“The Entire Political Context We’ve Had for 50 Years Has Changed in the Last Month. We Are Now at the End of the Fourth Turning—These People Are Evil,” Says Top Pollster on Trump Momentum (VIDEO)

Rasmussen’s Mark Mitchell joins Dave Brat on The War Room.

In a fiery segment on ‘The War Room’ with former Virginia Congressman Dave Brat, Rasmussen Reports’ pollster Mark Mitchell delivered a jaw-dropping analysis of the current political landscape.

Mitchell explained what his organization was witnessing with the recent Trump revolution. He revealed that Donald Trump’s approval rating is currently at an impressive 53%, on an upward trajectory.

Mitchell also compared the current political climate to historical cycles, suggesting that America might be witnessing the end of the “fourth turning,” not with war but with the exposure of government corruption.

Mark Mitchell: Man, I have some good news for you, too. I’m telling you what, the public opinion is lit right now. Things are changing faster than I ever expected.

Dave Brat: I’ve been seeing some polling. That’s why I wanted to talk to you today. I’ve been seeing 70% approval for Trump on keeping his promises and some things like that. But you’re the expert. Lead us through for a minute, and then I’m going to read a couple of ads, and then we’re going to bring you back after the break.

Mark Mitchell: Yeah, what’s incredible is that number you cited actually came from a legacy media outlet. That’s what’s incredible. Once you cut off their USAID funding, mysteriously, all of a sudden, the numbers look like Rasmussen reports. I’ll tell you what, Donald Trump’s approval rating is pretty good right now. It’s 53% today, and it’s on the upswing. That’s incredible because people are watching what the legacy media is calling chaos, and they don’t see it. This is what they voted for. People are happier now than at almost any point in time in our polling as measured by right direction. People are this, and they are happy…

…So what we’re bringing out today is favorability of Doge and Elon Musk, because it looked like everything they threw at Donald Trump over the last eight years hasn’t worked. His approval rating is higher than ever. And believe it or not, there were more people that strongly disapproved of Donald Trump back in January of 2017 than they do today. But guess what? Elon Musk is almost as popular as Trump. His net approval is only two points less right now. And when we asked whether people support or oppose Doge going in and cutting government waste, it’s plus 11, plus 11. They’re popular than the Walt Disney Company is…

…The entire political context in America that we’ve had for the last 50 years has changed in the last month. We are now at the end of the fourth turning. We thought it was going to be World War III, we thought it was going to be war with China. But it looks like it might be the geopolitical and domestic implications of our entire government being corrupt.

I mean, we knew it was bad. I don’t think anybody had any idea how bad it was. Just think about people like Mitt Romney, who ran as a debt-hawk… Turns out they stole my kids’ a Social Security in order to fund an entire massive network of grift and kickbacks and funding Black operations.

It’s evil. It’s disgusting and evil, and all of those people are silent right now. We’re in a new wave of independent journalists because I didn’t ask for this job. I’d rather be polling. But our videos brought in more money than our polling did this presidential cycle.

The post “The Entire Political Context We’ve Had for 50 Years Has Changed in the Last Month. We Are Now at the End of the Fourth Turning—These People Are Evil,” Says Top Pollster on Trump Momentum (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Hohmann: USAID funded Terrorist Regimes that Killed Thousands of US Soldiers

The US was funding the Taliban through USAID after the humiliating surrender by Joe Biden in 2021.

Guest post by Leo Hohmann – republished with permission.

USAID sent $9.3B to Islamic terror states that killed 3,000 American soldiers

The explosive disclosures about how U.S. taxpayer monies are being used to subvert governments worldwide, while propping up others, continues to shed light on the outragious fools our own government must take us for. They steal our money and use it however they wish, often in secret deals that reward obedient foreign regimes while punishing the disobedient.

Yes, the Muslim terrorists hate Christians and Jews and wish them dead or subservient, according to their religious teachings. That’s a fact. But they would not be empowered to commit jihad were it not for the almighty U.S. dollar. And some of the dead end up being U.S. soldiers. U.S. taxpayer dollars being used to fund the murders of U.S. military personnel, imagine that!

And in the process of these needless wars, millions of Muslim refugees get driven into the Western countries. Talk about a duel bang for their buck, these globalists really know how to play the American people on their way to destroying nations and bringing in their one-world beast system. They are very good at what they do, you have to hand it to them.

The latest bombshell report comes from investigative reporter Daniel Greenfield.

Greenfield, in an article for Israel National News, reports that USAID doled out more than $9 billion to foreign terrorist groups that killed over 3,000 American soldiers in recent years. Below is an excerpt from Greenfield’s article.

Over the last two years, USAID doled out $2.3 billion in “humanitarian assistance” to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s native Somalia. Last year it reported a request for $1.6 billion in aid and even in December 2024, with the Biden administration on the way out the door, it sent an additional $29 million.

USAID support for Somalia doubled under the Biden administration and with $3.3 billion from USAID allocated in the last 5 years. the threatened withdrawal of funding must have been a painful blow for Omar, who is very close to the Somali regime. Former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Khaire had stated “the interest of Ilhan are not Ilhan’s, it’s not the interest of Minnesota, nor is it the interest of the American people, the interest of Ilhan is that of the Somalian people and Somalia.”

Somalia, along with other Islamic terrorist entities, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, were among the top beneficiaries of USAID cash, Greenfield reports.

USAID sent $2.1 billion to Gaza and the “West Bank” since the Hamas attacks of Oct 7. In 2024 alone, $917 million was programmed for the terrorist areas occupying Israel.

USAID provided more than $3.7 billion to Afghanistan since the Taliban took over with $832 million in the previous fiscal year alone. The money was so unaccountable that USAID refused to cooperate with SIGAR: the government watchdog tracking spending in Afghanistan intent on blocking money from aiding terrorists.

Read the entire article by Daniel Greenfield here.

This site is totally independent and ad free, meaning nothing is owed to any corporate or government entity. I depend only on my readers for support. If you appreciate these updates and wish to support my work, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, PO Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264or donate via credit card.

The post Hohmann: USAID funded Terrorist Regimes that Killed Thousands of US Soldiers appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Bombshell: NARA Emails Reveal Biden’s White House Involvement in Trump Classified Documents Case.

Newly obtained emails reveal that former president Joe Biden’s White House was involved from the

The post Bombshell: NARA Emails Reveal Biden’s White House Involvement in Trump Classified Documents Case. appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Scott Jennings Refuses to Let CNN Host Treat Him Like a Toddler: ‘You Don’t Have to Talk to Me Like That’

CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings was not having it when network host Abby Phillip tried to speak condescendingly to him Monday night while discussing federal judges blocking President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

Trump ordered a freeze on issuing federal government grants so spending could be reviewed for fraud and waste.

Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island then directed the administration to “immediately restore frozen funding” across the federal government.

Further, he ruled Monday that the administration was not fully in compliance with his order and threatened criminal contempt judgments to officials who did not comply, Politico reported.

“The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” McConnell decided. “These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the [temporary restraining order].”

Other district court judges have blocked Trump’s federal government employee buyout program and denied access to Treasury Department records to Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, according to the Associated Press.

Jennings responded to the moves by the district court judges on “News Night with Abby Phillip” Monday, saying, “I think there’s a difference between saying whether you’re complying with the law, and then you have these individual district court judges setting, effectively, broad federal policy that is specifically reserved for the president of the United States. I think we do have a constitutional crisis, and it’s being caused by these judges.”

If there’s a “constitutional crisis” it’s caused by activist federal district judges with narrow jurisdictions usurping the powers of the presidency. @GovChrisSununu and I take on the left last night on @cnn. It’s just more lawfare against Trump. pic.twitter.com/yvZPXyXaGK

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) February 11, 2025

“What are you talking about?” Phillip doubtfully asked.

“They’re not here to tell us how to spend the money. They’re not here to set broad federal policy. That is the president’s job, as elected by the people,” Jennings replied.

“These judges are supposed to be settling discrete, specific matters, not policy setting. I think [Vice President J.D.] Vance is right,” he added.

Vance, who is a Yale Law School graduate, posted Sunday on social media platform X, “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.

“Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.

If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.

Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 9, 2025

Jennings argued, “It is the executive branch’s job to figure out how to spend money, once it is appropriated by Congress.” .

Former New Hampshire GOP Gov. Chris Sununu agreed, saying, “The court cannot say, ‘You have to spend these dollars today.’”

CNN legal analyst Elie Hong soon jumped in the fray, asking Jennings, “If a district court judge rules in a way that the president dislikes, should the president listen, or should the president defy?”

“If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely defy it,” Jennings answered.

Sununu again concurred, saying, “You just can’t compel the executive branch to spend the dollars. You can’t do that.”

Philip then waded in, calling Jennings’s position “bizarre.” She questioned, “When the court says, ‘Congress … appropriated this money, you must unfreeze it while we litigate this,’ why can’t Trump comply with that?”

“So you’re saying a judge should decide how and when money is spent for years and not the president of the United States?” Jennings responded to Phillip.

“Scott, let me explain it a little bit more slowly,” she answered somewhat mockingly.

Scott Jennings: “If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country, he should absolutely DEFY IT”

“There’s a difference between broad policy decisions and discrete disputes between parties. That’s the difference. If I want a policy… pic.twitter.com/FJoKGEWIm4

— Unlimited L’s (@unlimited_ls) February 11, 2025

“You don’t have to talk to me like that,” Jennings retorted. “I have a position on this and you have an opinion. We can disagree.”

“Listen to me, because you’re not listening, and you’re making claims that are not connected to the facts,” Phillip continued in a berating tone.

“Maybe you are,” Jennings fired back.

He then proved he was listening by restating her position that a district judge should be able to say, “So while we litigate this, and I’m a judge, and I’m in charge of the executive branch and you’re not?”

“Forget it. I totally disagree,” Jennings said.

Jennings certainly did not deserve the treatment Phillip gave him.

Who knows? Maybe she thinks she’s intellectually superior to Jennings as a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. But he is a former fellow there, as well as at the University of Chicago.

Further, Jennings served in public affairs positions in George W. Bush’s White House and has decades of experience in politics as a reporter and working on campaigns.

Jennings knows where he stands, and he rightfully did not allow Phillip to talk down to him.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Scott Jennings Refuses to Let CNN Host Treat Him Like a Toddler: ‘You Don’t Have to Talk to Me Like That’ appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Marc Fogel Returns to the U.S. After Being Released from Russia, Thanks President Trump Following Years of Neglect by the Biden Regime

Credit: President Donald Trump / X

Marc Fogel, a 63-year-old Pennsylvania schoolteacher wrongfully detained in Russia since 2021, has finally returned to American soil under President Donald Trump’s administration.

Marc Fogel has been released and returned to the United States following negotiations led by President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff.

“Today, President Donald Trump and his Special Envoy Steve Witkoff are able to announce that Mr. Witkoff is leaving Russian airspace with Marc Fogel, an American who was detained by Russia,” said Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

The specifics of the exchange that led to Fogel’s release have not been disclosed. However, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz described the negotiation as a show of good faith from the Russians.

“President Trump, Steve Witkoff and the President’s advisors negotiated an exchange that serves as a show of good faith from the Russians and a sign we are moving in the right direction to end the brutal and terrible war in Ukraine.

“Since President Trump’s swearing- in, he has successfully secured the release of Americans detained around the world, and President Trump will continue until all Americans being held are returned to the United States. By tonight, Marc Fogel will be on American soil and reunited with his family and loved ones thanks to President Trump’s leadership.”

Welcome home, Marc pic.twitter.com/PwbGmaf1Xd

— Mike Waltz (@MikeWaltz47) February 12, 2025

Fogel, who was arrested in Moscow on trumped-up charges of drug smuggling for carrying legally prescribed medical marijuana intended for chronic pain management., was subjected to a staggering 14-year sentence in a Russian labor camp.

Despite his family’s desperate pleas and the clear injustice of his detainment, the Biden administration sat idly.

However, within mere weeks of President Trump’s return to office, he not only secured Fogel’s release but also personally welcomed him back at the White House in a poignant display of true American leadership.

WATCH:

Trump just stood outside in the snow waiting for American citizen Marc Fogel — held in Russian captivity since 2021 — to arrive at the White House

What a scene pic.twitter.com/sIPAMBwxUT

— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) February 12, 2025

“I feel like the luckiest man on Earth right now. I want you to know that I am not a hero in this at all. President Trump is a hero. These men that came from the diplomatic service are heroes. The senators and representatives who fought in my honor to get me home are the heroes. I am in awe of what they all did,” said Fogel.

“Knowing I had the support of my fellow Pennsylvanians, my family, my friends—it kept me going.It was so overwhelming that it brought me to my knees, and it brought me to tears. But it was my energy—it was my being—that kept me going that whole time.

“I will forever be indebted to President Trump, to Steve over there—what a dynamic man [Steve] is, that’s true. When I met him, the energy, the can-do attitude just exuded from his body.

“When he smiled at me and introduced himself, and I got the feel for what had happened—it’s not just me, it’s everybody. Secretary Rubio, who met my son a while back. I’m a middle-class school teacher who’s now in a dream world.

WATCH:

President Trump welcomes prisoner released by Russia, Marc Fogel to the White House.

Fogel: “President Putin was very generous and statesmanlike in granting me a pardon.”

Q: “What were the terms of this deal?”

Trump: “Very fair. Very reasonable, not like deals we’ve seen…” pic.twitter.com/5olI3D9Xsi

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 12, 2025

Fogel’s family expressed immense relief and gratitude, stating, “This has been the darkest and most painful period of our lives, but today, we begin to heal.”

President Trump immediately released a statement on X stating, “When I saw [Marc Fogel’s] mother at a rally, she said, ‘If you win, will you get my son out?’ I promised her—she’s 95 years old—and I said, ‘We’ll get him out,’ and we got him out pretty quickly.”

PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT.

“When I saw [Marc Fogel’s] mother at a rally, she said, ‘If you win, will you get my son out?’ I promised her—she’s 95 years old—and I said, ‘We’ll get him out,’ and we got him out pretty quickly.” –President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/jQ681LMxgD

— President Donald J. Trump (@POTUS) February 12, 2025

The post Marc Fogel Returns to the U.S. After Being Released from Russia, Thanks President Trump Following Years of Neglect by the Biden Regime appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Judge Who Blocked Trump’s Spending Freeze Calls Him a ‘Tyrant,’ Decries Racism as a ‘White People Problem,’ and Advocates Packing His Court with ‘People of Color’ Because It’s ‘Too White’ in Resurfaced 2021 Footage

Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island John J. McConnell Jr. (Screenshot: Helen Cooke / Youtube)

In a striking example of judicial activism, newly unearthed footage from 2021 exposes U.S. District Judge John McConnell for what he truly is—an Obama-appointed activist masquerading as a judge.

Judge McConnell, who recently blocked President Trump’s initiative to freeze federal spending and audaciously accused Trump of defying his court order, is exposed in a resurfaced video as he lambasts the Trump administration and pushes for identity-based sentencing and the creation of a race-obsessed committee within his court in his attempt to inject his progressive ideology into the legal system.

The interview was conducted in January 2021 and has been published on Helen Cooke’s YouTube channel.

In the footage, uncovered by Natalie Winters, co-host of Steve Bannon’s War Room, McConnell asserts that “racism is a white people problem” and advocates for special sentencing considerations based on gender identity and race.

McConnell: When you’re sentencing someone, you have to take a moment and realize that this middle-class, white, male, privileged person needs to understand the human being that comes before us. That may be a woman, may be Black, may be transgender, may be poor, may be rich, may be whatever—may have experiences that are not yours. And you have to walk in their shoes and understand that the law applies to them where they are. And then you have to apply the law accordingly.”

WATCH:

Judge John McConnell Jr. says as a “middle class, white male privileged person” he needs to “understand” criminals who are “women, black, or transgender” and that the “law applies to them where they are.” pic.twitter.com/ZT9LTI7l5y

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 12, 2025

The corrupt judge also compared Trump’s first term to the era of the Civil War and Jim Crow laws, labeling Trump a “tyrant” who threatened American democracy.

McConnell: “So, why should you care? You should care because we’re the only things that stand in between an oppressive, arbitrary government and actions by individuals, or by the majority.

Oftentimes, I mean, when we saw the Jim Crow laws and whatnot, where courts stand and enforce the rule of law against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant, or what we’ve seen plenty of examples of that recently. And it enforces our values.

Our values, in a legal sense, are the Constitution. It’s for that reason, and we saw there are plenty of examples of history, and there’s plenty of examples over the last four years where it’s the courts that kept that balloon from bursting when it was challenged.

So, that’s why you should care about the courts, because, you know, it affects so many aspects of people’s lives that they don’t even know about, don’t even know.

And it affects society in such a big way. I mean, when we talk about criminal justice, we’ll talk about what effect it has on people of color in races and communities and whatnot. But, to me, that’s why the court stands so important.

They are a very different, equal branch of government that protects the values of this country against arbitrary majority rules to protect those values for everybody. Absolutely, and we do a lot of mundane, stupid, regular stuff too, besides those lofty goals of maintaining values.”

WATCH:

Judge McConnell equates President Trump’s first four years to the damage inflicted by the Civil War and Jim Crow laws.

He also compares President Trump a “tyrant.” pic.twitter.com/I0REreofkR

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 12, 2025

McConnell also criticized Trump’s judicial appointments for lacking diversity, while praising Obama’s efforts and expressing hope that Biden would prioritize racial diversity.

McConnell: “President Obama had a great track record of ensuring racial diversity amongst the bench. President Trump, not so much. I don’t think he appointed a single person of color as a Court of Appeals judge and very few people to the district court.

So, I’m hoping that President Biden will prioritize racial diversity on the bench as well because if you don’t have diversity of thought, then the courts aren’t going to work right. Right? Because if we’re there to protect the minority while upholding the values of the Constitution, then it’s going to be—you know—middle class white male rule continues.”

McConnell’s claim about Trump not appointing any people of color to the Court of Appeals is blatantly false.

During his first term (2017–2021), President Donald Trump appointed several judges of color to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Notable appointments include:

James C. Ho: Appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2018, Judge Ho is of Taiwanese descent and was the first Asian American to serve on the Fifth Circuit.

Michael H. Park: Appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2019, Judge Park is Korean American.

Neomi Rao: Appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019, Judge Rao is of Indian descent.

Barbara Lagoa: Appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2019, Judge Lagoa is Cuban American.

President Donald Trump appointed a total of 234 Article III federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices, 54 appellate court judges, and 174 district court judges. Of these appointees, approximately 16% (37) were individuals of color, according to Pew Research.

McConnell announced that he formed a Diversity, Inclusion, and Racial Justice Committee within his court, arguing that “racism is a white people problem” and that white individuals must address and rectify it. He highlighted the lack of diversity in his court upon his appointment.

McConnell: “We haven’t publicly announced this yet—we only have internally—but we have put together a Diversity and Inclusion and Racial Justice Committee that has three goals. One is to look internally. I don’t think we can solve this problem until, um, we look at ourselves.

But the committee has stated its mission in understanding that, in many ways, racism is a white people’s problem, and white people need to figure out how to solve it and need to do the hard work to fix it. So, we have formed the committee to look at race in our courts.

Have we given disparate sentences between black and whites? What about hiring practices—is it right? What’s the treatment process like? Have we been a welcoming, inclusive community?

The second is to look internally, actually on that issue, which is, what we are like as an employer. We’re an employer that provides a workplace, and we want to be just an inclusive place.

Third is the engagement in the community. We’re starting to figure out how we can go out into the community and engage more with the message of the rule of law and justice, particularly in underserved communities.

WATCH:

Judge McConnell also established a Diversity, Inclusion, and Racial Justice Committee in his court.

He insists that “racism is a white people problem” and that white people need to “figure it out” and do the “hard work” to fix it. pic.twitter.com/swXyIXAm4v

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 12, 2025

Judge McConnell also addressed the lack of diversity within his own court upon his arrival and took immediate steps to rectify the situation.

He revealed significant efforts to diversify the court’s staff, including the hiring of probation officers from minority backgrounds.

He highlighted the psychological impact on African-American defendants walking into a predominantly white court, calling his own court “majestic” but unrepresentative.

McConnell: “Federal court in Rhode Island is a sad example of a lack of racial diversity. We have five judicial officers: three judges and two magistrate judges, all white. We have, finally, two women. We didn’t have that for the longest time—judges, one judge and one magistrate judge. The majority of our court staff is white.

It’s a great place to work, so people don’t leave, so that’s been very hard to impact. I’ve not, you know, not—we’ve not had a new hire, I think, in many years there because people stick around. And so, we’re a sad example of it, which is why we need to put in place…

On the other hand, our probation department, which works directly with people once they get out of the criminal justice system.

When I got there, it was all white. And when we hired a new probation officer, we said, ‘This can’t be. This just cannot be any longer.’ And we immediately got four openings, just happened to be, and we filled them with people of color. And we’ve now changed the probation department.

Just think about it for a second, in that empathetic sort of way. You’re an African-American young man who is predominantly a criminal defendant, and you get walked into a court, and our court is majestic. I mean, it is.”

[…]

“I’ve never been personally subjected to racism. I mean, racism plays such a huge role in the criminal justice system, from who gets stopped to who gets arrested, who gets prosecuted, and how they get prosecuted, and how they spend time in jail and everything along that horrible road.

I’ve never experienced that, and that makes it hard—or it makes it easy to ignore, right? But it makes it hard not to when there’s no diversity, when you don’t have colleagues that you can speak to, or when you’re not diverse yourself.

And make no mistake about it, race is present every single day in the courtroom, uh, predominantly in criminal cases, but it’s present in a goodly number of the civil cases that we do as well. So, um, you know, diversity is important everywhere. It is vitally important.”

WATCH:

Judge McConnell then lamented that his Court was a bad example because it was “too white.”

He admits to exclusively hiring black people solely because they were “people of color.” pic.twitter.com/xlREBhmIZJ

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 12, 2025

The judge also made controversial remarks about the influence of personal opinions in judicial decisions.

McConnell: “We fall back on a kind of stereotypical comment that judges should have no opinions, and that’s just not true. If that were the case, we would have computers run our justice system.

We would input this, and we didn’t put that, and we’d spin the wheel, and that would come the proper decision. But that’s not how justice works, nor should it work like that. I, particularly those people that know me, know I have opinions.

I have opinions about a lot of things; some are relevant, some aren’t relevant. But what makes the system work is this fidelity to the rule of law.

It sounds like a cliché, but it’s so important, and that is that you respect the fact that laws are passed according to the democratic system.

You respect the fact that the constitution contains values and protects our freedoms and protects the minority against the oppression of the majority.”

WATCH:

Judge McConnell insists that it’s okay for judges to let personal opinions influence their decisions.

“I have opinions about a lot of things…”

(He was on the Finance Committee for a Hillary Clinton Campaign, 6-figure dem donor, and Planned Parenthood Board member.) pic.twitter.com/DvvgUD0nf4

— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) February 12, 2025

John McConnell is not a judge but an activist masquerading in judicial robes; his overt political biases and actions clearly demonstrate that he needs to be impeached to preserve the integrity of our courts.

You can watch the full video below:



The post Judge Who Blocked Trump’s Spending Freeze Calls Him a ‘Tyrant,’ Decries Racism as a ‘White People Problem,’ and Advocates Packing His Court with ‘People of Color’ Because It’s ‘Too White’ in Resurfaced 2021 Footage appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Hypocrite Pope Francis, Living Behind a 39-Ft Wall, Sends Letter to U.S. Bishops Blasting Trump’s Immigration Crackdown — Yet Imposes Harsh Penalties of 1-4 Years in Jail and Fines Up to $25,700 for Illegal Entry into Vatican

Credit: Republic of Korea

Pope Francis, who resides in the Vatican, a city-state surrounded by a formidable 39-foot wall, has penned a letter to U.S. bishops, decrying what he describes as harsh immigration policies of President Donald Trump.

In his sanctimonious letter, Pope Francis calls on the bishops to defend the “infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person” amidst what he terms a “major crisis” with “mass deportations.”

Yet, the pontiff’s selective outrage is glaring when one considers his silence during the Biden administration’s push for radical abortion policies, which directly contradicted Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life.

Read the letter below:

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate,

I am writing today to address a few words to you in these delicate moments that you are living as Pastors of the People of God who walk together in the United States of America.

1. The journey from slavery to freedom that the People of Israel traveled, as narrated in the Book of Exodus, invites us to look at the reality of our time, so clearly marked by the phenomenon of migration, as a decisive moment in history to reaffirm not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person. [1]

2. These words with which I begin are not an artificial construct. Even a cursory examination of the Church’s social doctrine emphatically shows that Jesus Christ is the true Emmanuel (cf. Mt 1:23); he did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own.

The Son of God, in becoming man, also chose to live the drama of immigration. I like to recall, among other things, the words with which Pope Pius XII began his Apostolic Constitution on the Care of Migrants, which is considered the “Magna Carta” of the Church’s thinking on migration:

“The family of Nazareth in exile, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, emigrants in Egypt and refugees there to escape the wrath of an ungodly king, are the model, the example and the consolation of emigrants and pilgrims of every age and country, of all refugees of every condition who, beset by persecution or necessity, are forced to leave their homeland, beloved family and dear friends for foreign lands.” [2]

3. Likewise, Jesus Christ, loving everyone with a universal love, educates us in the permanent recognition of the dignity of every human being, without exception.

In fact, when we speak of “infinite and transcendent dignity,” we wish to emphasize that the most decisive value possessed by the human person surpasses and sustains every other juridical consideration that can be made to regulate life in society.

Thus, all the Christian faithful and people of good will are called upon to consider the legitimacy of norms and public policies in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.

4. I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.

At the same time, one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival.

That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.

5. This is not a minor issue: an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized.

The true common good is promoted when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all — as I have affirmed on numerous occasions — welcomes, protects, promotes and integrates the most fragile, unprotected and vulnerable.

This does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration. However, this development cannot come about through the privilege of some and the sacrifice of others. What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly.

6. Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.

In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation.

The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception. [3]

7. But worrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth.

8. I recognize your valuable efforts, dear brother bishops of the United States, as you work closely with migrants and refugees, proclaiming Jesus Christ and promoting fundamental human rights. God will richly reward all that you do for the protection and defense of those who are considered less valuable, less important or less human!

9. I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of good will, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.

With charity and clarity we are all called to live in solidarity and fraternity, to build bridges that bring us ever closer together, to avoid walls of ignominy and to learn to give our lives as Jesus Christ gave his for the salvation of all.

10. Let us ask Our Lady of Guadalupe to protect individuals and families who live in fear or pain due to migration and/or deportation. May the “Virgen morena”, who knew how to reconcile peoples when they were at enmity, grant us all to meet again as brothers and sisters, within her embrace, and thus take a step forward in the construction of a society that is more fraternal, inclusive and respectful of the dignity of all.

Fraternally,
Francis

Border czar Tom Homan Tom Homan responded sharply to the Pope’s criticisms.

“I got harsh words for the Pope. Pope ought to fix the Catholic Church. I’m saying this as a lifelong Catholic. I was baptized Catholic. I was at first Communion as a Catholic, confirmation as a Catholic. He ought to fix the Catholic Church and concentrate on his work and leave border enforcement to us.”

Homan’s point about the Vatican’s own protective walls is telling: “He wants to attack us for securing our border. He’s got a wall around the Vatican, does he not? So he’s got a wall to protect his people and himself, but we can’t have a wall around the United States? So I wish he stick to the Catholic Church and fix that and leave border enforcement to us.”

WATCH:

Tom Homan has a message for the Pope pic.twitter.com/VdQ82a0Xhd

— Karli Bonne’ (@KarluskaP) February 12, 2025

While Pope Francis advocates for open borders in the U.S., he seems content with the security provided by the Vatican’s own historical wall.

This barrier was built not out of xenophobia but for the protection of the sacred and the safety of its inhabitants. Why then, does the Pope not extend the same understanding to nations like the United States, which face their own security challenges?

The Vatican Wall, also known as the Leonine Wall, was built in the 9th century under the direction of Pope Leo IV. Its primary purpose was to protect the Vatican and St. Peter’s Basilica from invasion, particularly from Muslim Saracen pirates who had previously attacked and sacked parts of Rome.

WATCH:

The Pope rants about President Trump’s plans to deport illegal aliens, calling it a “calamity,” and a “disgrace.”

How hypocritical, when his “city” is protected behind walls & security fortifications!

He won’t even let the homeless in, that lay freezing on cardboard outside… pic.twitter.com/WG9O7YjO5H

— ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) January 20, 2025

Also, just last December, the Vatican itself introduced draconian measures against those who enter Vatican City State illegally, imposing penalties that include 1 to 4 years in jail and fines ranging from $10,200 to $25,700.

Catholic News Agency reported:

The Vatican City State has toughened sanctions for those who try to illegally enter its territory in areas where free access is not allowed.

In a decree issued last month by the Holy See, the monetary sanctions and prison sentences for those who violate the strict security regulations of Vatican City have been considerably increased.

The document, signed by Cardinal Fernando Vérguez Alzaga, president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, provides for monetary fines ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 euros (about $10,200 to $25,700) and prison sentences ranging from one to four years.

These fines will apply especially to those who enter by means of violence, threats, or deception, bypassing border controls or security systems. In addition, those who enter with expired permits or do not meet the established requirements will receive administrative sanctions ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 euros (about $2,060 to $5,145).

The decree emphasizes that the penalties can be increased if the crime is committed with firearms, corrosive substances, by a person in disguise, or by several people together. Likewise, if illegal access is made in a vehicle, the penalty can increase by up to two-thirds.

The document also stipulates that unauthorized overflight of Vatican airspace, including through the use of drones, may be punished with prison sentences from six months to three years in addition to a fine that could reach 25,000 euros (about $26,000).

Anyone convicted of illegal entry will be banned from entering Vatican territory for a period of up to 15 years. If this sanction is breached, the offender may be punished with a prison sentence of one to five years.

The Pope’s selective criticism has not gone unnoticed.

While Pope Francis speaks passionately about the rights of migrants, his silence on the sanctity of life from conception during the promotion of abortion by the Biden regime has been deafening. This selective moral outrage is seen by many as politically motivated rather than spiritually guided.

The Pope’s call for open borders and sanctuary for all ignores the practical aspects of national security and the rule of law. Without secure borders, nations cannot ensure the safety and welfare of their citizens, including legal immigrants.

The post Hypocrite Pope Francis, Living Behind a 39-Ft Wall, Sends Letter to U.S. Bishops Blasting Trump’s Immigration Crackdown — Yet Imposes Harsh Penalties of 1-4 Years in Jail and Fines Up to $25,700 for Illegal Entry into Vatican appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper Claims There is No ‘Actual Evidence’ of Government Fraud — Then Calls Chris Sununu a ‘D*ck’ Live on Air (VIDEO)

CNN host Anderson Cooper let his emotions get the better of him when discussing the findings of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficency (DOGE).

The primetime anchor hosted a discussion with former New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu and several other panellists following Donald Trump’s decision to hold a joint presser with Elon Musk in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Here went the exchange:

SUNUNU: I know what you’re not showing here but Musk gave seven specific examples off the top of his head of where the corruption and fraud were.

He was talking about a contractor that had a three-month contract. He was paid for 20 years.

He was talking about welfare benefits that were being paid to someone that was technically 150 years old.”

COOPER: But we didn’t see any of that. He doesn’t present any actual evidence.

SUNUNU: He’s standing there in the Oval Office. Do you expect him to come in with 10,000 pages?

And I have to be clear. To complain about this administration, about transparency when this president takes open questions on a daily basis, yet Joe Biden didn’t show up for a press conference in six months is insane.

These guys are being extremely transparent. They don’t have to sit there and take the questions, but they do. It’s all on the website. It’s all out there.

Later on, the two men got in a heated discussion about FEMA spending millions of dollars on luxury hotels for migrants.

As the debate escalated, Cooper accused Sununu over putting words in his mouth.

“Don’t be a dick,” he remarked.

Cooper eventually apologized for his outburst.

“Before we go, I wanna apologize,” he said. “I was mean, I was rude to you.”

“Are you kidding?” Sununu responded. “I grew up with seven brothers and sisters, and I’m a Sununu.”

Watch the clip below:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper calls @GovChrisSununu a “dick” on live television.

He later apologized @DailyCaller

pic.twitter.com/LK3tKTjaOI

— Nicole Silverio (@NicoleMSilverio) February 12, 2025

Musk, meanwhile, has made clear that he will continue to expose waste and corruption across the federal government.

“The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what the people are going to get,” he said. “That’s what democracy is all about.”

“Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. So nobody can bat 1,000,” he continued.

“We are moving fast, so we will make mistakes, but we’ll also fix the mistakes very quickly.”

pic.twitter.com/Q8ckgAsI0G

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 11, 2025

The post CNN’s Anderson Cooper Claims There is No ‘Actual Evidence’ of Government Fraud — Then Calls Chris Sununu a ‘D*ck’ Live on Air (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Bannon: Back and Back Big

Bannon: Back and Back Big

The MAGA impresario is livelier than ever after his turn at the big house.

(Photo by ADAM GRAY/AFP via Getty Images)

“Paleoconservatives aren’t pussies.”

As editor of The American Conservative, I feel honorbound to extract an explanation on my interview subject’s recent utterance to the New York Times: “Conservatives are pussies.” The one and only former White House chief strategist stabbed in further: “I’m a hard-core populist. I’m a hard-core nationalist. I’m not a conservative. …The Republican Party is a bunch of [expletive]. They’re controlled opposition.” 

He clarifies he means “Conservative, Inc.,” the business and policy classes of Republican politics, not TAC’s founding stock. 

It’s been four-and-a-half years since I’ve seen Steve Bannon. In the basement of his fabled Capitol Hill townhouse on a midwinter Saturday afternoon, Bannon seems the same, maybe better. He’s sharper and fiercer—that is, more Steve Bannon than I had remembered. He says it’s the time in prison that shows. 

“Focus” is what losing liberty teaches you, he remarks. 

Bannon had called me after a recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s program, where I denounced a dishonest effort to fumigate some of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s new hires and bemoaned any lurch toward war with Iran. Though seen by some as a philosopher, Bannon is quietly more of a trafficker of ideologies, and information, than a settled mind or stone tablet. He expresses ambiguity about the Pentagon controversy, before perhaps more controversially asserting that maybe the famed Chicago international relations guru John Mearsheimer hasn’t gotten anything wrong, including his 2007 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.  

I’ve known Bannon since August 2017. He hoovers up ideological debate and the day’s events, then blends it all into his trademark, working-class Irish Richmond smack talk. Midway through our three-and-a-half hour sit-down, Bannon dispatched an aide to retrieve a Washington Post from Union Station. It had been missing that morning. The ex-Goldman man maintains an Eighties’ banker’s table setting—more phones than hands, and a hard-copy media digest befitting a head of state. When he texted me further in the succeeding days, I had half expected to be woken up to a call a la Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: “Money never sleeps, pal.”

The initial haggling is about food. We’re almost entirely alone, but Bannon works a hazy cavalcade of subordinates over the hours by phone and text. Quickly enough, brunch from Butterworth’s appears. The spot has been recently written up in the Post and the Wall Street Journal as the smaller, younger heir in spirit to the old Trump Hotel in Penn Quarter. The grub is strong, but Bannon is more than usually exultant. You wouldn’t serve the food in prison to animals, he says, and Bannon (a workaholic teetotal) relishes his dish as only a freed and strange breed of ascetic can. 

Bannon is not poor. His outlaw worldview and appearance masks the reality that he has spent a hard-charging life at the winners’ table. His mechanism is more hedge-fund manager than washed-up politico. (At one point, he privately castigates an ex-aide for indolence.) It’s not altogether clear, but there’s talk of more property to come in Washington; a house sold in Connecticut; multiple properties in Arizona; a place in Montana that he never sees (no reliable reception to broadcast his prominent War Room show); houses in Los Angeles that he’s either renting out or lost to an ex or got Californian justice in the recent infernos. “I love California,” the longtime Angeleno and lifelong showman says.  

But whatever riches feel like almost an afterthought or distraction: With President Donald Trump and the Republicans back in the saddle, it’s going to be Washington almost all the time for the foreseeable future. There’s a girlfriend. Then he sort of shrinks from the term, because he hardly sees her. 

We dive in. 

Bannon remains “a super hawk” and “leader of the super hawks” on the China issue, but he says he’s “in both camps” (those favoring confrontation versus those inclined toward restraint) when asked what to do about it. When pressed, Bannon appears on the verge of denouncing Matt Pottinger, the former National Security Council aide who resigned after the January 6, 2021 attacks, because “he had every opportunity to stick with us.” 

Pottinger is not (yet at least) back for Trump tour two, but remains influential. He recently wrote in the neoconservative Free Press that, should true-blue foreign policy realists and restrainers triumph, “Trump’s strength in the Western Hemisphere could portend weakness in Europe and Asia.” 

Bannon emphasizes that Pottinger had been hired in the brief tenure of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn (for whom Bannon seems to retain much affection) because he was whip-smart. Bannon caveats that he admires that Pottinger was sanctioned by China, along with other Trumpworld figures like himself and the former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.   

But Bannon gets headlines because he’s sui generis and surprising—not because he’s a carefully choreographed, garden-variety thinker like those in his long shadow, the mob of intellectual dwarfs only a stone’s throw away in Northeast Washington’s influence organs. Few, if any, “super hawks” on the China fight want a cut in Defense spending, as Bannon does. (It is hopefully making more sense why he feels he is in “both camps” now.) 

And Bannon, of course, isn’t afraid of a stemwinder jeremiad that could be spoken verbatim by a character in a 2000s geopolitical thriller like Traffic or Syrianna

“The problem of the apparatus that controls us—and we are controlled by an apparatus—is that it’s financed by Wall Street,” says Bannon. “And it has its information, Big-Tech arm in Silicon Valley. But between [famed Michael Moritz firm] Sequoia Capital, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, they’re partners of the [Communist Party of China]. They’re partners with them. … They’re totally, inextricably linked.” Bannon intones that “we have to break the sociopathic overlords on Wall Street, and we have to break the apartheid state in Silicon Valley.”

“We have an oligarchy,” Bannon says, a term usually reserved for left-wing commentators. “We have a tech-feudalist oligarchy—it’s pretty obvious.” It’s a vintage version of the man who a decade ago told the ex-Communist Party USA member Ronald Radosh at a Washington party, “I’m a Leninist.”

What is eerie about Trump II in the early days is that it is in many ways, at last, a resumption (and marked improvement on) the governing spirit that disappeared when Trump dispensed with Bannon in summer 2017. 

“The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over,” Bannon told the Weekly Standard (RIP) seven-and-a-half years ago. “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else.” 

Long before the political rise of Trump, when Bannon was a more surreptitious man on the move, Bannon told Radosh in 2013, “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

Perhaps particularly for Trump and Bannon’s haters, that description today doesn’t feel that far off. “I am the guy who came up with the idea of deconstructing the administrative state,” Bannon reminded me of the campaign plank that once felt wild-eyed and peripheral to the Trump project to many (including for many in what critics might today call “Populist, Inc.”). But while Bannon is no libertarian (his open feud with San Francisco’s right wing makes that clear enough), he clearly marches to the beat of his own drum. 

The period in which Bannon started talking like this, the gammy Obama second term from 2013–2017 and just before, is also an epoch of greater historical emphasis of late. “After Obama’s reelection, what I picked up [on], it started in 2013: when things really started to unravel,” the venture capitalist Marc Andressen told the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson recently. 

Privately, other major Silicon Valley figures have pinpointed 2014, when Japanese heavy SoftBank began investing heavily with Northern California firms, as the year when America tech, and San Francisco, began going off the rails. (Today, for what it’s worth, President Trump heralds SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son’s investments in the United States).

Behind the scenes, Bannon still talks a lot more about Sarah Palin, whom he wanted to challenge Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and “Andrew,” that is, Breitbart, the founder of Breitbart News, than folks might imagine. Bannon assumed the chairmanship of the slasher political newsite upon his friend’s sudden death in March 2012, and in many ways, that succession made Bannon. 

But, unusually for him, Bannon seems almost doleful about the period, and plays up its importance.  

Bannon finds the August 5, 2011 episode of Real Time With Bill Maher of particular, historic hilarity. The lineup that night? Bannon (then by far the least famous and billed as a “Palin biography filmmaker”); the former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer; Neil DeGrasse Tyson; the journalist Joan Walsh, who would go onto to become Hillary Clinton’s most vicious adherent in the press; and a chef called Anthony Bourdain. 

Bannon says Bourdain, off camera, was a total Kennedy assassination obsessive (the subtext here being he would have relished the contemporary raft of declassification ordered by President Trump). I ask him who the world-famous, late documentarian and celebrity had believed was behind it all. Bannon looks at me like it’s a stupid question: the CIA, quite obviously.   

Back to the present, Bannon singles out fellow Trump supporters like Andressen for his verbal flamethrower. He is perhaps tactically cutting back on his hatred (a little bit) for Elon Musk, who seems near all-powerful with Trump, and finding a new foil. And though Bannon’s style is more battle-axe than scalpel, subtle points of emphasis are a reminder of the power game behind the scenes. 

When Bannon’s War Room became an instant smash hit in late 2019, he said an aide told him he was “back from the dead.” For a fervent fan of the man, or a more casual observer of politics, the idea that Bannon ever left the scene over the last decade would seem comical. But there are these subtle reminders that things with Trump once got pretty dicey.

Which is why Bannon’s current crusade is important: Trump is seemingly allowing him to go to war with some of his allies, like Musk and Andressen, and it’s not fully clear why—or where that is going. Eventually, presumably, there will be a succession crisis for Trump’s job in 2027 and 2028. Bannon seems certain to make himself a voice in that struggle—and, let’s just say, he doesn’t exactly rule out to me that he could be a player outright himself.    

But perhaps appropriate for all the Lenin talk, we take a sharp left—to prison.

“It’s not so much my thinking” that has changed, Bannon says. “It’s that you feel very empowered coming through that environment, which is very dangerous at 70 years old. You just say, ‘Hey, that clock’s ticking.’” Bannon is optimistic but cynical, almost like the model political “gladiator” of the type he has tried over the years to train in Italy. “This thing,” he says of the state of the country, “[it’s] so obvious what’s happening. And it’s only going to get worse. So let’s have a throwdown. Let’s just do it right now.”

Bannon is bullish on the “MAHA” (Make America Healthy Again) movement, anchored around Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seeing it as almost a parallel institution to broader MAGA. Bannon, who is citing his age more, says he came to appreciate the power of the American pharmaceutical and biotechnology complex starting in the Covid-19 era. But he says it’s been building—the tension between the “health” industry and Trump, and Bannon’s own distaste for its leading figures—for years. 

Bannon cites one particular anecdote as proof of the scientific establishment’s supposed imperiousness. When Trump took over in 2017, Bannon said Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, “runs Congress.” Collins “wouldn’t even come up to see Trump” at first when Trump was president-elect, claims Bannon. “I got Collins to [finally] to see Trump. It wasn’t easy. It wasn’t like one call.” 

Bannon says that figures like Collins “get the money in the budget, and then they spread it out to every Congressional district.” If one combined the money with the imprimatur Americans often assign to doctors and scientific officials, the United States was ripe for an initially docile reaction to lockdown mandates, Bannon seems to be arguing. “That’s when I realized: That’s the administrative state.”

But elsewhere, for the purposes of his anti-monopoly push, Bannon hails government officials, even openly liberal ones.

I press him on Lina Khan, the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission of whom both Bannon and Vice President J.D. Vance have spoken favorably. I raise the quiet critique that many on Khan’s staff were said to be dyed-in-the-wool leftists, or quite “woke,” figures with whom he and the vice president would vociferously disagree in many arenas. 

Bannon doesn’t care.  

“Lina Khan would spit on the floor” in his presence, Bannon says. “She’s not a Steve Bannon fan.” But “she is the fiercest person we’ve had in a long time at FTC [or] Justice that believes in entrepreneurship” and smashing big business.    

I make a point of asking Bannon for his evaluation of Bernie Sanders, noting that many of Trump’s early supporters, anti-system voters, had been primary voters for the Vermont senator in 2016 and even 2020. “Zero,” Bannon says. And then the refrain: “He’s a pussy.” 

“To take the Clintons on? It’s a fucking gun fight. They’re the mafia. Hillary Clinton’s as hard as anyone. Bill Clinton’s a clown, though he’s smart politically, don’t get me wrong. She’s as hard and tough a globalist as you’re ever going to meet. That woman is a stone cold killer. If you’re going to go after her,” you have to be ready for it—Bernie Sanders wasn’t, Bannon argues. “Why was I selected for the 2016 campaign? I hadn’t been in a campaign office in my life. I had been at Breitbart hammering Clinton for years. … We’d been after the Clintons as globalists.” 

On other matters, Bannon is coolly agnostic. “It’s a mess,” Bannon says of the budget situation, noting the numbers of voters in MAGA “who are having babies on Medicaid.” Bannon concedes of certain machinations out of the early term—including a budget office memo that caused major disruptions in Trump’s first full week in office—“maybe it wasn’t perfect.” Bannon then reiterates his desire to cut Defense first. “You have to do Defense.”

Bannon attacked Senate Armed Service Chair Roger Wicker’s proposal to have American defense spending at 5 percent of gross domestic product. 

“You can’t do 5 percent of GDP,” Bannon says. 

A native Southerner, Bannon attacks “the cardinals,” which is Bannonspeak for hawkish Republican Senators, from a particular sectional angle. “It’s the Armed Services Committee. And it happens to be all Southerners, virtually. …Southern military tradition. And they were smart: they put all the stuff down there, and created a bloc. This is why you’ve got an aircraft carrier named after [the longtime Mississippi Senator] John Stennis.” Wicker is from Mississippi.     

Bannon veers from hawk to restrainer depending on the issue. Take Russia and Ukraine, where Bannon is strident and forceful that the war must end. “I totally oppose it,” Bannon tells me of a white paper written by the current Ukraine special envoy, Keith Kellogg, and the former John Bolton official Fred Fleitz. Coated with a heavy slick of flattery for Trump, the document authored for the well-connected America First Policy Institute states bemoans “the Biden Administration’s risk-averse pattern in the armament of Ukraine” among other observations (some reasonable). 

In restraint circles, the stated Kellogg policy is generally considered the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy that thinkers such as Mearsheimer think is likely to take place. And it is something of a volte-face for Kellogg, who took the GOP Convention stage in 2020 attacking endless wars. In that speech, Kellogg said Fleitz’s former boss, Bolton, was “an architect of failure. … He had his own agenda. He pushed his own agenda. … Is John Bolton a liar? Yes, he is.”  

“I got a lot of time for General Kellogg,” Bannon says now. “On this one, and I think it’s because of the pressures around town, I think he’s dead wrong. If you say ‘one hundred days,’ you’re going to be there for a hundred years. You have to get out.” 

Bannon continues: “We have to be adamant about this. Because good men like Keith Kellogg are now talking about ‘hundred days, this, and maybe a ceasefire in April, and maybe another thing in May.’ Once you get there: look at Nixon [and Vietnam]. You just get drawn into it.” 

“We can’t be part of this,” an animated Bannon says. “We have to cut the funding off now, immediately. We have to tell people we want a ceasefire, immediately. OK? … We have to get in a room, immediately. And we have to let whatever deal happens, happen—immediately.” 

Bannon calls the war “two Slavic entities slugging it out.” 

And the reconstruction? “I think it has to be European troops—I think it has to be European money,” he says. “There should not be an American nickel that goes until we have rebuilt Appalachia and Los Angeles.”

We close on a light note: religion and prison.

I ask Bannon why, although he is heavily associated with religion and perhaps quite affiliated with traditional Roman Catholicism, he doesn’t seem to talk about it much. Most recently, Bannon has used his Christianity as a point of distinction with the “transhumanists” of Silicon Valley. But does Bannon think the country is rapidly secularizing, and is he honing his pitch for new audiences? How important is this topic to him, really?   

“It’s got to be infused into your work,” Bannon says of religion. “It’s got to be infused into your line of work. And if you’ve got to tell people all the time about it all the time, to me, that’s self-defeating. Let them see it in your works and actions.” 

Bannon does get philosophical now: “If you think about it: why are you here in this point in time? Or all the times and ages of man? … If you believe in God, why did divine Providence choose you for this place and time? And that’s what you have to think about as your agency.”

Prison “emboldened me,” Bannon says. He notes that he is hesitant to speak about it (I’m not sure he has to any other reporter). “If I’m making it through here at 70 years old, there’s nothing that can hold me back—nothing.”

Bannon reported to Danbury Prison in Connecticut in mid-summer last year. I asked him how he actually heard that President Joe Biden had exited the race after extreme Democratic Party pressure (Biden’s disastrous debate performance had occurred in the final days of Bannon’s freedom in late June 2024). “Well, there is television,” Bannon says wryly. 

Now at liberty, Bannon watches MSNBC and CNN. “Because we try to deconstruct it. And it does the best job of covering MAGA,” he says. “I never watch Fox, because it’s TV for stupid people. It’s just ridiculous talking points from the [Republican National Committee]. But in prison, when it is available to watch, they all watch Fox.”

“It’s Fox. You cannot not watch Fox,” Bannon says of the jailhouse television menu.

Bannon said he mostly avoided it even there, though: “I refused to watch it.” 

Bannon said he still had email. “You can spend an hour online. Then you have to spend fifteen minutes off. And then you can be back on. … You can do it from 6 in the morning until 10 o’clock at night.” Bannon noted, as in his liberation sermon at New York following his release, that he also had a job teaching civics to fellow inmates. 

“In a federal prison,” Bannon says. “You’re treated like an animal. The purpose is to treat you like an animal. It’s not to rehabilitate you. It’s to break you. … It’s incredibly violent, because of the drugs. It’s incredibly violent because the young prisoners [take to drugs out of despair] … You can never really be by yourself. … All moves are controlled.”

“At every moment in prison—sleeping and awake—you have to be so focused,” Bannon says. “Just that practice of focus, it’s almost like a zen practice. It’s very empowering.”

“I had a great experience,” Bannon claims extraordinarily. “It was very uncomfortable. And it’s made to be uncomfortable.” 

“One thing you might not know about prison is there are no chairs,” Bannon riffs. “You have a steel slab that you sleep on in your cell—and a tiny little mattress. No pillow. Really no blanket. … And your toilet’s right there. So you have no privacy. And, you know, a couple of showers for 84 guys. … So the whole thing’s to break you. And you look at the chairs. And there’s a little plastic chair in your cell. … And you have a couple of those in the TV room, and you have a couple of those in the chapel.”

Bannon’s empathy for his fellow inmates still on the inside (he says he’s still in contact with many of his “friends”) is plain: “You, as a human being, as a 25-year-old man, for the next 20 years of his life, you will never sit in a chair. Over in the education room where I taught, there’s a little school desk where you could put a 5-year-old. But there are no chairs. Cops sit in chairs. Administrators have chairs. There are no chairs for inmates.”

As the afternoon draws to a close, I realize we have barely spoken about President Donald Trump. His presence, not even two weeks into this new administration, is simply ambient in Washington now, and especially in conversation with someone like Steve Bannon. Any sign of friction between the two has vanished, like two partners who have settled into a mutually beneficial flow. 

“Donald Trump’s a savage,” Bannon says, staring me down. And then we move on.

The post Bannon: Back and Back Big appeared first on The American Conservative.