We discuss polling, economy, battleground states, and more.

Our Guests Are: 

Stay ahead of the censors – Join us warroom.org/join

Aired On: 12/02/2025

Watch:
On the Web: https://www.warroom.org
On Gettr: @WarRoom
On X: @Bannons_WarRoom
On Podcast: Apple, iHeart Radio, Google 
On TV: PlutoTV Channel 240, Dish Channel 219, Roku, Apple TV, FireTV or on https://AmericasVoice.news. #news #politics #realnews 

The post Episode 4966: Empathy The New Battleground Against The Church appeared first on Stephen K Bannon's War Room.

Ohio is securing another win for election integrity by striking a deal with the federal government that Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has called “historic.”

On Monday, LaRose, a Republican, announced the “long-term” agreement with the federal government to verify voter registration eligibility.

“Ohio has a duty to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, and this agreement gives us the tools to do that job right,” LaRose said in a press release. “I appreciate the Trump administration for working with us to deliver long-term access to the federal data needed to protect election integrity.”

The recently announced agreement between Ohio and the federal government ensures that the Buckeye State has access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE System for short, for the next 20 years.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March allowing states to access the SAVE System, which allows for states to cross-check voter registration data. A judge recently upheld that executive order.

While there is an agreement in place with the Trump administration, which LaRose’s office says will “ensure unprecedented access to citizenship and other federal records for use in verifying voter registration eligibility,” the Biden administration was not so compliant. This caused Ohio and other states also experiencing similar issues to sue the Department of Homeland Security under the previous administration.

An Agreement That Was a Long Time Coming

Ohio reached the agreement with the Trump administration because of the litigation that began in the Biden era. Once a federal court approves the agreement filed last week, LaRose’s office explained, the litigation will come to an end.

The Daily Signal reached out to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for comment but did not hear back.

The litigation started in October 2024 because the Biden administration threw up roadblocks when LaRose sought increased access from DHS to verify the citizenship of voters.

“The Secretary’s office made four requests over the course of several months, which were ultimately denied by the Biden administration. The Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security only responded after Ohio Congressman and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to then-Secretary Mayorkas asking why DHS would not respond to Ohio’s requests,” the press release further explained. “In October 2024, Secretary LaRose sued the Biden DHS and Secretary Mayorkas, seeking access to the databases under federal law.”

The Bigger Picture

LaRose and the increasingly red state of Ohio have been focused on election integrity for years.

“Ohio has taken substantial actions in recent years to fortify and expand its voter list maintenance protocols, particularly aimed at enforcing a new state constitutional citizenship voting requirement,” the press release also mentioned. A state ballot initiative overwhelmingly passed in 2022 that reaffirmed that only citizens can vote in the Buckeye State.

Senate Bill 293 also passed the state Legislature in Ohio, which LaRose testified in favor of, though Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has yet to sign it. The bill “modif[ies] the deadlines governing the return of absent voter’s ballots” and also “codifies the Ohio Secretary of State’s current practice of reviewing the Statewide Voter Registration Database, on a monthly basis.”

LaRose’s announcement comes weeks after he announced a win on keeping foreign interference out of elections. As a result of a dropped lawsuit, a state law banning foreign contributions for ballot-measure campaigns has been upheld.

The post More Good News Comes for Ohio’s Efforts to Protect Elections appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A third of Minnesota's non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) reviewed in a recent audit by the Department of Transportation (DOT) were illegally issued, Sec. Sean Duffy announced Monday.

The post Trump Admin Uncovers Massive Foreign Trucker Illegal License Operation in Minnesota appeared first on Breitbart.

Nearly 500 employees in Minnesota's state government say Democrat Governor Tim Walz ignored their constant warnings about massive fraud by Somalis of the state's aid programs.

The post Hundreds of Minnesota Gov’t Staffers Say Gov. Tim Walz Hid Somali Fraud and ‘Attacked Whistleblowers’ appeared first on Breitbart.

SPRINGFIELD, VA — As the Department of Homeland Security sought to tighten security across the board for travelers around the country, the Transportation Security Administration announced that anyone who doesn't acquire a Real ID by the appointed deadline will be sent to a screening line manned by Creepy Kevin.

Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of arguments from the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office justifying subpoenas of a network of pro-life pregnancy centers on Tuesday. 

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin claimed First Choice Women’s Resource Centers may have made misleading comments about abortion and issued broad subpoenas to force the group to provide donor information, along with other documents.  

The justices are weighing whether New Jersey’s subpoena discouraged the group and donors from exercising their rights under the First and 14th amendments, which can be challenged in federal court, or whether the group must instead litigate its claims in state proceedings. 

Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom represented First Choice, while Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel for the Attorney General’s Office, argued for New Jersey.

Here are four key takeaways from the oral arguments Tuesday.

1. ‘Suppression by Subpoena’

The American Civil Liberties Union, which consistently champions abortion access, sided with First Choice. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, asked about the ACLU’s amicus brief that warned of “suppression by subpoena and censorship by intimidation.”

Iyer argued that the issuance of a subpoena is not enough to chill free expression.

“You could have situations where there are other government statements or other government actions that themselves create an objective chill that might, together with the subpoena, be sufficient to establish standing,” Iyer said. 

However, Hawley argued that Platkin’s office had established a threat. 

“This is the context of a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them,” Hawley said. 

The ACLU’s brief demonstrates that the question before the court is not a partisan or ideological matter, said Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. 

“The fact that the ACLU is on the pregnancy center’s side shows that a decision in this case will affect the First Amendment rights of groups across the ideological spectrum,” Jipping told The Daily Signal. 

“Conservative and liberal justices seemed interested in the same issues, and their questions suggest that First Choice is likely to prevail,” Jipping added. “The broader impact of the case will depend on how the Court resolves some of the technical questions that dominated the argument.”

2. ‘Ordinary Person’

First Choice has argued state’s subpoenas for donor and other information violated its First and 14th Amendment rights. Core to the state’s defense is that an attorney general’s subpoena is not “self-executing,” meaning it is effectively a request for documents until a court enforces it. 

Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, said being told a subpoena had to be stamped by a judge would not be reassuring to an organization or a donor.

“What’s an ordinary person supposed to think? And what’s an ordinary person supposed to do based on what an ordinary person is supposed to think?” Kagan asked.

Iyer replied that the state court has not enforced the subpoena.

“You could look at the facts of this very case to see that the state has sought an enforcement order from this state court for more than two years. The state court has repeatedly declined to enforce production,” Iyer said. “My friends on the other side haven’t alleged anything about success rates, for example, for subpoena enforcement.”

3. ‘No Complaints’

Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, asked, “Did you have complaints that form the basis of your concern about the fund-raising activities here?”

Iyer responded, “We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers.” But, when pressed, he admitted, “We haven’t had complaints about this specific center.”

Thomas replied, “So, you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?”

Iyer argued, “We had carefully canvassed all of the public information that is provided on the website, of First Choice, in making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation.” 

“State governments, federal government, initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance,” Iyer later said. 

Later, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, “I gather that you think that website might have made them think that this was an entity that provided abortion care, as opposed to a pro-life entity.”

Iyer said, “That’s right, your honor.”

During the rebuttal at the end of the arguments, Hawley said the donor website has “pictures of smiling faces of babies and their families.” She added no one would question that the donor page belongs to a pro-life group and not Planned Parenthood.

4. ‘That’s Not How This Works’

In November 2023, Platkin’s office began targeting First Choice, demanding 10 years of documents.

“It commands it to produce 28 different categories of documents, including every solicitation, email, and text message it sent to its donors,” Hawley explained. “It commands it to produce donor names, addresses, phone numbers, as well as places of employment, Your Honor, and it also chilled First Choice and its donors’ First Amendment rights.” 

Plaintiffs point to precedent from the 1958 case NAACP v. Alabama, and the 2021 case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which affirmed that organizations did not have to make public the name of their donors, out of fear of potential retaliation.

Arguing for the state, Iyer insisted that the attorney general’s office was trying to protect donors, not out their names. 

Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, expressed doubts.

“You think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, etc. could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?” Roberts asked. 

Iyer said, “It certainly has not, in this case.” 

Iyer said the plaintiffs produced no evidence of a donor afraid to donate to First Choice because of the attorney general’s action.

Roberts seemed unconvinced.  

“Somebody comes in and says, ‘I’m chilled. I don’t want to reveal my name, address, phone number, etc. Here’s my affidavit.’ That’s not gonna work, is it?” the chief justice asked. 

Iyer replied, “That is something they could have pleaded here, but they did not plead it.”

The post 4 Takeaways From Supreme Court First Amendment Case on Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth defended the Department of War’s second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean, citing the “fog of war.”

Hegseth said during the second strike on Sept. 2, the boat “was on fire,” so he didn’t personally see survivors, and he said he “didn’t stick around” for the remainder of the mission following the first strike. He said Adm. Frank Bradley “made the correct decision” in sinking the boat, which he “had complete authority to do.”

“This is called the fog of war,” Hegseth said at Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting. “This is what you in the press don’t understand. You sit in your air-conditioned offices up on Capitol Hill and you nitpick. You plant fake stories in The Washington Post about ‘kill everybody,’ based on anonymous sources, not based in anything, not based in truth at all.”

Hegseth said reporters were throwing out “really irresponsible terms about American heroes, about the judgment that they made.”

“I wrote a whole book on this topic because of what politicians and the press does to war fighters,” he said. “President [Donald] Trump has empowered commanders—commanders—to do what is necessary, which is dark and difficult things in the dead of night on behalf of the American people. We support them, and we will stop the poisoning of the American people.”

A reporter asked Trump if he supported the second strike to kill survivors of the Venezuelan boat strike.

“All I know is this, every boat that’s blown up that you see, we save 25,000 lives,” Trump said, adding that he still hasn’t gotten a lot of information.

“To me, it was an attack,” he said. “It wasn’t one strike, two strikes, three strikes.”

The president said he wants the drug boats taken out, and he is willing to attack on land if necessary.

“These people have killed over 200,000 people last year,” he said. “We’re taking those sons of b—- out.”

The post ‘Fog of War’: Hegseth Tells Press What They ‘Don’t Understand’ About Strikes on Narco-Terrorists appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Ricardo Perez Castillo pleaded "no contest" to charges after being held at gunpoint by a homeowner in a June 15, 2024, assault/home invasion.

The post Marine Recruiter Pleads ‘No Contest’ After Being Held at Gunpoint by Homeowner appeared first on Breitbart.

An Afghan national accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House has pleaded not guilty to all charges, according to new reports. The Wall Street Journal reported […]

The post BREAKING: Afghan Shooter Pleads Not Guilty to All Charges in National Guard Murder Case appeared first on The Western Journal.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared Tuesday that the United States military has "only just begun" its campaign against suspected narco terrorists.

The post Pete Hegseth: ‘We’ve Only Just Begun Striking Narco Boats’ appeared first on Breitbart.

Lawmakers in Washington are contemplating an artificial intelligence provision that could have wide ranging ramifications for how states and localities regulate the emerging technology and protect the vulnerable online.

The provision could be added to the National Defense Authorization Act that will direct how nearly $1 trillion will be spent on national defense for Fiscal Year 2026, The NDAA text is expected to be released this Thursday. While the precise language of the AI provision remains unknown, it could likely entail efforts to prevent states or localities from regulating AI and possibly even render many state laws to protect children moot.

According to a report from Axios, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., have shopped language around Capitol Hill that would preempt or override state-level AI regulations. Some of the bills that would come to regulate AI on the federal level would likely pass through Cruz’s Senate committee as the Texas senator eyes another White House bid in 2028.

The White House has supported efforts by Congress to get such AI provisions into law.

If Congress does decide to slip the AI provision into the NDAA, it would be the second time this year Congress has tried to add an AI provision of this nature to a large legislative item.

The Senate debated adding a 10-year AI regulation moratorium for states in the One Big Beautiful Bill that was signed into law in July. That AI provision mulled by the Senate would have withheld federal broadband funding to states if sought to enforce the laws passed by the duly elected representatives of their American citizens. Furthermore, federal broadband funds would have also been withheld if states and localities dared to address new concerns about AI for the 10 years following the enactment of the provisions. Cruz was a proponent of placing the AI provision in the reconciliation package signed by President Donald Trump in July.

Proponents of the previously debated AI provision expressed concerns that America’s patchwork of AI regulations would hinder American technology companies’ abilities to compete with China and other rivals of the U.S. The provision as written would therefore have affected red and blue states alike including the technology hubs of Texas and California. It was ultimately removed in the final version of the budget bill by a vote of 99 to 1 in the Senate.

Some Republicans in Congress, however, are throwing cold water on putting an AI provision into the NDAA.

House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., has reportedly said he does not think a moratorium on individual state regulation of AI will be included in the final version of the NDAA. 

“From what I hear, it’s kind of lost its momentum. It doesn’t have enough support,” Rogers said according to Politico. 

As The Daily Signal previously reported, Texas has already passed legislation regulating the utilization of AI in censoring viewpoints on the Internet as well as user privacy protections from AI-empowered data harvesting, allowing Americans to opt-out of being profiled. Such laws are widely supported by the chief law enforcement officers of dozens of states as demonstrated by a National Association of Attorneys General letter to congressional leadership in May that came out against the 10-year moratorium.

The letter noted the absence of federal action addressing the potential harms of AI, which has required states to step up and protect their residents themselves by passing laws. 

“These include laws designed to protect against AI-generated explicit material, prohibit deep-fakes designed to mislead voters and consumers, protect renters when algorithms are used to set rent, prevent spam phone calls and texts, require basic disclosures when consumers are interacting with specific kinds of AI, and ensure identity protection for endorsements and other AI-generated content,” the attorneys general letter explained.

The moratorium was also opposed by one of the most prominent Republican state executives in the country, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders. 

“Congressional Republicans like Sen. [Marsha] Blackburn, Sen. [Josh] Hawley, and members of the House Freedom Caucus are right: The One, Big, Beautiful Bill will be a huge win for the American people, but can’t include a provision that strips states of their right to regulate AI,” Sanders said to The Daily Signal in June about the moratorium. 

When asked about the return of the potential regulatory ban, Sanders’s office told The Daily Signal that, “Governor Sanders supports President Trump’s leadership to unleash American AI dominance and looks forward to working with his administration and other stakeholders to make sure we win the race against China and also protect Americans.”

The post Congress Could Slip a Major AI Regulation Change Into the NDAA appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump called affordability “a hoax that was started by Democrats who caused the problem of pricing.”

“Look, affordability’s a hoax that was started by Democrats who caused the problem of pricing. And they didn’t end it when, look, they lost it in a landslide,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Tuesday.  

Trump bashed Democrats for using the word “affordability” as a “con job.”  

“But the word affordability is a Democrat scam,” Trump said, adding that the Biden administration “had the worst inflation in the history of our country.” 

Trump called it a “fake narrative that the Democrats talk about affordability. They just say the word. It doesn’t mean anything to anybody. You just say it—affordability.”

Trump claimed that Democrats don’t know that prices were “much higher” under President Joe Biden, pointing to the prices of gas as an example. Today, the average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. is $2.99. One year ago, the average price was $3.047, according to AAA.  

“But our prices now for energy, and for gasoline are really low. Electricity is coming down, and when that comes down, everything comes down,” Trump said.

“Beef is coming down now. We’ve done certain magic and beef is coming down,” the president said, adding, “we fixed inflation.”

“We’re gonna get prices down still further, but we brought them down,” he said. “The reason that they had the highest inflation in the history of our country is because they had the highest prices. But we brought them down, and now we have normal inflation.”

The U.S. inflation rate hit a 30-year high at 8% in 2022 under the Biden administration. The inflation rate today is 3.01%.  

Politicians in Washington and around the country have talked more about the issue of affordability following the elections in November. Affordability surfaced as the key issue voters cared about in Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and the mayoral race in New York. Republican losses in those elections, and the margins by which the GOP candidates lost, is partially being attributed to a failure to address the affordability crisis in America.  

Since taking office, Trump has pushed for a decrease in interest rates. Trump has continued to call on the Federal Reserve to decrease them following the recent elections.

In November, the White House said Trump plans to ramp up domestic travel ahead of midterms as he sells voters on his affordability accomplishments.  

The post ‘HOAX’?: Trump Changes Tune on Affordability appeared first on The Daily Signal.