship with Europe and the United States.
Can I just end with you personally, because you will not be an MP soon, but you've used your position as a member of the European Parliament to speak truth and connect with the public.
And you touched on energy as being something that you were intrigued about.
And I always was confused why Germany would rely through the Nord Stream pipeline on one country.
It doesn't matter who the country is to rely on one country.
But what are the other issues that you've tried to champion?
We've touched a number of them, but your kind of areas of passion and what issues did you want to bring during your five years in the European Parliament?
Well, I think most of all is defending free speech.
I think this is the most important thing and it's also, I was, I did the negotiations on the digital services act to.
To bring some common sense over there also the digital services act is something to control, the the big big tech companies but but actually now the European commission has so much power, because they can fight disinformation and misinformation and then I try to have a definition of that.
I try to also have a definition of hate speech and harmful speech.
But of course, they didn't make it because you cannot, it's impossible to say this is harmful speech, so this is disinformation.
These people who are advocating for this, they say to us that men can have babies and for me that is disinformation, for them, it's the truth.
So it's a very dangerous development.
We've seen the law in Scotland when you cannot discuss anymore the gender thing about the difference between men and women it's a hate crime.
In Canada, we have the same and Europe, the European Union is moving in that same direction.
Von der Leyen, two weeks ago, said we have to not debunk misinformation, we have to pre-bank this information.
This is really the synonym of censorship and that is what's going on.
So free Free speech is also a main topic for me.
I think it's the cornerstone of having a healthy democracy, that we can disagree with each other in a decent way.
And, yeah, of course, people have different opinions, but that is what politics is about.
And this is also the beautiful thing that we have, and it's very precious.
It's not in most parts of the world.
We don't have this luxury to speak out.
But they are taking it away, and that's why I called it also a new kind of communism. Because... Yeah, if you cannot speak out anymore, then we have a real problem.
We have seen that during COVID, it was real censorship.
It was a horrible time.
People were locked up.
If you disagreed, then you... So this should never happen again.
Digital identity is also a very difficult thing for me.
I did the negotiations on that too. I was able to delay that for two years, but finally it was adopted.
It's not as bad as it was at the beginning, but still it is there.
Central bank, digital currency, all kinds of tools to control people. You know, no one asked for this.
No one.
It's a top-down approach and it has nothing to do with democracy.
There is no problem.
Everyone can pay with their debit card or their credit card.
It's not an added value.
It's a dangerous development because you can control people.
These are also very important topics to me. Freedom, freedom of speech, having reliable and affordable energy.
Our food security, and, of course, stopping this illegal immigration and the sovereignty of our nations.
This is very important.
And just to end off, the future for you, when you finish as an MEP, I hope you're not going to disappear and become quiet. What does the future hold for you?
I have no idea.
Not yet.
Not yet.
But, you know, when I was an entrepreneur, I started to sell my first cluster of companies in 2016, and I sold a cluster of companies in 2018.
It sounds strange, but I really had the idea.
I've played that game.
I've seen it all and I've done it all.
That game is over.
I thought I have enough money.
That's also very strange if I see Bezos, you know, buying another super yacht.
Does that make you happy?
I don't think so.
I have enough money, so I don't need to do, I don't need to work anymore, so I can use my time to, service my country, to fight for the future of my children, and they're the generation.
So, this is what I wanted to do, but I don't have any idea what I'm going to do.
But I keep on fighting.
My wife, she hates politics.
So, I have to convince her.
But still, she also recognized that it's very necessary.
There are not many voices like me who really speak the truth. Because politicians make a career of it.
And yeah, let's see what's going to happen, what the universe wants to do with me. Not many speak to it, but also not many who can do it in English.
And I often have struggles talking to the French groupings and saying, could I have someone not speak English?
And it's like, no.
Rob, I really appreciate you coming on.
John, I thoroughly enjoyed your many videos going out and speaking truth in the European Parliament and looking forward to seeing what is the next step for you.
But thank you so much for joining us today.
Yeah, it was a pleasure.
And if I have news, when I know what I'm going to do, Id love to come back.
You're welcome anytime.
I keep on speaking, I promise.
Thank you, Rob.
Thank you.

The Week According To . . . Fr Calvin Robinson

Rejoice! It's the return of our good friend Fr Calvin Robinson to have a look at his latest posts from his social media and expand on some of the issues that are raised, as well as covering some of the talking points from the tabloids and across the web.Up for discussion this episode...- Reclaim the Media: Fox and Father - The cheek of it! Father Calvin expelled from the Conservative Party for “associating with and openly supporting Tommy Robinson"- The Farage Effect: Reform overtakes Tories in poll for first time- Europe Turns Right: Panic ensues as The EU sees a Populist Breakthrough- Diversity is our Strength: In France a Sudanese refugee won’t be deported despite burning down 16 Apartments, multiple cars, part of a Church...- The Original Freedom Fighter: Mark Steyn receives great support as he takes on OFCOM in court- High Calorie YouTuber ‘dies of heart attack’ after finding fame online doing food reviews- South Dakota seems nice! LGBTQ+ ranking for personal safety in US states released- Calling all Sheep: Get ready for 2-in-1 Covid and flu jabs after new combined Moderna vaccine trial shows its better than single shots!! - Air Pride: Boeing is not just safe, it's Trans-Safe! 
The Rev'd Fr Calvin Robinson is a political adviser, TV anchor, radio presenter, conservative commentator and parish priest.A priest with Old Catholic orders, serving in an Anglican parish.Founding member of the Anglo-Catholic confraternity, Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity.
Connect with Calvin...X/TWITTER          x.com/calvinrobinsonSUBSTACK           calvinrobinson.com/FOX & FATHER     x.com/media_reclaim                              youtube.com/c/ReclaimTheMedia_
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics...Fox and Father https://x.com/media_reclaim/status/1801313590496158163The absolute cheek.https://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1800990479049175265Nigel Faragehttps://www.thetimes.com/article/cdc8d582-17fc-4757-8f4b-ddcee80fdfdb?shareToken=94b81ab6acb58120d2164ed42885332bEuropean Elections https://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1800119584277635137France Refugee https://www.infowars.com/posts/france-sudanese-refugee-wont-be-deported-despite-burning-down-16-apartments-multiple-cars-part-of-a-church-and-seriously-injuring-a-student/Mark Steyn https://x.com/calvinrobinson/status/1800637045750071555FOOD FAN TRAGEDY https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/28418696/plus-sized-youtuber-37-dies-after-finding-fame/LGBTQI ranking https://x.com/DVATW/status/1801242917064827176Covid and flu jabs https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13514403/two-one-flu-covid-vaccine-effective-trial.htmlBoeinghttps://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1801276957805420895

Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf - In the UK High Court Fighting Against Media Censorship

Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf flew over to the UK to go to court against OFCOM. The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom. Mark Steyn got into hot water with the government media approval body for his interview with Naomi Wolf on GBNews back in October 2022. Mark was soon sacked after this interview. This intrusion of the state into what the media is allowed to say is a dangerous development in the State’s increasing control of speech both online and offline. *Thankyou to Leilani Dowding for the footage of Prof Norman Fenton and Elizabeth Barker
Connect with Mark Steyn...X/TWITTER        x.com/MarkSteynOnline 
Connect with Naomi WolfX/TWITTER        x.com/naomirwolf 
Recorded 11th and 13th June 2024
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

Christina Bobb - Trump 2024: The Battle for Election Integrity and Media Freedom

Show Notes and Transcript
Christina Bobb joins Hearts of Oak to discuss her military background, transition to media and involvement in the RNC's campaign for election integrity.We kick off with some exploration into her book "Stealing Your Vote" for insights into the 2020 election and Christina shares challenges she faced at OAN for calling out failings in the 2020 election while emphasizing the importance of election integrity. The conversation covers alternative media platforms, social media influencers, and the impact of platforms like Twitter under Elon Musk in countering censorship. Christina reflects on the Trump campaign's fundraising success, his connection with the audience, and addressing key issues. We conclude with a focus on upcoming elections, serving the American people, and restoring power to citizens.
Christina Bobb is an investigative reporter, attorney, and former television show host and correspondent with One America News Network, where she reported almost exclusively on election integrity. Christina began her legal career in the United States Marine Corps, serving as a defense counsel representing marines and sailors in court-martial and administrative separation hearings. She served in multiple overseas tours including Helmand Province, Afghanistan, and Stuttgart, Germany. After her military service, Ms. Bobb transitioned to private practice at Higgs, Fletcher, & Mack LLP in San Diego, and then to Washington, DC, where she held executive level positions within the Department of Homeland Security. Christina currently serves as attorney for President Donald J. Trump at the Republican National Committee.
Connect with Christine...X/TWITTER        x.com/christina_bobb
'Stealing Your Vote: The Inside Story of the 2020 Election and What It Means for 2024'  Available in hardback, audio-book and e-book   amzn.eu/d/6cPQjOv
Interview recorded 12.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
I am delighted to be joined by a brand new guest, one I've seen on a number of podcasts recently. I'm delighted she can join us, and that's Christina Bobb. Christina, thank you so much for your time today.
(Christina Bobb)
Thanks so much for having me, Peter.
Good to have you on, and lots to talk about. I know you're centrally involved in the campaign there at the RNC, but people obviously can follow you. @Christina_Bobb is on Twitter. That's the main place, and you can get everything from there. But just to our viewers, to our half-and-half US, UK, to our UK viewers who maybe haven't come across, you're former US Marine, former OAN host, and since March you've been attorney at the RNC Republican National Committee, leading election integrity programs, and we'll get into all of that. And your Wikipedia describes you as mega-maga. That's quite cool. You're not just maga. And, of course, you're the author of Stealing Your Vote, the inside story of the 2020 election and what it means for 2024.
And any book published by Skyhorse, we've had Tony Lyons on before, or have an introduction by Stephen K. Bannon, is absolutely wonderful. So a shout-out to the War Room posse that will be joining us and watching this interview. But, Christina, I read on your Wikipedia, it could be true, it may not be, but you played football at university, like proper football, like British football, not just American.
Right, I played British football, right? I was a soccer player.
Yeah. So tell us, because obviously uni and then you were involved in media. Just tell us a little bit about that before we get on to the campaign. And, of course, you bring your legal understanding to that. But you were hired by OAN back in 2020. And I remember I was there maybe a year ago, 18 months ago, getting a tour of the offices in D.C. And it's a phenomenal setup. But I know you were there as an anchor in 2020. I mean, how did that happen? How did it end up you moving into media?
Yeah. So I had been in the military. Prior to that, I'd been in the military. And then once I got out, I was an attorney. I worked as a lawyer in San Diego. I was a litigator and didn't really plan on getting into media.
I missed my government work. I liked doing national security work. I have a, an LLM and national security law, and it's harder to do that. At least from San Diego, certainly you can do it at firms here in DC. So, I came back to DC and joined the Trump administration of the department of homeland security. And right before the 2020 election, a few months before, well, maybe like February, so nine months before, I kind of got a wild hair and was like, Hey, I might be able to make a bigger impact in media. So I transitioned to One America News, who had a good presence here in D.C. So I left the administration and joined One America News to cover the administration.
And I definitely had a bigger impact in media than I did working in the administration. So it's kind of been flying by the seat of my pants, hang on and just do what you can to make a difference. and it's been kind of a wild ride.
Of course, at OAN, you were one of the people, and we'll maybe touch on how that has impacted you, but you were one of the people to call out failings you saw in the election in many aspects. And you were, I guess, had a position with OAN. You were calling out what you were seeing. And what was that like? Because I remember looking at it from this side of the pond, from far away and seeing the massive debate over that with individuals happy to speak up on what they saw and others saying, no, no, no, no, we can't really do that because of X, Y, and Z. What kind of gave you the, I guess, the boldness to just call out what you saw?
I didn't think it was bold at the time, to be honest. I thought it was just obvious. And to be honest, I think maybe in the UK and overseas, y'all might have a better perspective than we do here in the United States, because you can kind of see it from a distance. When you're in the middle of it, it can be a lot harder to see and discern what's happening. I didn't feel bold. I just thought, I didn't understand what was happening. And I figured if I didn't understand what was happening, the viewers didn't understand what was happening. And so I was trying to just walk people through my own thought process and my own investigation of what I was looking into. On November 3rd, 2020 election night, I was reporting from the White House, the North Lawn of the White House.
And I was just honest with the viewers. And I was like, this doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know why they're calling Arizona a West Coast state, minutes after they called Florida probably one of the furthest East states, if not the furthest East state. So that doesn't make a lot of sense. We basically skipped the country.
So I didn't feel bold. I was just trying to be honest in my reporting. And immediately I started getting attacked. I mean, I had been a reporter for a couple months at that point. I think I started at One America News June 1st or right around the beginning of June. So it had been less than six months that I had been a reporter. And I was getting, YouTube was coming after me, CNBC. A lot of the bigger networks were trying to shut me down, which I thought was so bizarre. I was like, I'm barely a reporter. Like, why are you coming after me? And then it was almost like the more they came after me, the more people started paying attention. And, I ended up sticking with the story for years. I thought I was just covering it, from election night until when we actually got a result. But I got attacked so much that it just made me go, oh, okay, well, I need to keep covering this. This is a thing. And so I kept digging into it and ended up writing a book about it. But it really was the voracious attacks that I received that caused me to go, oh, okay, there's something here.
Because there's a difference, I guess, between someone who's been a host maybe 10, 15, 20 years and they can say what they like because they're kind of bulletproof in one way and they've got a track record or a reputation with someone just into the media fairly new. You kind of think, well, maybe I should just play this safe. I mean, what was that, I guess, OAN gave you, the freedom that maybe other networks would not have?
Well, they did. And I'll counter your summary just a little bit. I think the people that have been in the business for 10, 20, 30 years have been in the business that long because they don't say whatever they want to say. They're parroting what the networks are telling them to say, and they're parroting what the narrative is supposed to be, not what's actually happening. And OAN didn't do that. I give them a lot of credit. They said, go report. And so I did, I took it quite literally. And I think, I think the left, is not just the left, it was really the political establishment, because we see now that it's both Republicans and Democrats in the United States that have been causing these problems and have really kind of bound our election system the way that they want it. But OAN grew, grew in popularity a lot in the the years prior to me joining, I think largely because of their coverage of Donald Trump, people wanted to see it. And so OAN had a really large following.
For a while, they were the fourth ranked cable news network. Of course, now they've been de-platformed in many areas and they've had a lot of attacks come themselves. But because OAN actually had a bigger following than people want to pretend, our message was getting out, right? Not just mine, but there were other reporters in the network as a whole that were just standing behind the idea that, hey, we're not sure that this election was real. We think there were problems in a variety of areas. Let's dig into it. Let's investigate and see what we find. And I'm grateful. I'm grateful that that's the stance they took. And I think because they took that stance, the story is still alive today. You know, there's still Americans today that think there's problems with the 2020 election. A lot. I would say a majority of Americans believe that. And now the whole January 6th narrative is unraveling. And I think that's largely because of OAN and those of us that were willing to speak out and tell the truth.
Well, I want to come back to you on media. And we had Maureen Bannon on just on Monday discussing this. But obviously in the war room and what they feel. But I want to come back, but I want to get on to your role now, because we've just had elections here in Europe. We have UK elections coming up.
We're able to count our ballots within 24 hours and have ourselves. I know you guys like to take a few months over it. But election integrity is a massive issue.
And I know that others have told me, you know, it's the border, it's the economy. But actually, election integrity, what's the point of voting if your vote doesn't matter?
I mean, tell us about that and your work, because you have each state to actually cope with, where in the UK it's one system. So it is a much more difficult, arduous process you face. But what is, election integrity and what does that mean to most of the voters in the U.S.?
Well, I can speak for conservatives because I think it's different. You know, Democrats, I think, are very good at changing language and trying to make things mean things that they don't. So what election integrity actually is from a conservative perspective, and of course, I think it's the right perspective, is that everybody gets the every legal voter gets the opportunity to vote and that vote is counted and that we are not diluting votes with illegal voters and that people don't get to put their thumb on the scale by changing locations or the way that votes are processed. but everybody who is lawfully allowed to vote has the opportunity to vote. Only those votes are counted, but they're all counted and we live with those results. So the way it's processed in the United States, the way it's supposed to be processed is every state and every county are supposed to run their elections independently with their own processes. That's part of the security of it, right? To have a decentralized system. But we've seen over the years, there's been a lot of creep and a lot of the same companies are running, a lot of the counties are bringing in the same companies who run, half the country's elections. And a lot of the kind of inherent security that our founders built into our constitution and into the way we run our elections has really been degraded basically through corporate structure, by bringing in outside groups and not keeping things to the original intent of every county running everything separately.
To your point, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that every ballot can be counted by election night, even in 2020. I mean, if you look at Arizona, just looking at Maricopa County, they had 2.1 million votes that were counted on by election night but then they took another three days three or four days to count what 200 or 300 000 more ballot like why did it, why were they able to do 2.1 million in one day and then it took three days to count another 100 000 doesn't make sense
Tell what because when you when you look at it you have individuals involved in overseeing and I think there's been a big call for those who care about democracy to register to be an observer and to watch it. And then you've got the fight in the individual states, how they process it. I mean, tell us about that kind of call to action for those who care about their country to be involved, to make sure that they see irregularities.
Yeah, well, for all your American viewers, get involved, right? Right. If you're if you're a legal American voter and registered to vote somewhere, get involved. You can go to protect the vote dot com. That's the RNC's election integrity program.
There's a lot of great grassroots organizations around the country that you can get involved in. But this is an all hands on deck moment. This is the election. We either save our country or it's lost forever and it will never resemble what it was intended to be.
And I truly believe Donald Trump will be back in the White House, but it's going to be a dogfight for sure. And so we need good, honest people who are willing to follow the law and want the law followed in their areas to volunteer, to work at your counties, get, you know, your counties are now in the process of hiring effectively seasonal workers for the purpose of the election. You can get paid to work your elections, work your election, and just make sure that the law is followed and that there's not, the midnight ballot drops with no chain of custody and nobody knows where they came from. But let's probably assume they're all legitimate and just count them anyway. You know, we need to make sure that that kind of negligence isn't taking place in the elections this time around.
And what is it like? Because we've seen the ballot drops.
For you to have drop boxes, that's just so strange for us over across the pond.
It's strange for us too. Like, it's not a thing, right?
But it hasn't always been like that, has it?
No, it wasn't that way until 2020. It was like in 2020, the suspicious activity of COVID occurred and everyone was like, hey, let's completely change the laws outside of the legal process. The 2020 election was conducted illegally. No question about it. Whether you want to say the illegalities changed the outcome of the election or not, okay, we can debate that till hell freezes over. But the way the election was conducted was illegal. This massive influx of drop boxes was not authorized by the legislature of any of the states, yet they were dropped off everywhere. And we're like, hey, we're going to count anything that comes into these drop boxes. And I don't know if you've read some of the stories, but Americans didn't, like, this was not a way we vote. And a lot of people in the communities didn't necessarily know what they were. So people were putting mail, they thought they were mailboxes or Amazon return boxes. There was a lot of stuff that was deposited into these boxes that weren't ballots because nobody knew what they were.
And so, no, the use of drop boxes was a bit novel to 2020. And I think they needed to do it in order to have this mass influx of mail ballots with no chain of custody. The entire chain of custody in all of these states that were questioned, that changed the outcome of the election, none of them had the chain of custody to know where any of these ballots came from or who cast them. So, yeah, it's kind of weird, huh?
Very weird. That's not just me. I'm glad you get as well. But I've seen different legal cases with different states.
Maybe you want to let us know, have there been wins have there been losses, have there been changes, because election integrity really is key for actually getting people out
Yeah, we currently have open, I want to say 87, we being the RNC have 87 open cases litigation, pre-election litigation, most the vast majority if not all of them are for the purpose of ensuring that the the election is conducted securely in accordance with the law. And we've certainly had several victories. I would say we've had more victories than losses. There's some where I'd say it's kind of a draw and then there's some where you don't win them all. But in addition to the litigation that the RNC is conducting, several of the state legislatures have passed new laws. Voter ID laws have been strengthened in a lot of states. They put restrictions on the use of drop boxes.
Several cases, and most notably in Wisconsin, which they're fighting to overturn it now. But the use of drop boxes in illegal was deemed, I'm sorry, the use of drop boxes in Wisconsin was deemed illegal. Now Democrats are working to overturn that because they flipped the Supreme Court in Wisconsin. So there's a lot of jockeying. There's good, there's neutral, there's some losses. But overall, I think we're in a better position than we were in 2020, if for no other reason, people are aware of the games, right? They're aware of what's going on. Americans want to remain in control of their elections. As you mentioned earlier in the show, if we don't, if we, the people don't control the outcome of our elections, we're never going to have a chance to control the border. We're never going to have a chance to control inflation. We're never going to have a chance to control the economy and gas prices. We're never going to have a chance to have a say in education. The way we speak is through our vote. And so we have to to protect that. And I think we're in a better place, but we need people involved. We absolutely need volunteers. We need workers to work at their counties. We need people involved.
Back in, I grew up in Northern Ireland, which was very sectarian. We had our own issues in Northern Ireland, but one of the phrases used was vote early, vote often.
And I don't know, if you obviously have where people can vote long before, for us postal ballots is quite unusual. You kind of get it if you need, but it's not the norm. Where in America, it seems to be more the norm. How does that work? And I think you need to actually use the systems in place and take advantage of it. And that's been, I think, a call on those on the right saying, actually, if this is the system, then we need to use it instead of complaining about it.
Yeah, no, you're exactly right. I mean, I don't want to say that it's normal here. I think what happened is the left pushed mail-in voting in a few states that conservatives really weren't paying attention to. The Pacific Northwest is one area, California, New York, some of the really blue states, they pushed mail-in voting in those states. Colorado is another one. And conservatives just weren't paying attention. And then they pushed, then they started pushing it in conservative states and they really went for it in 2020. And now conservatives are going, wait, wait, wait, we don't like mail-in ballots. And so we got caught on our heels because we didn't fight the fight back in the 80s and 90s when they first started this push for mail-in ballots in some of these other states that we weren't paying attention to. And if you look at those states, like if you look at Oregon, for example.
Oregon was a red state. Oregon was absolutely a conservative state up until, I want to say, 89. It was either 1989 or 1987. I don't remember which one. It's in my book, though. But prior to them making Oregon a mail-in ballot state, Oregon had voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every single election except for four presidents, all the way back until when Abraham Lincoln was in office. There were nine elections, Four of them were for FDR, and then the other three were for three other Democrat candidates, all the way back until Abraham Lincoln. The rest of the presidential candidates from Abraham Lincoln, minus those four, Oregon voted for the Republican candidate. When they instituted mail-in balloting in 1989 or 87, the Republican candidate has never won the state of Oregon. So I think mail-in ballots are a problem and probably not an accurate reflection of the way voters actually feel. So yeah, I think there needs to be some real serious reform on mail-in voting, but that can't come until after the election because it's the process that we have to use right now. So we have to win within this system.
100%. Maybe you want to give us a bit of an You've been there since March, so you're three months into it.
What has that been like? Because it's a different RNC than it was whenever Trump has run before. Completely changed. It's now actually a MAGA RNC. America First.
Right. No, it has MAGA-fied.
Mega MAGA.
Mega MAGA. Which is so funny. every time they create those terms to try to offend us, it's just like, okay, well, we'll own it. I'm mega mega, I'm ultra mega, I'm whatever. They want to make it sound extreme or crazy and none of it's working anymore because they are, they are outing themselves as the extremists. But no, the RNC really is in lockstep with the Trump campaign on the political operations and getting out the vote and volunteering and just ensuring that the RNC policies and procedures are aligned with the Trump campaign. I mean, the RNC is committed to getting Donald Trump reelected back to take the White House. And I think the voters know that. I think the conservative voters recognize that this is a different RNC. The RNC leadership today is not the RNC of leadership of 2020. And I think they've got a lot more confidence in our leadership now, as they should.
Tell us what role the RNC, because again, looking at it from a UK perspective, they're kind of separate entities, the party, but the individual running and people vote for the individual much more than in the UK, where it's certainly very much for the party. I mean, how does the Trump campaign, sorry if it's a dumb question, but I'm a Brit. So how does the actual presidential campaign work connecting with the party? Because they are two separate entities, but they're working together for victory in November.
Yeah, they are two separate entities. And, you know, this is my first presidential campaign. It's the first time I've I've worked at the RNC, so I can't speak prior from inside, but, I will, I'll say that Donald Trump's campaign is like any other, it's unlike any other, there's not another presidential campaign. I would say probably in, in the history of the country, at least, you know, in my lifetime, maybe Reagan, maybe, but I would be willing to bet that I think DonaldTrump is surpassing Reagan's popularity.
So the RNC is in a position where we either support this mega MAGA candidate that we have in Donald Trump, who really is unlike any other candidate that our nation has seen and is, is really pushing conservative values, conservative Christian values through this corruption. He's kind of like breaking through the corruption that we otherwise wouldn't be able to break through. And the RNC really is there, is really there to ensure that he, as the, I mean, technically he'll be nominated in July, but we all know he's the presumptive nominee. As the nominee, he has what he needs to make his campaign successful. And so the goal is to ensure that the Trump campaign and Donald Trump as the candidate has, like, we kind of clear the way and have what they need to be successful in their efforts.
And I was certainly, I said to you before, we went live, been at three Trump rallies the last year in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. And for someone who has been years in politics in the UK, I've never seen anything like that, that this is not just, here are my 10 bullet points. And I remember I heard Ron DeSantis speak a year ago, and it was a great speech. Yep, I agree with all those bullet points. Then you go and watch President Trump speak, and you think, wow, I mean, this is taking it to another level where you connect not just with a head, but actually connect with the heart. And that seems to be how his whole way of campaigning to connect with people at a deeper level than politics normally does.
A hundred percent. And that's why they're trying to take him off the campaign trail. Because what you see in the media, and you know this, you've been to the Trump rallies and you've met him. You know how he is and what it's like being in that environment. It is really powerful. And people recognize it as different. It's not the same as every other candidate that we've ever seen. It's very different. You connect to him. You instantly feel like, oh, he's speaking to me. I understand what he's saying. And the left hates that. They want the cookie cutter candidate that they can control behind the scenes and somebody just gets to be the face of the party or whatever movement they want to pretend like they have.
You can't do that with Donald Trump. And in the media, the liberal media is trying really hard to take away from that they're trying to say, he doesn't have the popularity or they're trying to minimize the amount of popularity that he has, but you cannot hide it. You can hide behind poll numbers. You can fudge polls with, who you contact and, the sample that you use. But you cannot lie about the massive seas of people who are coming to hear Donald Trump and coming out to support Donald Trump. And that's why it's so powerful, because Donald Trump has pictures. I mean, you can see that 100,000 people in New Jersey, and then you've got, I think, 40,000 people in the Bronx. You see these massive seas of people.
That's not a fudged poll. Those people actually showed up, and Biden's not getting anything close to that. I mean, I went and spoke at an event in Detroit a week or two ago, and it was Trump surrogates. It was an event for several Trump surrogates that people, notable conservatives that support Donald Trump and speaking on MAGA values. President Trump wasn't there. And we had a huge crowd. There was a big crowd that there were probably five or 600 people there. I would, I would think maybe close to a thousand and Donald Trump wasn't even there. Joe Biden's not getting crowd sizes that big. And my point is people who support Donald Trump are getting bigger crowds than Joe Biden himself, then their candidates. And so they don't want people to know that. So please, check it out for yourself. If you have not been to a Trump rally, come to a Trump rally. They're unlike anything you've ever been to.
I would agree. And for UK viewers, just go over to the States just to be in one. It is excitement. And I think you downplay Biden. I'm sure he could fill up his basement with people. I'm sure he could.
Staffers. Yeah, maybe.
But what it's been.
Trump's ability to fundraise is another, and I've seen it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but with some of the more establishment fundraisers who have connected with the Republican Party holding off, but it's then the public who have stepped in, and it seems to have, those establishment funders have kind of realized that actually this is the man. And if it's not him, it's four more years of decrepit Biden. So it certainly in funding, every time he goes through a court case, it just goes up and up. But it seems to be those traditional donors are also coming behind him. Is that a fair assessment?
I think some of them are. I think some of them are not. You know, and that goes to show that this is not a Republican versus Democrat election in the United States. This is establishment versus the rest of America. And the rest of America is stepping up with their dollars. And the rest of America is funding Donald Trump to make sure that he gets across the finish line because the rest of America is sick of the establishment. We don't care if you're Republican or Democrat. If you've been part of the system that has oppressed Americans, made our cost of living go through the roof, made our wages go down, basically ruined one of, if not the best countries ever to exist in the history of the world, get out of the way. And they're getting basically mauled over by this massive sea of small dollar donors who are putting up a hundred bucks at a time, but it's causing the president to raise $400 million. I mean, that's a lot of people.
And Joe Biden can go to these fancy celebrity dinners where you have celebrities that might donate a million dollars at a time. Fantastic, good for him. I hope they all spend all of their money. I think they should all donate all of their money to Joe Biden and waste it all because he's gonna lose.
But he can get, you know, a few people to give him several million dollars. Okay. Donald Trump is raising $400 million off of a hundred bucks at a time. Who, who do the people support?
Oh, completely. Is it the border and the economy? Are they still the key issues for the voters?
Yeah, the voters are really concerned about the border. They don't like the fact that, you know, words coming out that illegal aliens are being bussed into all 50 states and they're all getting registered to vote, some against their will, at least some of the reports that I'd seen. They don't like, they, they don't like the toll that this invasion is taking on our cities and that we're paying for it. In New York, they're giving away, how many 500 bucks, a thousand dollars a month to these illegal aliens when Americans are struggling to survive. And now they have to fund this invasion. It's ridiculous. So they're real upset about the border. They're very upset about education. Parents are still being targeted who are trying to protect their kids.
It's a very weird position. And I don't know to the extent that you guys are seeing, I think it's somewhat similar in the UK, but this push for transgender ideology, and allowing teachers to groom children into sexual behavior, parents don't like that. Shocking. But that's another issue. And then this whole idea that somehow the education system has more rights over your children than you do as a parent. And these states are becoming sanctuary states for kids to go get transgender surgery without parental consent. I mean, it's just bizarre what they're doing.
So I mean, pick an issue, Democrats will lose on it. There is not a single issue on the debate stage today that Democrats it's like, oh, they've got a good point. None, because they're all completely woke. They're all so far from anything, not just immoral, but just a basic sense of responsibility as a human to be a good human and care about other people. They're off the rails on that. And so I can't wait for this debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, because not only is Joe Biden completely incapable of debating Donald Trump, they legitimately do not win on the issues. And so I'm sure they're going to try to pull something out to create some distraction. And I look forward to seeing what it is. But in a free and fair debate, Donald Trump is absolutely going to crush Joe Biden.
He will. And I don't know if they can give Joe Biden enough of that, whatever liquid they give him to actually keep him going. But I think they could use it all up. He won't last an hour and a half. There's no way. And Trump's energy, I mean, for someone of his age, but actually an hour and a half. And in those speeches, he's enjoying himself. He's actually connecting back and forward with the audience. And it is fun and the audience are having fun and Trump is not there to go and deliver my top 10 points.
He's there to engage with the audience and gee them up and have fun. And that kind of enthusiasm and honesty is really special.
It's fun and people love it. And he's gone to the point, he's done so many of these rallies and he's given so many of these speeches that, you can tell when he goes off script a little bit, but he's even started, dropping some swear words in there every once in a while, just to emphasize a point. And people love it. They're just like, Oh, thank God someone who's not like so perfectly polished that we can't relate to him now, in 2020 or in 2016, everybody hated his mean tweets. And we're like, Oh, he's mean. I don't, whatever, people love it now. They're like, Oh, thank God God, he's real. He's genuine. He's authentic. And I do give him a lot of credit too. He has learned to kind of meet people where they are. And he's, I think softened his edges a little bit, become a little bit more, I don't want to say polished. He's always been exceptionally polished, but a little, a little bit more political. I feel like I'm offending him saying that, but he's, he's learned to, to play the game a little bit. He's elevated his political game, I should say.
And now it's great, now it's just a great mixture of he's got that raw humor, but he's got he's politically refined now and it's just, he it's like he's hitting his sweet spot right at the perfect time.
Really is and of course he's we kind of forget that he's not a politician, that that's not his background his background is in business to step into this and I think that was part of his undoing in in 2016 and 2020 where his maybe wasn't aware of how the system works, of the deep state working underneath and this election I think this is why he is so dangerous to the left because now he is aware of what is happening and that actually the RNC and others are putting people ready, so they're ready to step in place and so it's not just trusting actually it's been more purposeful and organized and planned than maybe it was before.
For sure. For sure. I mean, this campaign is way, way above where it was in 2020. And quite honestly, even the president himself says it's better than the 2016 campaign. I mean, the enthusiasm, the support, the huge crowds, it's unlike any other campaign Donald Trump has run. He, I mean, I don't know what kind of records you can set, but he's setting them and he's setting all of them. And I think the left is helping him with these crazy indictments and convictions and trials and the abuses of government and the fact that the left is using the government to try to retain power and attack their political opponents. It's clear as day in the United States that that's what's happening. And Americans don't like it. They really don't like it. And Americans want to retain control of their government. And so the longer this goes on, the more people are switching sides. And I fully expect Donald Trump to be back in the White House in 2025.
It certainly is a more sophisticated campaign, 100%. Can I, in the words of that wonderful press secretary, circle back to finish off on the issue on media? Because this, again, is different, even though it wasn't 2020. I don't think the alternative media was so well-developed. You kind of had Fox moving away and maybe OAN and Newsmax fit into that. But now you've got a plethora of alternatives, of Turning Point USA.
InfoWars, you have WarRoom. You've got, I mean, it's masses of small, medium and large companies, individuals actually championing the causes that Trump is believing in to put America first. How does that, as someone who kind of has experienced the media and are now involved in the campaign itself, how do you see the media play out? And I mean, how much longer can the media on the left actually cheer Biden on?
Well, they're running at a runway. I think they're hoping to hang on through the election, but I don't think they're going to make it. You're exactly right. I think the uprising of podcasts and radio stations and social media influencers. Conservatives are available to voters in a way that they weren't even in 2016 and probably not even in 2020.
And it has really decentralized media, right? It used to be you had to watch Fox, CNN, or MSNBC, and that's where you got your information. That's where everybody got their information. Well, nobody believes those networks anymore. And so a lot of people have transitioned and are watching Newsmax, OAN, Real America's Voice.
There's a number of other conservative news outlets that are available to people. But then you also have folks watching shows like your show where they want to tune in to a person that they like. And so it can kind of be personality centric. But however people want to get their news, people are able to receive the information in ways that they couldn't before. And I think I'll credit Elon Musk with taking over Twitter, which is now X, because I mean, we were all silenced, absolutely silenced on what used to be Twitter. Andour posts were suppressed. Our followers were haemorrhaged. You know, we, every, everybody probably remembers what it was like to be silenced on Twitter. And with the emergence of X, it, I do think it has changed the game for the better. You obviously, there's still things about it that I'd love to, to see a little bit different, but I give Elon Musk a lot of credit for kind of taking the gag off of the individual people who needed a platform and social media with the platform. And he basically freed it so that those people now have a voice too.
Apologies to RAV not mention it was on with Tara Dahl and Kaelan Dorr last week, so sorry RAV definitely you're there, but there's also a a push by I mean OAN have faced that with getting removed off some of the networks obviously the system wants to to put Steve Bannon in jail for four months, the last four months the last four months of the number one political podcast America like, let's join the dots there. And of course, what's happening to Alex Jones and InfoWars is huge. And you've got others, but you've still got other networks with Blaze and Daily Wire. It's a whole plethora, but there is a cost, I guess, for speaking truth. You've seen that personally, but also these media outlets are seeing that. And yet those voices we've talked about, those channels, they don't care. They just want to fight. There's nothing you can do to Steve Bannon. He just, well, we need to fight harder. And that's the response we need, I think, in the media.
Well, yeah, and I think it is. Back in 2020, there were a handful of us that were talking about the election, but there weren't many. And they tried very hard to silence us. And I'm so grateful that I've had the support that I've had at the time from OAN and now at the RNC and with the Trump campaign and that they have supported what I want to say and what I want to speak about it.
We have to fight for our rights. I mean, our constitution, our bill of rights is only as good as if we use it. It's only good if we use it and we have to use it. And I think right now we're being put to the test of, do you believe that your constitutional rights are actually valid and stronger than anybody who's trying to manipulate them or destroy them? And I say, yes. I say, I think at the end of this, it's painful. I certainly will come out with a few bumps and bruises, but I do believe that the Constitution is stronger than those that are trying to manipulate it, lie about it, break it, destroy it, and solidify power among a select few. That is the antithesis of what the United States of America is. We are a decentralized nation in theory by design.
Power is decentralized among the 50 states. And it's the voters that control power in the United States, American voters. And we have to restore that. We're getting there, but we have to restore that.
You've got, what, five months more of this. You'll certainly want a break at the end, I'm sure. But you've got, and I've never, looking at politics across the world, you see campaigns kind of moving and then hitting roadblocks and reassessing or changing. With the Trump campaign, it just seems to kind of just keep doing what you're doing, keep ramping it up. You're hitting on all the points. And that's fairly rare as well, that there aren't the mistakes. Trump is a known quantity. He's got people around him he knows and trusts.
But yeah, it's just, it seems to be just keep doing what you're doing. And that'skind of quite rare, I think, in elections to have, I guess, that confidence at the front where it's not opinion polling and talking to different groups. What should we talk about?
Trump knows what to talk about. I think that's also refreshing, that honesty and, I guess, knowing where the vision is at the top.
Yeah, and that really comes from him. I mean, I think he intuitively understands the everyday American, which is really fascinating how that happens. But he does. He gets it. He understands what they want as parents. He understands what they want as voters. He understands what they want as far as the borders concerned, as education is concerned, as the economy, every issue. He gets it. And it's a very and he jokes about this in his speeches. He would say it's common sense, but it turns out it's not that common anymore. Like, you know, it's just common sense of how the government needs to be run. And I think the difference is because he truly is in this for the American people and he truly is trying to make our way of life the best that it possibly can be. Whereas when you have other politicians that need to do opinion polling and figure out what people want to hear about, it's because they're not actually in it for the people. They're in it to try to win their own races.
And so they're trying to figure out how do I win my race rather than how do I best serve the people? And Donald Trump is 100 percent aimed at serving the American people and making sure that the power of the American government is restored to the American people. And people are getting it. They get it. And you don't have to do big surveys. He just understands what they need because he's in it for their best interest. And it's unique because most politicians are in it for their own best interest and he's not clearly, clearly he's not in it for his own best interest
It's true as I said I've heard him speeches, why am I doing this, life will be easier but I'm doing it because it's the right thing to do. You don't usually hear those words from politicians. Christina I really appreciate you coming on, I know you're exceptionally busy with the RNC campaign. I really appreciate you coming on and really encourage, the the links will be in the description for your book 'stealing your vote' and if the viewers, listeners want to delve into and remind themselves what happened in 2020 that is a perfect place to go so thank you so much for joining us Christina.
Thank you so much for having me.

Maureen Bannon - Unmasking the Weaponization of Institutions and the Decline of American Military Power

Show Notes and Transcript
Maureen Bannon, a military veteran with a famous father joins Hearts of Oak to discuss the weaponization of institutions against the American people. We delve into the military's shift towards woke agendas, the impact on warfighting, and unit cohesion. Maureen criticizes Biden's military downsizing and emphasizes the need for strong leadership. We also touch on the media's role in spreading misinformation and highlight the importance of alternative platforms like WarRoom and Real America's Voice. The podcast underscores the challenges posed by institutional manipulation for political gain and advocates for truth and transparency in public discourse.
Maureen Bannon is the CEO of WarRoom,  an Army Veteran, Operation New Dawn Veteran and Steve Bannon’s Daughter
Connect with Maureen...X/TWITTER      x.com/maureen_bannonGETTR              gettr.com/user/maureen_bannonWARROOM       warroom.org/
Interview recorded   4.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
I'm delighted to have a brand new guest, someone I've kind of got to know here and there over the last few years, and that is Maureen Bannon.
Maureen, thank you so much for joining us today.
(Maureen Bannon)
Thank you, Peter, for having me on.
Not at all.
It was about time.
You kind of connect with people and you think it's probably about time to have them on for an interview. So it is great to have you. Obviously, people can follow you on Twitter.
@maureenbannon is your handle and obviously you're the CEO of war room, army veteran, and of course you have a sideline of being Mr Bannon's daughter and people will know you.
We've had lots of war and posse on. Lots as in, we've had Karli Bonne’ on and Noor Bin Ladin this week, so it has been a WarRoom Posse week.
So, it's always good fun to connect with those giving input into the program itself, into War Room, and sharing it to our half and half US, UK audience here.
But I want to talk about institutions being weaponized against us all.
And I think the conversation is just as valid for you, stateside, as it is for us in the UK and across Europe.
We've seen that in many different levels. But maybe we can ask you, You've fought for your country, your background is in the military, and you've gone to war for, I guess, American interests and to fight for American values.
Maybe start there, just tell us why you joined the military and what are your thoughts on the current state of the military?
So, I joined the military.
Like you said, I was in the Army.
I graduated from West Point in 2006, and then I served almost nine years on active duty. So I got out.
My last day in the Army was May 1st of 2019.
So, I joined West or went to West Point, started back in 06. And I knew growing up that I wanted to be in the military.
My dad is a Navy vet.
My uncle is a Navy vet.
One of my older cousins is also a Navy vet.
And actually on 9-11, I had two cousins living in New York City.
So, my mom woke me up on 9-11 and I was living in California. So, we were three hours behind and she told me, you know, a plane's hit the first tower.
And then I was in the kitchen watching on our little black and white TV in the kitchen and I saw the second plane hit the second tower and it was kind of right then that I knew that, that an act of terrorism was going on and.
I wanted to help my country.
So, the next day, I told my parents, I want to join the military. I was 12, 13.
What was the response?
Both parents were like, okay, that's admirable, but no one's going to believe that you're 17, 18 years old and can enlist in the military.
There's no way.
maybe 16, I could get a waiver or 17, get away, 17, get a waiver, but not at 13.
Like there was no way that I was going to convince anyone that I was old enough to serve at that time. But in high school, you know, I was like, okay, I still want to serve the military.
But I want to go to a normal like four-year civilian college and actually, I was playing volleyball since the fourth grade and my dad said: well all these schools are recruiting you why don't you reach out to the service academies.
You want to be in the military, you know, you can still play volleyball and you can serve your country. I was like: well I don't know but I did.
And I got recruited by all three major service academies.
And I fell in love.
I went to Annapolis and the military academy.
So, West point to visit and meet with their coaches and meet the team.
And I just knew, I mean, Annapolis is beautiful, the Naval Academy, but I knew as soon as I got onto post at West point, take away volleyball, this is where I was meant to be.
There was just something that was drawing me there.
And, you know, I got my congressional nomination and I knew, you know, both parents said, if this isn't for you, you can always leave the Academy if you want to.
However, I'm that type of person and both parents know, and they've raised me to be like, you don't quit something once you start it.
So, once I got to West Point, they knew that I wasn't going to, to leave. So yeah, that's kind of my long story journey to West Point.
But I played volleyball all four years and then commissioned in 2010, August of 2010, because I needed some summer school.
I focused a little more on volleyball than I did academics earlier in my college time.
So, I needed some summer school. So I had some training to make up, which is why I didn't graduate with a majority of my class in May of 2010.
I was an August grad, but graduating at that time still, the things that I did in my Army career might not have happened or those opportunities might not have happened had I graduated in May. So, you know, everything happens for a reason, but I graduated in 2010.
I was a logistics officer.
I deployed to Iraq.
So, I was actually part of the withdrawal out of Iraq. So, seeing the botched withdrawal in Afghanistan was extremely infuriating, because we saw now it wasn't 100% successful in Iraq.
However, we saw a right way to do it. And then what the Biden regime did in Afghanistan.
Was completely botched.
And I think that that's where, well, it wasn't a weaponization of the military.
You saw a turn in the military occur under the Biden regime.
It wasn't about doing things right.
It was about doing things the opposite of how President Trump did it or had it set up to do.
We withdrew out of Iraq under President Obama.
However, that plan was seen by President Trump.
It wasn't 100% successful.
We still have troops back in Iraq after we withdrew out of that.
But the Biden regime was so focused on doing the opposite of what was done by the previous administration that they didn't care whose lives they put at risk.
I mean, there's 13 service members, families that have to live with the pain and grief of this regime that shouldn't have to, and 28 plus service members that were injured at Abbey Gate.
And then after that, you see the weaponization of the military.
We're more focused on pronoun training, gender theory, than we are on war fighting.
I mean, June 1st, you saw different branches of the military make posts about pride.
We should be focused on war fighting.
I shouldn't see a Navy SEAL post with the rainbow flag covering it.
You know, especially in the special operations community, you should be focused on warfighting, not, you know, this woke agenda that the Biden regime is pushing.
And I've seen, so I got out in 2019.
I've seen many great leaders that I respected when I was in, get out since then.
And leaders that were more focused on this woke agenda even back, you know, under the Trump administration.
You could see it start to arise, but it became very prevalent, you know, under the Biden regime.
Regime in 2016, we had; I was in company command in the military actually and which is for all your viewers it's basically you're in charge of a unit of soldiers.
So, I was a training company commander, so in the 16 months I was in command, I had 3,000 trainees come through my company, during their time of training.
We had a briefing on if we had a transgender trainee, what to do and how they would be treated.
We're not focusing on, we're taking time out of our day to focus on that instead of how we're going to make sure they get the proper training to go to their unit to be successful.
Wow.
Well, because at the moment we haven't seen a weaponization of the military as we have seen with the police, with the political system, with the legal system, with the media.
I want to touch on that, but I just want to ask you one other question, because we've seen a massive disconnect in the UK with our military and those in charge.
And we have always had, simply in the royal family, we've always had where they served in the military.
That's probably at an end now we've seen many of our politicians traditionally would have had a connection to the military and that seems to have a massive disconnect and I've certainly seen it and how damaging that has been.
I think on national identity and how Britain projects itself whenever it doesn't have that connection with the military.
I'm assuming it's a similar story over in the U.S I believe so.
I think that, you know, when politicians make decisions for the military, it's extremely hard to know how it's going to affect the military unless you've served.
You know, we do have a contingency of veterans in Congress, in the Senate, the current administration.
You know, feckless Joe Biden had two, technically two sons served, but one served, you know, maybe 30 days before he was kicked out for drug-related charges.
That's good he did 30 days.
I would say that's being nice, saying that he did 30 days, but he shouldn't have ever been in the military, in my opinion.
However, you know, Beau, Biden, he did serve.
I still think that, that Biden uses that to try and connect with people, but, but it's not, it's, he, he doesn't understand.
And he's never really been in support of the military by his actions.
You know, Obama, when he, you would think that if your vice president and your president has never served, and you have a son that served, you maybe would guide him in ways to help the military.
And Obama did not like the military despite, you know, I found out a couple of days ago that president Obama will be receiving an award by my alma mater for, you know, being a great advocate for the military.
However, that is the furthest thing from the truth.
He was not in support of the military.
He actually tried to downsize the military while I was in, he was giving pink or basically allowing pink slips to be given to the military to shrink the military size, which how are we going to be an effective military, if we don't have enough personnel?
So, then under the Trump administration, we tried to grow the military again.
And then under the Biden regime with COVID-19, trying to lower the number of personnel in the military.
And that's why, you know, many of the branches have not met their retention requirements or numbers, recruiting numbers, because no one wants to go into a woke military.
And a lot of veterans see that this is not the military, you know, this is not the army that I was in.
And I got out in 19.
This is not the Navy that my dad and my uncle served in.
And it's really hard to tell your children.
Oh, I think it's, I believe it's admirable to serve.
I did, but under this regime, it's really hard to say that.
But I do, you know, it's, I'd love to see more veterans run for office and be able to help.
Get things passed that would actually help you know the military and veterans and. Right now that's not really the case
Yeah, same in the UK.
We have very few veterans actually run for political office and that is a huge shame.
I think they give a lot back to the country in a political capacity, but I mean with with the military obviously you you go, you're given an operation, you're given a mission, and you carry it out, and it's not whether you agree or disagree.
But then, when but that's abroad and I don't think the American people really get a concept of that and it doesn't really affect them.
You know whatever happens abroad is irrelevant, but I want to touch on the police because that how the police have been used and certainly during COVID we've seen the police go in with batons raised and beating people because they had a cup of coffee within two metres of someone else.
And now we have CCTV being used to film people. And then you've got that intrusion and the police very much into that using live facial recognition, even which has been pushed without full legislation for that.
But is there a mistrust of the police in the US? How are they perceived?
Tell us a little bit about that as people go through their daily lives, or is there still a respect of those individuals?
I believe there's still a respect for a majority of police.
You know, there's we always hear there's a few bad apples in every every bunch.
But it depends.
You see police in different states that are well, well respected and then other states are not respected. You know, police in New Jersey were used by the governor to try, especially during COVID, there was a gym in New Jersey.
The governor tried to mandate that every business, unless it was essential, which for some reason, liquor stores and strip clubs were essential and gyms were not.
But tried to this gym was supposed to be shut down and they decided to stay open governor had the police arrest the gym owners for staying open, you know, there's police down I live in the free state of Florida and police here are very respected they're like we're not going to do this that violates someone's fundamental right.
So, I honestly believe that it's the police are viewed differently depending on the state that you lived in, and it shouldn't be the case.
I think that we should have a respect for the police, but I don't think that they should be used as a arm of the government, which in some states they are being used as you know the minions for the left.
Well tell us, you're you said you're in Florida and of course we saw the raid on Mar-a-Lagoon president Trump and that was conducted by police officers at whatever level and you can maybe touch on some of that, but you kind of look at that and you think that seems to be extremely political, yet you have the police officers playing a part in that.
Maybe they don't have a choice or there are not other crimes they can deal with.
Is this the focus? And you kind of put yourself in their shoes thinking, actually, you'd think, is this what I signed up for to go in and possibly, possibly arrest a former president?
I mean, how do you, how did you see that?
And cause that seems to be a line that has been crossed by the police.
A hundred percent.
And that's what I saw it as in a, not just like a little big, your big toe or your little toe over the line.
That was a huge crossing of the line in that raid at Mar-a-Lago. And the fact that, you know, the FBI had authority to use deadly force if necessary.
And I actually got into an argument with a former FBI agent on Twitter about this because they were trying to say that it is normal procedure for them and their operational orders to be granted the right to use deadly force if necessary.
That's scary.
The fact that in order to use deadly force, if necessary, you have to feel, and I went back to look at this, to look up how it falls under the FBI, that in order to use deadly force, you must feel that your life is at risk.
Risk so please tell me how a man in his 70s in his own residence is causing you any risk to your life.
You know and and the FBI agent didn't come back at me with an argument but, you know what I think that he probably would have said well secret service, you know, we could Could have felt like we were at risk with the Secret Service there.
However, it's the president's main residence.
He, one, he was not there.
But if he was there, would he have been a threat to your life?
I don't think so.
There was no reason to have the authority to use deadly force.
And the fact that, you know, that has to go up the chain to get that.
It just reeks of the Biden regime telling the DOJ and the FBI that there is authority to use deadly force if necessary.
And why did you have all these plans in place if deadly force was used, if you weren't, if you didn't think that you were actually going to use it?
It's scary.
And obviously a police officer then could have carried that out, could have shot, and they would have been within their legal rights in theory.
And that is, that's frightening.
Yeah.
Wow that is well can on to of course what the the reason the the FBI were allowed to go in is because the courts then authorize this, and you kind of begin to see I guess a whole jigsaw a chain coming together and allowing different parts of the state to use means which maybe we wouldn't have initially or traditionally thought was acceptable.
And of course, just days ago, we've seen the trial, Donald Trump's, President Trump's latest trial there in New York.
And we had Karli Bonne’ giving her, only she can give her such thoughts on what had happened in a way that was difficult to keep under an hour, because it was so much fun on a topic which is so concerning only she could do that.
But I mean tell us about that because that must strike fear into every American citizen when they see how that is used against a president therefore an individual member of the public a citizen actually they have zero protection and Trump can actually use finances and can use publicity to push back, but tell us about your thoughts as you've seen the attack on Trump by the legal system.
You know, it should and I'm not saying this to strike fear in your audience, but it should make people fearful that if they can do it to Trump they can do it to any normal citizen.
The fact that he has said before, President Trump has said before, they're not coming for me, they're coming for you.
I just happen to be in the way.
And the fact that we saw this, the unconstitutional things that occurred during this trial is extremely alarming.
And until this regime, and it goes all the way up to the man occupying the White House right now that.
Things like this can continue to occur and he has every, and I'm not a lawyer, but based on, you know, what Mike Davis has said on the show and other lawyers that have come on that there is grounds for, for appeal, but it's still, you still have to go through the process.
And at the same time, knowing how corrupt the system has become, it's alarming on those steps to appeal, like what's going to occur.
Because if you look at the appellate court, they don't look like the appellate court in New York, from what I've seen, don't look like, you know, Trump fans.
So, the fact that it'll have to go up to the supreme court, but it should be alarming to everyone that if this can happen to him it can happen to anyone.
And of course what you face there is very different from from the UK.
I mean explain a little bit to our UK viewers how it really is a state by state.
It's not the same system across the board.
You do look at certain states and you've got an idea of how something may be more fair or less fair. Is that a proper or a rightful assessment?
It is because it's, like you said, dependent state by state and then judge by judge.
You know, you've seen President Trump indicted in other states and how the judges in those states...
Actually, understand the law and aren't letting their political bias or their children's jobs play a part into how everything plays out into their court.
So, it is a state-by-state, you know, county-by-county basis, which it shouldn't be.
It should, we should see the same fairness across all states, but at this point, you know, it's you see how things play out in Florida in a red state to how things are playing out in New York, a blue state.
And you obviously don't get the choice.
Is it where they decide the crime has taken place so you're there under that jurisdiction? Because I hear stories of individuals wanting cases moved to different states, but is that possible?
You can try, but once again, it's kind of dependent on that state and that court system or judicial system within that state.
So, you can try for a change of location for a trial, but it's not always as easy as it seems.
And President Trump in New York tried for a change of venue, which is actually what it's called, but that was denied by the judge, who...
It seems like he had a vested interest in making sure that this case stayed in his jurisdiction.
Well, I saw a, I don't know what, you see so many videos, but it was Garland being questioned by, and I can't remember what senator congressman it was, But he was being asked questions about why this judge was put in place.
And it does seem as though the US system is more politicized than the UK.
The UK is very much just a career system.
You kind of push up and it seems to be less political nominee, where the US seems to have a strong political connection to the legal system. Is that a fair assessment?
I would say yes.
You know, it depends on where, in my opinion, it depends on where within the legal system.
So, you know, some people assume that a judge at a local level, if some judges get voted into office, some get appointed.
So, it kind of depends on, you know, what level, like here in Florida.
I actually met one of the ladies that's running for judge of a certain county.
She's getting, you get voted in.
Now you have other judges, depending where within the legal system that are appointed into their positions.
So, it just depends, and that's where you see more of, and it shouldn't be this, this way, but more of a political bias and, you know, being a judge, you should be unbiased.
You should, in a perfect world.
There have been some other high profile.
I know that your dad's case is ongoing and you probably can't discuss that.
But then we've also seen Peter Navarro being locked away.
Maybe they've decided he is a threat.
I'm not sure what threat he is, apart from his intelligence and ability to understand the system and put forward a message.
He doesn't seem to be a physical threat necessarily.
But I mean, maybe touch note, because those are other examples.
You kind of go lower down, you've got President Trump, but the state seems to be going after everyone who's been associated, who supported President Trump.
And it does seem to be an effort, I guess, to knock out the opposition just months away from presidential election.
So, it is the left trying to silence those that are speaking the truth starting with president Trump and working their way down to those that have been very vocal about speaking the truth such as my father and Peter Navarro.
Like you said I can't really discuss my dad's case as it is ongoing. However, the left, it is clear that the left is trying to silence my dad and Peter Navarro by going after them, and they won't be silenced.
You know, Peter has been writing op-eds while he is serving time, and I want to let your audience know he is in a prison where he is the only one that has committed a misdemeanour.
Wow.
So, he is such a threat to the left that they want to force him behind bars for four months.
For speaking the truth, for misdemeanours.
So, they think that they're going to silence those that they do this to.
They're only helping the MAGA movement grow because.
President Trump, my dad, Peter, will not stop fighting for the truth, will not stop speaking out you know, against the lies that the left continue to push.
So, they think that they're going to destroy this movement.
They're only helping this movement grow.
We saw after President Trump, after the jury found him guilty of those 34 charges, we saw, you know, record numbers of donations come in for him.
People on social media saying that they had never voted for President Trump would never vote for President Trump and are seeing what the left is doing using the weaponization of the justice system of, you know, the different levels of the judicial system against him.
They're like, this isn't right.
You know, I didn't think that this man was speaking the truth before, but clearly he's saying something that they are trying to prevent from getting out the truth from getting out.
So you know, a lot of people are like maybe he is speaking the truth, maybe I will vote for this man that they continue to attack and go after
Yeah, and we've had Peter Navarro one before and his his phenomenal book what Taking Back Trump's America, is is a fascinating insight into what actually happened under the the the Trump administration.
But I have, it's been, it has been phenomenal watching those numbers.
I saw Jason Miller get interviewed and said yeah the 50 odd million and 30 or 40 percent of those were individuals who'd never given before and the more the left do the more president trump's best seems to be galvanized and strengthen.
And I mean, as an American, it must fill you with hope because people are seen through the BS. They're realizing actually this is not the case.
We see this for what it is, which is what we expect in a banana republic, but we're seeing it here. So I mean, that must fill you with confidence as a US citizen.
It does.
At the same time, it's like, I wish a lot of these people had seen what we were saying from the beginning.
But if it took this, you know, these 34 guilty charges or verdict, then...
I'm grateful that more people have opened their eyes.
I wish they had opened them sooner, that what we're saying all along was actually the truth, that they were going after people that were trying to speak the truth, trying to call on the lies that the left are pushing on their agenda, what they're actually trying to do to our military, to the judicial system, to our children, things like that.
But if it, if it took this and now their eyes are open, you know, that's something good that came from this horrible thing.
However, they need to share this with their friends that are still with their blinders on and their eyes shut that, you know, what we're saying is actually what his, what we have been saying is actually what is going on.
I want to kind of also touch on another area of weaponization which is the media and this is now your bread and butter.
This is what you live and breathe and you've got four hours a day and then all the prep for that so I don't envy at all no way.
Tell us about that because again, when you're outside an industry, you see it one way.
So, I would see the military one way because I've never served in the military.
I always wanted to join the RAF, and it went through Air Training Corps and University Air Squadron, and that's what I wanted to do.
But 9-11 put an end to that.
But then I can speak as someone who's been in the military, and my perception is different.
And the same with the media. But you've now got a unique perspective inside that media machine.
And understanding how it works.
So, maybe give us your thoughts on how the media have been weaponized against the American people.
Well, as we see mainstream media, government officials, their agenda that they are pushing out, certain mainstream media channels are...
Using their platforms to help push this agenda.
And we've seen that during this regime, you know, CNN, MSNBC attacking people that did not agree with what was being put out about COVID-19, you know, calling question about the science, which we've now seen that Mr. Anthony Fauci was lying about.
I agree with MTG.
He doesn't deserve to be called doctor. He made up the science.
He had no scientific basis for masking or muzzling kids, putting masks on adults.
He didn't even feel that he needed to wear a mask part of the time.
He did it for show.
The fact The fact that that occurred and mainstream media ran with it and tried to make anyone that spoke out against it a conspiracy theorist, spreading misinformation.
You know, trying to tell the American people that they were crazy or didn't trust the science and didn't deserve to have their fundamental rights because they didn't believe what they were pushing.
You know, I think every American should be upset, should be pissed off that these platforms continue to push that and are standing by that decision to do it and cause so much harm and risk to Americans.
Tell us about the alternative media that has really flourished, and you've been a part of an exciting acceleration in the war room and really planting the flag for what it means to be an American and a patriot and someone who loves freedom.
Tell us about that, because it's one of the big silver linings that we have seen in the dark cloud of Biden, that we have seen the fight back and the rise of alternative media.
And whatever happens in the mainstream media, you've got this voice of truth that directly connects with the people.
So, I think that because mainstream media was pushing the narrative that the left and the regime wanted everyone to hear, you saw a rise, like you said, in alternative media.
In case Real America's Voice, which the War Room is on, we are on four hours a day, as you touched on.
From 10 to 12 Eastern Standard Time and then 5 to 6 on Real America's Voice and 6 to 7 p.m. On Lindell TV.
However, you saw this rise in alternative media because the truth needed to get out.
Mainstream media was not putting that truth out.
Fox News, despite it being considered a conservative news network, the Murdoch's are not conservative.
They want to push a liberal agenda.
So you have hosts, not all of them, but a majority of the hosts pushing an establishment, you know, left-leaning branding or like news that they want to get out there.
And that's why Real America's Voice is so great because they allow War Room to get the truth out.
You know, we've had our posse grow by significant numbers ever since war room started and it started with war room impeachment back in 19 and then war room pandemic and 2020 and now it's war room, but you've just seen numbers grow because people want truth and they're not getting that from mainstream media.
And I've been stopped so many times since I moved, actually. You know, I got stopped a few times in my old state.
And people would be like, you know, you look an awful lot like Steve Bannon or Steve Bannon's daughter.
And then they'd look at me and be like, I love Steve.
I love War Room.
Like, I don't know what I would do if I didn't have War Room.
Because, and they, and I mean, people said that to me here in Florida, but it's a lot of the time it's, I don't know what I would do, because mainstream media is not putting the truth out and your dad is not afraid of them and he's willing to fight for this country and get the truth out.
So, I think that it takes, you know, people, great patriots that aren't afraid to be told that they're crazy, that they're conspiracy theorists, that they're spreading misinformation, because they're actually getting the truth out.
And that's why I'm grateful that War Room is on Real America's Voice, that Real America's Voice has many other great hosts that aren't afraid and willing to fight.
But I think you're, just to face it, your Dad is fairly unique.
I mean, the only other person kind of on a similar level of what they're are doing as an individual is probably Alex Jones, because others have built a network and you talk about those networks the RAVs and Lindell T.V.
Yeah, what I mean the name Steve Bannon is synonymous with with the rise of that mega movement not only, but also of the media and it's It's an interesting mix of him personally, but also connecting with those other networks.
And it's something unique because most people, they fall in and be part of a network and they're one of many hosts.
But actually to have an individual who does his own thing, but also connects with those other platforms, I think is fairly unique.
And I think that's what makes what you're doing there in War Room intriguing and has turbo charged it.
That kind of mix between corporate identity and individual personality.
I agree.
And I think that, you know, a lot of shows focus on one area or one avenue.
And on War Room, we tie in.
So we have, you know, economics, we have local politics, we have.
Different local being, you know, local down to school board or something within a county.
We also have state level.
We have, you know, federal level.
So, it's not just one different avenue.
It's all across and have different people coming on talking about ways to get involved. So, it's not just someone talking at you.
It's someone that's telling you a way to get involved or how you can do something at the different levels.
And then I think also with our live streams, too, because not only are we on four hours a day, but we also do live streams throughout the week of different guests from the show, but also different people within our show.
So, like Grace, myself, and Jo-jo, we did a live stream on the Force Multiplier Alliance and how you can start to get involved.
And we've also done live streams where we've done a roundup of things that have occurred. We've done live streams.
We did it in 22 where we live streamed different debates that were going on that people had no idea that this debate was going on in their state for their federal level, for their Congress, their congressional seat that was happening.
And the local station wasn't putting it out very well that this debate was going on.
So, not only did the entire country get to see the debate, but those within that district that had no idea that the debate was going on.
So we did that back in 22, and then Grace, myself, and Calamity Jane would come on and give our commentary on how we thought the debate went.
But just things like that, that we're, we're getting information out there.
So it's, I think that that's a great thing about War Room is that while it's on air four hours a day, the information coming from War Room spans, you know, throughout the day and across different channels, networks, and not even staying within the United States.
It's like we have posse members over in Europe, over New Zealand, Australia.
Other countries as well but those are the ones that I know New Zealand and Australia because they usually come into our live chat.
One of the things I've noticed that when you meet different people in media and there are those people who get a script and they look good and they can read what's in front of them, but actually I think I had the an interesting insight and privilege.
One time I went over and Liz Truss, British Prime Minister, resigned that evening and I get a text from Steve saying, can you come in the studio tomorrow?
Liz Truss has just resigned.
We need you all morning. And just to witness that interaction, and that level of understanding, I think, of the issues, because you, yeah, you kind of see often usually is people who just read stuff but actually the amount of stuff that you cover in war room and the grasp of the issues that Steve has or what Natalie's on or when when jack's guest hosting or so many others.
To me that also sets the parse and that's it's great to have someone who's presenting the information has an understanding of the information and they're not just reading it out blankly.
Oh, I agree.
And I think that that's a great thing that war room has.
It's not just one host that understands the issues.
Like you said, Natalie, Jack, other hosts that we've had, they understand the issue and grass, you know, the reach that it has.
And while we have many great hosts, like I'm maybe just a little biased because he's my dad, but he's the smartest man I know.
You could ask him any subject and he could tell you information that you had no idea about that subject.
So, I believe the man's a genius and I stand by what I say.
You know, I love just talking about, you know, a broad range of topics with him because I've always, I always learn something new that I did not know.
And I think that is what makes War Room unique.
Everyone, when they tune in, you come away thinking I've learned something.
And it's not just the run of the mill, focusing on one or two stories, but it is bang, bang, bang, and you come away. Maureen, I really do appreciate coming on.
Thank you so much for giving us your time with some of your experiences back in the military and touching on those aspects of our institutions, certainly the legal system, and then also the media that have been massively politicized and weaponized against us.
So, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you for having me on, Peter, and I hope to come on again.
Oh, you can come on anytime, you know that.
And of course the viewers listeners make sure and follow @maureenbannon is on twitter
I come in kind of spicy on my twitter sometimes some days.
I'll take a break and then other days it's like you know four or five tweets that are all pretty spicy.
Well we should rate you to see who's spicier you or Grace.
I think Grace.
I think Grace wins that But hands down, I think she's spicier.
I did have a tweet that I had sent her.
I did not end up posting the tweet, but she told me it was a little too spicy.
And when Grace tells me it's a little too spicy, I was like, okay, I better not post this.
I will take that 100%.
But Maureen, thank you so much for being with us today.

The Week According To . . . David Vance

David Vance is back with us as we discuss our way through the big stories this week in the news and across the media.Expect non-politically correct, free thinking, free speech and a touch of sarcasm as we look at...- An Evening with Joey Barton and Laurence Fox- Rishi Sunak doesn’t think D-Day is important- D-Day: 90% of the soldiers on the first boats didn't live to see the end of the day- The UK General Election is already over- Witch Hunt of the WarRoom: Kangaroo court rules Bannon guilty- Operation Stovewood: Seven guilty of abusing teenage girls who were in care- Pride Month: Drag Queen story hour - How things can change in a year! High calorie winner of Miss Alabama 2024- Woke Police: The Pride Progress Flag was raised at Police Scotland HQ - COVID Sex ban: Scientists call for six month pause on making babies- Russia now the 4th largest economy in the world 
An Evening with Joey Barton and Laurence Fox 26th July 2024 in LondonTICKETS                    davidvance.net/an-evening-with-joey-barton-and-laurence-fox-2/
Pureblood David Vance will not submit, and he will not comply.He used to be disgusted but now he tries to be amused!In the battle for truth and liberty, David chooses the front line, he has been writing and talking politics for a long time and is a published author, political commentator and podcaster extraordinaire!If the Covid 19 plandemic taught him one lesson it is that critical reasoning and a healthy contempt for the mainstream media are desirable armoury in the fight against tyranny.
Connect with David...WEBSITE            davidvance.netX/TWITTER        x.com/DVATWPODCAST          vancedavidatw.podbean.com
Recorded 8.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on X/Twitter x.com/TheBoschFawstin
Links to talking points...An Evening with Joey Barton and Laurence Fox https://x.com/DVATW/status/1798029135513817476Rishi Sunak https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1799039119974412780D-Dayhttps://x.com/DVATW/status/1798749311229993111Labour will win https://x.com/DVATW/status/1798687613743698313Hunterhttps://x.com/Travis_4_Trump/status/1798395708862599525Bannonhttps://x.com/HeartsofOakUK/status/1798765127359140337Operation Stovewoodhttps://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-stovewood-seven-guilty-of-abusing-teenage-girls-who-were-in-careDrag Queen story hour https://x.com/TRobinsonNewEra/status/1799025839973290434Miss Alabama https://x.com/DVATW/status/1799046031675732474Pride Police Scotland https://x.com/PoliceScotland/status/1798709673249706468Sex banhttps://www.gbnews.com/health/covid-2024-sperm-sex-symptomsRussia  https://x.com/DVATW/status/1798705835373179062

Noor Bin Ladin - Last Minute Push for WHO International Health Regulations to Control Global Health

Show Notes and Transcript
Noor Bin Ladin returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss the World Health Organization's role in advancing globalism and its impact on the United States. She highlights amendments at the 77th World Health Assembly regarding pandemic treaties and national health authorities. Noor delves into WHO's funding sources and expresses worries about the organization's expanded powers in responding to global health emergencies, emphasizing the implications for national sovereignty and individual freedoms. She calls for local activism to challenge health-related laws, repeal unconstitutional measures, and reduce big pharma's influence on global health policies, advocating for awareness, involvement in local politics, and the defence of bodily autonomy and constitutional rights in the face of potential global health governance by the WHO.
*Items of reference mentioned in the podcast...WEBSITE                      wehurtothers.comJAMES ROGUSKI         jamesroguski.substack.com
Noor Bin Ladin was born in Switzerland to a Swiss mother and Saudi father with the most controversial last name of the 21st century, at first glance it isn't obvious that she would be a freedom loving, Americanophile and patriot at heart.Noor's background story and early life were recorded in her mom's bestselling book, "Inside the Kingdom: my life in Saudi Arabia", by Carmen Bin Ladin.In short, her mother realised that she couldn't bring herself to raise her three girls according to Saudi culture, she fought a long, harsh battle in Swiss courts in order to gain their freedom and secure their upbringing in the West with Judeo-Christian values.This clash between her life and how different it would have been in Saudi Arabia had her mother lost, made Noor appreciative of the values and freedoms in the West from early on in her childhood.Travelling to America extensively from the age of three onwards further cemented her love for the American way.Though she has largely kept to herself since the tragic day of 9/11, Noor can no longer stand by and watch as America burns. A supporter of President Trump since his campaigning days of 2015, she felt compelled to speak up ahead of the 2020 elections, the most consequential in America's history.Why? Because the more we are to take a stand in the fight for the Free World, the higher the chance of saving Western Civilization from the brink of collapse.
Connect with Noor...
X/TWITTER          x.com/NoorBinLadinSUBSTACK          noorbinladin.substack.com/PODCAST            rumble.com/c/NoorBinLadin 
Interview recorded 4.6.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
TRANSCRIPT
(Hearts of Oak)
I am so happy to have Noor Bin Ladin back with us once again. Noor, thank you so much for joining us again today.
(Noor Bin Ladin)
Thank you for having me, Peter. It's a pleasure to be back on the show with you.
Oh, thank you. It's always good having someone on more than once. I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your background, your life, and where you are now in your activism. And we're going to talk about something completely different today, which is a huge topic, a contentious topic and a confusing topic. So we'll see what happens there. But people can find you @NoorbinLadin on Twitter or X. And of course, your Substack, which is essential reading. And that's just noorbinladin.substack.com And all the notes, all the links are in the description for viewers and listeners. So make sure you go after the end of this. I know you'll want to subscribe to NoorbinLadin.substack.com.
The WHO, World Health Organization, we've heard. Maybe I can just ask you first, Noor, how did you kind of become interested in an entity that probably most of us hadn't actually heard about until the COVID tyranny? But how did you get interested and begin to delve into the WHO and kind of what they were?
Well, Peter, as we discussed last time when I was on the show for the first time, you know, my interest is in the history of globalism and how obviously that intersects with the planned decline of the United States of America, you know, my nation that is very dear to me. And looking at globalism as a whole, especially the last 200 years, but more specifically the 20th century, you understand that the globalists have built one giant superstructure in order to advance their agenda of a one world order, this new world order, this one world government and the who is one of many many vehicles that was set up in order to push forward with this agenda of theirs of you know centralizing all the resources in the world centralizing power into one governing body essentially and they use many different tools many different crises such as you know quote pandemics and for that reason the WHO plays a key role so that's how I became interested in the WHO, but it's very much related to all the work that I've been doing in the sense that the WHO is one piece of the puzzle.
And of course, I know you've been a key reporter on the ground there on this topic and many others for the War Room. And it's always good to connect with the War Room posse and anyone who brings information and news to the number one political podcast in the States. And I've enjoyed many of those.
Thank you.
Let me get into what we want to talk about, which is this decision at the World Health Association. It was the 77th meeting. I know many of us think, where have we been? 77 of these just flew past. But there have been 77 of these. Most of them, many of us were and have been completely unaware. But they adopted what are called the IHR, which are the International Health Regulations Amendments.
Tell us how this meeting, the WHA, what was the intention of it? And again, we'll go into talking about how this was pushed through seemingly at the very end of it without proper assessment or looking at, probably when everyone was just wanting to finish off and go to bed, this was slipped through. But yeah, tell us about the WHA, this 77th meeting of it.
Sure. I'll start by giving a little bit of context. So indeed, all eyes were on Geneva last week, Geneva, Switzerland, my hometown, where the WHO have their headquarters. Every year they meet in the UN building to host the World Health Assembly which is their annual meeting and this is where the member states and you know the executive board and the WHO entity essentially decides on their plans and whatever items are on the agenda and this year's annual meeting the 77th World Health Assembly was of particular interest to a lot of people in the world because everybody was kind of holding their breath to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic that was one track that was one legal instrument that was supposed to be presented last week and then the second track were the amendments to the international health regulations which were initially adopted back in 1969, there was a first big set of amendments that were adopted in 2005 and now this is the second, you know, kind of package of amendments that were adopted, as you mentioned, at the 11th hour on the final day of the WHA. And so coming back to the first track so that we get that one out of the way. Everybody was waiting to see what was going to happen with the so-called pandemic treaty.
A lot of propaganda over the past couple of years, you know, post the scamdemic. A lot of our leaders in the world, many different, quote, stakeholders pushing for a pandemic treaty to be reached at this 77th WHA.
Obviously, Big Pharma, manufacturers of, quote, vaccines, different alliances. We can come back into that later because there were a few announcements by CEPI and Gavi following the WHA. But on the Friday prior to the WHA starting on the 27th of May, it was announced by the WHO that it was likely that they weren't going to be able to reach an agreement on the pandemic agreement. I smelled a decoy straight away while others were prematurely celebrating and unfortunately it was unwarranted. This is also something we can get back into a bit later. But essentially the decision what transpired and this was announced as well on the final day of the WHA at the same time as the adoption of the amendments. But the WHO, the member states have decided that they were extending the negotiation period for the pandemic agreement.
Up until next year at the next WHA, WHA 78 in May here in Geneva once more. And with an objective of actually finalizing the agreement before the end of the year. So they're going to put pressure on the different member states to reach an agreement before the end of 2024 but they're giving themselves some extra time until May just in case and also announced in that same statement negotiations will resume in July of this year so we're going to keep looking at what's coming out of these negotiation meetings out of Geneva and, over the next few months, because that's not over at all. It's just delayed, but it's very much still on. So that's the first track. And then the second track, the amendments were adopted very late on the 1st of June, the final day.
I think it was expected that they were going to pass at some point during this week. It wasn't expected that it was going to be so late during the time frame for the WHA. And these amendments are certainly not a victory for the people. And we can get into that in terms of what the amendments actually are during this interview.
Okay, well, you mentioned about we were all given this false sense of security by many people by being told, It's not going to happen. It's been paused, delayed. Don't worry, we've won the battle, but the war may go on.
I think we've talked before about the danger of putting out information which is not necessarily true, maybe wishful thinking, maybe pure misinformation. And we attack governments and mainstream media for misinformation but it does seem as though sometimes it happens on our side and that announcement by many commentators that actually it's been paused, we've won this battle seem to be part of that misinformation.
Yes it was actually quite frustrating and I did my best to push back against it straight out of the gates already on that Friday that I mentioned before the start of the WHA on social media.
Because it's hard enough that we need to fight against the disinformation on quote, the other side from the other side from the mainstream media, like all the propaganda that they wage against us. But then we also need to fight back against disinformation, you know, whether ill intentioned or not, you know, So from our side, it's a little bit disheartening. And because the issue here is that you give people a false sense of hope or a false sense of having a moment of respite. Is that how you pronounce the word?
Yeah, respite, yeah.
Respite when actually this is the time where we really need to be pushing back really strongly and even more so like there's no space for us to let down our guard and I think the other the other side understands that very well which is why you know they make it so convoluted and they have all these different tracks and instruments and they put out the propaganda it's a way of,
I mean, there are many objectives to that, but including demoralization and getting people discouraged. And so when you have that thing on our side where people are celebrating, although it's unwarranted, you kind of like take the wind out of people's sails at a very critical moment in reality.
We obviously we have two main international bodies which we are all concerned, we've got the WEF and that's more in the economic and the WHO is looking at health but how does because we've seen some discussions in the media in the UK over the last maybe two months, three months calling into question the power of the WHO and these regulations. But how is it made up? Is it government representatives that go and they vote? Because the WHO is funded by individuals and entities and governments. But what individual power is it that Switzerland sent a representative, the UK sent a representative, and they come together and vote and they're accountable to their national governments or people? Or how does the setup work?
I'm so glad you asked that question, Peter. Thank you so much.
There is a lot of confusion and many misconceptions as to what is actually going on, especially with this term sovereignty. And this is the reason why I have been doing a podcast series on my podcast, Noor Bin Ladin Calls, with James Roguski, who is the number one researcher on the WHO. A lot of what I know and what I'm learning about the WHO is thanks to my conversations with James and his Substack, which I have subscribed to and read regularly. And that's the reason I really wanted to do regular phone calls with him for myself, but more importantly for the audience to try and make sense of actually what is going on and the key distinctions, because as I said, they make it complicated on purpose. And people need to understand, I'm going to try and make it as simple as possible. We are dealing with tentacles of the same octopus, and they advance in lockstep, all of like all of these stakeholders to use, you know, the globalist terms, they're all advancing together. And so the key point, if I had to boil it down to one thing, is that this has nothing to do with health.
And this is about all of these stakeholders getting together and figuring out how they are going to continue to poison world populations. And I'm going to borrow a brilliant sentence by James, who I just mentioned. You know, this is about our decreased health and their increased wealth. This is what the WHO, Big Pharma and our governments and all these other organizations and institutions are working towards and we can get into as well the the inception of the WHO why it was set up in the first place and the fact that it's been rotten since the very beginning and designed for this purpose but this is especially true or manifests in a very clear way when you look at the the last few years and the pandemic industry that they've essentially created out of thin air to push these, quote, pandemic related products onto the population, whether it be faulty PCR tests that we know are completely useless for the purpose of diagnostics, these so called, you know, medications, these drugs like Remdesivir, and, of course, the genetic modifying jabs.
Experimental jabs.
What they're trying to do with these two instruments, along with many other initiatives and regulations and activities, is to institutionalize this new pandemic industry and push more of this poison onto the population.
And it's not a question of the WHO stealing the sovereignty of our nations. And this is something, again, I understood with James, because in the documentation, it doesn't say that. It's about coordinating the response to these so-called pandemic emergencies between the different stakeholders, allowing them to make a profit while poisoning us. And our governments are in on this. This is the crux of the matter, is that our governments are driving this. They themselves are drafting and enacting legislation that not only supports these international instruments, but actually are even stricter in their application. And it's not the WHO that's going to say, close down your borders. It's our own countries that are going to close down our borders, make foreign travellers either quarantine, get jabs, and have these procedures done to them upon entry of the country if they want to continue to travel, vaccine passports, etc..
We saw with COVID, we got the preview of what our governments did to us. They didn't need the WHO. WHO makes recommendations, has these regulations, and then our nations can point to the WHO, as you know, the health authority, to justify their tyrannical rule over the populations.
And, I think it's very important for these distinctions to be made because when people go around saying certain things, that aren't right, or precise, it leads to a lot of confusion. And then, you know, you have Tedros who goes on stage or whatever in different conferences and says, oh, there's so much disinformation and misinformation and we have to fight against that. Well, he's not entirely wrong when he says that, because on our side, we're not doing the due diligence of communicating accurately about what's actually going on. And, you know, obviously everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. I just really do try my best to do a good job in terms of explaining this. And when I don't know what I refer to people who really know their stuff. And in this case, it's James Roguski. You know, we mentioned that the outset of this conversation, the WHO, it's just one piece. And I'm much more of a macro person looking at how all of these pieces fit together and I also love history so you know I'll look more into the history of things and how we got to this point and the different steps that the globalists took in order to get us to where we are, which is, you know, on the brink of the realization of this agenda, 2030 agenda, new world order agenda. But looking at the different individual pieces, we really need to look to people who are doing the most thorough job. And in this case, it's James Roguski. So you really need to have him back on the show, Peter.
I will, I love talking with James. He was thorough. He was open. It was a great conversation. And I know you and James have done many chats, many interviews. I had one.
Yeah on that on that point I encourage people to go to my Substack the latest article is a 15 minute chat I had like, the last episode of the podcast with James is featured in the latest article on my Substack and we do a kind of like briefing or debrief of what happened during the WHA so to understand what transpired I would encourage people to watch that
Oh, absolutely. Can I ask about the, I want to get into the regulation, but another question about the makeup.
You've got a lot of money comes from countries and private organizations into a lot of these entities. And I think the US is maybe the biggest funder of the WHO with probably, I think, $400 million is what I read. But then the Bill and Melinda Gates also gives a lot. Then you've got other UN bodies like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, that also give a lot of money. Explain a little bit maybe about what that means because you've got the vax, a quasi, organization representing vaccine organizations and it is pumping money into this and that could be seen as very good that the media could portray that as this is wonderful they're actually contributing to world health but there seems to be a darker side and I always worry about when organisations are involved in funding that have no representation, no say with the public, with the government. It's one thing you can lobby your government. But actually with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we don't have a seat on the table. We can't write a letter to Bill and complain. They are a power and authority onto themselves. So tell us a little bit about the funding.
Great question. I actually built a website with my friend Nick Chirruti called wehurtothers.com. And you'll see there's a whole section on the page dedicated to the WHO on funding. So all this information is available there, but I'll obviously just answer your question.
WHO gets funding via two key ways. The first one is through the membership fees of the member states, that accounts for about 20% of their funding. And the rest, the 80%, is done through voluntary donations, which can be from the member states themselves if they want to give more than what they're obligated to give. And via any other institution, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, such as the Rockefeller Foundation. I made sure that in that section on wehurtothers.com, I had a special link regarding the relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation. The WHO wouldn't have been able to exist in its shape without funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and support from the Rockefeller Foundation, who had already been instrumental in setting up the WHO's predecessor health body in the League of Nations. So we can draw a straight line, you know, from the early 20th century to today with the Rockefeller Foundation. And anyway, we can do that with regards to anything that has to do with, quote, health and medicine, because they really captured all of this.
And to your point what I was describing a bit earlier about you know the WHO being this coordinator or facilitator or quote middleman acting you know for the benefit of big pharma and for them to be able to put more and more and more money into their pockets, this is what this funding is about and this is what you know CEPI's role Gavi's role is about it's about putting in place via the WHO, the structure of this business deal in order for them to continue profiting of off of our ill health caused by them in the first place.
Well, this is how the industry works. They give us something which has side effects, and then there's a solution for that, which is another drug. So it is, yeah.
And one thing that is interesting, and I actually pulled it up for you before we did our interview, but you see both Gavi... And CEPI made announcements relating to the pandemic treaty following the World Health Assembly's decision.
And I mean, I'll put this online on my Twitter just after our call. So in the meantime, it'll be available. They urge the delegates the member states the WHO to reach an agreement with regards to this pandemic treaty because obviously they have an interest there in terms of getting all of this deal structured so that they can continue as I just mentioned pushing their poisonous jabs onto the population.
Let me just mention it was wehurtothers.com we'll put the link in the description of wehurtothers.com for delving into the work that Noor and others have done into the background of the WHO. So make sure and use that and delve in deeper.
Yeah, if I just may say one word about this, it's a great tool that we built with Nick because we aimed to do a sort of repository of WHO information from alternative sources, you know, who are trying to draw attention to the ills of the WHO, but also we have a lot of official documentation in there so that you can see for yourself through the WHO speak, obviously, what it is that they're pushing forward through that vehicle. So I really encourage people to go look at that website. And obviously, I also have all the interviews I've done with James listed there and just documentaries, articles. So whatever medium you prefer, it's a great tool for you to educate yourself on the WHO and the con that is WHO on behalf of big pharma.
Absolutely. Let's go into the amendments that were passed at the 11th hour.
Again, you mentioned this has been there, the International Health Regulations 2005. So they've been there, set in legal stone. However, that actually works. But this has now been a big change to that. And of course, off the back of a supposed pandemic, it's a perfect opportunity to revisit something like this. But maybe let us know some of those amendments and why they are concerning.
Yes, the first thing I'll say in terms of procedure is that these were adopted in a fraudulent way, because according to Article 55 of that very document, this final text needs to be made available a minimum of four months before the World Health Assembly. So that would have been end of January. So that was completely thrown out of the window. And in terms of what happens now that they've been adopted, there wasn't a vote or anything like that. It's more of a tacit acceptance.
Member states now have, I think, between 10 and 18 months to reject these amendments. So this is where we need to be acting and telling our, governments and the representatives, you asked me a question earlier about how it works, our government sent a delegate, there's a delegate that is selected by our government. So the Biden regime has, you know, their who delegate that comes here to Geneva for these meetings etc representing the government the Biden regime I can't call it a government obviously, there are 10 to 18 months now to reject for our you know countries our governments to reject them so we need as you know a people in each of our respective countries to be like banging on about this and asking for our governments to reject this, obviously. But I'm not sure how successful we will be considering that all of our governments are captured, but this is very important and that's why a lot is riding as well on what happens this year in 2024 with so many elections going on in the world, but most importantly in the US.
It's true. And with all the meaning, you've got European parliamentary elections happening more or less now. And I'm intrigued at the change that could bring with so many populist parties on the right raising concerns. Sadly, in the UK, we've also got an election and we're going to get a Labour government. So it's going to be the love of the WHO is going to just be increased massively with a hard left government. But of course, then the election in November could change how funding works for the WHO. But I kind of think even if President Trump is able to regain that position in the White House, probably other entities, I mean, if that's 400 million, that drops off. I can imagine other entities will step up because this project is too important to fail.
Yeah. Before we go into the amendments, as you just asked, to that very point, I wanted to bring up this special character. His name is Lawrence Gostin, and he is currently the director of the WHO's Center on Global Health Law.
He's been working in the health, public health sector for decades. He even worked with Hillary in the 90s. He was working on health policy since the 70s, but in the 90s, he was working with Hillary when she was the first lady.
He authored the US's Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. And we know how much legislation came out of that that was detrimental to the people. He authored a book entitled global health security, a blueprint for the future, I posted this on Twitter you just go and read the book's description and you understand exactly what we're talking about in terms of them building out this architecture for global health and how this is going to impact us as people using national institutions like our health services etc, national governments and also international institutions working hand in hand to push this, right? So this is what the book is about. And he put out an interesting tweet.
Saying, Dr. Tedros tells the WHA he's confident the pandemic agreement will be finalized. WHA is likely to extend the mandate for negotiations for five to 24 months. So this was during the week before the official announcement came out. U.S. diplomats wait to find consensus, but think it'll take one to two years. If Biden loses the White House, the US will surely pull out. So he was saying that during the week. So they're aware that it depends on what happens in the US, right? And it's obvious that they're expecting that the US would pull out should President Trump regain, and rightfully so, his place in the White House, because he started the process of exiting, of having the U.S. exit the WHO. Unfortunately, the timeframe wasn't long enough because once you trigger that, you need one year before it comes into effect. And one of the very first executive orders that Biden signed after that sham of an inauguration ceremony was to get the US back into the WHO.
Okay, so take us through some of the amendments that have been made and why they should be of concern to us.
I really encourage people to read the amendments themselves to echo what James says. I know it's really convoluted. So I also encourage people to go to James's Substack because he highlights the key bits. And I'm actually going to read from one of the articles that he made with regards to that, selecting a few of the key amendments that we need to be looking at. And the first one people need to read in full actually is Article 1, because Article 1 is all about definitions. So from the outset of the regulations, they just changed a few of the definitions and added some of them or amended some of them. And so the first one I'd like to read, which is relevant to everything we've been discussing in terms of them wanting to poison us with these products, is the definition of, quote, relevant health products. So, relevant health products means those health products needed to respond to public health emergencies of international concern, including pandemic emergencies, which may include medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment.
Decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell and gene-based therapies and other health technologies. So those were added.
And if you paid attention, they used the term pandemic emergency and that definition. So now I want to read the definition for pandemic emergency.
Pandemic emergency means a public health emergency of international concern that is caused by a communicable disease. And one, has or is at high risk of having wide geographical spread to and within multiple states.
[34:42] Two, and is exceeding or is at high risk of exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those states. Three, and is causing or is at high risk of causing substantial social and or economic disruption, including disruption of international traffic and trade. Four, and requires rapid equitable and enhanced coordinated international action with whole of government and whole of society approaches. And so the point that needs to be made with this definition it's that it's so vague and so wide-ranging and the person, according to these regulations that gets to determine what is quote a pandemic emergency is the director general of the WHO Dr Tedros Gabriel and so he can wake up tomorrow and say oh this is this pathogen or this you know virus qualifies as a pandemic emergency and then that would trigger certain things and allow states to implement some of some of the regulations that are in this in this document and one of the key new things in the document pertains to the creation of what they have termed a national IHR authority. So each member state within their health system is going to create a national IHR authority and also an IHR focal point that will be tasked with coordinating with the WHO. And I think if I had to choose one term to to make it clear for people is coordination, switch it for sovereignty and the who is going to steal your sovereignty which is not accurate and change it for coordination this is about coordination the who coordinating with our own governments and our own governments being you know the the tyrannical organisms that will be effectively enacting laws on a national level in and as an expression of their national sovereignty, you see this is where this is perverse and James explains this very well, if the United States of America, if the the federal government decides, hey you. You're a Swiss national, if you want to come and visit in the US you need to be jabbed, you need to have digital id with your vax status etc, you need to quarantine upon your arrival regardless of whether you come via air, boat, seas or land, this is a decision by the US government and it's a decision that they already made Peter, during this scamdemic, the first round COVID, I was not allowed to go to the US as a unvaxxed non US citizen.
And we got a preview during that round of what it is our countries, our governments can do as an expression of their national sovereignty with the full backing and complicity of the WHO and these regulations.
So this moves from previously, the WHO gave recommendations and governments fell into line, every single government but in theory I guess a government could have said, this is nonsense, we're going to reject that, but this seems to be legally making that enforceable that states must now comply.
That's a great point you make, because a lot of the confusion is also due to the fact that we had quite different drafts a year ago. And in the initial drafts, it did appear that there was an issue of sovereignty and the WHO having these types of powers over states. It was the reading of those documents with the legally binding, they had the term legally binding in there and other provisions. And I was also following the release of these documents, I was also mentioning the fact that this was a power grab by the WHO. But in the meantime, throughout this year, we've had new information with leaked documents. And now we have this final official document that was released a few days ago.
That is the final version that was adopted, as we mentioned, at the 11th hour. And it's not as, I want to say stringent as the previous versions, there is language you know, the member states shall, the state party that's how it's referred to in the document, the state party shall, you know, may compel the traveller to undergo, so they do kind of like a, it's kind of like a gymnastics exercise where they they manage to circumvent certain things, but the end goal is the same for all of them and so they're playing with the law, they're very good at playing with the law but the result inevitably is the same, loss of freedom for us, the people at it, the loss of sovereignty at the individual level.
Using or abusing power at the state, at the national level, and the international level.
And of course, I mean, James' article is exceptional. We'll put a link in going through those. But it does seem that the ritual of absolute power to quarantine anyone, to demand that happens. But then it's also about international travel. It's not just about the States. They then will make recommendations which are, in effect, demands that actually international travel is subject to whatever. I think one of the that talks about vaccinations but i think in in part of it it says any in article 31 it says additional established health measures that prevent the control, so any extra health measure, it's not, it doesn't say you know, you need to get a jab or wear a mask, it's like anything that may be needed that is dangerous.
Yeah and what is key here, Peter, is that they agree on all this stuff when it comes to the measures and what our own, countries are going to compel people to do. This is not the point of contention. And I understood this very well with James. This is about the business deal.
The negotiations is about figuring out who is going to get a piece of the pie. They've agreed on all the measures and how they're going to deal with us plebs once the next pandemic comes around, which there is a consensus. It's not about if, it's about when the next pandemic comes around. So the point of contention, why these negotiations are taking so long, be it with the IHR or with the pandemic treaty, is about how they're going to structure their deal and how they're going to distribute the spoils. And that's why I wanted to come to Article 44 because this is what it's about, Article 44 and Article 44BIS.
Not BS.
No, it should be BS. It definitely should be BS, but let me read. I'm not going to read the full thing. It's a little bit long, but no, but I should. It's really important. If you bear with me like two minutes, I'll read the full thing. So Article 44.2bis states parties subject to applicable law and available resources shall maintain or increase domestic funding as necessary and collaborate, including through international cooperation and assistance as appropriate to strengthen sustainable financing to support the implementation of these regulations.
Tutor, pursuant to subparagraph C of paragraph 1, state parties shall undertake to collaborate to the extent possible to a. Encourage governance and operating models of existing financing entities and funding mechanisms to be regionally representative and responsive to the needs and national priorities of developing countries in the implementation of these regulations, b. Identify and enable access to financial resources, including through the coordinating financial mechanism established pursuant to Article 44b is, necessary to equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries, including for developing, strengthening, and maintaining core capacities.
[Which brings me to Article 44bis. 1. A coordinating financial mechanism. The mechanism is hereby established to a. Promote the provision of timely, predictable, and sustainable financing for the implementation of these regulations in order to develop, strengthen, and maintain core capacities as set out in Annex I of these regulations, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. B. Seek to maximize the availability of financing for the implementation needs and priorities of state parties, in particular of developing countries.
And C. Work to mobilize new and additional financial resources and increase the efficient utilization of existing financing instruments relevant to the effective implementation of these regulations.
This is an important part I'm almost done. 2. In support of the objective set out in paragraph 1 of this article, the mechanism shall enter alia a. User conduct relevant needs and funding gap analysis. B. Promote harmonization, coherence, and coordination of existing financing instruments. C. Identify all sources of financing that are available for implementation support and make this information available to state parties. D. Provide advice and support upon request to state parties in identifying and applying for financial resources for strengthening core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. C. Leverage voluntary monetary contributions for organizations and other entities supporting state parties to develop, strengthen, and maintain their core capacities, including those relevant for pandemic emergencies. 3. The mechanism shall function in relation to the implementation of these regulations under the authority and guidance of the health assembly and be accountable to it.
And so I'm not going to read Annex 1, but as it refers to Annex 1, and it's all about creating the structure and the core capabilities for surveillance, on-site investigation.
Laboratory diagnostics, implementation of control measures, etc., determining the risk of communication in terms of the disease. But what it means is that they are essentially setting up the infrastructure so that the poorer nations can also be able to say, hey, the pathogen you've identified, well, that we've identified in our mechanism, like in our, how would you say, with the core capabilities set up that we've put in our countries, the pathogen comes from us. So we want to be able to get a percentage of all the profit that you make off of the products, the health-related products that you create for the so-called pandemic. And this is what happened, you know, with Omicron in Africa, right, where they gave away, you know, Omicron, the genetic resources, the genetic resource, pardon me, of Omicron, and then Big Pharma created all these products off of the back of it, you know, the boosters and stuff. And so they made an agreement where rich countries would give funding so that the poorer nations could set all of this up and have the right to claim the spoils basically of the products that will be created off of the back of these pathogens. And this is the point of contention, by the way, with the pandemic treaty was how they were going to agree on the PABS system, the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, because they need, you know, these quote, pathogen or genetic resources or sequences to base their
poison on and then it's about distribution and it's you know these nations they're not saying what they should be saying, is that we don't want these poisonous products, we don't want to be forced to take these poisonous products which is what our nations should be saying, they're saying, hey we want a piece of that poisonous pie, as James refers to it, we also want to to get money from these criminals that are in charge of our different countries, they also want to get money in their pockets so this is what this whole process has been about. It's about profiteering off of our continued ill health.
Yeah profiteering and control absolutely. Noor it's always difficult to squeeze a huge topic like this into an hour but maybeI will put the links up and people do need to read James's Substack and they can go through the articles and everything is there.
Yeah I'm sorry reading article 44 and article 44bis, it's so dry this language and it's,
James said it on our podcast the other day, he gave out very good medical advice. He said, if you want to fall asleep at night, if you, suffer from insomnia, just read these documents. And it was so true, ahead of recording that very podcast episode with James, you know, we did it 24 hours after all of these announcements were made. And so that following day, I was reading the amendments and it wasn't in the evening, it was in the afternoon and it still managed to make me really drowsy. So listen, bless James for spending so many hours reading every single word in these documents. But, yeah, it's done on purpose, you know, to really not make people want to read these documents and therefore be properly informed. But I'll echo James, you know, read the damn documents if you want to know what it is they're up to. And for sure, listen to other people that are talking about this subject by all means. But if you really want to grasp what's going on, just go and do the research as well and do the reading yourself. Thankfully, you have a few people that you can look up to who can give you pointers. This is what James does. He gives you pointers and he says, hey, look at this, look at this, look at this, look at this.
But the time to just consume news from whatever source and just take it at face value, we know that doesn't really work. So don't even listen to me. Just go and read the documents.
I agree. And just for the last few minutes, can I just ask you about people responding?
We talked about 10 to 18 months about being extended, the negotiating period being extended. That's part of the pandemic treaty. But, I mean, how can people be involved? They can obviously raise awareness online, on social media. Is it a case of writing to governments? I mean, what can people do when they're armed with the information? What's kind of their next step?
Listen, you need to be focusing at the local level and regional level. So, for example, in Switzerland, they are preparing a law on epidemics. That's the name of the law. It's currently being redrafted it's to be presented in 2026, I'm involved with local, associations and organizations that are trying to raise awareness in the wider population, we have, we are very fortunate here because we can vote directly on on laws you know through our referendum process we also have the ability to put forward quote initiatives, so for example on the 9th of June, I'm going to go vote. There's an initiative to protect bodily autonomy in terms of vaccine mandates and to have that added specifically in the constitution. We do have an article in the constitution that protects the integrity of a human being, but we want to make it specific so that there's no way to go around it when they introduce the law on epidemics. And in the US, I mean.
You have so many laws that should be repealed because they're completely unconstitutional. Laws, as I mentioned, some of them that derive from this act that Lawrence Gostin authored, the U.S. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act in 2001. This was, when the anthrax thing was going on. He had actually started working on it two years prior in 1999 kind of like the patriot acts you know they had started working on it also in the 90s so they were preparing a few things ahead of different crises, let's put it that way and so that US model state emergency health powers act from that I don't know how much legislation, how many laws were derived that you really need to be looking in your own country what's going on, your health and, what's HHS in the US, oh you're in England sorry, but for the American audience stuff coming out of HHS, how they coordinate with the CDC and all of these corrupt sick and evil institutions.
Listen, just take big pharma down, all of it, and all of these associated institutions. It's been going on for at least 100 years longer. But, for the sake of focus, we can just talk about the 20th century and how basically everything was set up to push poison and to suppress actual remedies.
Not manufactured by big pharma. So this is the root of the problem of what's going on. It's really looking at the entire structure within which the WHO sits.
Well, Noor, I really do appreciate you coming on and giving us that, not only background information, but the call to action. I know people want to delve deeper into your Substack and also James both of the links are in the description so thank you so much for coming on unpacking what you're seeing there and what's going to impact every country in the world, so thank you.
I hope I was able to bring a little bit of of clarity because as I mentioned at the outset of the conversation, it is very convoluted it does take time, people don't have time, people are busy fighting other battles, figuring out how to survive.
And I just hope that, my work, certainly James's work that I know for sure because it does help me, but I hope that what I'm doing can help orient a little bit and provide a little bit of clarity with all this confusion. So thank you everyone for listening up to now and even sticking till the end, despite the reading of Article 44 and 44 BIS, which was so boring, but important.
It is. And, Noor, I've certainly learned a huge lot just listening to you. So I know our audience will feel exactly the same. So, Noor, thanks so much for today.
Thank you.