Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1003 GOP BETRAYS Voters ,Congress Approves FISA WARRANTLESS Spying w/Dennis Kucinich

Episode Date: April 13, 2024

Tim, Ian, Phil, & Serge join Dennis Kucinich to discuss the US House voting on renewing FISA, Mike Johnson explaining how the deep state plays dirty, the Democrat party flipping and becoming pro war, and how the global energy crisis is a manufactured crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

rest assured my fellow americans congress will always have your back and by you i'm of course talking to the deep state not the american people my fellow americans are the people the intelligence agencies i'm trying to get on their good side because you know they just approved warrantless uh spying again and so uh you know i don't want to be on the short end of that stick uh in all seriousness uh a lot of a lot of republicans and conservatives are very upset because many republicans voted in favor of renewing FISA and this warrantless spying. So, yeah, great. Everybody's really pissed off.

We'll talk about that. At the same time, Mike Johnson announced alongside Donald Trump that they are going to push forward with voter ID requirements for voting. rejecting this executive order that Biden released back in 2021 was brought up to us on the Timcast members show that allows requires the federal government, various agencies to register voters in various states and to provide for them a I want to make sure I get the language right, but an adequate ID for those states. Basically, it looks like the federal government is trying to stick its hand into voter registration, which is state's business, and several states are upset about this.

So, I don't know, shadow campaign, perhaps. Before we get started with all that news, my friends, head over to castbrew.com to buy coffee because the coffee is really good. We sponsor ourselves. Cast Brew is our coffee company. Everybody loves Appalachian Nights, but we have a promo code available

for Re-Rise with Roberto Jr. because Halloween is now six months ago, and it's time to say goodbye. So if you use promo code ALLCAPS at the end when you buy Re-Rise with Roberto Jr., I believe it's $7. So it's basically just

we're going to let it go. Everybody buy it. It's $7 a bag. It's a great price. Some say the best price. And the promo code is THEEND. And we're working really hard on the Casper stuff. All the money that goes to Casper right now, it's just being put into our physical location

in Martinsburg. And this is what it's for. We're not pulling anything out of it yet. We want to get 1,000 locations. In other news, my friends, head over to timcast.com and click Join Us to become a member and support our work. Why? Because we're being sued. The news broke on the Huffington Post today. Podcasters Tim Pool, Stephen Crowder, Owen Schroyer

are listed as defendants, among others. I can't speak too much to it because I am not a moron, but I will say, uh, I am not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. The suit is for the company. The company is being sued related to the news, uh, publications and not me personally, but, uh, the company. So, uh, this is where we get into big leagues. And that means if you like this show, we, along with Fox News, Steven Crowder, many others, they just announced are being sued. And so we're going to have to cover the costs of legal issues, I suppose. If you like this show and you would like to see it

continue in the face of, you know, that's not the only lawsuit we've had to deal with, but this one seems, well, they're going after more people. I'll be careful about how much I say. Go to timcast.com right now. Click join us to become a member. Support our work directly because this show is only possible thanks to you as members. It is the principal way we fund everything that we do. And so we could use your support. You'll also get access to the Members Only Uncensored show, which is an entirely different podcast. It's similar. We do a segment followed by callers from the audience Monday through Thursday. There's a massive library on the website of all of these shows we've done going back years. And so it's news. So they're

not permanently relevant, but some of them are pretty fun and some of them are a bit evergreen, but you can always watch the past couple of weeks and pick up something useful. As a member, you'll also get access to our Discord server where you can hang out with like-minded individuals and network online, finding people. Maybe you can start projects. I don't know. Maybe you can work on things together or share ideas. This is how we win a culture war. So again, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, support the show at timcast.com because I said we're being sued and I don't want to do any kind of like big GoFundMe or anything like that. I'd rather just say become a member if you'd like to help us and preserve the work that we do in the face of these suits and things like this.

And don't forget to smash the like button. Joining us tonight to talk about this and a whole lot more is Dennis Kucinich. How are you? It's good to be here, Tim. It's great to have you. I'm wonderful. How are you? Life's good.

Good to be joining you in the studio with this group here. And I felt it was very important to have an opportunity to have a chat with you and to reach out to your very large audience, which I'm sure is up to date on what's happening in the country and may be ready to hear a point of view that Congress itself needs to hear. Absolutely. So I assume everybody knows who you are, but do you want to give a quick background? Sure.

I grew up in the city of Cleveland, the oldest of seven. There's a poem, a poet by the name of Langston Hughes. He once wrote, life for me ain't been no crystal stair. And one never knows that the way you grow up, how it can be a blessing later. But my family never owned a home. We were renters, as a lot of Americans are right now. And by the time I was 17, as the family grew to seven kids, two adults, we lived in 21 different places and so we moved from place to place you know like nomads in an urban environment and I learned a lot not just about the city but about people about compassion about how you never

take a single day for granted live Live every day with a grateful heart. And I chose public service as an avocation, as a sense that my life doesn't belong just to me, that it belongs to community through service. And I think many people have that view, and there's so many different ways to serve. I chose to serve in public, in government. So I've been a councilman.

I was very young when I was elected to city council in Cleveland. I've served four terms in the city council. I've been the clerk of courts, which is a judicial office in the city, mayor of Cleveland at age 31, the youngest mayor in the country. Later on, state senate, United States House of Representatives for 16 years, ran choice for president. I've been fortunate to have a long career in public service, which has really given me some insight as to how, you know, as to the nature of government, what it should be doing, what it shouldn't be doing, and the potential to be of service to people, but also the fact that there are some areas of government that ought to stay out of people's lives. Well, right on. And now you're running for Congress again.

Right. of my district in 2012, paradoxically enough, by the Democrats in Columbus, Ohio, when I was a member of the Democratic Party. Years later, last year, a new district was created, which included half of my old constituency, which I served, almost half of my old constituency, which I served for 16 years. I decided, given what's going on in the country and the world, that this was an important time to get back into it. But in particular, because of the polarization that's going on, I thought, you know, I'm going to run as an independent. I've had the ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle. I did that when I was in Congress. I didn't care what

somebody's ideology was, what party they were. I want to find out who they are as human beings. And then from there, you build. From there, you find ways to work together. And so I was able to do that. And so in running as an independent, there's a chance, Tim, that not only can I win, but there's a chance that I could be the only independent elected to the next Congress in a Congress of the country, my constituents, and I'm preparing for that. Well, this is going to be fun. Thanks for hanging out. Oh, yeah. We got G Prime 85 as well. Surprise.

He's still here. Yeah. Well, I guess if anybody doesn't know, my name is George Alexopoulos. I'm a political cartoonist by accident. I was here earlier today doing Pop Culture Crisis with Brett and Mary. If anybody doesn't know, my name is George Alexopoulos. I'm a political cartoonist by accident. I was here earlier today doing Pop Culture Crisis with Brett and Mary. So check that out later if you want to have a two and a half hour screaming fest. I yelled about Matt Walsh again.

So that was fun. Because he doesn't like anime? He doesn't like anime. He calls it demonic and I'm not demonic. He's wrong. Well, I'm going to debate him one of these days. But anyway, until then, it's an honor to be here. I'm here to listen and learn and maybe ask some fun questions. All right.

And always fun to be here. There you go. We got Phil hanging out. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. What's going on, Ian?

Oh, man. I was just thinking George Alexopoulos, Matt Walsh, Culture War, anime special. Let's go hard. I want to go on record as saying I'm in. Okay. I'm Oh, man. I was just thinking George Alexopoulos, Matt Walsh, Culture War, Anime Special. Let's go hard. I want to go on record as saying I'm in. Okay. I'm in, man. I love it. I love everything.

So it's up to Matt now. Dude, Dennis, you're like one of my favorite people. Okay. That's a bit hyperbolic. You were like the OG hardcore. You read the Patriot Act before they tried to pass it. You voted against it, as far as I can tell? Yeah. to pass it. You voted against it, as far as I can tell? Yeah, what happened, it's very interesting for your people watching TimCast to learn about this. Congress had about 10 hours of hearings

over the Patriot Act, and then we took a break late, you know, early in the evening. When we came back onto the floor of the House, they put a different bill there that was much larger. They swapped it out. They eliminated what was called the enactment clause, put a new bill in front of the Congress, which no one read except maybe some staff. I spent about an hour and a half at the clerk's desk riffling through the bill, reading as fast as I could, and what I found out is it expanded government powers in an extraordinary way. It gave government the ability to spy on people, to look at their bank records,

their health records, their education records, their library. I mean, some of this has been amended out. But the core thing was that the Patriot Act set the government against the people. And so I voted against it because I read it, and most members didn't. But they voted, many voted for it because it's the Patriot Act, so you should salute it. Now, you know, to me, what I learned after 9-11 is that our government lied to us. And I knew that. But by the way, Ian, right after 9-11, I saw the case that the Bush administration was making go to war in Iraq. And I spent endless hours deconstructing the case. And what I found out is that they were lying about Iraq, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11,

despite the fact they claimed that it did nothing to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9-11, didn't have the intention or capability of attacking the United States, had nothing to do with the anthrax attack, yet a case was made to attack Iraq, and we proceeded to prosecute a war that cost the lives of almost 5,000 U.S. men and service men and women, cost our country anywhere close to $5 trillion for the war alone, cost the lives of over a million innocent Iraqis, and contributed to a national debt that added maybe with all the other wars since then about $8 trillion to a $34 trillion now national debt.

This thing was a triple canopy disaster. The government lied about everything, and the Patriot Act was put forward as a means of trying to control the population to reach government even deeper into people's lives. And what we see today, this hasn't ended. Today, FISA, which is another riff on government reaching into people's lives, spying on Americans, you know, Congress defeated an amendment that would have required a warrant to be able to spy on Americans.

Yeah, we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about that. Serge is here, too. Give it to me, buddy. Yeah buddy uh yeah i'm here too uh pleasure to meet you guys good to see you george i should say let's get uh into it well so this is the big story from nbc news house votes to renew fisa spying tool after earlier republican revolt prior to passage the house failed to adopt a bipartisan amendment to curtail warrantless surveillance inside the U.S. Section 702 of the law expires on April 19th, unless it's renewed. So what does this mean for your everyday American? What it means is that government, just for an FBI agent, you know, claiming there's a reason

important to the country, can file a national security letter and go in and find out what people are doing. And, you know, to say that it's never political, it's not going to be abused, that's baloney. Pfizer should have been taken down. This law, we already had the tools through the Central Intelligence Agency to determine if somebody's doing something to try to hurt our country. And unfortunately, you know, the CIA often misinterprets that in order to justify starting wars. However, FISA has permitted our government to be able to reach very deeply into people's personal conduct. And this bill, look, right now the government can track your Internet searches. The government can flag individual conduct this to me that is a nightmare that is not what a democracy is supposed to be about small d it is it is anathema to the very principle of freedom

that we believe we have as americans to have the government equipped and a law that enables them to spy on Americans without a warrant. That's the point. They can do it without, you know, before, if you want to go and find out what people are talking about on their phone or any other form of communication, you have to go to court. You don't have to do that now under FISA. So, you know, Congress rejected the Biggs Amendment that would have required a warrant to be able to follow the personal conduct of people. To me, it is a violation of the Fourth

Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. It is also a violation of right to privacy. I mean, our government is too busy about reaching into people's private lives and their personal lives. And in a way, when you have a law like that, everybody's a potential criminal. It's a status. If the government doesn't like what you're doing or saying,

they can go after you. That's why I'm for dramatically revising all of those bills that were passed in the wake of 9-11, because otherwise we're the fact that you are bringing up stalin-esque things i mean you've you've been around dc for a long time you've seen the different political parties kind of change and grow and stuff but but you also understand that the you understand what stalin-esque means so it's not used lightly like there are a lot of people that are hyperbolic about stuff but dennis is you know his his depth of knowledge and his experience using something like that it

should hold weight now i think that i'm on the complete same page about all of the government spy spying all of fisa all of the stuff that the patriot act uh you know made normal made you know normalized um and and i feel like also there is we're kind of reaching a time where the people that were most vocal about you know not doing this because i remember ron paul and you were were very very vocal ron and i worked very closely together yeah and and that's part of the reason why i know i was a big big ron paul fan you know in 2007 2008 when it came out that you know the government lied to I know I was a big, big Ron Paul fan, you know, in 2007, 2008, when it came out that, you know, the government lied to us. I was a, you know, a Republican and I thought that, OK, well, this is, you know, this is the government is doing this and it's important and blah, blah, blah. And then when it came out, they lied. I felt really, you know, really it took it.

I took it personally. And it's important that the people that were there when it was passed are out here now saying look we need to stop this stuff and it's now it's 20 years on so a lot of the people that were there like ron paul they're not there anymore they're not in congress anymore and we're losing the the voices that were protesting before and we really need to amplify their voices against the things that are happening today what is the biggs amendment that you said failed yeah yeah it failed in a tie vote in congress the vote was 212 to 212 if there's a tie vote that means the bill or amendment does not pass and biggs basically said you can't uh you need a warrant that was today which is what the con which is what the fourth amendment says is the argument for this like the whole world is spying

on us so we have to spy on ourselves too i mean i think i think the argument is there is no u.s government there's an enclave which acts outside of the interests of the people the people have no say in how and and how things are done and we can only pretend that's not an argument i mean i that's not an argument that i tend but like i get what you're saying i believe that that is true it's not accountable studies have been done that show that the the government is not accountable to the people the opinions of the people have no bearing whatsoever on policy but beyond just mad power control is the are they justifying it like look it's going to happen, so we need to get ahead of this and be the ones that are collecting data?

Well, think about it. Intelligence agencies changed over the years where instead of having a sharply focused approach towards collecting information, as one intelligence leader said, why go for a needle when you just take the whole haystack? Now, that haystack is everything about us. See, to me, we must have a private sphere in our lives, which is reserved to us. That's who we are. You know, it enables us to effectuate the idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. When the state intervenes in that in any way, it is not just chilling,

but it's antithetical to the entire idea of freedom. Whatever system you're in, it's antithetical to freedom. And we have to watch this creeping statism, and knock it down at every point. Government has too much power over people's lives. And we have to look at the ways that power has been misused. And it is misused.

There's just no question about it. The government doesn't really audit the abuses. They just look the other way. And our politics have become weaponized. If you're on the wrong side, they'll go after you. And this is wrong. Justice is no longer blind in this country. The blindfold is off.

And the people who are in power can look one way or another and decide who they want to go after. That's not what America was intended to be. But that's how we're evolving. And that's why this vote concerning the FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Act, this surveillance act, this vote was really important because it, it basically says, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the deep state or are you on the side of freedom? That's the divide right now.

And Mike Johnson, the speaker, we might actually play the video. It's pretty short. I imagine you might have, we'll get to it. Yeah. That was freakish.

The way he seems to have turned, like he came in and be like, yo, the FBI is too much power. Let's get, let's all pro america yay and then he's like and then they took me in the back room and now i see it the other way so now i'm gonna i'm gonna go along with the fbi and the the wireless war tapping wire maybe maybe

he met the uh i don't i'm taking out of contact draconians in the in the back room who told him that he was a chicken and the aliens are i'm sure they surrounded with a bunch of psychics and just focused psychic energy into his head and he was like ah no i'm sure they didn't who knows what the hell what they tell him what what kind of things do you think that he was told in the back room dennis well wasn't let me just say there wasn't any real i mean whether it was a back room or not news reports have that members of the justice department were right outside the you know the chamber of the house pulling people out to talk to them that That's very rare, by the way. Go ahead.

We have this tweet from Thomas Massey. He said, this is how the Constitution dies. By a tie vote, the amendment to require a warrant to spy on Americans goes down in flames. This is a sad day for America. The speaker doesn't always vote in the House, but he was the tiebreaker today, and he voted against the warrants, meaning if he didn't vote at all, the warrants would have won. Dennis, you can see whatever he's got yeah well matt tom massey is spot on you know and he's a he's a patriot he he really cares about this country and the speaker is in a box i mean you've got on one hand you've got people that want to kick him out immediately

and then you have others who are gathering around him he's like a wishbone and people are pulling both ends of it and uh if he survives it'll be surprising i don't i don't think the people have been represented in this country for for decades there was there was a study that found the uh that the political opinions of the american people have no bearing whatsoever on whether bills get passed yeah Yeah, Ron Paul's- It is lobbyists, corporations, the wealthy. We had Ron Paul on the show a year ago or so. He said he thinks the Republic died when Kennedy was assassinated. And he was like, I think the CIA killed Kennedy. And that was when the Republic officially was like, well-

Well, as someone who was a senior in high school when Kennedy was assassinated, and I have a point of reference on that. There's no question the country changed. It changed emotionally. It changed in terms of the grip that the deep state had on the government. If you look at the speech that Kennedy gave at American University, and I think it was May of, it was in the spring of 1963, a half year before he was assassinated. He called, basically, for taking down the military-industrial complex in the same way that Eisenhower did a few years earlier in his farewell speech. He said that, you know, we want to create a country where

peace is inevitable, not war. And so the observations that Ron Paul has made about where America is today, he's 100% right. I mean, I've worked closely with Ron. We're still very good friends. And we have to, Tim, I want to go back to what you said about the American people having their government taken away from them by Citizens United, Buckley versus Vallejo, money equals free speech, best Congress, money can buy, by the role of corporations in the government. Look, when I went to Congress, except for the fact that people helped me get in and get elected over the Internet contributing, I was able to escape the condition that most congressmen have. They're given a book that's about a foot thick of packs to call for money. And instead of going to the floor of the House and engaging in debates, members come to Congress and they go to their respective party headquarters and they dial for dollars. They have pagers.

When there's a vote, they run to the floor and they vote. But most members are not involved in a day-to-day debate because they need to raise $3 to $10 million, depending on the district or more, to come back. And the system is adverse to the interests of the American people. So, Tim, you know what you said, absolutely right. Let me pull up this clip here. This is from The Blaze.

Speaker Mike Johnson lays it out for you. I like to call this clip gobble gobble, gobble gobble, one of us, one of us. And it's how they brought Mike Johnson into a private back room where the deep state started banging on a table, chanting gobble gobble, one of us, until he finally decided to be one of them.

When I was a member of the judiciary, I saw all the abuses of the FBI, the terrible abuses over and over and over, the hundreds of thousands of abuses. And then when I became Speaker, I went to the SCIF and got the confidential briefing from sort of the other perspective on that to understand the necessity of Section 702 of FISA and how important it is for national security. And it gave me a different perspective. So I encourage all the members to go to the classified briefing and hear all that and see it so they can evaluate the situation for themselves. And I think some opinions have changed both ways, but that's

part of the process. You've got to be fully informed. That's right. He had seen the FBI abuse system and spy on innocent people and all that stuff. And then they brought him in the back room, roughed him up a little bit, and he said, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, please stop beating me mercilessly, and then decided to side with them and vote

in their favor. Who's the skiff? And that was a was a joke by the way yeah yeah and i was i was kind of claiming what he said was out of context the skiff is the confidential room yeah it's a room where you can look classified stuff so what do you think he was told when he was when he to change his mind look look mr johnson is not new to congress uh there is is no questioning. There was a lot of pressure put on. But as you played that clip, and we're talking about national security, national security, for some reason, my thinking flashed to the border, where millions of people crossed the border, and that's not a national security that's a real national security issue they can throw the card of national security on anything and you put that

out there and right away people oh well national security and we can't tell you why right it's a secret we have to tease apart this deep state and separate them. And the only way to do that is transparency. The American people have a right to know why their government makes decisions. And too much of it is done in secret. Too much of it is done in the name of national security. And what about the security of the fourth amendment what about the security the constitution offers we americans to be free from illegal search and

seizure to say that you can't take us you can't take our liberties away unless the court approves of a search that's all gone now the government can do this willy-nilly i know they have i went through the bill today tim and and it has all these exceptions and this whole structured program that's all baloney they run it they they use the opening and do it any way they want, and they can go after anyone they want. And I maintain that the fact that FISA was able to pass, and it's in for another two years, is a disaster for this country because it keeps us under the surveillance state that is against our democracy. Now, a Florida congresswoman put a motion to reconsider up, and you know what? They're going to have to vote again on Monday. And that'll be real interesting to see if people stay with their votes

or whether they hear from their constituents who say, hey, we don't want the government spying. You have to have a warrant to be able to reach into people's stuff. stuff yeah what's the best way for people to contact their congressman right now well you know call the house of representatives uh i think they can google their yeah member of congress while you were there like what's the most just annoying way to get bombarded by your constituents where you're like fine i'll listen to you visiting their district offices. When they're there? No. You visit the district office of the member of Congress because that's where the people are,

where the rubber meets the road. You don't get back to Congress unless you pay attention to what's happening in your district. And while people make the trek to D.C., it's okay if you want to do that, go to the district office, ask to speak to the district director. And while people make the trek to D.C., it's okay if you want to do that. Go to the district office. Ask to speak to the district director.

Tell them you're a constituent and that you're concerned about the government having too much power, about the government being able to spy on Americans, be able to do it without a warrant. And you want some accountability, and you want their congressman or woman to stand for the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because ultimately, this is what this is about. This is a full-on attack on the U.S. Constitution. And, you know, that Fourth Amendment, it was adopted in 1791. Okay? This isn't something new.

You know, it was put in there because the Brits would go from house to house. They'd quarter their troops. They'd grab stuff. They'd take it out. No, we established the Bill of Rights to stop Americans from being beset by any type of government. And now the government, instead of serving the people, is attacking the people. And, you know, if you read the Declaration of Independence and you look at the statement that Jefferson wrote,

it was a recitation of all of the abuses of the government at that time. And then it was the government of King George. But, you know, george might be long dead but the abuses of what happens when when a central government becomes more and ever more powerful uh have it has not ended as a matter of fact with the internet with with digital technology. Oh, my God. I mean, we're now, we have surpassed the Orwellian 1984, and we're into this brave new world that Huxley talked about, in which the government is the big brother.

And it's more than just, like Tim was was saying it's not just the u.s government there's there's greater economic powers at force that are manipulating people i mean you mentioned citizens united earlier which i believe maybe you can explain it better gives people what unlimited ability to what does it do exactly citizens united what it said is that uh you know essentially uh since uh money you know money equals free speech, Citizens United gave corporations the right to participate in the political process, to use their resources in structured ways, through the creation of super PACs and such, and 501c4s, to be able to influence elections in a way they couldn't before. mean now it's it's no you

know the the uh the the removal of any restraint on campaign financing has been a disaster for this country can a foreign corporation invest no no no but can they but but but if they have a u.s uh if they have a u.s uh a subsidiary sure yeah so they. So through this, there are ways in which foreign wealth is funneling money into the U.S. election system. But to clarify, when I said yes and he said no, his is literal, mine's figurative.

But I'm asking more of the broader, like can they have a charity that's a United States charity that's owned by, yes, a subsidiary essentially. That's dirty. And it's not just that. It's that there can be a charity that,

or I should say to clarify, there can be a charity where it's an American guy who started it, and then China puts $100 million in it. And then depending on what they do and how they do it. Well, 501c3s are not permitted to be involved in politics at all, according to the IRS. But 501c4s, which have an educational component and a political action component, are permitted. Corporations can contribute to them. They can do it anonymously. Yeah. So, sorry to interrupt you. No, go ahead.

That it's more than just the United States government. Now it feels like global corporations are just picking apart at our government. Well, wait a minute. You're right. This is a very important topic because when you look back at NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the creation of the World Trade Organization, okay, and China Trade, all of those trade agreements help to create corporate control, not just in America, but globally. The corporations make the rules. And in many ways, that's when we began to see a destructive undermining of our rights as Americans when, you know, steel, automotive, aerospace, shipping industries started to go that were tied to people having a decent way of living in this country.

And the connection with the declining American industrial base, what I call the strategic industrial base, is directly related to the loss of individual freedoms because you cannot have political freedom if you don't have economic freedom. And as people start to lose their economic position, their political rights are by definition going to be undermined. And that's what's happened. When I was in congress uh boeing came into my office asking me to vote on china trade i found out that the reason why they wanted

to do that is they were willing to to give to china the prototypes of the new aircraft that boeing was developing and china's of course got that as part of the deal for entrance into the market if you move your uh uh your economy over as we went to china what are we importing we're importing goods but we're also importing values okay and so we become less free we become less free this is crazy you know workers rights you know um human rights out the door so i'm'm, you know, I'm a firm believer that we need to really review where we are as a nation with respect to upholding our basic liberties because they have been lost over the last 30, 40 years.

I want to ask you, how would you view the Democratic Party today as compared to where it was maybe 20 years ago, 10 years ago? There's some there's some major differences particularly uh on issues of um uh war very pro-war yeah it almost flipped from where it was i'm sorry go ahead i was just gonna say it almost flipped from where it was 20 years ago right it did i remember there was nothing but criticism for afghanistan and iraq on the daily show yeah but then obama got elected and they stopped caring well it wasn't just obama let me just say that um you know i have personal experience in this i mean i led the effort in in organizing votes against the war in ira And we had 125 Democrats who voted against the war.

The party has changed, and I think it's a number of reasons why. There's a Democrat in the White House. That Democrat has been a hawk for a good part of his entire career. And there's fewer and fewer, there's less and less competition among defense industries. And the defense industry is the juggernaut that Eisenhower warned about when he said, be aware of the military industrial complex. We're there, we're there right now. And so they basically have control of the White House and the Congress.

It's been ever thus that the Democratic Party, and I think it's probably true of the Republicans as well. If you have the White House, the leadership of the House will generally follow whatever the president wants so this is a problem because uh uh the the political parties uh are are there's people in both parties who are favoring war now and it's very dangerous for this country very dangerous so you noticed a conglomeration or um i guess of military industrial complex they were buying each other out and consolidating? Yeah, it's happened. There used to be multiple people in the defense industry competing. Now they keep on getting smaller and smaller.

I'll tell you what's happening. They're jacking up the price of war material. And as a result, the taxpayers are paying more and more and more and getting less and less and less. When I got to Congress in 97, we had a hearing with the Inspector General on the committee. I was on the government reform. And at that point, they said that the Pentagon had over a trillion dollars in accounts they hadn't reconciled i found out that the pentagon according to this report that we were given had over 1100 different accounting systems and it's set so nobody knows what's going on so the money's stolen the american people are getting hosed by this system which takes their money we now spend about a trillion dollars for preparing for war.

You know, the actual Pentagon plus intelligence. And we're driving our country into debt. We're in a sense in a position where they create wars to justify their existence. This is insane, really. the and there again when you have wars that when you have endless wars or you participate surreptitiously in war you start to you sow the seeds of the destruction of a nation i mean you look at the history of ancient rome we're repeating the same things empire Empire 800 bases, at least, around the world,

intelligence operatives everywhere, dictating policy in one place and another, you know, that's not what America was supposed to be about. Yeah, I feel like they used the liberal economic order, which, you know, the military in 1949, they set it up, and they used the United States as the figurehead because it was the greatest and the wealthiest country on earth the reason it was we were destroyed after world war ii we weren't destroyed we were still powerful but also because of the ethics of the state allowed us to become the most powerful quickest pivoting moving awesome place but it's not built to be a war machine it's a liberal it's it's supposed to be a place of thoughts and ideas, and it became this place of power and destruction in a lot of ways, and control. And now that's why it's faltering.

These ideals don't function with militaristic autocracy. You know, I want to read something, if I may. Yeah. This is from a book called The Sorrows of Empire, Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic by Chalmers Johnson, who was also the author of Blowback. Now, listen to this. This is something that I look at often. I wanted to share with you, Tim, and I appreciate the opportunity to do it. Hold on. Let me just get these glasses here.

Oh, yeah, through the headphones. Yeah, I got it. Okay, I'm good, I'm good. Chalmers Johnson writes, in my opinion, just a quote, the growth of militarism, official secrecy, and a belief that the United States is no longer bound as the Declaration of Independence so famously puts it, quote, by a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, is probably irreversible. So he's saying this growth of militarism, official secrecy is irreversible. A revolution be required to bring the Pentagon back under democratic control or to abolish the Central Intelligence Agency or even a contemplate enforcing Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the

Constitution, which says, no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law and a regular statement in account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. So, you know, what's happening is the people are largely unaware of how their money is being spent. It's being generally wasted or stolen. And I'll give you an example. During the Iraq war, the coalition provisional authority needed money to run their operation. A call was made to the Philadelphia Mint, who printed uh 10 billion dollars in in hundred dollar bills shrink wrapped into bundles of 75 000 each uh put on uh skids and uh sent to the uh to the coalition provisional authority in baghdad 10 billion dollars disappeared i mean this is you

know they the money it's like well we're we're hearing the same thing with ukraine now that disappeared. I mean, this is, you know, the money, it's like... Well, we're hearing the same thing with Ukraine now, that large portions of the money sent over is unaccounted for. Well, General Smedley Butler said... That's my dude. Let's talk about the business plot. Go.

Yeah, he said war is a racket, and it is a racket, and it's a racket which takes the tax dollars of the American people and just blows it. People know make like bandits who are in the either in the defense industry or they just stuff the money in their pockets and so god knows where that money goes once it goes abroad is there and is there a way you can advise us that on how we can start a defense contractor so that we can get some of this money? Hmm.

I were in the wrong business. Preserve the stability. To answer that question, no. I get it. I get the liberal economic order. It was the least worst system. They were like, look, we don't want another world war. What Hitler did was horrible, and there should have been oversight to prevent the guy from going genocidal and territorially conquering.

So they set it up. And for 70 years, we haven't had a lot of border conflict. More or less, you've got the USSR shattered shattered you've got some stuff in bosnia obviously remember this is very very incorrect but this it was the least i mean the other option was we didn't do it and it was just inevitable that we would have come to blows with the soviets i i i i i'm i can pull up the list of 20th century conflict for you but it was i'm just i'm just saying a lot of borders didn't change like they were before World War II.

Countries weren't being taken over, renamed. We've had a little general stability for 70 years. Horror of war persisted with Vietnam, all sorts of things. So we need something better now. I just don't want a world economic fascist technocracy. What were you going to say well we've moved we've moved towards a one world econotechnic system but look instead of one great war which we could still have

for those who are interested in war if you're out there and you want a great war we've got people in our government right now who are looking uh to expand war in the middle east uh looking to expand war in the Middle East, looking to expand a war with Russia, and would love to have a war with China over Taiwan. Now, I would submit that while we haven't had the Great War again, we've had what the writer Selene would call death on the installment plan. Yeah. Explain. Well, you know, all these go back to Iraq, Libya, the war that's been percolating in Syria. We now have Yemen.

And all these wars are at least a million people. But if we want to keep going back, I mean, Afghanistan. Yeah. We can go back further. You've got, you had conflict in Europe, but you've got obviously the Koreas. Right. You got the Koreas, Vietnam, very obvious ones. Lately, we've been saying like, when did World War III begin?

Is World War III this, that, that? I'm like, maybe we've just been in a hundred year war. And it started in 1914. It started in 1913 when the Federal Reserve took control of the country, basically. They set us off into the global, the Great War. Then went just parlayed into world war ii then the cold war well let me finish then the cold war was just an extension of this global conflict arms race and then now afghanistan it's like the u.s has been the belligerent for the last 30 years but no because you're you're talking about stuff that is really especially when you're talking about world war ii

and world war ii it's really focused in europe like what happened with world war one was like the end of like feudalism and figuring out which way like a lot of the former kingdoms were going to go and then world war two was you know arguably because of the way that the the treaty of versailles treated germany after after world i mean we didn't have to have world war two didn't we didn't need but anyways i would i would clarify that and say i think that was how hitler was able to rally people by saying oh look at us we victims absolutely absolutely but you you had a guy who was whose brain was fractured 100 who was seeking to gain power 100 i suppose you you couldn't have just generally speaking probably probabilistic without the treaty of versailles but i i'm i'm reluctant

just to say it was treated versailles that led to world war ii explicitly i think but but i think largely it's correct that's fair but the point the point stands it wasn't a lot of times what it sounds like you're articulating is that it's it's the u.s focused and i don't really think that it's the u.s focused as well as much as post-world war ii yes um because the u.s was left really standing after europe just annihilated itself it was decimated after world war ii you know um so i think that the the global order that the u.s kind of established in resistance to the warsaw pact that definitely was the u.s but when it comes to like world war one and world and the first half of the of the the 20th century i mean that was a lot of change from from feudal systems and older systems you know coming into essentially basically catching up to countries that started the industrial revolution earlier than they did and i just want to say

you said we didn't really have the wars after the liberal economic order and all that. Didn't have a lot of border changes. Yeah, the list of wars is insane. It was limited. Here we go. It became limited. The war became limited. This is what you're saying. Death on the installment plan. Yeah, death on the installment plan.

Welcome. Holy crap. Look at these wars. Henry Kissinger called it limited war. A lot of it is like you don't want to bomb the capital of the enemy you don't want to bomb moscow you don't want him to washington so you fight these proxies this is just 1945 to 1989 what's how many are here look at this this is all u.s war no it's global conflict i saw this and this is just from from 45 to 89 and then we got to jump down to a whole different page to go from 90 to 2002 and then it's a look at this yeah i mean bro gotta laugh the liberal economic order has done nothing to prevent these wars there's no control if anything they've been a party to massive wars but it could have been

way worse like we could have been we could be with sticks and stones right now you know but what you're talking about is if there was nuclear proliferation. And so, granted, there was a nuclear proliferation because of the United States and the Warsaw Pact. But the United States and the Warsaw Pact had all sorts of proxy wars going on, whether it be Charlie Wilson and the CIA's war against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80s or whether it be any number of other proxy wars or US involvement in local wars or whatever. That stuff has been consistent since the end of the World War II.

My question, I guess, for you, Dennis, is like if we were to dispel the liberal economic order, because they want to make a new world order. They're tired of this liberal one. They want to make this new world order they keep talking about since the 90s. Is there a way to do it, make world more peaceful but i'm not just talking about peace because if you completely obliterate the surface of earth earth there will be peace that's not the kind of peace i'm looking for actually you were you were mentioning the world

health organization and sovereignty so i want to talk about that in a minute but i'll put a bookmark at that okay i want to so do you think there's an evolution of world order that could be much more peaceful uh much more liberty minded freedom minded with u.s ideals free speech at the center well well let's look at where we are in the united states right now economically remember i i i offered the observation that uh you have to have that unless you're secure economically, it's going to be very difficult to be able to protect political freedoms. So what's happening in the U.S. right now? Real wages are going down. Rents, cost of housing going up.

Cost of cars going up. Cost of used cars going up. Cost of auto repairs going up. Cost of food going up. Cost of utilities going up. cost of used cars going up, cost of auto repairs going up, cost of food going up, cost of utilities going up, cost of child care going up. Americans are drowning in debt. The interest on auto or credit cards for the average American family is about $6,587. Mortgage, about $6,587. Mortgage, about $6,764. Cost of child care going up used to be 7% of a family budget. Dealt with child care, now it's 24%. Housing cost a few years ago, 21% of median income. That's just over a 10-year period, 21%.

Now it's 41%. The economic pressures that are on American families right now are extraordinary. And in this period, the FISA extension arises, okay? People are riveted to their own economic well-being. And I'm saying that with the economy being difficult for very, very many Americans right now, there is an erosion of political liberties simultaneously. I've visualized evolving our fuel system, because I think a lot of it relies on the cost is going up with the fuel.

Of course it is. And so if we could incorporate hydrogen fuel, I've talked to this graphene scientist, Jim Tuer out of Rice University, said that our methane production lines, you can transport hydrogen fuel through them. And so they figured out how to make hydrogen and actually make money. Rather than spending money to make hydrogen, they'll take carbon trash, they put it in a vacuum and hit it with electricity, 7,000 degrees, they pulse it with this thing called flash fuel. Let me finish this off for Dennis really quick.

And then it gives off hydrogen fuel and you get a byproduct of this stuff called graphene. It's black powder, pure carbon. You can use it for building materials. Are there technological evolutions coming along that would change the source of people's energy? Yes. But right now, here's a headline from a major newspaper, higher gas and rents keep inflation elevated. Okay. And there's something simple to be said about the strength of corporations internationally. If you are of the opinion that there are international corporations controlling our political system, what do you think happens to the guy who says, hey, I've got a revolutionary new energy system that will displace the the current uh they usually kill him but i don't want to displace it i don't want to displace it i want to keep using the oil and turning it

into graphene i mean so we keep using we can even improve we can increase our oil production and increase our coal production and turn it into this stuff whereas right now we have we have all of with the technology to solve all of our power problems currently exists, and they're using it in France. You can look at the way that France takes care of their power problems and the way that Germany takes care of their power problems, and you see a significant difference because France in the 70s or whatever. Was it 70s when they started doing the nuclear program? France went nuclear in the 70s. And when everything was kicking off with Ukraine and everyone was talking about the pipeline that got blown up and stuff, France wasn't worried about it. Germany was terrified. Germany was worried about the cost.

Germany was worried about where they're going to get power from, how they're going to do it, blah, blah, blah. France didn't worry about it because France is like, we got nuclear. And France has a modern electronic or electrical uh production facility or system in their country and the united states could do that but the united states has been implementing policies making it extremely difficult to to open up new nuclear power plants and if we change that we can we can greatly decrease any of the negative effects of significant increases in gas prices or oil prices because oil is going to be something that we need all the time because oil is in everything we make, everything we use. It's plastic. Everything.

Everything. Fertilizer. Oil is why we can feed the 8 billion people on earth. If it wasn't for oil and fertilizers that are petrochemicals, we wouldn't be able to sustain the 8 billion people on earth if it wasn't for oil and and fertilizers that are petrochemicals we wouldn't be able to sustain the 8 billion people that we have and we have we have few we have less hunger on earth than at any time in human history ever and it's all because of oil sorry and you have to consider energy return on energy invested and how that relates to population expansion as well as population sustainability so if for every uh

unit of energy calorie i suppose uh that is required to extract oil i'm gonna give a total hypothetical i don't know the actual it's called eroi energy return on energy invested let's say that um for every one unit of energy you invest you get back 10 with oil that means one person working is going to help produce enough energy to sustain 10 people a total hypothetical these numbers aren't real i'm saying now with all other fuel sources i think nuclear energy is actually uh better than oil well the issue is with something like hydrogen if the energy invested is like one to three you absolutely could implement a new energy system but if its energy density is still not comparable to oil or nuclear, then this will result in an energy deficit. Or if it was a

thousandth of a cost, it may only be three times the benefit. That's literally what I just said, energy return on energy invested. Cost is a reference to how much energy a person needs to put into a system to get energy back from it. And if the cost for oil is one to ten but for hydrogen is one to three then you are talking about sustainability issues where you're investing in something that generates less except you actually get money out of making it's not about money we're talking about get byproduct of car of graph and that's meaningless product what we're talking about is at the root at the root of what is money backed by we're talking about energy and energy comes in multiple forms. So energy in when humans lived in caves and in fields, energy is human output. If a human eats food, how much energy can a human produce? Humans then said, okay, we're gonna take animals, then

took animals. And now all of a sudden you can invest energy as a human into taming a beast, but that beast can now pull 10 times the weight so instead of one person lifting a rock one person tames a beast who lifts a rock then we started burning things with wood then coal energy density started increasing and the energy uh energy return on energy invested started going up exponentially exponentially we discover petroleum and how to start manipulating this to gasoline and other petrochemicals and all of a sudden energy return on energy invested skyrockets like one to a hundred and this results in of course massive population boom because now one person can produce enough food for a hundred

people if you were to switch off that system and go to a lower energy density in it it correlates with a difficulty you can be very clear well you can boil it down to how much energy is produced turns in can be can be figured out into how many humans that much energy can support or you can say how many humans do we have and figure out how much energy you need to produce and we can dramatically simplify it to when greta thunberg said we will not wait till 2013 we must get rid of fossil fuels now i'll be clear i love 60 60 some odd million people die in three days i love oil i love the oil fuel system i have no interest in shutting it down i want to augment it and evolve it into a hybrid system utilizing hydrogen

as well and when it comes to the energy production i'm with you on on nuclear it's badass but the problem is it's fuel there's three elements that we can use for fuel that we know of right now hydrogen carbon and um plutonium and the three elements that we can use for fuel that we know of right now. Hydrogen, carbon, and plutonium. And fuel means that you can carry it around with you. I don't believe you're correct. This is what Jim Tour told me, the scientist at Rice University. There's only three types of fuel. Hydrogen, carbon, and what did I just say?

Plutonium. Are you saying hydrocarbons and plutonium to create heat? Or are you saying... Fuel means that you can carry it around in a container. It's got... Whereas a windmill doesn't have fuel. It's just an energy production source. So these nuclear plants are like that.

So plutonium is a challenging fuel because it's so radioactive, which leaves us with hydrogen and carbon. Well, no. You're just throwing nuclear away no no i just as a fuel source like in your car like if you had a plutonium battery in your car we could be risky at this stage well so plutonium is all plutonium does is just runs a steam engine that's like the the all of them yeah yeah i mean so well i mean photovoltaic yeah i mean so fair enough but but but it doesn't matter so much how you're storing the energy. It's how you're producing it. Cause I mean, you can, the nuclear power that we have, that we can produce, right? We don't have it in the U S but the types of nuclear power that we can produce that we have the tech, but currently the technology exists to produce can absolutely take care of all of our problems and the tech again the technology is there so really the only thing holding it up is like the epa or the actually is you all is the epa that does nuclear

or is it the atomic energy so but but it's the it's u.s regulation right what what would you say would be the first let me just say that you know i'm familiar with uh and interacted with debates on many different types of energy. With respect to nuclear, the first plant in the U.S., I think, was in 51, 52 in Michigan. The technology that has developed has not come to the point of where, what do you do with the spent fuel rocks? This is something that they haven't really figured out other than they keep them in place. Okay, that's the output. And the economics remain variable and somewhat difficult to negotiate because when nuclear

was first developed, it was supposed to provide energy too cheap to meter, and in some cases it drove up the cost. We have, I think, about over 90 or more nuclear plants in America. Many of them are operating past their stage of licensure. The reactor vessels become embrittled when they are moving past that stage, which then brings up some safety issues. Now, there's been France, for example. Did I all in that correctly, though? France used smaller reactors and were integrated across the country. You know, to me, I haven't been a fan, frankly, of nuclear energy,

but it's part of the energy mix. Sure. And you can't get rid of it just like that. Any more than the hydrocarbon energy. There's some people who say, well, get rid of it all. That's not realistic at all. If we're going to use nuclear, we have to make sure it's safe. If we're going to use hydrocarbon energy, we have, we've got to make sure that certain steps are taken to try to minimize environmental damage. Yeah, I figured it out. And I mean, that's our responsibility as stewards of the earth.

I don't, what I think, we want to encourage innovation and research to take us to energy which will have a lower impact, but at the same time, be able to produce a greater degree of energy per unit. Now, you know, there's smarter people than I am that are looking at ways to do that. But, you know, the thing that I'm most concerned about is when we have made, as a matter of national strategy in the United States to wed our state policy and our Pentagon policy with our energy policy, which then makes the control of energy markets part of our political direction using military. That's a problem, and that sets us on the path towards

war. There's no one who can convince me that war wasn't, or that oil wasn't one of the reasons why we knocked off Saddam Hussein. There's no one who could convince me that oil wasn't one of the factors in knocking off Gaddafi. Oil remains a major issue in the Middle East, and relationships are built around access to oil. People look the other way when international law is being violated, if oil is a marker. So, you know, this is a very complex argument. And I like to go back to, you know, is there a way that any one of us can lessen our carbon footprint and do our part and not deprive future generations of whatever we have left? So it was nuclear, but surprisingly, hydroelectric is one of the highest energy. Interesting, but it's not a fuel source.

It's not a fuel source. That's what the problems with these base stations are. They're great, but the fuel, we figured out how to pull the carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into graphene, which is a building material. This thing, you can make electronics out of it. It's pure carbon. I'd like to hear more about that. It's fascinating. Let me give you a real simple one.

Modern batteries and phones are using, I forgot what they're called. Do you want to go look this up? Lead acid? No, like graphene polymer, lithium graphene batteries. Okay. So by putting a graphene layer through the battery they're it's very conductive and it allows a more even and rapid charge so 10 years ago when

i was working in field journalism i'd have to buy these batteries from the electronics store these big batteries that you could plug into the wall and it would take two hours to charge it to full but that battery could hold 10 cell phone charges. So if I had three of those, I could run my cell phone all day, filming, uploading, no problem. Now what they have are these graphene, lithium graphene batteries, which can hold, I, we, we, we bought a bunch. One little battery holds two full cell phone charges and it can charge in 10 minutes. So you, you, you pull this thing out of the drawer and you go off, charge you plug it in 10 minutes boom you got two full cell phone charges your phone isn't charged nearly as fast but that's just one simple example they're using graphene in batteries and i

imagine it's going to advance into a smart smart cars are into electric cars and so we may come to the point where you pull up your electric car it's at 10 you pull up to a gas pump now to get rid of you know if gas out of the picture you plug it in and you watch the battery go my pants my pants are made of like 10 graphene these pants are spandex and graphene it's a building it's more electrically conductive than copper it's stronger than steel by weight by 200 times stronger than steel by weight it's what it is it looks like honeycomb. It's a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice of carbon. Okay, so where is it? How is that produced?

There's multiple ways to make it out of the carbon dioxide. One of them is called chemical vapor deposition, and you would do that by taking a strip of copper in a vacuum and putting gas in there. I think it's maybe argon. There's different gases that they'll use for chemicals. So it's a precipitate of some kind? A condensation, technically, yeah. And then the

carbon dioxide will fall onto the copper, and then you pull it off like a strip of it. There are other ways as well. Before this becomes ubiquitous, we need mass production in uniformity. That's where we're not at. And what's going to happen is people are going to adopt this, and then they're going to start pulling so much carbon dioxide out of the air

that we may end up competing with trees and destroying our ecosystem if we're not careful. So we need to do a global coalition to clean up our atmosphere. And everyone's going to want a piece. Nah, you know what's going to happen? I'll tell you what's going to happen. What's going to happen is graphene production is going to ramp up. They're going to be using it for everything. It's going to be a metamaterial.

It's going to be used in so many different things, batteries, superconductors, energy storage. And then what's going to happen is climate change will cease to be a metamaterial. It's going to be used in so many different things, batteries, superconductors, energy storage. And then what's going to happen is climate change will cease to be a talking point in the media. And then you're going to get a bunch of eco-actives being like, we need carbon, we need carbon. And then they're going to go to Ian and be like, these graphene industrialists are destroying the planet and they're causing super cooling.

And then they're all going to, and then some hippie guy in a show is going to be like, there's this new substance which replenishes the carbon in the atmosphere. I'm telling it's the way to go we have to do it now and then someone else is gonna be like dude every time there's a crisis of invention someone invents something to solve the crisis there's not going to be super cooling some dude's gonna invent something so like right now what ian's basically saying is two steps ahead of the problem we got climate change oh no too much carbon in 10 years, it might be too little.

But when you start complaining about too little carbon, someone else is going to be like, dude, you don't understand. In 10 years, it's going to be too much again. Okay, so Tim, the thing that I think ought to be looked at, and it's something that my wife Elizabeth works on, is regenerative agriculture. The carbon's up there. How do you pull it down? You pull it down through agriculture. The carbon's up there. How do you pull it down? You pull it down through agriculture.

Big towers? To improving the soil microbiome and it holds more carbon. That's it. You know, I mean, we can... Plants. Agriculture is a path towards dealing with the challenges of high levels of atmospheric carbon.

And, I mean, this is something that needs to be done nationally. And I think we're on a threshold of more and more people being involved in that. Let's do a complete 180 and talk about this from SCNR. West Virginia, Mississippi to defy three-year-old voter access executive order from Biden. West Virginia Secretary of State said, we will emphatically not give up our state's duty to register voters to the federal government nor will we accept voter registration

forms collected by federal agents march 7th 2021 shout out to timcast members uh this was on the timcast irel member show that this was brought up to us executive order uh do you guys know who uh which user it was you want to pull the name up uh i forget her name but it was uh change wilder retweet well some one of you find it and then i'll read this yeah this is an executive order from march 7th 2021 which uh says by the authority invested in me as president by the by the constitution of the united states of america i hereby order as follows the right to vote is a foundation of american democracy free and fair elections that reflect the will of the people must be protected and defended but many americans especially people of color confront significant obstacles to exercising

that fundamental right. These obstacles include difficulties with voter registration, lack of elected information and barriers to access polling places, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. He was going to say a bunch of critical race theory stuff and woke stuff. Now, here's what gets interesting. He says the head of each agency shall evaluate ways in which the agency can, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,ote voter registration and voter participation. The effort shall include the consideration of.

Ways to provide relevant information. Facilitate seamless transition of agencies websites. Distributing voter registration. And vote by mail ballot application forms. Providing access to applicable state online. Yada yada. Where it gets really interesting. Is I believe.

Section 5. Whether consistent with applicable applicable law any identity documents issued by the agency to members of the public can be issued in a form that satisfies state voter identification laws to simplify agency is defined legally in this executive order as any federal executive office except a couple of them but for the most part any one of them this executive order says agencies will start sending out voter registration forms and mail-in voting applications to people in various states and then it will help them produce ids to get them to vote this is the federal government directly intervening in state level registration processes it was dancing a copy that uh that shout out yeah now now this is the federal government directly intervening in state level registration processes it was

dancing a copy that uh that shout out yeah now now this is where it's important texas said when the social security administration released these huge numbers every other week hundreds of thousands of people registering to vote without ids texas says we have no idea what you're talking about this is not this is true. It may be the federal government collecting these IDs. And that makes me substantially more concerned. These are illegal immigrants that are registering to vote. And I didn't think that at first when we saw, let me pull up the HAVV. So this is the Help America Vote Verification.

Are you familiar with this? So what we've found and what's been going around let's uh let's let's grab um the latest from march 30th and we can see if texas's numbers are are here 225 000 uh verification requests 190 000 matches texas says we this is clearly wrong we don't know what this is well now we may note it is it may be and again again, not not sure. But if Texas is saying their secretary of state said we do not know what this number is, it's clearly an error or it could be the federal government has been registering people to vote and taking those forms and requesting information from the SSA to verify the numbers are in the database.

It may be the federal government has not yet delivered these registrations to the state, which is where we end up with this story from SCNR, when West Virginia says, we will not accept voter registration forms collected by federal agents. It may be that they've collected millions and have not yet turned them into the state. Well, let's go back to the Constitution. Earlier, we had a discussion about how the Fourth Amendment is being violated by FISA, and how FISA ought to be struck down because the Fourth Amendment has to take

precedence. Now here, we're looking at the Tenth Amendment. And while those who watch your show are familiar with it, I'll just read it. Again, the 10th Amendment adopted the same year that the Fourth Amendment was, the Bill of Rights in 1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,

or to the people. This is an area that the states are responsible for. The federal government doesn't have a proper role in this. And so West Virginia and Mississippi are insisting on the Tenth Amendment rights that the states have. Now, there's another thing here, Tim. I don't want to see a, you know, Social Security is one thing, but I don't want to see anything that's tantamount to a national

identification card. Agreed, 100%. Oh, but Real ID is here. I know, but I'm saying there's a danger there. You know, it's a privacy issue and it's also an issue of the government gathering in a central database

information about everyone i actually i actually already have my my uh national id card i'm not going to show it on air but it's here in my wallet it is issued by the united states department of state and it is a north american identification card yeah i don't want to... I know they're moving towards that in order to be able to use, to travel by air, for example. But, you know, I just want to say that this, to me, a national ID card demanding it across the country,

I find that the government, once again, gaining too much power. Well, they're trying to interrupt you, Tim. What were you saying you had? What did you have? I have a federal ID. Okay. What is it exactly? It's a U.S. passport card. It's an ID card issued by the federal government that is good in Canada and Mexico and the United States. But it's one thing to elect to do that, to make it mandatory is another thing. But how do you make

it mandatory? No, you don't. I mean, you could by ordering it. The government could order it. But they don't need to do it. What they'll do is whenever somebody gets a passport or an ID, they'll ask you, hey, would you like this one as well? It's much more convenient. And look at what they're doing in Australia right now.

You know what's going on in Australiaralia they're eliminating cash from from banks you go to a bank now and they we can't give you any cash sorry why nobody uses it they're actually removing atms as far as i could tell according to the news the thousand i don't know how many but from well well if you eliminate cash and then you move to let's say uh a federal central bank digital currency bad news yep just again a form of tyranny and what if the power goes out what do they think And then you move to, let's say, a federal central bank digital currency. Bad news. Yep. Just, again, a form of tyranny. And what if the power goes out?

What do they think is going on? Then they own you. It doesn't matter. And you will say, please, sir, can I have another piece of bread? Ian, they don't care. See, if you don't have, you know, you mentioned, was it you, Phil, mentioned the creation of Federal Reserve? Yeah.

Well, Ian was talking about it. well, Ian was talking about it. Yeah, Ian was talking about it. But, you know, starting with the creation of Federal Reserve, which privatized the money supply and put the banks in charge of it, it's interesting the same year was when the government created the federal income tax. So it used to be that the government could meet its needs without going into debt. Then the government created debt and and money became debt and the income tax was a way of retiring it and then you have people are paying their money into a system and then it requires more and more taxes to feed

this growing military machine this is a bad system so so so what i'm getting at is that we have a moment of reckoning coming in the United States over who are we as a nation. You know, if you go back to, as I mentioned earlier, go back to the Declaration of Independence, it's very clear that right at the beginning, Jefferson said, look, you know, we have a right to change the kind of government we have. And just because this is basically the form that we've had for all these years doesn't mean it's not time to inspect the basic terms under which this government exists. And that we not be forced to accept as it's evolving in a direction which denies our constitutional rights that have been around for hundreds of years and which puts us as widgets in a larger machine. And it deals with our money and the impact of the Federal Reserve

on the creation of money, creation of debt, with their being able to create money out of nothing and give it to institutions like banks that therefore create a wider wealth gap in the country. It goes to the government not having any fiscal integrity and pyramiding the debt past $34 trillion. It goes to the way in which government spends the money it has endless wars we we are it's globalization plus debt plus war equals the end of the united states i think you think a lot about um a convention of states but the danger of that oh it's nightmare

today okay so so how do we change the government like obviously you know i don't want to change the bill of rights that's not the government that's right so what do you how do you how do you do it i mean peacefully how do you do it right i mean that's you know peacefully how do we do it is it a convention of states uh at some point uh there is going to have to be however as you implicitly stated there's a problem given the way the government's controlled these days. So I think, you know, the American people, we all love our country. I mean, the reason why I served in Congress for 16 years and why I served in government at various levels, I love America. I still, even with all that we talk about here, I still get a certain feeling when I see the American flag go by

during a parade. I love this country. And it might even seem Pollyannish when I say this, but the country that I have intentionally in my head is not the country that actually exists today.

And so how do we put a vision of the country of our dreams together with the country that is there's a lot of work to be done and you know and i think one of the uh the big challenges we're facing right now outside of that is the hyperpolarization which you brought up early on and i gotta be honest i don't i don't see a path towards reconciliation i don't i don't see it being possible well you, you know, Franklin Roosevelt talked about the science of human relations. And I'll tell you what it is. You know, as I said, I served 16 years in Congress.

You have to, members of Congress have to treat each other as individuals, not as members of a party, not as liberal conservative or whatever. And that is failing to happen. So political parties gain power through polarization that's how they i'll tell you here's how it works people want some inside view of congress so if you're a democrat you go to your democratic caucus meetings and they talk about three things they talk about raising money the latest polls and how bad the republicans are now here's the difference between the two parties the republicans talk about in their conference talk about raising money, the latest polls, and how bad the Democrats are.

It's the difference between the two parties. The two parties engage in this polarization in order to gain power and to gain control. The reason why I want to go to Congress is to create an opening here that changes the discussion and shows people there's another path, that shows people we can address each other as individuals and not just as exponents of a political ideology or party. And you don't do it by judging people. This is the worst thing that happens in Congress when people start to judge each other by virtue of a label or ideology and don't get to know each other as individuals. You know, in some ways, it's like a big high school, Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other. Well, imagine if

one independent was there who had an approach that wasn't polarizing, that looked for the commonalities, because we do have a lot in common as Americans. We have to put country above party, and that's what I hope to do, but country above party i think that puts you squarely on the right so so the the world we're living i i grew up uh chicago liberal and now the media endlessly calls me far right even though i'm a traditional democrat pro-choice uh i've uh i i am not libertarian on taxes or police i I'd probably say I'm fairly liberal. On the political compass, I'm probably, and based on like actual more philosophies, described as traditional or social liberal, not classical liberal, but leaning libertarian.

And that's conservative these days. So me saying things like, oh yeah, this country's had problems with racist institutions, and now the solution is rooted in class and not race, that's a right-wing position. Meanwhile, at the same time, you have people on the right who are completely opposed to everything I just said, staunch pro-life individuals who will come on this show, shake hands with me, break bread with me, and I've had crazy heated arguments with people who are staunchly pro-life. A good friend of ours, Seamus C in fact who's coming he'll be back here in about a week is absolutist pro-life ban abortion in all capacities and we disagree and we hang out we get along and we have a shared vision of despite this agreement finding a compromise then we bring in a progressive a liberal or a democrat and they call

me pro-life even though my position is the traditional, probably closer to like the Roe v. Wade position than anything else, doesn't matter. That is far right right now. So the challenge that I see is, we can talk about, say, like the Burisma scandal. I like using this example. Joe Biden saying at the, I believe it was, was it a council on foreign relations meeting

where he's sitting down and he says, I went to the prosecutor and said, if you don't, I'm sorry, I went to the prosecutor and said, if you don't I'm sorry, I went to the president said, if you don't find the prosecutor knocking the billion dollars, you bring that to a Democrat. And they say that never happened. And I'm like, well, here's the video of it happening. I'm not a conservative. I'm just and they say you're a conservative for believing that. I don't understand how we could find reconciliation or or the common ground stuff's fairly obvious. Like we all agree, hey, Julian Assange shouldn't be prosecuted.

There's there are some establishment pro-war people. But then it comes to issues like war, for instance. And I say something like, if you are anti-war, your best bet right now functionally is Donald Trump. You have to like Donald Trump. You don't have to like Donald Trump. You don't have to think he's got a domestic policy. But if your core principles are war is bad, even Dave Smith, staunch libertarian, who was potentially going to be a libertarian candidate, says, no, Trump is bad on war. He was increasing drone strikes. He was reducing transparency. And then I made the point, and he still set a timeline for withdrawing out of it,

getting out of Afghanistan. He still set a timeline. Uh, he tried to get our troops out of Syria was lied to. And even Dave Smith says, man, like the incremental argument is correct. Donald Trump was better. No new wars. There were still problems with foreign policy, but better than all the rest. You'll still get Democrats and liberals who are anti-war, but would support the Clintons, Joe Biden, expansion of war in Ukraine, and they would justify it. Hassan Piker is a great example. I love saying his name because of how it freaks them out.

But he simultaneously holds the position the military industrial complex is bad, but that we should also be funding them to fight a war in Ukraine. There's just a fracture of worldview that I don't think can be mended because it seems to be rooted in, do you believe the corporate narrative or do you believe the truth? And if you believe the truth, then you are right wing. And if you believe the corporate narrative, you are left wing. So it's not even a function of your political values anymore. I think over the years, any one of us, you know, I will tell you the things that I'm talking about today are pretty much the things that I'm talking about today

are pretty much the things I've been talking about throughout my political career. Now, years ago, I may have been labeled one way, and now, today, I may be labeled another. I'm the same person. But I want to go underneath that. You know, in the House of Representatives, above the floor of the house, there's a canopy of a very large eagle spread with its wings spread across the floor, you know, across the house. It's etched in glass. It's really a beautiful sight. And whenever I look at it, I'm reminded that that that American eagle needs two wings to fly, okay? And it also needs a heart and a brain. And so I hope to be able to bring a perspective that respects the views of everyone, but tries to find the connective tissue

that keeps us together as a nation, tries to appeal to our heart and to our head as well. But to me, based on modern politics, it sounds like you're just a Republican. That pitch, which I respect completely, and I think an independent Congress could be tremendously powerful and effective, I still think the end result is your position is still going to be viewed as right wing the argument that we get from progressive activists and not so much your your your typical democrat they're you know they tend to be more establishment corporatist uh but but so are the republicans you know i'm not trying to say they're not but when it comes to the younger

activist base and this is where we're heading with the splitting of the polarization is very much based in demographic. If you are not with us, you're against us. If you are a centrist, you're actually right wing. A common trope of the left is to criticize anybody who's saying what you are doing as someone who is right wing. The example being there's a meme where there's the Klan and black people on each side. And the Klan is saying, holding up signs saying they want to kill black people. And the black people are saying, we just want civil rights. And the centrist in the middle is holding up a sign saying compromise. Well, that's not

realistic. That's not what obviously an independent or a moderate is trying to do. We're trying to say, oh, the people on the right are concerned about the border. The people on the left are concerned about asylum seekers. Where's the compromise? But there's a reason why a show like this, which is a wide ranging into political views, almost it's 80% conservatives who come on the show. And why is that? Liberals refuse to come on the show. 100% refuse. And when they do come on the show, they take as most ridiculous positions one could possibly imagine. And so when, so I'll give you an example. We invite Marianne Williamson. Are you familiar with Marianne? I know Marianne very well. I think she's very nice, a very nice, lovely, genuine person. I agree. But she was completely ignorant on a whole wide range of issues that she was advocating for. For instance, when the issue of censorship came up in books in schools, she said, I think it's wrong.

The Republicans are trying to get these books out of schools. I said, OK. So we showed her a few examples and she nearly cried when she saw the gratuitous sex and the overt racism. She was nearly in tears. And she said, I didn't know that they were doing this. Well, right. Now that you do, you're probably going to agree with us. These books are bad. And when we say school curriculum should not include graphic sexual

depictions for children, teaching them how to do horrible things, you'll probably agree with us. But then that would mean she's a conservative. Now she's abandoned that left position. We bring on someone else who say a progressive who's more of an activist than say like a middle of the road, Marianne Williamson. And they say things like a woman should be allowed to get an abortion at the point of birth. I don't see a but that's what Colorado has. Colorado has passed a bill removing all restrictions, meaning abortion can be performed at the point of birth. They call them partial. And of course, the left always argues that never happens.

That never happens. And the end. sure, but why make it legal as rare as it may be? But this is a practice where quite literally as the baby is being born, they cut the spinal column, killing it. You had the statement from former Governor Northam of Virginia, where he said in response to a similar bill introduced by a state representative or a state senator,, legislator, the baby would be delivered, made comfortable, and then the parent, the doctor could decide what to do with it. As if to imply the baby was already delivered and then you would decide to kill it. Oklahoma, on the other hand, has completely banned abortion in every capacity or to a great degree. Now you have Arizona, of course, upholding their law, which bans abortion in almost every capacity. So in Congress, you run into this. The Republicans right now are screaming at Trump, saying you've abandoned the pro-life position by saying states

rights, which is kind of nuts because that's been the Republican position for my whole life. But now that they've won on Roe v. Wade, Republicans have now gone the exact route everyone expected. It's federal ban on abortion. We need've won on Roe v. Wade, Republicans have now gone the exact route everyone expected. It's federal ban on abortion. We need the ban on abortion federally. Trump says, no, we're where we want to be. The states should have it. And we even have super chats, people commenting, saying Trump has abandoned the issue. I fear that you'll find yourself between Republicans and Democrats, and the Republicans are going to say something like abortion is murder and should be banned. And the Democrats are going to say a woman has a right to

choose at any point, even the point of birth. And what do you do there? You know, I know these are typically like hypercultural or wedge issues, but these tend to be the deep cultural issues that are, I suppose, taking the forefront of people's lives. Now, obviously, immigration is the much bigger issue. Immigration affects us economically. It's affecting our cities, our crime rates, everything. Well, what do we have? Donald Trump built the wall, secure the border.

Joe Biden, we are going to effectively codify the administration of crossing the border without checkpoint. We are going to effectively codify the administration of crossing the border without checkpoint. The bill that they proposed, which Biden referred to as a border security bill, and then duplicitously said on TV would strengthen the border, would actually just allow CBP to adjudicate many of these claims on their own. It would, in essence, create a streamlined path for the people who are entering the country illegally. Now you have Democrats in Chicago, New York, and other big cities

very upset over this massive outpouring and surge of illegal immigrants in the country. But the typical younger progressive and left-leaning position is, let them do it. Support them. Don't deport them for any reason. To where we're getting now um we have one story we we uh we didn't get into but a venezuelan illegal immigrant tried to rob uh they say according to this report he's an illegal immigrant tried to rob a bank couldn't speak english we're seeing um you know crime uh typically the lake and r murder, for instance, how do you reconcile two distinctly opposed, hyper-polarized worldviews?

And that's a very important question. And it's not that we have to agree with each other. I mean, the essence of our system is that it's structured so there's going to be a diversity of opinion. I mean, the whole First Amendment, freedom of speech, underpins the right of free expression and say what you think. That's who we are as Americans. It's the capacity to be able to listen to each other and to try to find out where the heart, the frame of reference is for someone. And then you call the roll.

That's it. Let me try a difficult question for you. We've had this question asked many times, and I'll keep it simple. Do you believe an unborn baby is a person? necessarily enshrined in the law and the loss is the law has provided state by state the point at which an abortion uh can can be um uh executed well but i but let me just say this let's go back into another question of what i think would i would i ever counsel anyone to have an abortion the answer to that is no i would not but so so to get to the root of where i'm going with this is not necessarily about your personal politics but it's a question of uh so your position is the states will adjudicate well i'll go one step further that there's a point at which

a woman and her doctor have to make a decision but i'm not for telling anyone you just want to have abortion. Go ahead. I think that we need a culture which is sensitive to life, which I think we ought to have prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, things that make it possible for a life to blossom. But are there certain circumstances there are certain circumstances in which you think it is the choice of the woman and discussing with her doctor whether to have an abortion or not absolutely so i i agree i'm uh i would i consider myself to be like the traditional democrat pro-choice which is probably like i was saying before the show like my family were big fans of yours back in the day um safe legal rare there's a challenge in where the government can intervene but this this isn't the point. Our belief is not where I'm going with this.

Where I'm going with this is section one of the 14th Amendment, which in the secondary clause, it says, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.

So the 14th Amendment says you can't deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process. Pro-lifers, people who oppose abortion, unequivocally believe that babies are persons, that they are distinct human beings who should not be killed. Now, we can have an argument about viability. And this was a big point of Roe v. Wade. At what point is the baby dependent upon the mother and then viable and able to survive on its own? The question then becomes when it comes to abortion, with many blue states legalizing up to the point of birth, unrestricted abortion at any point based on a private decision.

The question I often ask the progressives and the Democrats is why kill the baby? If a woman is eight months pregnant and then their response is it's rare, it's rare, it's rare. I'm not saying it's not rare. Okay, let's say it happens one time. Why create a legal pathway for which a woman could have a healthy baby at eight months, not want to have it anymore and kill it. I don't quite understand that logic. What ultimately what I'm getting to with this is there is no compromise at the state level for when a person is allowed to kill a person,

right? This is not something the states can answer. I disagree with Trump. I disagree with the right on the state's rights question. I initially, when they were coming towards overturning Roe v. Wade, thought maybe it is better that it'll be at the state level so that we can have this federalist view of the states will do what they want. And then I actually started reading a bit more about it. Seamus made some good arguments about abortion. And I said, at this point, my position is the Supreme Court must issue a ruling on whether or not the unborn are persons because we are dealing now with a constitutional question of can a state decide when to kill a person without due process? The question at hand is, are the unborn persons that needs to be answered by the federal government, not the states?

The idea to me that Colorado can say they're not people and then just kill them is to akin to the supreme court gets to that point it would be a um uh it would have the same impact that roe v wade exactly had had but and and that's why i don't know if i completely agree with the ruling on roe v wade um because it basically just allowed for abortion to happen in certain, like it basically made states that didn't want to have it have to have it. And so, but there is still an issue of the root of this is not the abortion argument. The root of this is you have many states where they are saying they are killing people. It is genocide.

You have other states saying, no, it's not. It's fine. They're not people. And we are now finding ourselves in a hyper polarized position where in this country for the second time, or maybe not in the second time, but you know, many times this happens, an argument between two dominant political factions as to whether a living entity is legally distinct as a person with legal rights under the constitution. And the Democrat side argues if you are not born and, and, and this is up to the point of birth. I mean, Colorado is a great example, but we're looking at Washington, Oregon, these States, they're removing the restriction saying, even if the baby could survive on its own,

it is still not a person so long it is within the mother. And she does have a right to kill it. And then you have the red States going the other direction saying we're just trying to ban abortion completely. And at any point, a baby cannot be killed. And so I don't know if that's the right answer, but the point is simply this. I don't know how we can reconcile this question of does a state have a right to kill a living entity? Does a state have a right to argue whether a human life is alive or not alive or worthy of constitutional protections? I don't see an answer to that question. And it's getting pretty intense. In the 90s, of course, we had moderate compromise of, okay, fine, you know, up to 15 weeks. And then you had Roe v. Wade. And

then you had the other, there was another court ruling. But now we're at the point where Colorado has no restrictions. Oklahoma is totally abandoned. So we're getting to that point where you could have a woman in Oklahoma, you know, you have a woman and a man in Oklahoma. She's pregnant. She's seven months pregnant. The baby is now viable, can survive on its own. But she realizes this guy's bad for whatever reason. Maybe he's an abuser. Maybe he's not. But let's just say she says, I can't do this relationship. I can't have a child with this man. She can't get an abortion in Oklahoma.

So she flees to Colorado where the doctor says and advocacy groups and activists and they provide guard for her and they say, we will get you this abortion. The man then says, help for the love of God. She's going to kill my child. Please, someone, won't you help me? And then we enter this hyper-polarized worldview where the man says, it is a baby that can survive on its own and she will kill it. And the woman says, no, it's a fetus in my womb. It doesn't matter that it can survive on its own. That seems to me like a recipe for disaster and something that cannot be reconciled. Well, you know, should there be reverence for life? Yes, there should be.

Now, I'll share with you a personal experience that I had. Years ago, my kid sister, who is now deceased, so I feel free to talk about this, came to me. She said, Dennis, I'm pregnant. What do I do? She was 18 years old. And I advised her to have the baby and then to give it up because she wasn't in a position where she could care for this child. Absolutely couldn't do it. She had the child and gave it up. And years later, met her son. Having experiences from a personal family level, I think we have to work to create a society that gives people the ability to make informed choices within the context of laws that support people at various positions of a pregnancy. Now, I supported Roe v. Wade and still do, except it's not the law anymore. But I think that we, I will say it again, that we need to create a condition where

people feel they can be supported to bring pregnancies to term. If they can't handle it, we have to find a way to make sure that every child is wanted and that every child is able to blossom as an individual. Part of the problem, I think, with our culture is the contradictions with the violence that exists in our society that we haven't really dealt with, that it percolates over into how we treat each other and how we treat the unborn. And the violence that exists individually is writ large internationally. There isn't in a relationship. So I think, again, states are doing what they can within the right of states. I don't know, Tim, if we'll ever resolve this, if it is an issue that is going to be resolved nationally within legislatures

within a legislature it may maybe another supreme court ruling will come along i don't know i mean i that's people you know know more than i do are going to have to weigh in on that i just see from the human heart we need to uh value uh the existence of of every of every living thing and and i that's where i come from so we're gonna go to super chats but i want to say one final thing on this i used to think that uh abortion could be akin to slavery in terms of civil war but i don't think so anymore because I was thinking about the track that we're on, especially, and it's, it's most recently with Trump saying, we're going to let the States decide. It was a conversation we had the other night where I said, the, the Trump supporters who are recognizing the political nature of Trump's position, which is if you're for a federal

ban, you will lose, recognize that allowing the left to kill babies, at least in the short term, is worth the political victory in the long term. That is to say they hope Trump may actually enact more restrictions if he does win. And I started thinking about that and I said, there is an amount of babies the right is okay with being murdered. And I'm not saying that I think abortion is murder the same way they do. I'm saying in their worldview, abortion is murder. There is a certain amount of babies they're okay with being killed if it means they can win the political battle in the short term so that in the long term they can stop a greater evil, I suppose, a utilitarian argument. The reason why I would say now I don't think abortion could lead to

something akin to the Civil War with slavery is because babies can't fight for themselves. And probably the straw in the camel's back for the Civil War was the fact that you had former slaves organizing with abolitionists. Today, it's pro-lifers who say abortion is murder, but then will say, yeah, but it's acceptable in certain capacity if it means we're going to win political victories. If you had a situation where there's a group of people that were being systematically killed and they broke free and they escaped, started organizing. And let's say, let's, let's say the argument for pro-life and pro-choice was not about the helpless. Let's say that the targets of this genocide were

able-bodied, fully grown humans like slavery in the States where they allow the killing of these people on a whim at the discretion of, say, the mother, these individuals could escape. They could fight back. They would rally and organize with the pro-life factions in these red states. And that would actually give you a large political movement of people opposing it. But so long as babies can't actually do anything and conservatives are willing to accept concessions to win the political argument, the elections, then I don't see abortion ever escalating to that degree. I think it probably ends up where we are now with some states allowing abortion at the point of birth and

some banning it outright. But we should go to super chats. Otherwise I'm ranting and I am. You made a great point. Yeah. Babies can't fight back. So there will be no organizing to save babies. Just people who are upset that it's happening, but don't really want to, you know, it's like a former slave says, I know what this is like and I will stop it. And brilliant people like Frederick Douglas, who knew it. Well, I believe he bought it. He bought himself and his wife out of slavery. And so they know what they're fighting against and they are principal organizers and great thinkers, but babies can't do that. You know, so you do have people who may have almost been aborted or their parents considered it.

And there are failed abortions. But for the most part, it's adults who are just living their lives. They don't have that. But again, super chats. So if you haven't already, please smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. And let's read what you got.

Robert De La Cruz says, where's Clint? Clint Torres, not. They're talking about Clint Russell, the VP for the for the libertarian party as far as i'm concerned rusted barons has been meaning to say this but it's just been a busy uh it's been busy on easter sunday my beautiful wife gave birth to our lovely son thorven first half of his name came from my third and fifth great-grandfathers thor last name van wow congratulations awesome all right kalichnikov says don't just blame the politicians the people of texas voted for crenshaw over ellison back in march the american people just don't have the intellectual capacity or desire for a good government hey speak for yourself

just kidding i i think i think people need to realize that um i can't remember who told us this but you can probably speak to this more dennis there are there are certain republican members of congress who live in uh districts where the principal economic uh driver is military industrial complex so it's not just certain republicans i will tell you that the uh that that military industrial complex is embedded in every single district in america but and and and when the uh appropriation cycle begins individuals from each district will visit the member of congress and ask them to vote for the military appropriation the pentagon's appropriation they call it defense but it's not defense we were talking to someone and and we asked like why is it For the military appropriation, the Pentagon's appropriation.

They call it defense, but it's not defense. We were talking to someone and we asked, like, why is it that these deeply unpopular Republicans still win in their districts? And what we were told is like, so this particular district has like a manufacturing plant for a component for Boeing or something. These people are going to vote for the pro-war candidate every single time because it's their job. Not necessarily. I mean, I knew a Republican, you know, he had been a former Democrat, Walter Jones from North Carolina, and he had a very large base in his district. And there was a point at which he consistently voted against the wars. So, you know, I don't think that's the only variable,

but does it have influence? Of course it does. Absolutely. Is it the decisive factor in what people do? No, but is it a factor? Yes. Sure. All right.

Alabama Elise says, Hey, Tim, my daughter Gabby, nine, starred in a music video that dropped today, and she would love to get a shout-out. Forest Black is the artist. Name of the song is you were mine ready the tissues nice job gabby stone bleed says sue back huff post is guilty of worse we are not being sued by having in post uh you can read the internet and i won't say too much because any lawyer worth their salt will tell you do not talk about these things. But this one's going to be a really interesting one is what I can say.

So if you, we are being sued, Stephen Crowder, Owen Schroyer, Univision, Fox News, a bunch of other outlets. And if you would like to assist us in covering the costs, because, I mean, I'll just be completely honest. I'm trying, it is difficult because you don't want to say too much but legal costs are debilitating and i'll put it that way and this one looks like it uh might matter so go to timcast.com click join us become a member at whatever level if you would like to help because yeah we're likely just to you know have to start writing

checks to lawyers but this is the this this is this is what it's like to be in media you know so uh you can read all about it there's a lot more to it and uh i suppose we'll have to issue our statement to the courts before i say anything about it but uh suffice it to say i 100 dispute% dispute what we are being sued over, and there's a lot more to be said. I will additionally add, though, when he said sue Huffington Post, Huffington Post said that I was sued. I was not sued. Tim Poole was not sued.

Tim Kess Media Group, the company, was sued. In fact, the lawsuit actually specifically mentioned something about me, which is more exculpatory, but I'll leave it at that.'s go sane says hey tim whatever happened to the shapiro candace debate everyone was talking about it and i've heard nothing in a week from either of them that's what happened to it say lovey yep john livey lively says i went to school with jackie i hope she's doing well i'm not a liberal but dk is an all-timer because he sticks to his guns. This is going to be the most important time in your political life. Oh, yeah.

Everybody loves you and Ron Paul. I mean, that's what I was saying. Back in the day, during the Ron Paul revolution, everybody I knew, because I'm in Chicago, was like, and Dennis Kucinich. Dude, you guys would talk truth on the debate in 08. I mean, it was one of the most televised, hyped debates of all time with Obama, and you were up there just talking about the military-industrial complex. I mean, it was so refreshing.

Well, I thank you for saying that, Ian, and thank you, Tim. Ron Paul and I are friends. You know, I just talked to him the day before yesterday. That's great. We stay in touch. And I've always appreciated his willingness to take a stand. And it was very interesting. We had a place where Duncan, we sit there in the center as a way of exemplifying that, you know, we're not necessarily attached to either side. We're taking a side of what's best for America. And Ron is still at it.

He's still in demand. I'm pleased to have been a charter member of the ron paul institute nice and um and and you know here's now do we agree on everything no but those things that we've agreed on have had real impact in helping to build uh strength for peace and for civil liberties and for the Constitution. And those are things, if you start with that, you can settle a lot of things as Americans. And the fact that Ron and I have been able to work together over the years. And, you know, our relationship goes back now to 1997. So, you know, do the math.

We've been together as friends for 27 years we hit it off right away and so um and so tim to go back to some of the questions you raised about you know is it possible to bring people together in any way i i can use the relationship that ron and i have built to say you find your commonalities and you build from them does not mean you're going to agree on everything, but you, you find what you do agree on and then, and then go forward.

Absolutely. Paul Tascolo says, I was a defense lawyer in a case in 2015 where a FISA warrant was used. It was literally impossible to challenge. No court would hear it. I literally couldn't file the paperwork, no due process, no speedy trial nothing wow trafe brewer says i'm fine with registering my chickens with the government

but i lost them all to a boating accident all the all the poor chickens mr mutton chops will be avenged uh we are uh by all legal means uh capturing the animal we don't know what kind of animal it was that took the life of mr mutton chops the issue is mr mutton chops was on uh the the property grounds not on the outskirts of the property he was literally like by the back door so he's he's standing in an area where we are and some something came that's really bad did you know the story of mutton chops it was a rooster have you heard did he tell you he kept jumping out of the cage and we couldn't we'd put him back in and he'd jump out again and eventually something got him but we don't know yet so so

mr mutton chops we actually culled most of the roosters and ate them but because he was so adventurous he was spared he was able to live and but we knew it was only a matter of time so no wonder he kept trying to escape after we murdered all his friends that's so funny no no no no no no no no no he was escaping before we murdered his friends and because he was escaping we decided he was strong genes and would live but uh he jumped out as he would every day but he walks around the yard he doesn't go to the back he doesn't go in the woods he was was very close to our back door. And a predator came and annihilated him. And the feathers are all strewn about everywhere. Anybody who knows anything knows you cannot have animals who are not scared of coming onto your property for a variety of reasons.

So we have to trap it because this is something that's scared of humans. And that's very, very, very bad. A wild animal, predator of some sort, presumably a raccoon or a fox or a coyote that is not scared of people in broad daylight it was like at noon where everyone's here walking around working came onto the property very dangerous someone could get bit so we we're going to trap it and then it will be legally uh appropriately uh dealt with so we have specialists we're gonna we're gonna call and relocate it no you can't do that oh okay that is not legal geez yeah yeah so uh you you a company takes care of it but i mean there could also be rabies there could be a variety of issues so it has to be you know

properly done with i don't know animal control perhaps we'll see we'll see melissa wood says cheers and much respect to dennis kucin. You are a true anti-war patriot. Ron Paul was my influence that led me to you. I've learned that this is no longer an R versus D fight. Most of us can see the problems, just don't agree how to solve them. That's the thing. You know, I was saying before, like, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks was running for president. And I'm like, I'd take him over Biden.

Like, at least he'd be like, I'd find him to be at least closer to anti-war at least he would pardon julian assange all the rest of his stuff is terrible but you get way worse with joe biden you know take what you can get good thing 731 says when do we the people enact the rights granted to use by our founding fathers to alter or abolish the government when it becomes destructive to our rights that's literally the the lawsuit right you file lawsuits you convention of states is like a whole wide range of these things and um well i would say for now file file your lawsuits file the challenges register voters and then let's you know see what happens in november if we if we do well i i have a i had a vision i had a vision of trump winning you know that's i like when you have visions that's right there's a

lot of i don't know i'm just saying i was like it's meaningless but what i mean is i'm not saying i just like a vision i'm saying the other day when i woke up and i was like putting my contacts i just had the image in my mind of of us during the show in martinsburg on november and them saying donald trump will be your 47th and i was like man it just felt like that's the track we were on so that's why i'm saying like for the for the people who are concerned and think he's you know the path towards dealing with the corruption everything you have to vote register voters you gotta register everybody that's you know there's a lot of people that like talk about like uh high energy responses on the internet and so they like to talk about getting all excited and

stuff when really the the thing that they should do first is like actually make it to like vote november in november right like because a lot of the people that like to get you know loud on the internet and and say volatile things or say uh uh inflammatory things they're not voting for their congressman they might go and vote for the president but most people don't go and and pay much attention so a lot of people that that you know talking about watering trees and stuff maybe you should just go ahead and and see what you can do for your uh select me your local area i just registered i registered unaffiliated because i have no idea about these political parties i don't know what that means you know in ohio uh they'll you know if

you're a democratic candidate to put Democrat under your name, Republican under your name. I'm running as an independent, so my name's just on there. And so it's no, you know, I don't have any label at all. Oh, I think we should ban labels on ballots. That's a very interesting thought. Because there was this funny story where a transgender Satanist anarchist in New Hampshire ran as a republican sheriff candidate and and i believe won the primary right i voted for her but it's because the republicans didn't know anything about just like i don't care republican you you get my vote and then found out it was a transgender anarchist satanist and got really mad and i'm like that's your fault you

voted for her like so i think if we got rid of political parties on the ballot you would get a lot of people who would look and be like i don't't know who these people are, so I'm not going to vote for one of them. And it would stop this. Like the reason Nancy Pelosi keeps winning, even though she's deeply unpopular, was because she's Democrat. People say, I should vote Democrat, whatever. So if Nancy Pelosi's name was on a ballot, they're going to vote Nancy Pelosi.

They know she is. But in a lot of districts, what I think this begins to do is, I go to vote. I know Dennis Kucinich. I like Dennis Kucinich. I say, I'm going to vote for that guy. That's me. John Doe walks in and goes, Bill Smith, Dennis Kucinich. I don't know what any of these people are. Where's the Democrat, Republican? Whatever. And they don't vote. So low information voters don't vote or they vote randomly and that means that you're more likely to get the will of the people at least in one and it also points out the importance of campaigning oh yeah i mean the idea of reaching out directly which is what i've

tried to do and it eliminates this i'm a democrat vote for me. You know, can I take a buzzer shot here because I know we're getting close. Yeah, this is about it. We're wrapping up. Phil, I neglected to go back to you on a question that you asked about the World Health Organization. Yes. Yeah, they're trying to come up with a treaty right now. This is important. That would vitiate the sovereignty of the United States of America. We wouldn't be able to make our own decisions about healthcare, about how to,

this treaty that they're seeking would set off a whole new creation of... New bureaucracy? Well, no. What it'll do is it'll cause a proliferation of bioweapons because they're going to have gain-of-function research that'll be global, and the Biological Weapons Convention was supposed to stop that. So we're venturing into an era where not only is our sovereignty going to be wiped out the same way questions were removed or decisions were removed from the Congress by the World Trade Organization,

but it's also going to result in the very pharmaceutical companies that are controlling a number of health care policies in this country to have global impact and to remove from the United States any ability to be able to make our decisions in the interest of Americans. And this is, you know, I would urge everyone who's paying attention to this show, and you've got a very informed viewership and listenership, to look at this WHO treaty and contact your Attorney General in your state and ask them to get involved, as some

Attorney Generals are beginning to do, to block any agreement at a state level. One of the things that Dennis is talking about, James Lindsay, who's Conceptual James on Twitter, he's been talking about it as well. You can follow him, and he's got a bunch of posts

referring to it. We're going to wrap things up though. So this has been a blast, Dennis. Thank you so much for hanging out. It is Friday night. So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel and support us

by going to timcast.com and clicking join us. Did I mention we're being sued? We have two choices. We can launch like a fundraiser and say like we need to raise, this could be a lot of money. Or I can just say, become a member of TimCast and we're going to do our best and we'll see what happens.

I don't want to say too much until I get word back from our legal team and where this goes. So it is what it is. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL. You can follow me personally at TimCast. Dennis, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah. First of all, thank you. You know, thanks to you and the crew here for inviting me in. People want more information about the campaign. Please go to Kucinich.com, and we're going to keep people posted on what's going on now in America and what can happen. That can be very positive. I have a very optimistic view of the future of America, but only if we all stay involved.

And I appreciate that you have a very involved audience here. Well, thank you for hanging out. And George, he was here. He said, I think, four words, but do you want to shout anything out? Well, I've had the coolest front row seat of all time. So I'm with you listeners. Nothing special tonight. Just I'm G Prime, 85, the cartoonist.

And I will be resuming cartoons in a few weeks, months. So stay tuned. We need to get a couple new ones for the new studio, actually. Yeah, I'm going to buy a nice big fat printer so I can. Because you know what I was thinking? Like, I love the one where Biden electrocutes people. That's my favorite one. I'm sure that'll be happening in real life, too.

But and then we have the Trump, but he's very small and he's wearing the armor suit downstairs. But they're old, you know what I mean? It's like, these are jokes from a few years ago, so it's time for some updates. But we'll get them, we'll get them. I am PhilThatRemains on Twix. I am PhilThatRemainsOfficial on Instagram. The band is All That Remains.

You can follow us on Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Music, YouTube, you know, the internet. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. I'm going to be on the way to New Hampshire tonight. Stay to the right if you're going to stay. You animal. I'm Ian Crossland. You guys, thanks for coming, man.

Great conversation. Dude, Dennis, so good to see you, dude. So, Kucinich.com. Right. And on Twitter, X, Dennis underscore Kucinich. Right. Love it. Thanks.

Great to see you. Thank you for coming and when do people vote when is the vote November it's a November ballot I'll be on the November ballot in Ohio District 7 okay so people go out and register in Ohio now get funky have fun with it and I'll see you later

bye see you guys later have a good weekend thank you very much for coming appreciate seeing you guys as well George yeah see you later alright everybody thanks for hanging out we'll have clips throughout the weekend we're back on Monday and we'll see you guys later. Have a good weekend. Thank you very much for coming. Appreciate, uh, seeing you guys as well. George. Uh, yeah. See you later. All right, everybody.

Thanks for hanging out. We'll have clips at the weekend. We're back on Monday and we'll see you all then. you