DeProgram with John Kiriakou and Ted Rall - The Re-Parent Trap | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

Editorial cartoonist Ted Rall and political analyst Jamarl Thomas deprogram you from mainstream media every weekday at 9 AM Eastern time. Ted is out today; Robby West fills in. Today we discuss: • RFK Jr. is haunted by 2024 arguments about “reparenting” American children, especially Blacks, on wellness farms, which he proposed building in rural communities across the US. “Every Black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, SSRIs, benzos, which are known to induce violence,” Kennedy has said. “Those kids are going to have a chance to go somewhere and get reparented and live in a community,” he said. • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the biggest adversary the US faces is not Iran, but the “feckless and defeatist words” of Democrats and some Republican lawmakers. He repeatedly stressed that the war was necessary because Iran posed an “existential threat” to the United States. “I know the American people support that mission, despite your loose talk and words like ‘quagmire.’” • A historic drop in representation by Black members of Congress may be on the way after the Supreme Court's landmark decision to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. JOIN US LIVE ON RUMBLE https://rumble.com/c/DeProgramShow FOLLOW TED: https://rall.com/ https://x.com/tedrall LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/2kdFlw2w8sSPhKI8NRx8Zu LISTEN ON APPLE MUSIC: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deprogram-with-john-kiriakou-and-ted-rall

And salutations, humans, and carbon-based life forms. This is your most favorite producer, Robbie. And for some reason, I'm to the left of Jamarral Thomas, which does not make any sense because I should definitely be to your right. But yet here we are. The intrepid Ted Raw, he is traveling and the town that he is in, because you see, here in the United States, we can't invest in infrastructure. The entire town has lost power. Really? Not just his hotel.

The entire town has no electricity. Wow. So, I mean, we have $25 billion that we can give for war in Iran. But we can't do anything at all for American infrastructure. As I'm curious. So on the left, it makes sense for us to be, I think Ted would agree with me on that. I am one of those people that believes that state should control certain things, energy, transportation, et cetera.

I agree with that too. How are you right, Brabic? Look, I would tell you this. I've had people contact me, send me emails, long emails and says, I'm a hardcore right wicker. I believe in blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And he says, however, I like what you say. And I think to myself, that maybe you're not as hardcore on the right that you think. Because I'm not saying stuff that's a little.

Like how do you justify that on the right believing that state should have control over those things? Because it's sort of monopoly. Because like, for example, here, I imagine where you are in Richmond. It's the same way it is here. So here we have the Fahe County Co-op. It's called Northeastern Energy. There's no competition.

So you've got this one conglomerate. They own, no, they own infrastructure. There is no competition. And so if there's no competition and if they have to go to the state, to get approval to raise rates through the utility board then why not why stop pretending that it's that's a free market thing because there's no competition agree so i mean it's all it's already socialized we just have this we just have a sticker on there that says uh no you actually own this by virtue of being an american citizen no i don't own it you're a monopoly

you're controlled by the government. So let's just stop pretending that this actually is anything other than what it is, which is a grift by the government. Agreed. What do you mean a grift by the government? That's a grift by the government. Well, that's what it is. Yeah.

I've also got our very first donation. So, Soden over there on YouTube, I've been, let me see if I can read this. Been in Bacconnesia in Guam, the past few weeks in a back, agents what do you make of the second death testimony on the hill and do you think he'll be prosecuted when a new administration takes over i guess that's a good place to start that's interesting um do you think it'll be prosecuted so it depends on the administration and it also depends let me actually i guess at least is kind of a second thought and second question and i'll use that to piggyback on this do democrats have to

actually are they against the war in Iran? Now, when the king was here and they were talking about, you know, war in Ukraine, they were like, it's like you stupid idiots. You're applauding for this nonsense. Are they really against the war? No. Because how are they going to prosecute Hexif if it's not going to be about the war in Iran? I don't know if there's real opposition to it in this sense. No, there's, you know that there's not because if there was, that they could just convene Congress to say, we're not going to fund it. I mean,

Republicans back. Well, sure. But there's a lot of bills that come in and you got to have, and you got to have majorities of these things. And you're able to, you're able to peel enough, you know, right wingers like me who are opposed to this and think that, you know, maybe Congress should be the one that declares war as opposed to presidents.

And so if you pill eight, nine, ten Republicans away, no, they're dead in the water. They can 100% do that. I don't think they're going to prosecute Hex-F over this. I think they may impeach Trump, but they may impeach Trump for, I don't know, they'll find something. I guess my point is this should be illegal. What they were doing in Venezuela should have been illegal. All of those things should be prosecuted in a functioning system.

Like in a functioning system, they said the president has lost his mind. This is outrageous. We can't just murder fishermen in the Caribbean, right? We can't just have wars of aggression, even though we do. But we can. We obviously can because we are. Yeah. Correct.

There's no such thing as international law. Agree. I guess my thing is I don't see them prosecuting HECF over this. I mean, I guess the question would be, would they impeach, well, hex up would be in office. I don't see it. I just don't see it. I don't see it. No, I don't either.

Did Ted send you what the rundown is going to be today? Let's see. Because if not, we've got right here in the show notes, we can 100% make this go. Show notes. Oh, here we go. Yeah, and Soden says his question is geared towards the boat strikes. No one cares about the boat strikes. The what strikes?

The boat strikes. The southern accent's getting in the way. The boats getting blown up, the fishermen getting turned into fish food. Yeah, I know, but people should care. Like, it's, why is your government? murdering fishermen? And why is your government kidnapping the leader of another state

using this nonsense lie of drugs? Like it's that, right? It's like the government, there's no credibility in it. All of it is so dishonest. And when it's so dishonest like that, the government media, all of these things lose credibility, which is cancerous to society.

I know people think, oh, this is just normal. And we can just live in this. I don't think that's the case. I don't think a society functions when people look at the government as being fundamentally corrupt and fundamentally dishonest. I don't. I agree with you. But I guess I don't think anybody cares.

I think people care about gas prices. I don't think even if it gives a single solitary crap about our government murdering people because it does inconvenience to them. Which means the hexif. It's not going to be prosecuted. Trump. Maybe impeached, but that's because they hate Trump. There's a difference in those things, right?

Well, for sure. I mean, they can impeaching, but they're not going to kick him out. So it's all theater. And all they're going to do is just set up their own president when a Democrat gets elected to be impeached for whatever thing the Republicans come up with. It's just a football. Or do you think I'm wrong on that? No, I think it's football also, which is why I think politics doesn't work. Our political system doesn't work. You have two political parties, both supposedly representatives. And what ends up happening is they play one office.

against the other. It's like, oh, you guys are concerned about things. So Obama will come on and scream about, yeah, the 1% and blah, blah, blah, picking this stuff up from Occupy Wall Street. And he immediately gets in and installs all of these people from a city group in his administration. And then it's like the next guy who comes in, pivots off of what was going on with Obama in order to get elected. And it goes back and forth. And the population who may want something fundamentally different, meaning left and right, because I think I actually do believe this is a sweet spot that a person can run as a populace and get people from the left, people to the right, and on some level, keep those people happy against these kind of vested interests, even though when that person gets in office,

he's going to have hell to contend with if he indeed contends with that particular thing. But I think you said this once, you can leverage the population for your political will. And I agree with that. I mean, Lee, Lee Strattahan just passed. Lee was a hardcore right warrior. And Lee made this one of saying, look, man, they're like three issues that the left and the right could agree upon and use that as a tip of a sphere in order to build a political coalition to get in office. Lee was on the right. Two of those things I fully agreed with.

I think one, less so. But the other two, but I can live with that one. Right. I'm not a purist. I want to get political objectives accomplished, even if you've got to go one by one. Oh, 100%. Yeah. I think there are things that we agree upon.

Hell, even in this conversation, right, there are things that we're going to agree upon politically. And I really do believe that it seems that the American population would accept a president doing stuff that they may be interested in, that the public may not be, providing the public gets what it wants. Right. That's enough that I think takes place. And you see it when it's like a president is like, a president is like, like, okay, this president cares about climate change. Does population, eh, maybe, maybe not. They'll let you do it, providing you do the other stuff.

Or a Republican gets in. And it's like, okay, they're doing this stuff on the side. Public will let them do it. Public may not like it, providing the public gets what it wants. But the public is not getting what it wants. I'm sorry, Robbie, please. No, no, I mean, I like your example about climate change because it's not mutually exclusive.

People want lower prices, especially for energy. Well, if you want to, come about climate change and if you want to, I don't know, maybe at lower prices, you can invest in nuclear power. You kill two birds with one stone. Why can't we do that? And we actually

have a question for you for Manchild. If Hague says the feckless words are our biggest enemy, does the $1.5 trillion budget include a tactical unit of English teachers? There was a tactical I mean, if peckless words are the problem, if that's the biggest problem, it's not the unconstitutional wars of aggression.

It's not blowing people up. It's not starting a war and then probably losing that war to a supposed third world country. If words are the biggest problem and feckless words of that, that maybe we should invest in more English teachers. Now, would we have to import those English teachers from India to teach English to the American people? Right. It's like H1B1Vs is for Indian English teachers. Yeah. Look, personally, I think the budget is the problem.

I think the leadership is the problem. Hubris is a problem. Imperialism and this kind of imperialist overreach that these guys deal with that we require a $1.5 trillion dollar military budget. All of those things are problems. Hegsa is the problem. And I do see the show notes, by the way. Just so the audience would know, we've buried the lead.

So markets have been priced in oil shocks and global economic collapse coming. There's that. You have our normal people insane, moral collapse, war, and radicalization. Explain, okay, that's an interesting one that goes with the White House correspondent. I mean, the White House correspondent in a shooting and talking about that gentleman. Oh, wait a minute. Is this for a yes or is this for the day? So today's show notes, we are on the repairant trap.

So we're going to be talking about RFK Jr. and his reparenting of children. Pete Hackseth, I mean, he's actually right there. So we just dumped right on into the right spot. So we're good. And then about the redistricting battle that happened with that congressional district, what was it in Louisiana that got blew up because it was Jerry Mender to make sure that a majority black voting block.

So those are the three topics we're talking about today. Okay. to be honest with you I really care about that because I'm going to talk to you for a long time anyway I'm just saying you don't want to talk to me for a long No I don't know you said you've been wanting to Yes

No listen I have you see I have this southern draw And sometimes it gets in the way Especially with very smart people like you And so sometimes when I try to say Nothing come out the way it's supposed to be said Keep in mind up from itself I understand that

I don't know if you're like goochelin in these places where it's like a heavy. Well, no, I get that. But see, you're an educated southerner. I'm one of those people that from the, from what they're actually called the Redneck Riviera. Redneck Riviera. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay.

Which topic do you want to hit first? Or you can pick your pony. Well, I mean, no. Well, HECSeth. I think HECFeth is, I mean, we've already. talked about him and nothing's going to happen with him. I'm really fascinated about what's going on right now with RFK Jr. and reparenting. I don't really understand the whole point.

I don't quite understand the reparenting thing. What does that even mean? To be honest, I don't know. And this is one of the reasons why that, see, whenever Ted is gone, because he puts these scenes together, of the three of us, he's the one that puts together what the show notes are. So what reparenting is is arguments about reparenting American children, especially blacks on wellness farms, which he proposed building in rural communities across the U.S. Every black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, SSRIs, and benzos, which are known to induce violence. So basically, the entire idea is to try and get, and get, it sounds like majority black kids into more stable family units and just get them away from the pill farm.

which personally I'm all about. Okay, well, I'm going to read this. Because I got to be honest, this seems fucking outrageous. As a cursory thing. Let's see, proposal. Kennedy proposed building rural community-based wellness farms, but children struggling with addiction, specifically addressing those who claim over-prescribed psychiatric medications.

Okay. No. In 2024, Kennedy suggested that, quote, every black child is now just standard put on Adirau, SSRI's, benzos, which are known to induce violence, unquote, an office solution where, quote, those kids are going to have a chance to go somewhere to get reparented and live in the community. So he's effectively saying he wants to take these kids away from their parents.

Right. And put them somewhere else. Yeah, put them what they consider more stable homes. I find it to be fucking ridiculous. And just, it bothers me. But let me process it for a bit. That seems to be outrageous. All right.

Let me take it to a different issue first. And then I'll come back in order to kind of get why I feel this way about it. I had a transplant. A kidney transplant. I bet too. Both failed. But when the second one was put in, I didn't go well. I was having pain.

I was having excessive pain. And I would point to the doctors like, hey, I'm in pain. and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. And it's not coming from the transplant itself, meaning there was something that was going on after the surgery that was causing pain. And the doctor's response to it was basically I was faking. And in telling the nurses that I was faking.

And I was left by myself dealing with us in the hospital for like a week, just in constant pain with the doctor doing an x-ray, the same x-ray over and over again. So he could pad the books and say, Well, we were looking. Come to find out, I had an abscess that was being exacerbated by the surgery that went on for a year because he effectively said I was faking. When I finally get back into the hospital, they find an abscess and angry to a level that is breathtaking was like, so I wasn't faking, right? Right. In which case, they had to do the surgery to remove abscess.

Believe it or not, that is more normal than not when you're dealing with blacks and doctors, which is why I tend to go to black doctors in general, because that will never happen again. That has made me a particular personality in dealing with the medical profession, doctors, nurses in general. That didn't be very aggressive in dealing with them. My point is, that is more normal. It is the way they look at black patients. It is, you can see it in stats. If you talk to black doctors, they would tell you the exact same thing.

I'm saying this this weirdness of yeah this kid is being over prescribed okay how does RFK know that no you can look at maybe he's looking at polling and everything else fair enough but is the issue the way they look at these kids meaning of a particular race and in the same way you get this kind of allegory of okay we're not prescribing enough payments we're ignoring the fact that these people are in pain when they're coming to the hospital. We're assuming that they're pain seeking for racial issues, even if we don't say it's for racial issues. We can look at the numbers and see it.

And I'm saying, is it something that the doctors are doing in dealing with these kids that are over-prescribing? Meaning the issue is not, the issue may have something to do with the parents. The issue may have something to do with the living conditions. If you're living in poverty, you're living in difficult communities, etc., etc. But it may just be the doctors are willing to do this. in a way that they're not willing to do it for white parents. I hope you get my point.

His response is effectively, well, these kids are being overprescribed. Okay, yeah, who's doing overprescribing? Yeah, they are. We need to take them out of their homes to, you know, and we believe it's better for them to, what, forcibly take kids out of parents' homes? I don't know. I am very dicey homes.

I'm very dice on this. And again, this is one of the places where we agree. because ultimately the parent, not the state, is the parent. The parent has authority and jurisdiction over that child, not the state. And I don't understand. I'm okay with this. If it's, we're going to, I'm sorry, please finish. Please finish.

Does that think it's a larger issue, but please finish. Oh, no, for sure. Well, because, no, for example, no, you hit the nail on the head. When Thomas was little, when he was in second, third grade, Thomas is my son, for those you who don't know. He was just really not paying attention in school. And so his teacher called me up as like, Mr. West, I think that your son would benefit from, I think he was Adderall is what they want to have.

It says he has attention deficit disorder. I said, no, my son has a case if he's a little boy and he's bored and he wants to go play outside. That's what my son has. You're not going to drug him up. And the teacher really kind of pushed back on it. Just like, no, I really think this is what's going on. And I said, at the end of the day, I don't care what you think.

I don't care what you say. I care about what's going to happen. I said, if my son is born in your class, then you give him harder things to do because what you're giving him is too easy. That's the problem. He's a very task-driven kid. If you ever meet Thomas, you love him. I mean, he's wicked smart. I'm not saying that because he's mine.

I mean, sure, I like him, but that's not the point. here. When he gets bored, he checks out because he's literally like, this is beneath me. It's like, this is stupid. You can give this to someone else who, what's the word? Oh, yeah, it's retarded. You can give this to someone who's dumb. I want something that's going to challenge me intellectually. And if you don't do that, he 100% checks out. He looks out the window. He'd rather be, especially he was younger, go, go climb trees, go get his rifle, go shoot in the backyard of the house. yeah, we used to do that. You're in Montana.

That's what you do. And so that's just how he was built. And what the school wanted to do was drug him up. What they need is more parents who tell these teachers, no, you're not going to get my kid hooked on these drugs, stay in your lane. You need the parents to stand up and tell the teachers, the schools, and the doctors, you can take these pills and shove them so far up your butt that no one's ever able to find them. that's the problem.

Yeah. What's your opinion on that? Well, and I'm curious. No, I agree. They're so easy to look. I'm not, if the kid is having an actual psychological issue where they require some type of medication to, I don't know, moderate the issue, okay, I give it. But that's not, I don't think that's entirely what's happening.

I think you're right. I think for all intents of purposes, they're like, hey, we can't, get this kid to conform to my boring class. And so we need to get the kid drugs in order to chill the kid out. And it's like, okay, maybe a class can be boring, right? Maybe there's something else that you can do in order to deal with a kid in a way that engages that kid as opposed to doping them and drugging them up. Agreed. I totally agree.

The reparenting thing feels weird to me. Like if you were in, if you were in a foreign country, for example, or Austria. They would have this thing where it's like, okay, we'll let people to get spot days and massages and we'll send them to resorts for a period of time. Okay, that I kind of get. Because, you know, people need to chill out. Taking care children from their homes feels like a violation to me. It feels like a violation. Good luck with that. Do you think there's any chance for RFK to even get this over the finish line? I mean, the black community is going to feel some kind of way. I'm telling me. Well, not just the black community. I feel some kind of way, just hearing about it. And I even like RFK, right?

Yeah. So if I feel some kind of way, and I even like RFK, and I approved of the stuff that he was doing at the Food and Drug Administration, meaning it's a decent argument to me to say, look, we have all of these kids that are autistic. Okay, that's weird because this wasn't the case in the 60s. And what was the difference between these things? And is there something that we're doing?

environmentally or from the standpoint of our food that is creating this particular condition, or for them matter, it's a vaccine schedule. Do it. And why are all you people so sketchy about the vaccine thing? And then he produces the evidence pointing out that, look, man, these things aren't necessarily evaluated in the same ways of the drugs. Hey, you hand me on hello, especially for somebody who had a childhood illness. Sure.

Then you point out, okay, in Europe, the food is better. Not by taste, but it's sense of quality. And we have all of these things that we're allowing our foods that they don't allow in Europe. And does that have something to do with childhood illness? Again, you had me a hello, right? Sure. Then you say, hey, we need to take black kids out of their homes. What? Where did this come from? Like, okay, too far. So I guess what's pointing out, you had me on this other stuff, even though other people were pissed off about it. When you get to this, it's too far. You haven't even fixed the other thing that you said you were going to fix and not get moving to this. I mean, to be honest,

get your opinion on this because I think it I think there's a correlation here is is just honestly is the breakdown of the family in general and specifically the black family with so but so many out of wedlock births you're going to have unruly kids if there's no dad at home to teach this thing called discipline that's just that's human nature I mean you got to have more often than not having two parents a home puts it puts a kid definitely on um on an advantage that a kid from a single home would not have. I mean, is that a global thing? No, of course not.

I mean, you're going to have some single parents who rise to the occasion are able to do it. Yeah. But more often than not, though, you're going to have more trouble with kids who are undisciplined if there's not a disciplinary in a home to teach them, that say, at the Lord, you're going to follow the rules. This is something that you have to do. I'm just really curious about what is that you think about that.

How much way of a problem is there a lack of a dad in the home, if at all? My dad wasn't in the home. Oh, I get that. But the exception proves the rule, though, right? I mean, for every Jamarlemus, how many kids aren't white, black, orange, it doesn't matter. I mean, that's hard. Okay, two things. One, obviously, it takes a village to raise a check, right?

Having two parents makes it easier to do that job. I would argue it has more to do with the two incomes. It's meaning the security, not the fact that the dad is there as a disciplinary. Meaning, you're making the assumption that the dad is a disciplinary. I would tell you, with my ex-wife and I, she was the disciplinary. We didn't have many kids, but I'm pointing out that between the two of us, she would be the hardest in that case if we had kids, not me. And I can even go for, because I don't want to come across this.

if it's easy single parent. It's not. You have one person who's hard to carry the burden of both. However, if that one person had the income of multiple people or two people, that process is easier. I hope you get my point. I think it has agreed. It helps to have both. It is more beneficial to have both. It is more difficult to be a single parent, and that should be obvious. But I don't buy this premise that I tend to put this more on economics than I do on the two parents in a household.

Maybe I'm biased because I was a single child. Well, I think it's related. I mean, honestly, I mean, one of the things, I'm, I am staunchly anti-abortion. If I could, I would have abortion banned today, like, just done. That's never going to happen. So the next step is, then what do you do to make abortion

as rare as you can possibly have it. It's by having an economic model where having kids isn't a burden. Where that way there's not a, it's not a punishment to get pregnant and bring new life into the world. So if you're able to have a family that's able to live off of a single income, like you're able to buy a house, have a car, put your kids through school off of one income, that should be the goal. And if the free market can't do that, then the, there's an argument to be made that the state should have good should step in and do it because

family is the foundation of everything killing your kids is a symbol is a symbol of a society that is failing so that's that should should be done uh and what you you got to explain something between me on the right that always confuse well it doesn't really confuse me but i am curious and take on it this i agree with what you just said that for all all intents of purposes, kids ultimately are going to be the ones to take over society and how those kids are raised and how society treats those kids. For all intensive purposes, it's going to be indicative of what your society becomes. Exactly.

That seems to be radically true. Right? Like, obviously, your society can't prosper if the entire generation of kids just aren't born or if those kids are maniacs. Well, your society can't even exist. It will vanish. So why are Republicans big on this idea of we want people to have kids, which is a requirement and necessary, but we don't want to take care of those kids once those kids are formed?

Like right now, Trump is talking about, well, we need to give rid of Social Security and Medicaid, because we have wars to fight and we need to increase the budget. And under no circumstances, do they care about the upbringing of those children, whether it's the education of those kids, whether it's ensuring that people in the society itself are economically intact, especially when you're doing things that attack people's ability to make a living. I can show you the polling right now whether people more than half are saying our economic situation is worse. What do you think that does the families and kids, not just single parents, but dual parents?

Marriage is what, 50% divorce? Many of those are either for health reasons because they can't afford those things or for economic reasons. Again, these are societal issues that are affecting the kids. This is my issue with what RFK is doing, right? Because the reality of it is, if people had economic security, many of these issues vanish, much of crimes that are committed are directly related to people's economic circumstance, meaning it makes crime a rational act. That's a societal issue. That's a government issue in regards to policy. Much of these things fall in line to policy. And so when you get to the Republican Party. And they're like, we believe in abortions. And many of the abortion crops are

like, yeah, we have. And it's like, okay, but are you going to take the kids when we have them? No. You're on your own. That is standard. I would say Democrat and Republican policy. But Democrats at the very least give a fig leaf. Republicans, no. Well, it's because Democrats are more honest on this. Like Republicans, they go out and they talk a big game saying that we're, I'm pro-life. You're great. Does that include dropping bombs on babies in Gaza? Does that include dropping bombs on babies in Russia or Ukraine?

Does that involve just sanctioning the ever-living hell of a country like, say, Iraq, where a million babies die? And you have a Secretary of State Malin Albright says, well, that's a sacrifice we are willing to make. I'm sorry, you're not making that sacrifice. someone else is making that sacrifice. So they're not pro-life at all. It is a lie to say that Republican Party is pro-life.

I'm pro-life. I'm so pro-life that I think that children shouldn't be murdered by their moms and they all shouldn't be murdered by bombs and starvation. That's a true pro-life position. I agree with it, disagree with it. It is what it is.

But I try to be consistent with what is it, I say. It's hard, Robbie. In politics, that's hard. Is it? It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be. Well, just like, for example, one of the things that people will come up to me and I'll get this a lot. It's like, well, Robbie, you say you're anti-abortion, what if the baby is conceived in a rape?

I would still be against killing that baby because I'm against collective punishment. The baby is not responsible for the act that his father committed. Now, if you don't want to raise that baby, fine. You get up for adoption, find someone who's able to take care of it, who's able to love it. But you don't kill a baby because of something that that baby had no action in whatsoever. Does that make sense? I'm against collective punishment as a whole.

I do understand that argument. And look, whether I agree with the premise that it's killing or not is relevant, It's consistent, which I accept. I accept. Like many, look, I don't have to agree with people, right? Sure. But all of that's purposes, if they are consistent, credible, I accept it. Because I understand where they're coming from at that point.

It's not like dealing with a political person where you point out, yeah, yeah, I believe in pro-life. And then as you point out, at those children in Gaza, right? It's like, whoa. And by the way, that was Tucker Carlson's argument, right? He was like, how are these people who claim that they are pro-life or the Christians and they're murdering all of these people abroad and they seem to be perfectly okay with it. And he- And cheering it on.

And cheering it on. Yeah. This thing was like, how do they mind the gap in this contradiction? And I think the reality of this, they don't see them as people. They're racist. I don't think they seem as people. So, no, Robbie, I appreciate your consistency. I appreciate it.

Even if I disagree, I appreciate it. Well, disagreement's good. I mean, seriously, I mean, some of the things that people say, you know, in the chat, it's really kind of mixed. I mean, I don't know if you're watching it or not, but some people are like, Robbie's trying to force his beliefs on people. I don't think I'm trying to force my beliefs on anybody. I'm not advocating putting people in prisons and making them have, you know, and making them have kids. I'm not, I'm not about the setting up some kind of a theocracy. I am against killing the innocent people

and there's no one more innocent on this planet than a baby especially an unborn one. So I don't really understand how that's being controlling. And I don't understand how people, I'm going to use the term the left because I don't really know how it's to describe it, maybe the poor abortion crowd. I don't understand how being pro-life to the point where I don't want to blown up by bomb, starve to death,

or torn apart inside their mother's womb by an abortionist is me trying to control somebody. But how do you get there? I can answer that, by the way. Please do, because it baffles my brain. Because from the stamp, like, for one thing, you articulating it. It's not control, just pointing it up. It's just you stating your beliefs, and the beliefs are consistent. So it's what it is.

I think the point is, when. When you, if, let's take it to a political space. Let's take it from between us, into a political space where they actually have power to do X or Y. I may not want a child, right? Look if I'm living in some deep south place that has rules on abortion that basically say you can't get an abortion, or you have to look at a transvaginal ultrasound before you have the abortion, and you have to pay for the transvaginal ultrasound, which is what they were doing in Virginia, by the way. Okay.

where basically they were forcing women to look at the ultrasound before they had the abortion as a way and to pay for it. It was outrageous. It's forcing women to bear a child that they don't want. How is that not control? Meaning if it's my choice and I'm saying, I don't want a kid. And it is in the worst interest of this kid to me to have this kid, meaning society is worse off for having it. Again, like I said, I don't consider killing. I don't consider it a baby at that point, which will be a disagreement between us, which is fair enough, right?

But I'm saying the people who look at it in these terms in the way that I look at it are looking at it like, society is worse off for me to have this kid. This kid is worth off for me to have this kid. I don't want to have this kid. I don't want to bring it the term. I don't want to do any of that stuff. And you could say, hey, but you epped up and got pregnant. Fair enough, that's true. I don't want to have this kid.

So you're effectively forcing me as a person with a certain level of determination in regards to a certain want of determination of my particular life. You know, not bring a child to bear. It's that. It's control. It's exerting. It's state exerting control over the human body. Now, you could say what that's murder. But it is.

That would be the difference. That would be the discrepancy. And that's what people are saying, dude, you're trying to control people. these states are trying to control people. The idea that you're forcing me to look at something that I don't want to bring to there is control. Gotcha. So the counter argument I would have, we're just going to screw what Ted taught, put it here on the show. This is fascinating, honestly, because this is one of things I've always wanted to talk to you about, even when I used to talk to you on fault lines. Yeah. No, that discussion I had with Reese. That was epic. That was awesome.

Reese was, man, if I remember her, she was pissed. Because Reese will go further than I would on this. Like, she is hardcore. Like, at a certain point, I'd be like, yeah, that's maybe. She would go too far. I don't know if Reese has that distinction. But go for it. I mean, because like, no, so here's the two things that I see that happens on the left.

I'm kind of just trying to study these back together. I'm using the term left really broadly here. hell is to define it. So one person says, well, Rob, you cannot be pro-life if you're not pro-immigration. I don't really understand how you say that because I'm not advocating the mass murder of immigrants. I want them deported, they'll to go back home and fix their countries. I don't want them to be slaughtered to wholesale. So I don't really understand how you conflate those two arguments, especially if it's fundamentally an economic argument where if you want to be slaughtered, you're to raise if you want to raise wages you need to have labor to be more scarce the way that's

whether that should do that is by increasing wages by making labor more scarce so that's how that's how you're able to to fix this if you want higher wages you've got to have a got to be able to pay a premium for the work that's being done if you pay people enough they're going to do the work that they're going to do uh before i move here in montana uh i was picking peanuts and cotton at a farm getting paid made $2 per pound to make sure that I was able to get diapers for my son and lost that job to Mexican immigrants who are willing to work for 80 cents per pound. So I don't really understand how you're able to square that, how you converge those two things. But to bring this thing back to abortion by saying that your baby is inconvenient, but why about if your special needs kid is

inconvenient? Why can't you just opt that person out? Or why can't you say if someone is is mentally ill or someone who's deficient in some way or elder or elderly. Where you draw the line between eugenics for eugenics sake because it's all about convenience, right? If you're able to kill a baby for convenience, then what's the difference between killing someone who's eight years old because they are suffering from Down syndrome or an old person because they're just simply a drain on society as a whole? But that's my concern is where is how do you play? a value on that life because ultimately like nobody's saying you should murder adults you should

murder but why not a robot baby or you should murder a special needs kids those things are tangible real and they exist i'm saying that baby that's the difference between us i don't see it it's killing a baby is like killing a zygote i don't see that thing as a baby a baby is a form thing that is out the the mother's womb that is breathing air. Does it have human DNA? That's not about having human, didn't it? Human DNA. I'm trying to determine if this unborn child in the womb,

is it a human being or not? If the answer is yes, it has human rights. If they take a cell for me and put it in a petriotus, that has DNA, that is not killing a person. No, I agree. But this is a living, breathing organism that is growing. It's not a breathing organism. So I think that's the point that I'm making, Robbie.

Something that is four months in gestation that will become a baby at some point. It's not the same thing as a baby that is breathing air. There's a difference in those things to me. And there's a difference in those things to a lot of people, which is why 60, 70 percent of the population says what abortion should be legal. So then if you dropped a bomb on a Palestinian mother in the West Bank and you kill her and she's five months pregnant, did you just kill the woman or did you kill her and her baby too?

You kill the potential for a baby. You killed a woman, yes. Okay. So then if this pregnancy goes to the term, does that woman give birth to a dog or a cat or something else? Or does she give birth to a human child? Nobody is making, nobody will argue with you that there is a potential for life. Now, the difference is, though, that the parents,

who says, I want an abortion, does not want that potential of life to become realized. Murdering a Palestinian mother who wants that child is murdering effectively that woman's, let's say, is murdering the existence of that child in the future. But how you're saying the difference in these things. If you want to make the argument that because this can be a child, that it is a child, then fair enough. And that's why you're pushing for the abortion, the non-abortion thing. That's the way.

Life begins a conception. 100%. I mean, that's just going to be a place where we disagree. The chat's going crazy. Like, Robert, you're crazy. I don't think it's crazy about this. And your beliefs, but I'm not a religious person in the sense. Oh, for sure. But you're a person based in science. I mean, you, you're a scientific-based person. I try to be. But I think that you're, I think that you're, I think that place that's able to

that we can agree on is that when a baby is a month old in the womb, that baby has its own blood, that baby has its own DNA, that baby has a heartbeat, that baby has brainwaves. What is it, if not a living soul?

That baby can't live on its own. So what? Neither can we. If you take that baby out, all the medical science in the world can't keep that baby alive, quote unquote, at one month.

When that baby gets viable, then you and I agree. Meaning the moment that baby becomes a valuable thing, where that baby can live on its own. And I think that's where Reese was like, where I got into a fight, well, an argument with Reese's because she was like, she's very hardcore. Oh, yes.

I mean, you came to team Robbie on that call. That was wild. Because it, she went to, I thought she went too far. Like, meaning, as I point out, this idea of murdering the special needs kids is outrageous. or this idea of murdering an old person because they're inconvenient is outrageous. When that child becomes viable, when you get to like five months, hell, six, sevens, et cetera,

then you lose me, right? Sure. Then I become Team Robbie. And I'm like, you're going to do what? Right? You have to do that early on where I can make the case that that's a zygote. That's not a thing that can exist on its own. Meaning, there's a space.

where you and I would agree. But in the very beginning, no, no, no, no. I care more about the mom. I care more about the situation that the mom is going to be in. And I care more about the mom's point of view up until that point. So, as a full-blown thing. So then where would you, then where would you cut it off at? Like what would be?

Oh, don't ask me that, Robbie. Because if your argument is that, no, you can, is that a mother can abort the baby to the point of viability. As science evolves, as science develops, and we're able to keep, you know, we're able to have children become more, you know, premature babies viable in early, early gestational period. Where do you draw the line? I mean, at the moment of viability? So what if viability becomes 20 weeks?

After 20 weeks, you're done. You can't tell your baby anymore. We'll have that conversation when it's 20 weeks. Yeah. But I'm asking you, though. I mean, would. I'm saying, but it's not 20 weeks. That's not what we are.

And the legal and not conforming to what we are now. Sure. No, I get that. Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to figure out, though, is where's the line? Where is a place where we're never going to agree on this. But maybe, though, we can get to the point where abortion becomes more rare. If we're able to make it where people are able to afford a half families again, able to get wages,

and abortion is used as a procedure because the, about, life is at risk and less because it's birth control. Because at the end of the day, though, you can't catch a pregnancy like you can of cold. I mean, you've got to do something to get there. I mean, there is some choice there. How did you get pregnant? I went to Walmart, you know, and I just caught a pregnancy there on the spaghetti aisle. That's not how it would be an accident.

Exactly. I mean, it was at the subway. I didn't wash my hands and I caught a pregnancy. To be clear, I want abortion to be rare. Yeah, but a lot of people are those things like it's sacred. And that's part of that for me that I don't like Reese. That's what I don't understand. It's just like I can this should be something to be proud of.

I think it should be something. She never said that. No, no, I get that, Bob, but that's the impression that I got though. She's not here. She'd be asleep if she was, but. I'm so mean. She was put it this way. she was aggressive in defending what she considered be women's rights.

And I can't falter on it. I just falter to the extent that's all. Like in the same way that you and I agree, disagree on the abortion thing in regards to viability and except. Or not disagree on the same thing, right? It was this viability thing. Like at a certain point, it's like, dude, you're killing a baby. Like, because at a certain point, it's a baby. There's a emergence to me where that thing transitions into something that's,

When is that point? Because I've asked a lot of people on the left this. And again, I keep saying that word because I don't know how it's to define it, right? If there's a better term, please tell me. Because I think it's the left agrees with the abortion thing. Because I guess the problem that I have is fine, fair enough. What's the line? Is it third trimester?

Is when the baby is crowning? Is that when the cutoff line is? Is it two months? when does this person when when is this small human when is that when does that person earned the right to be called human and then become entitled to human rights that's a good question and no one has an answer so that that's why my default position is at the moment of conception because at that point i know you're human you have value based on your humanity doesn't matter how developed you are, how old you are. It doesn't matter what state of,

what state of life you're in. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white. You're a human being and you and you deserve the right to life and the chance to, the chance to grow up to be happy. You have that right as a human being. And if the left can't, if the left can I answer that question, you know, when does this clump of sales become a human being with an able human rights that cannot be taken away without due process, then your argument looks pretty freaking weak. No, I disagree. You're asking me...

Then define the term. When are you even a term? You're asking me, when is the moment where the abortion at that point becomes untenable? Yeah, when does it... When does abortion become... Stop being a medical procedure or become infanticide? Yes, that's what you're asking me. Yeah.

And I'm saying. So give me a date. Give you a time frame. I know, but just because I don't know that specific time frame or that specific date, does it mean that the process is, meaning there are a lot of things that are gradients. Sure. Most things in life are gradients. There are some qualities that a person have where you will be milked us to some that are more extreme.

Yeah. But it runs a little bit more. No, the point that I'm trying to move on. Just like, do you know? No. The point that I'm trying to make is, yes, I believe abortion should be legal. Yes, I believe that there's a time frame, there's a space in which it is a viable thing where that kid is not an adult and where the mom's choices matter more than whatever the Columbus says. I do believe that at a certain point, it becomes non-viable, meaning just because I can't give you a time frame, I know there's a space that that time frame exists in.

That doesn't violate the argument that is being made. the mom writes come first before that thing becomes viable. Full stop. I am perfectly clear on that. I have zero issue with that, right? If you're asking me at eight months, should the mom be able to abort the kid? I'm going to say that's fucking outrageous, right?

If you tell me at seven months. But there's going to be a space. Most things in life function that way, where at a certain point it becomes something else. I'm saying this is the same truth for this issue. We're always going to disagree on this. There's never going to replace where I'm going to say, sure, the state should be able to come in and tell the mom and force the mom to carry a child. I think that is outrageous.

People make mistakes. If they want to get an abortion, I think they should be able to. And, by the way, society is better off. You may hate that response, but it's true. If you are forcing a parent to raise a kid and then the Republican Party said, we don't give a shit about the kid after you're forced to raise, to bring a kid. into this world. The Democratic Party doesn't care about the kid either. I mean, neither party cares. Let's just be honest about that. Neither party cares. Yeah, neither party cares. I'm just pointing out, it's the Republican Party, it is very vocal about this idea that we want to force people to

raise, to carry children to turn, whether they want to or not. That is outrageous. And then to follow it up with, we don't care about the kid, the moment that the kid is born, the kid that we forced you to carry. I'm saying that is an outrageous, contradictory, ridiculous position for any political party to carry or any person to carry. And yet, that is what the main state Republican party argues. Democratic Party is full of shit too. Don't misunderstand me on this, right? Oh, I guess. Yeah. So if you're asking me, or if you're using that as a tip of sphere in order to contradict, to go after their argument, I don't think that works. There's a space and time that I think people can look at and say, that's a compil themselves.

there's another space in time where they can say that thing has a head a penis is breathing it's a baby there's you know when that point takes place meaning there's going to be a space where you're like oh that's a great area right true that doesn't contradict the argument i mean but but chattel slavery and then we'll move on the argument was the black people weren't humans that's the same argument that you're making right now and i'm fundamentally opposed to that to that to that. Robbie, it's because if you're human or you're not.

Robbie, there's a difference between a 30-year-old man where they put a thing around his neck and they're arguing he is basically a cow. Right. And you know he is not a cow.

Sure. And a clump of sales that you want to stop from coming into the world. Are we? Are we clumps of sales? Yes. Yeah.

I've brushed my case. for comes of sales and you can have a government that comes in and says you know i do not believe that robbie west is entitled to uh to do process of human rights because of his political beliefs i think that he what he says is over the pale and he is a net drain to society and he should be jettisoned from his mortal oil what's the difference between that and saying that you that you can that you can just send someone back to God because they're an inconvenience. I guess that's the problem that I have. No, I know that you have it.

But I mean, there are people, though, who would make that argument. The governments throughout the nations throughout human history have made that very same argument. That's why racism is such a disastrous scourge. I hate it. As I pointed out, there's a difference between. people in a government looking at a human being who can write, walk, jump, have sex, all this stuff, and saying that human being is a cow for all intents purposes and a clump of cells that cannot be viable outside of the body that is not a baby at that point. Again, from my point of view and from my framing of it,

these things are different. And trying to compare these things is a little bit weird to me. I don't know why you think these things are the same. I just don't. No, I get that. Yeah. I think these are radically different things. I don't even know how it applies.

If you're saying that a state can make a determination because of abortion, basically, the state can say, well, if a state can kill a complex, or allow a woman's self-determination from her body, then the state can also. turn around and kill Robbie. Obviously, I'm going to be against them killing you, Robbie. I appreciate that because, I mean, I like you.

I'm glad that you're going to get you. Can't do this. God damn it, protect Robbie. Protect your right bringers. I guess what it is just, I think what it all just boils down to is when is when does your humanity start? Because that ultimately is going to determine when your human rights are are going to be given to you, either legally or whatever else.

True. And so that's where I try to start this out. And also there are people talking about my SKS. I've got over here on the, on the wall. I've got a little rifle right there. And so people like, how is it that you have a firearm whenever you're talking about your pro-life argument? You can't fill your rights.

Well, for sure. And one of the reasons why I have, why I have this rifle here is because we've had problems with break-ins. And if someone breaks into my house, I'm going to send that person to go meet Jesus because that's a choice that they made actions have consequences. And it doesn't matter if you are a home invader wearing an ice uniform or if you're some thug who's breaking in trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you. That is why my Chinese SKS is here. If someone comes in, I'm going to solve that problem for them. And so that is that was why that's there.

Now, people in the chat, like, is that an S-KS? Like, why does Robbie just have this rifle just casually resting? That is the reason why. And your ass, just be aware. Just be aware. Don't break it. You will have a problem if you do, because I will make sure that you get to the 7.62 by 39 lead poisoning. You will not enjoy the experience.

There's been lead poisoning. This shows completely up. I'm honestly, man, I love this. I love talking to you. One of the things I've loved most about talking to you, honestly, is that, and I wish that more people's ability to realize this, it's a Chinese, it's a Chinese SKS, is that people are able to disagree and still be friends.

And that is something that people, that's something that the American people have lost the ability to do. Our politics is so tribal. It's like, you must be on my side about everything. Yeah. Or you're not an opponent or you're not a friend that I can disagree with, but you're an enemy. And that is toxic. It is toxic.

I'm, um, it is tough. And I agree with you. It's nuts. So what are we going to talk about? Oh, hell, it's eight o'clock. We believe the entire show is how I got abortion. Yes. Yes. And I do have to bail out on this one because I have to get to the end of the segment. But yes.

I don't take issue with the conversation. And I understand that people will have differences in regards to the way they see this stuff. I mean, this is one of the biggest, this is one of the biggest disagreements that people are ever going to have is about life. When does life start and what's the value of life? And I think that one of the things that you have to do whenever you're talking about this issue is that you have to be consistent. consistently and that I've asked just a big part of the problem. I would love to come on your show one day and talk to you about some of the things that we disagree about or even or even agree about. That would be a lot of fun. Well, I mean, look, if I would say, if I ever need to write, we're going to come on the show.

You're the man for the job. No, man, I don't take issue with it. I'm just like issue with the conversations at all. It's not. I don't either. We need to have more of them. People can disagree. Like, meaning.

Look, but the only thing I need, the only thing I ever really take issue with and disagreeing with people who disagree has to do with whether or not they're being sincere. And if that makes sense, like meaning if you're talking to a politico and the political is effectively taking this position purely for a party reason or purely for some of the reason and it's hypocritical or contradicts something. Right. That's what I usually take issue. But from Sample, honest personal belief, yeah. You know, people are people, right? They're going to have disagreements. They're going to have this. things. There will be things that will be deal breakers. Like if we're talking about Gaza and it's like, yeah, I think they should be murdering kids. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to feel some kind of word about that, right?

Oh, so? And then I know of my consensus. Yeah. You can have those agreements. Robbie, I'm going to have to leave. Yep. And I have another, I'm sure, what, Tim. All right, brother.

Great conversation, man. Hey, listen, I enjoyed it. I've glad we were able to have this talk. There is no TMI today because without a TED or without a Manila, you just have a Robbie. And nobody wants to just watch a Robbie. And so we're just going to pull the plug on this. We will see y'all on Monday.

And me see here. And we just got a donation. We'll end on this. From Johnny comes lately. You can't be pro-life and pro-war. That's just anti-abortion. I agree. That's why I'm opposed to both.

Robbie, you have a safe day, man. Be safe, okay? and for the audience be safe be kind and we'll see you guys bright and early tomorrow morning have a good one bye-bye y'all thank you