Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1033 RFK Jr Joins LIVE At The Libertarian National Convention Talking Trump, Biden, 2024

Episode Date: May 25, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, Luke, & Phil are joined by RFK Jr. for a special episode LIVE from the Libertarian National Convention! Merch - https://timcast.creator-spring.com Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Luke @wearechange   Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Serge @sergedotcom (everywhere) Guest: RFK Jr | Kennedy24.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, everybody, welcome. We are at the Libertarian Party National Convention in Washington, D.C. Literally behind us is the main convention hall. It's been particularly interesting already. We have a great show tonight, and instead of wasting any time with any big stories or anything, the big story is here today as the Libertarians are figuring out who's going to be the candidate. And we have RFK Jr. as well as Donald Trump who have attended and spoken to this crowd. So we're going to be having a conversation on the current state of the election politics and policies. Before we get started, head over to castbrew.com. Pick up Cast Brew Coffee to support the show.

Appalachian Nights is everybody's favorite. And head over to timcast.com. Click Join Us to become a member and support our work directly. Joining us tonight, of course, is presidential candidate RFK Jr. Thanks for having me, Tim. Everybody knows. Absolutely. I really do appreciate it.

Everybody knows who you are, so we're really excited that you're here so we can discuss, I think, a lot about the Libertarian Party, your speech, what you're hoping to accomplish, as well as I've got a million questions about your policies

and your plan for 2024, so I appreciate you being here. We have Luke, Phil, and Hannah Clare. You guys want to just quickly? Yeah, very ironically, YouTube actually deleted my video today where I actually featured a clip from you on Joe Scarborough. So very ironically, good to have you here. Thank you so much, Tim, for taking the risk,

for having this conversation. This is a very important conversation. Check out my YouTube channel, youtube.com forward slash we are change. We just had Dave Smith on today. Probably we're going to have Ron Paul on Sunday and we're doing a big nature hike this Sunday for members of Luke and filter.com. Phil, how are you? How you doing? I am a Phil Abante. I am a, the lead singer of the heavy metal band, all that remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter revolutionary. How you doing there? Hannah Claire. I'm excited. I think it's a good Friday show. I'm Hannah Claire Bremel. I'm a writer for scnr.com. That's Scanner News.

I'm so grateful to be a part of this. Let's get to it. Right on. My first question just has to do with us being at the Libertarian Party National Convention, and I know that you spoke. I'm curious. Wow, the LP is getting a lot of attention right now, and I'm wondering what compelled you to come down here and speak to the people here. What you think well i've always had an affinity for libertarians my approach to my approach to um the environment uh was always a free market approach you know i i started working for commercial fishermen on the hudson river and a blue collar community on the hudson river i worked my whole most of my career has been working for commercial and recreational fishermen who were capitalists, free marketeers.

And I understood pollution to be a subsidy and a, an assault on the, on the market. Oh, that was always my approach. I've talked about it for 40 years and about, you know, I, and about a lot of I'm anti-war which is which is one of the key sympathies of libertarians I believe in personal freedoms the Constitution so you know I I think that libertarians themselves are not united about anything. I actually, I had a friend, I had a friend called Peter Bay who ran Greenpeace for many, many years. I went camping with him for about three weeks. We had a campaign down in Mexico years ago trying to stop Mitsubishi from building a big salt mine and a whale sanctuary down there.

And I ended up in a tent, got to be very close to him, and he ran Greenpeace. I said, at one point, what's it like running Greenpeace? And he said, it's like being in charge of 1.2 million people, and the only thing they have in common is they all despise authority. And that's, to me, the libertarians always seem, you know, like that. It's a very democratic and kind of chaotic version of democracy. It's the opposite of the duopoly, you know, which are now these kind of top-down, tyrannical systems that are run by corporations, by BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard,

and the pharmaceutical companies, and, you know, the big war companies, the big military contractors, Northrop Grumman, Boeing Lockheed and they and the oil and coal companies they're all taking money from the same people and it's all this kind of very very top-down systems and they the libertarians are the opposite of that their bottom-up they're all likeoclastic there's no uh there's no unifying real unifying theme except for you know freedom which i like a lot and their and their view of freedom is very differently very differently some people here think there should be no borders some people here think there should be strong borders and they both argue that it's freedom yeah

that that's right i i i you know the eight it it the kind of extreme versions i'd i first of all i think their minds are really interesting because you know just the in that they first of all they're very thoughtful they they had they do critical thinking uh... they are, fiercely skeptical towards authority, which I like a lot.

They're skeptical about any orthodoxies or official pronouncements, which I enjoy. um um you know the really extreme authority or libertarians have um have this kind of uh the system worked out in their heads that you know that works for them where everything should be privatized right and uh i don't i don't agree no i don't agree yeah yeah i don't think you can privatize the commons oh i think capitalism works with private property but there are certain assets that are just by their nature that shared assets of communities the air the water wildlife fisheries public lands and you know if somebody tried to privatize the Hudson River it would it would it wouldn't be a good thing you have public access to it and people to be able to use it for all different kinds of purposes and so I think it falls apart the philosophy to

me falls apart in the Commons but I always enjoy talking with them about it are you thinking that you're gonna convince some of them to join you vote for you support you I think a lot of them are support we've gotten good support from the libertarians from the beginning, so I don't know how much convincing they need. I think people are adamantly against me because of my position on Gaza. I think that from the outset, most of them are very, very supportive of my position on Ukraine,

and I was one of the first national political figures to come out and say this war is a hoax. And I think that they like my free market approach to environmentalism and a lot of other stuff that I talk about. So we've gotten from the beginning when I was campaigning in New Hampshire a year ago, the biggest, you know, we were going to Freedom Fest, and the biggest groups that were, you know, were we getting the best crowds, the most enthusiastic crowds, were libertarian crowds. I lost a lot of them on Gaza. What's your Gaza position?

My God, you know, I'm against war, but I think in the last 100 years, we've only fought one war that I would call a moral war, which was World War II, because we were attacked. It was a defensive war. We were attacked by an enemy, an implacable enemy that was committed to the obliteration of our value systems, of our country, et cetera. And so, to me, World War I was a bad war,

was a war of choice. My grandfather protested it, lost all of his friendships, lost a lot of relationships and business opportunities because of that. But I think the Gaza War, from Israel's point of view, is a defensive war. You know, they were attacked.

They were attacked not just on October 7th but they're attacked for 16 years since Hamas took over Gaza I'm very pro-Palestinian I have friends in Gaza I've been to the West Bank I met with the Palestinian Authority leadership I have an organization in Israel that's the only organization it's a water protection group on the Jordan River that has Palestinians Jordanian Arabs and Israel Jews on it I'm you know I'm very very supportive of the aspirations of the Palestinian people I think Hamas is the biggest enemy of Palestinian people and you know Palestinian people have I just tell you this, have received more money, more than almost 20 times what Europeans received during the Marshall Plan.

So in 1944 and 1948, we sent, we rebuilt 17 nations that had been destroyed in Europe after World War II. We spent, to do that, we spent in 2023 dollars, $626 per capita for all the people in those countries. In the last 30 years, international aid agencies have pumped $8,600 per capita to every single person in the Palestinian Authority, including a lot of people who aren't really there, as the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA counts people who left long ago in order to continue to... So would your position be not to send them any money? And would you also not send any money to Israel then, as President of the United States? No, what I would do, what I think we should be doing

is diplomatic solutions, but we should... You know, I think we need to do a Marshall Plan for Gaza after the war, but I don't think that the war can end until Hamas is eliminated. I don't think you can be giving money to Hamas. So today the United Nations top court actually just ordered Israel to immediately halt its operations in Rafah. The United States and the Biden administration asked them not to do this,

and Israel just did it anyway. How would you handle the situation as president of the United States? Would you allow them to continue that? Would you allow American service members to be there? American service members aren't there. Israel is there. Yes, they are. They're actually in the water. They actually set up a pier and a port, and now they're being attacked. So as President of the United States, how would you handle the Roffers situation, and would you put our American troops there like they are currently? No, I would not send American troops

to Israel. I would support Israel with troops there like they are currently no i would not send american troops to israel and i would support israel with with arms and weapons i think the international court of justice part of the united nations the united nations just has an ingrained hostility to israel and the united nations has you know has issued i think 14 condemnations the last five or six years against Israel one against North Korea none against you know any of these other nations that are you know that are that are actually committing human rights abuses all the time Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast it's the only place where everybody can vote whether you're Arabs or Jews, you have all equal rights. Arabs in Israel can run for every

political office. There's ten Arabs serving in the Knesset, they're serving on every level of the judiciary. They have freedom of speech, they have freedom of religion. In fact, there's 27 nations in the Mideast and 26 of them have official religions. But the question is, what would you do for Rafa? The only one that doesn't is Israel. What would you do for Rafa? You never answer the question.

Real quick, I want to pull this up. This is important to what you're asking, Luke. This is from USNI.org. U.S. soldiers critically injured during Gaza Pier operation. Two other service members hurt. These are non-combat-related injuries. But this is U.S. service members. They are armed. Lloyd Austin said uh they are armed uh lloyd

said that they are allowed to return fire they are currently under fire from hamas in gaza and uh so based on what luke was asking i ask knowing that these that the u.s is doing this they're building a pier uh should you get elected would you call these troops back and cancel the construction of this pier yeah you know i would have to look at the whole pier project. I've been ambivalent about that project from the beginning. I'm not sure that it's necessary. But, you know, I would have to understand it better. I read both the literature propaganda coming out of Israel

and the propaganda coming from Hamas and it's unclear to me how you know what the Israel says there's plenty of supplies going into Gaza that there is no shortage of supplies that the problem in Gaza is that Hamas is stealing the supplies rather than distributing them well the Pentagon is also reporting just two days ago then that the aid is actually not getting through to the people of Gaza. Yeah, and that's what Israel's been saying, that they can't. The problem is not a lack of supplies. The problem is that Hamas won't allow anybody to have access to the supplies.

That's the same reason Gaza hasn't had waters because of Hamas, you know? Well, no, Israel shut off the water and electricity. No, Hamas is taking the water pipes. they took some of the water pipes, correct, but then Israel did shut off the water and did shut off the electricity to 2 million people, not just combatants. No, no, no. Israel, first of all,

Israel only controls about 9% of the water. The water in most of the water, about 81% or 91% of the water in Gaza comes from six desalination plants. Those plants are dependent on oil, on fuel and bunker fuel. And what Israel says is there is plenty of that fuel in Gaza, but they're using it to fire rockets into Israel rather than to operate their diesel plants, and there's plenty of evidence of that

because Israel has been hit by about 20,000 rockets since October 7th, and they consume a tremendous amount of fuel. So what Israel says is they've got plenty of oil. They are starving their own people, amount of fuel so what israel says is they got plenty of oil they're just not you they are starving their own people and we see this you know this scapegoating all the time where jews are the only jewish nation is being blamed or for crimes that hamas is committing if you know if a if a bank robber robs a bank and the and grabs a hostage and is firing over the hostage's shoulder at the police, and the police fire back and hit the hostage, you don't blame the police.

You blame Hamada. But at the same time, we don't blow Times Square if there's a terrorist inside of Times Square. So that's another kind of situation that would counter your situation. But back to the question about Rafa. It depends on how many terrorists you have. Of course. When we went into Ramallah, when we went into Mosul, we killed a lot more civilians than Israel is doing here right now.

There's a war going on in Yemen where our allies, where the United Arab Emirates, the Saudis, are bombing civilian targets. They've killed already 350,000 civilians. People only complain when Israel kills civilians. I completely agree. Well, they're working with Al-Qaeda, too. I completely agree.

They're working with Al-Qaeda in Yemen as well. I think the question is actually, should this be America's priority right now? Is this the thing that America should be considering over other domestic issues that we have i understand humanitarian crisis loss of life is tragic but as president i wonder is this the thing that you prioritize over the more serious domestic issues like the border like our own uh... you know economic crisis uh... i would say i would say that's not you know my priority is as president is

going to be with the united states i wouldn't be sending any money to ukraine uh at all not a penny and but you know israel because for all the reasons israel ukraine's war of choice it's a war that we help provoke it's war that putin has been trying to settle on terms that are very very very favorable to us, and we keep on making Slensky tear up the agreements. So the question is, do we have an interest in supporting Israel? And does the U.S. have a legitimate interest or an important national interest in supporting Israel? And I would say the answer to that is yes.

We give a tiny fraction to Israel, what we've put into Ukraine. A large amount of the money that we historically send to Israel goes to the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome is this unique system, a defensive system, so that Israel will not have to invade Gaza. Nobody else would do this. Since Hamas took over Gaza, they fired an average of 2,000 missiles a year onto civilian centers in Israel. People say Gaza has the highest population density in the world. That's not true. Tel Aviv has twice the population density as Gaza.

And that's where Hamas is sending missiles onto a civilian population there's a million israelis who live in bomb shelters and israel any other nation that was attacked by a smaller less powerful nation that was committed to its destruction its annihilation the extermination of its people would go in there and carpet bomb it from the air and destroy it yep israel didn't do that israel built an iron dome so it would not have to go in and that is where you know a large percentage of the money that we sent to Israel is going to that iron dump um so I believe an Israel for us in the Mideast is a bulwark for democracy,

it's a bulwark for U.S. interests. If Israel was a limit, a Palestinian friend of mine told me this the other day. He said, you know, many Palestinians understand that we need a strong Israel because if Israel ceased to exist, we would be at the mercy of Iran. And Iran doesn't care about us. Iran does not care about the Palestinian people. Look what they've done with Hamas. They built 300 miles of tunnels for fighters and not a single bomb shelter for civilians.

We can certainly loop back to this, but I do want to take, let's make sure we can get, I don't want to just turn it into an hour-long debate over Israel, because that's usually what happens. But I'm curious about domestic issues. And it does pain me a little bit to have to ask the really boring and obvious question, but it's the one that matters most to people, and that's currently people are struggling. They can't afford their groceries. The media keeps saying there's nothing to worry about. The inflation is fine.

And then when working-class people try to feed their kids their kids they're finding that's harder and harder to actually buy groceries i wonder uh your view on the economy and what you could do as president that would change this for the american people i mean i think that the the uh there's an assault on the middle class in this country um and it's been going on since 1980, but it really exploded during COVID when we shut down 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation, no scientific citation. We shifted $4 trillion upward from the American middle class. We obliterated the middle class to this new oligarchy of billionaires. We created a billionaire day globally in 500 days, 500 days, 500 new billionaires. And you know,

a lot of those businesses will never reopen. 41% of black owned businesses will never reopen. And a lot of them had three generations of equity on them. And then, you know, because we've spent uh eight trillion dollars on war since 2001 we have we've we've we've spent we didn't have that money we borrowed it from china and we printed the money so um and that is why we're having inflation do you think that's why we have four dollar bread four dollar milk and six dollar gasoline do you think that's why we have $4 bread, $4 milk, and $6 gasoline. Do you think that's irreversible then? Do you think that cutting the war funding might alleviate some of this tension?

It's complicated because you can't cut. First of all, we have to make dramatic cuts. And essentially what our orphaned investments, which is war is an orphaned investment. You spend a million dollars on a missile, $60,000 on a backpack missile, a million dollars on a missile sixty thousand dollars in a backpack missile million dollars on a tank you send it to somewhere to get destroyed and it doesn't produce any kind of economic benefits we if we're going to we cannot we're at a point now thirty four trillion dollars in debt a trillion of that is from Trump. Another 7 trillion is from Biden and Trump ran up a bigger debt, spent more money than every president before him from George Washington,

George W. Bush in 283 years. Neither of them are going to deal with this issue. What we, it's so large right now are we're spending more on servicing that death than our entire defense budget within five years fifty cents out of every dollar that we collect in taxes is gonna go to the debt within ten years a hundred percent so it's a it's existential you can't you can you need to cut dramatically spending on and those cuts will come from the military which we need to cut down to about 500 billion a year from 900 billion we need to we need to close

most of the 800 bases that we have abroad which are just invitations for new wars um the biggest savings going to come from ending the chronic disease epidemic which is now you know the biggest part of our budget 4.3 trillion it's five times the military budget it was six percent of gdp when my uncle was president and it's about 20 today you know we've gone from six six percent of kids having chronic disease in our country to 60 we're the only country that has this we have the highest chronic disease burden in the world you can't you can't just cut it and solve the debt problem you actually need to cut it and then invest in things that are going to expand the economy you have to grow your

way out of this existential crisis not just cut your way mr mr kennedy even even beyond that everyone knows that the that the mandatory spending is the actual driver of all of our major economic problems. So considering nobody's going to touch Medicare and Medicaid, how do we have a plan that can actually fix the problem of Medicare and Medicaid without leaving seniors and people that are planning for it? Which there's too many Americans that are planning for it now. But the people that are actually planning for it, how do we fix the problem for them without leaving the mind dry well you know they i i the places where we need we need to get about four or five billion from the military we need about um we need to uh reduce chronic disease from 4.3 billion a year to, I mean, 4.3 trillion a year to about a quarter of that. And then we can do cuts, you know, particularly with AI, we can identify ways. I'm going to also use blockchain to make our entire budget transparent so that everybody can identify ways.

And that's where I'm going to get the money. I'm not going to cut Medicare. I'm not going to cut Social Security. That's a contract with the American people. What I'm going to do is reduce the cost of treating illness in this country. Everybody else talks about, when they talk about healthcare, they're talking about whether it's Obamacare or single payer or, you know, public-private hybrid or whatever, but it's all about, that's all of those propositions, the big battles they're fought over about moving deck chairs around in the Titanic. The whole ship is sinking,

and it's sinking because of the explosion of chronic disease. Do you think, so you think, so you think it it basically you think that we can essentially innovate our way into a position where i think we can eliminate chronic disease okay do you think uh former president trump and president biden talk enough about this issue it seems to me i think they talk zero about this issue the issues people always say that trump and biden we have to choose there's this you know this this this apocalyptic choice between these two guys and if you look at them they are very different their personalities are different their dispositions are different they're um the way their ideologies the way they approach issues and people but if you actually look at the issues that they dispute on it's a

very narrow overton window it's you know it's all these culture war issues abortion guns the border trans rights all important issues but none of them are existential the existential issues they will never mention because they can't do anything about the budget deficit. They cannot fix that because they're the ones that created it. They can't create, you know, one other chronic disease epidemic they presided over. The war machine, they're both, you know, they're both warmongers now. Trump says he's not, but, you know, he just gave a bear hug to Speaker Johnson and then, you know, a kiss on the cheek to Biden and sent all that money to Ukraine. The polarization,

which is more toxic now in this country than any time since the American Civil War and poisonous and destructive and it's all amplified by social media algorithms and nobody even understands how they're working anymore. They're all designed to pour concrete on that

polarization and divide as farther and farther until we go into civil war somebody's got to step in the middle and say i'm not sure and neither of them can do it because they're both the products of the polarization they're both telling us to hate the other guy and hate the other side they can't end it i don't know how uh anyone could end it to be honest look at my. I've got an equal number of people who are Trump, Biden, Republicans, Democrats, Independents. I'm almost evenly divided.

I beat both Trump and Biden among Independents, which is now the biggest political party. This year, Independents self-identify for the first time in history, self-identify the Independents. 43% of the american public that's 27 percent are democrats 27 republicans and i get them i i beat them among

people under 35 and um and the reason the way that i've done this is by not feeding into the vitriol not feeding into the anger notol, not feeding into the anger, not feeding into all of this. But you were. I mean, you initially launched your campaign as a Democrat. I guess my question would be when did you stop being a Democrat or are you still, how do you classify yourself? Don't look at my announcement speech. My whole announcement speech is I'm not going to feed into this.

I'm not going to go to the culture war issues i'm going to i'm going to focus on the on the values that hold americans together rather than these little issues that are orchestrated to keep us at each other's throats so that all the money continues flowing upward to black rock state street and vanguard which own today 89 of the s&P 500, are now trying to buy all the real estate in our country. They are going to turn us from an ownership society into a rental society. And they love us hating each other because it keeps it all flowing upward.

I think you're right in identifying existential crises, Black Rock State Street, etc. But I do think that the culture war issues are another form of existential crisis perhaps it's easier to say if BlackRock buys all the homes it's harder and harder for working class people to get homes if there's collusion between big banks Federal Reserve and the government they're going to strangle out the working class and money overseas to wars we shouldn't be involved in

military bases but there are deep concerns about the birth rate fertility rate and that is abortion abortion is an existential crisis especially when we're looking at less than replacement waiting what do you mean first of all I don't disagree with you on abortion I mean I you know I I want to do everything we can to end abortion our

plan which is more choice more more life is about addressing the fact that 52% of abortions this country are among women who say that one of the major factors was their inability to afford a baby and I want to make sure that that that is not their consideration but but let me ask you this when you say that fertility problem is due to abortion what do you mean by what's compounded by it so I mean it's because fewer people are having babies yeah i don't think abortion is the principal reason we're facing a replacement level price there's a global fertility right issue right now but i would say that that

you know that that has to do with toxics in the environment plastics in the balls well there's a lot of stuff there's there's uh sure that was in the news no Well, there's a lot of stuff. That's true. That was in the news. No, no, no. There's PFAs. There's forever chemicals. There's astrazine. There's microplastics in male testicles. There's fluoride. There's glyphosate. Out of all these things, what do you think is the biggest concern? Because there's a lot of things in our environment. When it comes to our larger health crisis, do you think it's PFAs, forever chemicals, astrazine, fluoride, microplastics glyphosate what is the top concern for you biologically i'll tell you i'll tell you

something interesting which might answer that um there are the you know the autism we we've got crises in four categories diseases. Um, uh, obesity, which is sort of linked to diabetes, autoimmune disease, and obesity has gone from when my uncle's president about 13% to 50% of kids today obese or are grossly overweight. Um, autoimmune diseases with your juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, lupus, all these exotic diseases, a diabetes. When I was a kid, the average physician saw one case of diabetes in his lifetime over

50 year career today, one out of every three kids who walks through his office door is pre-diabetic or diabetic and the cost of diabetes, which is just is mitochondrial dysfunction is now larger than the military budget and nobody's asking where this is coming from neurological disease ADD ADHD speech delay language late tics Tourette syndrome narcolepsy ASD autism when I was in my generation, 70 year old men,

the rate of autism is one in 10,000. In my kid's generation, that's one in every 34, according to CDC, one in every 22 boys. So what happened of Congress? And there's one other category, which is allergic diseases, which is peanut allergies, eczema, none of these

I had 11 siblings and 70 cousins, I never knew anybody with a food allergy, a peanut allergy, but 5 of my 7, why do 5 of my 7 kids have it? What happened? Something happened nobody's asking what it is and there's a EPA, or Congress said to EPA tell us what year the autism epidemic began an EPA is a captive agency but it's captive by oil and coal not by Big Pharma so it actually did a real study and it came back and said it's a red line 1989. So there's, and as it turns out,

almost all of these diseases follows that timeline. And this explosion of chronic disease, we go from 6% to 60%. And there's a famous doctor, a toxicologist in New York named Phil Landrigan. I've used him on a lot of my cases, you know, suing all kinds of big industries for toxins. He's one of the most revered toxicologists in the world.

He looked at this issue and he said, you have to figure out a toxin. These are being called because this disease is being caused by toxic exposures. It can't be genes. Genes don't cause epidemics. You need a environmental exposure. And, you know, the genes can provide provide a vulnerability but you need that toxin so what could it be that became ubiquitous in 1989 and there's a couple of other flags identifying signals one of those that in neurological injuries affect boys at a four or five to one rate as girls. So he went and looked at this, and he came down with about,

he's done a series of papers on this question, as I'm getting to your answer. He came down with about 13 things, and among them are glyphosate from Roundup, which follows that timeline exactly, neonicotinoid pesticides, atrazine, which is now in 70% of our water supply, PFOAs and PFASs, which are flame retardants. I litigated one of the biggest cases on that,

and they made a movie about my case called Dark Waters. And I was starring Mark Ruffalo it's a flame retardant that was put in all of our kids pajamas all of our furniture that year and you know around that time 1989 fluorides you know all of these byproducts these endocrine disruptors that are part of plastics um high fructose corn syrup oh wow right and uh and and then cell phone radiation there one of the one of the exposures ultrasound which i don't think has a lot to do with it but it became ubiquitous on exactly that timeline so you know the problem is that nih will not let anybody study this if you're a scientist you try to study this, you can't get funded.

And if you do manage to get funded, your career is over. They will destroy you. So NIH has turned from when I was a kid, it did cutting-edge science. It was the gold standard science agency in the world. Now it is just an incubator for pharmaceutical products. So, I want to go to the broader, because I want to try and get as many subjects in as possible, but back to abortion and the fertility rate. Just to stay on that point and elaborate,

you mentioned existential crisis, the things that Biden and Trump aren't talking about, the things you are talking about, especially what you just talked about, I think is one of the most important. And I'll add this as an aside. In our studio, we do have plastic bottled water, we do, but we have refillable glass bottles for people to take if you don't want to use the plastic for this reason. And then we have plastic because it is ubiquitous. It's like, what am I going to do? I'm going to order.

It's hard to live without it. But we bought reusable glass bottles that we fill up with our own filtered well water, specifically because of the issue of, you know, biphenols and all of these things. But the issue with abortion, there are people on the right who have, they've brought this up to us on the show, pro-lifers, people who want to see it banned federally in every capacity, saying when you're dealing with below replacement level fertility, abortion just exacerbates the issue.

So to them, it does seem existential. I don't know that abortion is the principal reason for dropping infertility. I think a lot of everything you brought up is actually a really good reason for this toxic exposure and all these things. But my point ultimately was that abortion certainly is existential for a lot of people if babies' lives are being ended. Yeah, I agree. I think we need a government that prioritizes the family. I don't think, I think the argument, you kind of lose me on the argument about abortion and the decline, fertility rate decline and decline in population, that we need to force women to carry babies to term in order to keep national populations level.

I don't think that's, to me, that's not a compelling argument. The compelling argument is the moral argument that abortion, at some point, particularly when the baby reaches viability, is, you know, at the end of the term is like homicide, right? And throughout there, you know, people have different arguments, different opinions of it, and I respect everybody's opinion, but there's a moral case from day one or not doing it and that moral argument to me is the most compelling argument and the most difficult argument the most complex argument I other argument that you made about you know replacement

rates it is it's a really important argument for all these toxics in our environment but when it comes to you know there's so many other complexities are you know the state can tell a woman who does not want to bring a child to term that you're going to be you're going to force them to do that so you know so these are all kind of very complex difficult heartbreaking issues and every portion is a tragedy. Everyone is a trauma. To me, there's no simple issue. I come from a family that is split on it. I've gone back and forth on the issue.

When I learn more material, my position has shifted slightly. But it's because it's such a tough issue. I completely agree. I think of all the issues, this one has zero middle ground at all. You had got a lot of flack because you were in an interview where you said that the state and the federal government should not be involved in any capacity. And you were asked, should abortion be allowed even up to full term? You had said yes. You had then changed your position.

Do you want to clarify and give it and do you want me to tell you the evolution of my thinking yeah that'd be great absolutely yeah so you know what i always say to people is you can never convince me of things by telling me it's the politically um you know beneficial thing to do or by calling me names or by you know doing all the things that I've had that you know all the defamations and perjuries that have been applied to me that's not going to change my mind about anything what will change my mind is facts so my original position on abortion which which made sense to me when I was asked just off the cuff without thinking about it.

By an NBC reporter very early in the campaign when I was in Iowa, he said, what's your position? And I said, well, I think it has to be up to a woman, 100% up to a woman, up to the point of viability, and then the state has an escalating interest in protecting that life. So I got a tremendous amount of fl fat from the left and also at home from my wife, her sisters or her sister and her sister's wife or big supporters of mine. But we're absolutely, it is always a woman's choice. You know,

in the state you've been a medical freedom advocate for your entire life. You've been fighting for people's bodily autonomy more than anybody in this country. You've taken more flack from it. Now you're trying to take that choice away from the woman. And, you know, and so I then changed my position and said, it's a woman's choice right up to the end. Now, the question for me was, my assumption and my wife's assumption is there's no woman who's going to get pregnant and carry that pregnancy to nine months and have an abortion, you know, the ninth month. Who would do that? The only reason that would happen in my mind

was if the, if either the baby had some illness that he was only going to live for maybe 24 hours or two weeks and then have an agonizing death or if the mother's life, there's some medical issue with the mother's life is at risk. And in those case particularly, I don't want to invite the state in to have anything to do with it. I don't want a bureaucrat having anything to do with it. The mother should be making that decision.

Even if she prioritizes herself over the unborn child? What? Like even if she prioritizes herself over the unborn child? Because you're talking about bodily autonomy. I would say yes. The baby wouldn't have bodily autonomy. They wouldn't even have a choice. I would say that yes.

It's the mother in that in that situation if the mother has a risk of her life and you know and it and it is incumbent I she has it aboard the baby yeah or to save her life I would say yes that's the mother's choice always and you could differ with me on that to, that is the moral and ethical position. However, after I gave that interview, a number of people contacted me, including many from my campaign and many outside of my campaign, and they showed me that actually there are a fair number of thousands of elective abortions that occur in the eighth and ninth month and I showed that data to my wife and her sisters they said okay we got it and so I changed my position and

you know you know to back to essentially my original position which and i didn't say to my wife i told you so because that would have made my life even more difficult but i i said i i changed it back to my original position which is that the state has an escalating interest in that child once he once they retire i got some constitutional questions for you to elaborate on this and then to go into gun rights so uh the 14th amendment says in section one all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and subject to jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside 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 protection of the laws what i find interesting in this is that person and citizen are a distinction and this has led to uh interpretations as well as other amendments that tourists for instance are protected under the constitution because they are a person not a citizen but they shall not be deprived of life liberty or property when i look at this i feel like there's only one conclusion if the supreme court were to rule on the matter i don't see how you would claim that a a baby at nine months is not a person and so i'll let let me ask you now you're talking you know a legal right application rather than moral or absolutely

yeah read me again because i'm not seeing this read me the first line the first line of section one is all persons born or not okay okay so it says born but persons is separate from citizen i mean it's all persons born no it's not so uh it says all persons born or naturalized in the u.s and subject to his jurisdiction are citizens it then later states after a bra after a semicolon nor shall any state deprive any person it there's a distinction between person and citizen okay well you if you're asking me to give you lawyer's advice about whether that's a... I'm not asking you to interpret. I'm saying that if someone is a tourist...

Well, you can make that argument. I get the argument. Again, I don't think the legal argument is convincing. I think the moral and ethical arguments are much more convincing. So my question is uh... that that that there is a distinct distinction between citizen in person is that if someone's a tourist from say india to the united states they have free speech they have they have many rights uh... they're put into

the constitution uh... speech all of these things and uh... it's why there's a distinction between person and citizen i i believe that uh... there's a a a philosophical conundrum on the issue of abortion. And I'm not saying you have to agree, and I'm not saying that this is absolute. I'm saying that when you look at, you have two women. They have both been, they're both pregnant.

They've been pregnant for an identical amount of time, nine months. One woman goes into early labor and gives birth to a child. The other woman does not. The babies are identical in every way, just hypothetically speaking. But one was born and one wasn't. Nine months, one woman goes into early labor and gives birth to her child. The other woman does not. The babies are identical in every way, just hypothetically speaking, but one was born and one wasn't. Right now in the United States, we recognize in some states the rights of the baby as it is in the womb. I believe in California, if a crime is committed against a woman that kills the baby, it's considered double murder, double homicide bites as an individual only after birth i'd i'd i'd see a little a legal conundrum there which uh...

present an interesting challenge uh... in the constitution is how the supreme court would rule on personhood i'm just curious your thoughts on uh... i i suppose maybe what i know what you abstain on the on on the issue or what do you think that the uh... not a baby at nine months is a person or not a person or is it well i i can't i you know i don't think the lead bringing in the legal definitions for me it's also it's not helpful to your argument because it says born

and i don't know that you're going to get it uh... and is then you're making it at the same time between if you're a citizen you you have to be born and if you're a person it's ambiguous whether a person's a person's the question is what does a person right but anyway what i would say to you tim is that for me that the question is not whether you want to untangle legal language and see if it has it's applicable if you want to do that bring the lawsuit and go to the Supreme Court and see what they say. And, you know, I can make a bet on what they'd say, and you can make a bet.

We may bet the same. We may bet different. But the question here that's difficult for me is not this question. The question here is the moral question and the ethical question. And I'm not claiming to have resolved those. I'm just claiming to have a solution that is, to me, is the most livable solution in a very difficult, impossible ethical question. I think the main challenge, the reason why I bring this up, the reason why I go for the 14th is

when you look at a state like Oklahoma, they've banned abortion outright. When you look at Colorado, they've unrestricted it to the point of birth. So we were talking about hyperpolarization and launching off from the question of abortion, because I don't really want to have another five-year debate on abortion. I understand there's no middle ground,

but you can see this polarization where when I argue with progressives, basically a similar position to you, I mostly agree with your position, they say I'm pro-life. When I say that if the baby can survive, there's no reason to kill it. And, you know, even I think elective abortion is wrong like everything is that it's a tragedy it shouldn't happen

i've i find challenges in how the law would actually step in to determine when abortions could have been happen i don't have the answers for it progress is coming for life for saying that and conservatives coming for trial and i would think you'd be proud to be pro life my cousin anthony shriver who's working on my campaign, is radically pro-life, and he's proud of it. And, you know, Angela Stanton King, who is working on my campaign, who's a close advisor to me, is radically pro-life, and she's proud of it. And I respect them. I respect their position. I'm not claiming I'm right about this morally.

I'm going to have to talk to God at some point and justify my positions, and I'm just doing my best with it. What I want to do is do the best I can to have people just stop hating each other on this issue. I agree. I agree. We could agree to disagree. I'm pro-lifelife but we thank you for kind of explaining your thought process going through it i if you could could you also do that with the second amendment that's what i was going to ask because last year you were arguing for an

assault weapons ban it does look like you changed your position on that i don't think i was ever arguing for assault weapons man but i no no you did you you said quote if we can get consensus on it if republicans and democrats agree to it okay and it passes congress i would sign it specifically talking about assault weapons ban so it does look like you changed your position why did you change your position and was there a legitimate reason or or is this kind of electioneering yeah i don't do electioneering. And anybody who looks at my record over 40 years, I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not swayed by the political winds. I would have lived my life very, very differently. I've taken on very difficult issues my whole life, and I've stuck with them even when the entire world was against me.

So that's not what I do. On this issue, my position and what I said is that I'm not going to take anybody's guns away. I don't believe in – I don't think it's the right – I just don't think it's right. And particularly, you know, my thinking on a lot of these issues evolved after during COVID. So, you know, I would say during COVID, you know, I saw this assault on the Constitution and understand that, you know, it's something that we really need to be worried about in the second amendment as part of the Constitution. I'm a constitutionalist. What I said is that I'm not fighting for an assault weapons ban.

If both houses of Congress, bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats, all of a sudden came with a bill that they'd already passed, am I going to veto it on some kind of gun control measure it's a you know some kind of assault weapons man do you see that that will ever happen i don't think so well if the democrats take congress they could and it does look like the democrats but it wouldn't be bipartisan yeah like a bipartisan bill. I've always said that. So let me just, can I give you my idea about something? You can always just slide it forward, too. I think the big issue that makes this such a toxic issue now is because of all the school shootings and the mass killings that involve weapons, involve, you know, firearms.

I look at this issue the same way I do to the chronic disease epidemic, and I say to myself, why is it happening? There are no, there's been no increase in guns since 1970. I think there's been one increase in the gun per household since 1970. There's been no legislation that changed guns ownership. When I was a kid at my schools, we had gun clubs. People brought their guns to school. Nobody was shooting children.

Nobody was shooting strangers. Something happened. Something happened. And when the change, and it's happening in this this country and it's not happening elsewhere in the world. Switzerland, which has comparable numbers of guns, it's like maybe half or 70 percent or whatever it is. The last mass shooting in Switzerland, there's guns in every house. It's a law that requires it. The last mass shooting in Switzerland was 21 years ago.

We have one every 21 hours. So what is causing it? The guns are a variable, but it doesn't fit. So what is causing it? Well, it's usually gang-on-gang violence. I'm talking about school shootings, not gang-on-gang violence. What I would say is there some kind of something exposure that's happening and you know when the Columbine attacks occurred five

of the families sued Prozac and um and ever since then there's been there have been studies although this is not an issue that is studied enough, and it's not studied using federal funding. But the impact of SSRIs and benzos, the potential impact on gun violence, this is one possible thing that needs to be studied. All of those products have black box warnings on them that say that they may cause homicidal or suicidal behavior so they have that on their on their labels on their manufacturers inserts so obviously that

should be a suspect and the timeline there's 120 million uh ssra prescriptions every year 120 million benzo prescriptions and then there's other 120 million adderall prescriptions every year, 120 million benzo prescriptions, and then there's other 120 million Adderall prescriptions, right? And it says on the box. Now, we don't know. It's very hard to tell. It's hard to do studies. One is there was a law passed in 1997 and a policy adopted by NIH to not study the ideology or the origins of gun violence.

So there's really almost no studies out there. But, so you're saying that the issue of gun violence is an issue of mental health and toxic exposure. And something else, it could be, look, you just use your common sense. But toxic exposure.

Maybe it's social media, you know, social media could be video games. It could be benzos. It could be Benzos. It could be SSRIs. Why are we studying these things? I mean, the Uvalde parents are suing a video game maker in response to this. I would say, to me, the most likely, the thing that we should be studying is SSRIs, and nobody can really study it because of the HIPAA laws. But when there's these mass shootings occur,

you never know if the guy was on SSRIs. It's impossible to find out, but NIH could find out. So I agree. I think probably we all agree on toxic exposure, drugs, benzos, SSRIs, all of these things are worrisome. But ultimately for me, you know, I lived in New Jersey and we had a guy try to break in my house. I'm not a lot. They say I can have a gun.

They made it as hard as possible for me to have a gun. The cops told me when they came to my house after I called the police, they said, if it were me, I'd have answered the door with a shotgun. And I said, oh, yeah, well, if I could get one. And so when I was finally able to get one, I was informed by the police that in New Jersey, you have a duty to retreat from your own home. So I'm in my own home in New Jersey. Someone breaks in with a gun and yells that they're going to kill me. I am legally required to seek exit to exodus from my own home. And I asked the cop, I was like, where would I go?

It's my house. And he goes, well, if you say that you're telling the court you'd rather kill a man than stand outside in the cold, and they're going to put you in prison. I asked him, what would happen if someone broke into my house with intent to kill me, and I defended myself with a weapon? He says, easy. You'd be arrested, charged with felony murder. You'd go to prison. You'd have your bail hearing. If you don't get it, you wait in jail until, or you don't go to prison, you go to jail. You wait your hearing until you get your day in court with your affirmative defense of self-defense. Good luck with that. You had a woman who drove from PA into Jersey, an older, middle-aged woman,

going to Atlantic City, got pulled over, told the cop, this is a famous story in Jersey, that she was a law-abiding citizen, and she said, I just want to let you know that I have my gun on me. And he said, out of the car, you're under arrest, felony charge. I moved to West Virginia, constitutional carry. And, you know, for me and i you know better than anyone uh the threats that you know that that you know with crazy people who try to cause harm so for me i understand all this stuff about drugs and gun violence and mass shootings but i won't tolerate because of the escalation and crime and violence me losing my right to

defend myself and my family and my property. Okay. So my point ultimately is, outside of the issue of target exposure in shootings, what's your position on 2A, preserving gun rights? We've got... I believe in the Constitution, and I believe in the right to bear arms. My argument then goes beyond and says we have to repeal the National Firearms Act,

and its add-ons. I believe it's unconstitutional. I can ask you a simple question right now, actually. Do you think private entities in the United States should have the right to own nuclear weapons? No. But they do. And this is something I, you know, whenever I talk to anybody in office, they always say no. It should not be of the person.

Lockheed Martin maintains and produces nuclear weapons. They're a private entity, and they do it internationally. So it's always been in the United States that there are privateers, there's corsairs, individuals are able to own warships. But while we have made many strides, like D.C.c versus heller the right to keep and bear arms we have these laws that restrict the individual while allowing this massive multinational warmonger corporations to have nukes why can't i have uh look i live in my house i want i want a short barreled rifle with a suppressor so that i'm less likely to cause harm to people so i can i can target only on uh those who are threatening my life but it's damn near impossible because of the nfa for me to actually get a a weapon that is appropriate safer so i i'm

curious would you would you go beyond would you would you work to repeal these laws or you keep it as is or would you repeal the nfa and red flag laws enough about the nfa so you know and i'm not going to make a fair point fair point i'm not going to make a statement about something I know absolutely nothing about. And I would need to look at a lot of data and all that. Mr. Kennedy, one of the things you mentioned, you were talking about SSRIs and mass shootings and stuff. Most of the time when you're talking about mass shootings or when mass shootings are discussed in press or in the media it's not the type of mass shooting that tends to come to mind when you hear the term so anytime more than two people are shot they consider that a mass shooting but that could be someone you

know that could be drug violence gang violence and stuff like that which which is different than the the massacre type where you get someone with a rifle going into a school or something like that. But he was referring to schools specifically. And fair enough. We can draw the distinction. So I do think that whereas mass shootings as a concept is something that we have to worry about, but what do you think are the best policies to fix the,

I don't want to sound callous, but the everyday gun violence that we see, the stuff that happens daily in cities across the country. Because as much as the mass shootings that we see, the rifles and stuff like that, the schools, hospitals, whatever, they're horrifying and they're terrible and they get attention. The real death toll is the people that die every day in your violence in the cities. So what do you think what would your plan be to to combat that kind of stuff if there's if there is a role for the federal government i mean i listen i i'd love to hear what your solution is my solution is good policing

you know i think we need to one we need to um reduce the negative interactions between police and minorities, which is a big issue in this country. But we don't do that by defunding the police. We need a strong police force. The way that I would work it is that I would, you know, the same way that I work schools and charter schools, is to give the police chiefs of these municipalities a lot of power but also tremendous responsibility so that if there are racial incidents while you are police chief that you

know you get you get three strikes and maybe and you're out and you're banned from from being a police chief in the next town and And so you give responsibility to them, but you also give the power to them to protect people, but you hold them responsible. And I think that that's the way to clean up some of the problems in the police force. But I would not do it by defunding the police. Do you think our culture values police?

That doesn't seem to me like a good idea from day one. Do you think our culture values police? That doesn't seem to me like a good idea from day one. Yeah. Do you think our culture values police, or do you think attitudes towards policing has declined since COVID and all the rioting over the summer? Do I think what? Our culture values police. Cultural values? Like, does our culture as Americans value police officers?

Because you saw a backlash to the police, especially after George Floyd's death. Well, I mean, I do. So, you know I I grew up with my father was the chief law enforcement um uh officer in the land um you know I grew up I grew up with you know a lot of affection for police and firefighters and uh and that was you know that's that's my orientation oh and a lot of my friends are cops, you know, that's my orientation. And a lot of my friends are cops.

But, you know, I'm not blind to the fact that there are racial problems also in these. You know, if you're a black kid, you're much more likely to get arrested. And I don't think that's right. I think we have to try to fix that, what's wrong with the police. But we don't do that by making all police feel badly. And I think we need to support the police. They put their lives on the lines every day, and we need to support them. We need to give them good work environments where the people who are the bad apples are taken out,

and we're giving good training on de-escalating you know difficult situations and you know I know a lot of this I've seen enough of these studies that he you know there's two groups that are responsible for these kind of bad incidences and one is bad apples who have a disproportionate number of them. And then young cops who just don't know how to de-escalate. They go into a situation where they're unfamiliar in a territory, a part of the city, they're frightened, and they don't have the skills or the training to de-escalate.

So I think that needs to happen, too. So a lot of the things you say i i agree with you know i'm uh for i i guess disaffected liberal is the way that i usually just describe myself uh post-liberal in some ways the left just calls me right wing or whatever fine i think you know elon musk posted that meme i don't know if you saw it where the guy's standing on the left but then the left moves super far away but you know you had called columbus day indigenous people's day and for me when was that uh you had a you had a rally i believe it was on columbus day in which you referred to it as indigenous people's day i thought that was when you announced you're running as an independent yeah was that was that i i i just checked uh i just uh made sure that

you know i had the statement correct october 10th, 2023, the Examiner reported on you referring to Columbus Day as Indigenous People Day, saying that you spoke about your father's visit to Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1968. Gratefully, the renaming of Columbus Day as Indigenous People's Day shows that our country is now ready to explore and to tell each other the untold histories of those dispossessed people who have previously languished on the margins kennedy said when uh whatever you might think of such sentiments it is not the stuff of republican campaign rallies i i'm not a fan of the confederacy by any means but tearing down the statues unilaterally through

activist uh efforts was was terrifying they uh not that not only they tear down the statues through violent force without any kind of democratic process or legislative process, they tore down statues of Hans Christian Haag, who was a Union soldier fighting against slavery, wasn't even an American, didn't own slaves, and they tore down Frederick Douglass, who was a former slave, who was amazing, and fought against slavery. When I see things like this, it's particularly worrying to me because erasing our history doesn't do anything but make us repeat it. It dooms us. So I'm curious your thoughts on ideas like this.

What people would refer to. Well, I don't think I ever said we should get rid of Columbus Day and replace it with Indigenous People Day. But I've spent 20% of my career defending and representing the tribes in the United States and in Canada and Latin America, suing big corporate polluters who are destroying their land, suing governments who have stolen their land and making sure that they're treated fairly. And, you know, I think it's important for us to be part of a community where we can recognize all kinds of people. We can recognize Italian Americans to whom that is an important holiday. And at the same time, we can recognize the indigenous people who were, you know, made the ultimate sacrifice of one of the greatest genocides in history and that they're right. My father always believed that our country would never live up to its ideals

if we didn't make some kind of amends, meaningful amends, to the group that was exterminated in order for us to settle in this country. And I think it's a good aspiration for every American. I don't think it should be a left-wing or right-wing. I agree with you about the statues. I don't think it's a good, healthy thing or any culture to erase its history. So would you condemn Charlottesville melting down

the Robert E. Lee statue? They gave it to the African American History Museum and then you know what I have a visceral reaction against the attacks on those statues. I mean I grew up in Virginia. I know that there were heroes in the Confederacy who didn't have slaves. And I just have a visceral reaction against destroying history. I don't like it. I think we should celebrate who we are and that um you know we should celebrate the good qualities of everybody if we want if we want to find people who are completely virtuous on every issue throughout history we would erase all of history and you know values change throughout history and we need to be able to be sophisticated enough to live with you know our ancestors who didn't agree with us on everything

and who did things that are now you know regarded as immoral or um uh you know were wrong because they you know maybe they had other qualities that we want to celebrate and clearly robert e lee had extraordinary qualities of leadership and um and you know i don't think that i i wouldn't have done that you uh so it was your your announcement as running as an independent candidate you said it's a hopeful sign now for our country that we celebrate indigenous people's day it shows that we're ready as a nation it shows that our country is not ready to explore and to tell each other the untold histories of those dispossessed people who have previously languished on the margins yeah you have problems with that with changing the name of i don't say we're changing the name but so people are welcome to call it columbus day but

it's also called indigenous peoples it's not this country's big enough for a lot of different people sure but but the idea of indigenous people day was literally to take the name columbus away that's your idea it It's not mine. Well, the activists literally said they were changing the name Columbus. But that's not my idea. It's your, it may be, or maybe it's the activists who want to do that. But, you know, I feel like the Indigenous people should have a day, if it overlaps, there's many, many holidays that overlap with each other. And that and that you know we shouldn't be taking away from one group to give to another but I do think we need to make a larger commitment to indigenous people because they have been systematically robbed and cheated and you know we and

we need to do what I can as a country to make sure that there's some kind of amends for that past. I agree that an Indigenous Peoples' Day is fine, but it literally did start as a counter to Columbus Day. That's your beef. Absolutely it is. It's not the way that I look at it. I respect that you stand absolutely it is right yeah i'm not i mean but it's not the way that i look at it so i i respect that you stand by it i think for a lot of people uh these are the cultural issues that we feel is existential to to have a holiday that we grew up with to understand why it was good despite bad things about columbus for sure uh and colonization in general we celebrate the good

things we get we try to condemn the bad i grew up it was an italian holiday yeah i think it it you know and i think that that's kind of the justification for or keeping it not you know that with whether columbus was a hero or a villain but the fact that this is way like we have saint patrick's day for the irish that there's you know that it's an italian holiday and i don't i'm not saying it should stop being an italian holiday and we can celebrate the contribution of the italians their country and we can celebrate then perhaps contributions the indigenous people of this country perhaps on the next speech you give you can say on this indigenous people's day and columbus day we are here to say i'm not gonna let you write my speeches for me well i i mean the the

concern is if your world view is shifted that columbus day is no longer the day you're celebrating you're celebrating the counter protest that says a lot about how you see the world let me tell you something tim i respect you a lot but i think what i've tried to do in this campaign is to not get sucked into culture war issues that i consider distractions i think the big issues that we should be talking about which you started with is the fact that 57 of the people in this country cannot put their hands on a thousand dollars because they're uh if there's an emergency in their family and if you are in that cohort and the engine light come up comes onto your car it's the apocalypse because you know you can't

afford that mechanic you're gonna you're not gonna be able to get to work and you're not gonna be able to pay your rent then you're gonna end up on the side of a homeless and that's you're not going to be able to get to work, and you're not going to be able to pay your rent, and you're going to end up on the side of a homeless, and you're going to be circling a drain. And, you know, what BlackRock wants is for us to ignore the contribution they've made and the Fed has made and all of these big Wall Streets made to this situation and keep us fighting about columbus day or indigenous people that i'm not feeding into that

these are economic issues and that's why i'm running i'm not running to feed into cultural issues on either side you can dispute these activists anyway you want i'm not going to get involved in that issue but my my my point is i completely agree with you about Black Rock State Street, Vanguard, all of these companies, the foreign influence on our social media. But before it was TikTok, we had concerns about Saudi investors with pieces of... Look, I'm more concerned about the NSA and Facebook.

And the CIA scraping all of our information. Facebook, as much as the Chinese are scraping, you know, posts about teenage girls, kitty cats. You know, they are. We have all the things that Edward Snowden told us. These companies are deeply, deeply embedded with the CIA. If you have an abuser who's outside of your house, it's scary. If you have the abuser inside of your house, it's much more frightening. And I'm more concerned about the CIA and the NSA manipulating public perceptions, censoring us, propagandizing us, using these social media sites to do that.

And I am against the Chinese. Listen, if we're really concerned about the Chinese, here's what we should be concerned about. I've litigated against Smithfield Foods for years for polluting vast, vast landscapes in this country. Smithfield controls 30 to 40 percent of pork production in this country smithfield controls 30 to 40 percent of pork production in this country and the landscapes in states like north carolina iowa all over this country they're now 100 owned by the chinese that is a threat you know the chinese are buying our landscapes they're buying our food they're controlling our universities they're giving billions of dollars to universities and and you know scraping and information high technology information they're deeply embedded with nih and

getting you know making bioweapons with them they are you know they're the principal creditor now in every nation in latin america because we are you know we're spending eight trillion dollars on wars and they're bombing bridges and ports and schools and universities. Over that same period, they've spent $8 trillion building ports and roads and schools, and they're projecting economic power abroad, and we're projecting military power, and they're killing us because of that. And, you know, we ought to be actually dealing with the real threat from China and not about silly issues like TikTok.

You know what? I don't think, personally, I give you advice, which I know you won't take and you don't need, but this kind of issue, I think, detracts from your credibility. Let's talk about this. I think there's a reason. You got into this because of Wall Street. And I think it's fair to say that we waited an hour and 15 minutes before bringing up issues like this for a reason.

Why I say in the beginning we start with war and spending issues, because I do recognize those are important. But we talk about, there's a reason why TikTok is in the news. TikTok's algorithms manipulate people's brains, and it is a digital toxin that these kids are that kids are being exposed to the same is true for uh less so x now but x is a huge porn problem now and people are wondering why you know elon is struggling with this and they're hoping he takes care of it facebook has algorithmic manipulation all of these things affect the underlying culture of our of our next generation so when you have i agree 100 like to present what we do it is not getting china how did you get a ticket is why i i think

uh... when i look at the issue of social media manipulation and uh... tic tac for instance at the very least we have seen four requests of the u s government which has resulted in we learned uh... twitter when i was still twitter was in regular communication the federal government to suppress and censor negative information. Alex Berenson, for instance.

Yes, that came from my lawsuit. Absolutely. Fantastic work. You know, trying to reverse Biden, our discovery just showed what they are doing. And that's one of the most important things that's happened in my lifetime. So I appreciate the work you've done on that. And on top of that, however, we can't do those same things to tiktok which is outside of the u.s control so whatever your solution may be on that issue the same thing that we see with x twitter uh maybe x less so now but facebook especially and youtube is happening with tiktok no question

only it's a foreign adversary now so it is something we have to deal with and i think it is more pressing because you know your lawsuit proves we can fight back and we can win to a certain degree and i think your position here right now actually shows that we can win tremendously how do we how do we deal with china doing the exact same thing to us and outside of china i would not ban TikTok. TikTok is a huge... First of all, I believe that in freedom of information, and I think that everybody should be able to get information from any source. I don't think we should be banning Al Jazeera.

I don't think we should be banning RTTV. I want to hear everybody's information, everybody's position on all these different issues, and allow me to make up my mind. But that's not what TikTok is. Here's the way that I would handle it, because I think the problem that you talked about is a universal problem. It's not just TikTok. It's not just China. It is Facebook. It's Twitter. It's YouTube.

It's all of these. It's Google. We're all being manipulated by algorithms that are extraordinarily powerful propaganda devices. And they're influenced by the intelligence agencies domestically inside of the United States. It's not just influence. They're running it, and they're banning people, and they're censoring people, and they have censored you before as well for expressing your speech and expressing your concerns. I'm probably the most censored person in the country. And you were right about a lot of the things that you were censored for. You're on the list. I don't know if you're the most censored person. Who would be more? Arguably, I would say I am. I mean, I won the lawsuit and even in the Murphy versus Biden lawsuit, if you read Judge Doty's decision, 155 pages,

the bulk of it is about me. Because I was the first one that they officially started to censor 37 hours after he took the oath of office. The White House was directing Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, to remove me from their platform. They took off my Instagram account, and they were obsessed with censoring me from the beginning. I agree with Barbara. account and they were obsessed with with censoring me from the beginning i agree let me let me just say this what i think that the the way that i would handle this if i was you know the king of the world is that i would i think that all of them should be forced to have transparent algorithms because any algorithm that you have is going to manipulate so if you pass a law that says if you're going to operate in this country you need a transparent

algorithm and you tim choose your own you choose a libertarian algorithm i might choose right now if you're a democrat you're living next door to a republican and you both ask the same question of of google or whatever you're going to get two different answers, because they're going to give you the answer that's going to keep you on the site the longest, and they know that people like, that they'll stay on longer if you're fortifying their worldviews. So they're not pouring concrete on it, but if you can choose your own algorithm, then at least you know how you're being manipulated. You choose a Republican algorithm, a Democratic algorithm, and then you can say that to TikTok.

And it's not about China. It's about, hey, if you want to operate in this country, you use a transparent algorithm because we're a democracy. And we want to avoid all kinds of manipulation, whether by our intelligence agencies or by yours? I agree. That's something we should absolutely do. But that is still akin to putting the label on, you know, you buy a pack of cigarettes and it's got a diseased lung on it. People are still going to buy them.

So my concern with... Okay, so what's your solution? Shut them all down? Well, I think with the TikTok bill, the idea that a foreign adversary, namely one of, I think it the TikTok bill, the idea that a foreign adversary, namely one of I think it's five countries, can't have investment in specifically TikTok, I don't see as, I see as a net positive. The thing that concerns me is, you know, this morning we did an interview with Tuan who escaped the Chinese Communist Party and they talked about their strategies, their worldview, how they operate. And we can see a lot of that reflected in how tiktok promotes certain content so you've got teenagers being fed content where guys are saying hate your parents don't talk to your

parents you've got individuals that are living uh they're they're encouraging self-harm and things like this you mentioned why are uh wise charrette's is one of the mental afflictions on the rise. There was a study that found women, young girls were watching viral tick tocks and Instagrams of a woman with Tourette's and then began adapting this as a social, I guess, contagion of some sort are developing Tourette's on their own from it. China is absolutely invested in causing friction at the very least and harm in the worst case through these platforms i think when the when the divestiture bill aka the ban bill gets passed the response from tiktok immediately was we will never sell we will never back down we will lay

off our staff before we let you take this from us i think shows that there's a great degree that this is more of an economic weapon than it is just a social media platform business they have. I mean, it's crazy to me that we learn from the CEO, what did he say? 175 million people use the app and many of them are US businesses. Why do we allow the CCP control over any portion of our economy, especially to that size? So I don't want them buying farmland. I don't want them to that size so i don't want them buying farmland i don't want them buying real estate i don't want them buying a digital portion of our market that we can't regulate or control because so the transparency is good but i mean i mean

the control that china has of our market i for because of tiktok it's like a drop in the ocean compared to the hundreds of trillions of dollars in U.S. dollars that they own. Totally agree. Totally agree. And BlackRock's way worse. There's a million things that China's doing that are worse than TikTok. And so, again, listen, I'm an absolutist when it comes to free speech. I think that, you know, we ought to have, and, you know, there's other reasons that we want to preserve tech doc, which is it's a gateway for young kids. We have a whole generation of kids who are not, you know, have no entree.

They have no equity. They are never going to own a home. They have no way to get into business, the finance business and they're building businesses on tech doc. And I don't want to take that away from, I see so many hopeless people who come up to me and say this is my i i made a life for myself i made a place for myself i i have self-esteem because of it and now the government's going to shut me down 80 percent of tiktok is owned by americans oh as doyen is the chinese yeah There's two. And theirs is all patriotism.

Listen, I agree there is an issue, but for me, you and I are going to differ on this because I just am a free speech absolutist. I think it's a this is feeding into the neocon narratives that, you know, we need to be in a war posture against China. I don't disagree, but I feel like it's kind of like saying I'm a free market absolutist. I don't mind that China is sending fentanyl over the southern border because people have a right to buy whatever they want. Well, that's not that. I don't agree with that. I don't think this is fentanyl. Mr. Kennedy, you mentioned the transparency of algorithms and it brought to mind something that is an issue that we are facing with China, and that's intellectual property

with, and I know interesting here, talking about intellectual property at the Libertarian Committee, or National Convention, but there is a problem with China and with industrial espionage and stuff. Do you think that there's a role that the federal government should play

in trying to assist corporations that are U.S.-based or try to give some kind of incentive to have corporations to be less, I guess, in bed with China or a little more opposed to being so easy to work with China, considering the threat that China's... Well, China bought off the Biden administration. They effectively instituted a lot of the policies for them already. And then, Mr. Kennedy, what do you think about industrial espionage and stuff?

Do you think the federal government has a role there? I think China has a system that has been in place since Deng Xiaoping to steal technology from Western nations and from the United States I've written chapters about this in my book about Wuhan I think it's very very worrying I think they've infiltrated most of the universities in our country at their systematically stealing patents I've done business in China,

and the whole business model is to steal patents from Western companies. Most of the business that I've dealt with will not deal in China because of this kind of patent issue. You have companies like Microsoft. Microsoft has sold its soul to China. It's developing all of the surveillance and the control and the compliance technologies in China. Bill Gates could not attract enough innovators in the United States to compete against his competitor, Apple and, you know, the other, Google and all the other competitors.

And Bill Gates is building mini nuclear reactors right now with the Chinese government. I want to talk about Bill Gates a little bit because he kind of bragged about going after you inside of the Trump administration. But it's also the CIA that worked with China, especially when it came to the Echo Health Alliance and the Wuhan laboratory. So there's a lot of other connections here that do deserve to be made. But Bill Gates was one of the few individuals that actually came out on national television, and he said that he was able to thwart your efforts, that you had private meetings with Donald Trump, and you were working towards achieving some goals together on helping the American people,

specifically regarding health. Bill Gates said he came in there, and then he was able to influence Trump not to do what you wanted. Is there anything else that you could speak to about this? Because it does seem like he does have a larger influence over Trump. No, I mean, I don't know exactly what happened. Bill Gates in January of 20. Sorry, you know, you can always just pull it towards you in January of of 2016 asked me to come to and that this one he first got elected and he asked me to come to New York and to meet with him and I spent the day with him and with his sons and with Steve Bannon and Hope Hill and

Kellyanne Conway and Mike Benz and they asked me to run a vaccine safety commission to chair it and put together you know esteemed respected scientists from all over the world to look at the testing protocols for vaccines to make recommendations about how to improve them. And this made huge headlines when it was announced. And Pfizer immediately gave President Biden, or President Trump, a million dollars. And President Trump then appointed two Pfizer nominees, Alex Azar, who came out of Eli Lilly to run HHS, and then Scott Gottlietlieb who is

pfizer's business partner to run the fda and scott gottlieb did a 100 billion dollar favor for pfizer with a vaccine and then left fda to go back to work for pfizer and collect his payoff and at the same time so i don't know whether it was the million dollars from pfizer and those are the two guys who shut down the commission bill gates there's the tape out there where bill gates is bragging that he got trump to uh to disavow me so i but i don't i can't look into his head and i can't look into trump's head so i can't tell you exactly what happened with a couple couple minutes before we go to audience superchats, just the obvious one,

my understanding is that you have said that... Can you use the restroom? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course, of course. So I can step away for a second. Just come back as soon as you're good and we'll start reading superchats while you're running. It's a lot harder here at the LP

National because there's no immediate bathroom. Yeah, it's a little far. But we'll do this. We'll grab some of the superchats, and I'll save some of the bigger questions. I was literally going to ask him if the CIA killed his uncle, but we'll... Save that one. Save it. I have the CIA question loaded up.

I have MKUltra. I have all that loaded up. I'm ready to go. And then there's so many other questions with Epstein as well that I want to ask. I love how polarizing the chats can be. Yeah, the chat's going off. They love and hate. They're hot and cold.

Yeah, but I tremendously respect his position so far. He's crossed his arms and pushed back and stood for what he wanted to stand for. And I respect when he said, I don't know enough about the NFA. I can't answer. I'm like, well, I don't know how you expect someone to answer if they don't know what it is. Yeah, he's taking the conversations. He's having a tough conversation, but at least he's having it, and we appreciate it very much for him doing that. Yeah, we've had a lot of politicians come on this show,

and only a handful, I can say, have seemed real. I certainly think it's fair to say that there's a few questions where he's going to be a little bit more political. I think that's reasonable to assess when you're hearing his answers. But I do respect when he points to things

as it doesn't matter. I don't care about this. I think he's got a great point on Indigenous People Day is one of the least important things in terms of what's going on in this country. But to be fair, that's why I said,

that's why I waited an hour and 15 minutes before I brought it up. I mean, I loved all this stuff about environmental toxins. I love the comments about SSRIs. You do see that a lot with mass shooters. And I think it would be interesting, I mean, when he comes back to this room, if he weren't to win this election, if he would take a position in the cabinet

as the head of the Health and Human Services Department. Because there are so many conversations that he's bringing up that I think are important. You guys all probably know the questions I want to ask him. We haven't gotten there yet. Get in there. We don't take it easy on politicians and there's still the reparations question. I still need to ask the Epstein question.

The reparations question we have to ask. The CIA one I think is a little bit more silly. Maybe we could go longer and take super chats afterwards after talking to him. I think what we should do is... Because he has a schedule until 10. Exactly. So I think for the super chats, I'll... No, no, he could go at 10 when he's supposed to go.

We could take super chats without him. Or I'm... Well, a lot of super chats are for him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what I'll try and do is I'll try and grab a couple. Kyle has the question on asking about reparations. So I think that's the first one we should ask. So Kyle asked about the reparation plan for black farmers and whether a DNA test will be needed to prove the lineage or based on skin color.

So let's let's do that one. We absolutely. The CIA one is kind of like that's the big one, but he has talked about it before. So I'd love to hear his response. I think he of all people needs Secret Service protection. Yeah, I'll give it to him. You wanted to ask about Epstein. Epstein, absolutely.

He flew on Epstein's plane twice. Oh, that's right. Didn't he talk about it? I want to talk to him about that. There's so many issues that I want to go at. Do you think it's possible that there were people who didn't realize what they were flying on? We can ask him that question. We'll see what he says. That's such an issue. Do you think it's possible that there were people who didn't realize what they were flying on? We can ask them that question. We'll see what he says.

Because, you know, that's such an issue. Do you think people didn't realize what they were flying on? You look at what Cindy McCain said, and I'll bring it up. What do you think? I think they absolutely knew. Because it was very obvious. You look at the victim's testimony. They were describing him being absolutely brutal and awful to children and to himself.

And to, yeah to specifically Epstein. He was absolutely a man who didn't hide what he was doing. So anyone who flew in it would be aware in your opinion. Absolutely. There's stories of him literally taking off his pants mid-flight and then needing to do stuff every two hours. There's crazy stuff. I want to stress this too.

But if there's any super chats for us, we should get them now. They're mostly just for him. There's some that are howdy people. Rude. No, there's a lot of howdy people. I'm just teasing. But the other thing, too, is everyone always asks him about COVID, lockdown policy, Big Farm, and all that stuff. And I feel kind of like we should ask him, take the opportunity to ask about literally whatever we can that people are missing.

So Epstein's big. CIA's big. CIA's big. He is big um uh he's back reparations yeah so we've got some questions for you that i think are pretty good one of our um users asked about your reparation plan for black farmers and uh kyle wonders will there be a dna a dna test needed to prove lineage or will be based on skin color uh... and that's i think i was recently this came out about your person plant yeah that was uh... again kind of uh... mainstream media distorting something that i said

what i said uh... is that the there's a certain program and the uh... u s t a which is supposed to be available to small farmers. So it's small farmer loans and grants. And as it turns out, the guy who was running that program for about 40 years was systematically not giving farmers in that program the grants that they were entitled to so he would give it to white farmer neighbor but not the black farmer and he just happened to be like a racist who was running the

program and he unfortunately ran it for many many years so ultimately the black farmers association the Black Farmers Association brought that case to court, and they won, and they won a settlement that was the amount of money that would have been given to them if they were white, but was not. So, and then Congress failed to... Congress wouldn't appropriate the money to make the payment. So that's the

issue. It's not race-based in terms of... It's just money that was stolen from them and it's getting that money to them that the courts have already awarded them. You want to ask about the CIA or Epstein?

Well, there's a lot of things. The two kind of connect because the intel agencies. We'll start with one. The intel agencies were extensively running an extortion operation on a lot of high profile politicians through Jeffrey Epstein. You talked about flying on his airplane before. Is there anything else you could tell us? Since there's individuals like Cindy McCain that have come out and talked about how everyone knew what he was doing. He was hiding in plain sight, that people were afraid of him. Is there anything else you could tell us? Is there

some speculation about some people saying that you might be getting extorted potentially yourself? No, I mean, I've been very open and frank about my experience with Jeffrey Epstein. You know, Jeffrey Epstein was a figure in New York. My wife had a relationship with my wife, who took her own life in 2014, had a relationship with Glenn Maxwell, I think, through my wife's old fiancee, who had been a Greek who had been raised in Britain. And on one occasion in 1993,

either she asked or Glenn offered her a ride. My wife wanted to go down to visit my mother on Christmas with our kids. And she said that Glenn had offered her a ride on the plane because they went down there from New York to Palm Beach every weekend. So I wrote on that. We were on there. I was on there with my wife and my children two children I think Mary was pregnant at the time and then I took a second plane

ride I think a year later he we we went to South Dakota for the day to do to do fossil hunting. And this was 13 years before anybody knew anything about Jeffrey Epstein. Me, I didn't know anything about him at that time. I had a conversation on that airplane that made me think that, and I saw him do something on that airplane ride, the South Dakota that made me think that he was a very bad person. What? What did you think? See, this is what I...

We were just talking about this when you were in the bathroom. There's a lot of accounts of people saying he did really awful stuff. Well, why don't we hear what he said? Yeah, I know, I know, and I'm leading up to it. Well, I mean, it's kind of cause of me, but I had... I was asking him how he made his money and he told me because he said that he had been a math teacher at Dalton which was the school was a

school I knew about New York I don't know much about it but I know it's a school for well Bill Barr's father right oh come on yeah so he told me a story though that seemed to me not credible he said he was um and i said okay because i knew he owned the city block in new york and that he was to me the only thing i really knew about him was he was the money manager for les wexler right who was owns the limited and that's all i knew about him at the time and he and of course you know he's a big shot at new york he goes the robin hood uh dinner which is you know they raised 40 million dollars in a night and he was one of the big donors there so people know him if you went out you could see him you know anyway i asked him how did you you know go from being a math teacher at Dalton to you know

you know have having all this money and he said that he'd been approached by some Chinese businessmen and that they had been ripped off by a con artist in the United States and they asked him to find the con artist and he was succeeded in doing that and that led to other opportunities that's what he told me Wow and that made me think that he was lying and then and then I asked him I asked him about a stock and I this is the first time i've ever met him and he said i never invest in stocks unless i have inside information oh i'm an attorney district attorney and he says this to me and you know so it's a weird thing yeah do you think he felt untouchable what like he said that

to you knowing that you were a district attorney he's's like, I wasn't at that time. But, you know, it's an odd thing to tell me. Yeah. A stranger who, you know, you don't know. Unless you're really confident you don't get in trouble. Right. Were there any young children? No, I never. I, you know, my kids were there.

But on all my flight, my flights, the four flights, which are, you know, back and forth from Palm Beach and back and forth from Rapid City, my kids were on board on all of them. But then we touched down and we were supposed to go from Rapid City to New York City. And instead, the plane landed in Chicago, which was unannounced. And he never told us he was landing in Chicago. And he said, when we land in Chicago, and I'm looking out and saying, this is not New York, and I didn't recognize it because it wasn't O'Hare. It was the other little area. Midway.

Yeah, Midway. Really? Yeah. But he's landing in a private jet, and I think private jets, that's. Really? Yeah. But, you know, he's landing in a private jet. And I think there's private jets. That's where they go in. There's a few smaller regional ones. Midway's.

It may have been those. I don't know where it was, but it was nowhere. Was it Chicago? Was it surrounded by gray walls? I don't remember. This was, so this would have been 1993. So that's 31 years ago. Okay, I have no, I have very little memory So that's 31 years ago. Okay.

I have no, I have very little memory. I do remember what happened, which is he said, Oh, I, I have to make a trip to Europe and, um,

you know, unanticipated and he gets off the plane and there's a beautiful, like, you know, very, I would describe her as a hot blonde with a lot of kind of biological exuberance let me put it that way who was waiting on the tarmac next to a white mercedes and he goes down the stair and gets into the mercedes and then he went over to um

he drove over to another jet private private jet, and got on there and Glenn said nothing but she was just sitting there crying. So, you know, I just thought this is a very bad guy. The plane didn't take you home then?

Yeah, and then we took off and went home alone. So him lying was the awful thing or did he do anything else that was awful? Well, I mean, he, he was this woman who we assumed was his girlfriend and he was, you know, treating her sort of, you know, horrendously in front of us. And that seemed to me very, very cruelly. I always, so I thought from then on, I thought he's a bad guy. We were honored to have Dr. Ron Paul on our show last year.

He said the CIA killed your uncle. Do you think so? Yeah. Why? Why do I think that? No, no, no. Why do they? I mean, I mean i think i mean it's pretty well documented oh yeah yeah yeah i just i just mean to open up what i i would say is if you have

you know there's a hundred books about my uncle's assassination the best book which is an extraordinary distillation of probably a million pages of documents and also the many confessions have been of people who've been involved, who were involved in the murder. I mean, the CIA is still blocking the release of documents. Oh, not only in the murder, but in the coverup. Um, but the best book is a book called the unspeakable by James Douglas and it's a real, it's a riveting book, but it's also just a,

he's a scholar and it's an extraordinarily well documented history. Um, and are you asking why they killed him? Yeah. You know, they, they, the group that killed him was a group from the Miami station. Um, and they were angry at him beginning with his failure to overthrow Castro. And they were angry with him because he was pulling out of Vietnam. He had signed an executive order bringing all troops home from Vietnam by the beginning of 1965. This was related to Operation Northwoods? No, Operation Northwoods was another thing that, you know, that was all part of his battle with his military industrial complex.

But after the Bay of Pigs, he fired the head of the CIA, Alan Dulles. And Alan Dulles did not stop being involved with the governance of the agency after that. And then when my uncle was killed, Alan Dulles got himself put on the Warren Commission, and in fact, he was running the Warren Commission and steered all the Warren Commission investigation away from the CIA. You know, and then either way, you know, this isn't a conspiracy theory this is when they when

congress investigated the house select committee on assassinations investigated my uncle's death 10 years later they said yeah it was a conspiracy and most of the people all but the senior council at that time bob blakey all the junior councils I believe that he it was a CIA and particularly this group on e Howard Hunt David Attlee Phillips Bill Harvey who ran the Miami station and David Morales and then operating with mobsters where Sam Giancana from the Chicago outfit Sanchez Traficante who ran the Tampa and family and then Carlos Marcello who was ran Dallas and and New Orleans and my father prosecuted all of them when my uncle was president they all had casinos in Havana and they were working hand-in-hand with the CIA

on the assassination of Castro. So they were people who were, and they were partners with the CIA and trying to murder Castro. And part of this, the program is called Alpha 66. Was that in any way related to the story of the film Casino? You're familiar? Where the crooked mobsters in Chicago?

A lot of the mobsters, the mobster who was the liaison between the CIA and Bill Harvey was the guy who was directing this program. And the mob who got the three families involved, his name was Johnny Roselli. And when he was subpoenaed by the committee, by the House of Select Assassination Committee, he was subpoenaed once he testified, but then they brought someone back to testify. And he was murdered on his way to testify,

and he was cut up into small pieces and then put in a 55-gallon oil drum and was found floating two days later in Biscayne Bay in Miami, and at the same time, Sam Giancana, who was the head of the very, very powerful mob that my father had prosecuted and who I actually sat in a hearing room Sam Giancana, who was the head of the very, very powerful mob that my father had prosecuted, and who I actually sat in a hearing room when I was five years old and watched him take the fifth, I think, 127 times while my father was interrogating about a month before my uncle became president.

My father was ridiculing him and saying, you're laughing like a little girl, you're giggling like a little girls so they hated each other while and jim connor uh... who was you know also involved in the assassination he uh... he was also subpoenaed by the committee and he was murdered uh... just before he was supposed to appear, he was executed in his basement. But the good news is that the CIA has since been reformed, and these bad guys... Absolutely.

Yeah, they were held accountable. We can trust the government now. You know, Iran-Contra, MK-Ultra, the takeover of the mainstream media, the takeover of social media, the Russian collusion hoax. You know, it's not like they all organized it and orchestrated it. But my question is, you know, if the CIA assassinated and took out a sitting U.S. president many, many years ago, what are they doing now? Since it looks like their power is only increasing with their influence over social media. And the worrying thing is, you know, with AI, the power that that will give them to, you know, to defend reality and to you know and to control our perceptions and to activate our

neuronal past these kind of you know and the reptilian core of our brain that to light up these neuronal passages that pathways that control human behavior and and you know I think it's really important that we have a strong we begin fortifying our constitutional rights right now and that we we go back to the smith munt act and that we go back yes the church commission that was it was it the propaganda smith munt act yeah in the in the nda of 2012 i think it was that that made it legal for the federal government to propagandize the American people. It's in the CIA charter, too.

I'm so happy you mentioned that. I harp on that a lot. I asked our good friend Chad GPT, did the CIA infiltrate U.S. news media? It said, yes, they did. Mockingbird. And then I said, are they still doing it? And he said, it's unclear, possibly.

Well, it was the Church Commission hearings that that information came out, not Mockingbird. No, Mockingbird was the name I said, are they still doing it? And he said, it's unclear, possibly. Well, it was the Church Commission hearing that that information came out, not Mockingbird. No, Mockingbird was the name of it, wasn't it? Yeah, Operation Mockingbird was the name, and in fact, there's... And Church Commission revealed it. There's a 1973 article by Carl Bernstein, ironically, because his party, he was one of the two Watergate

journalists, you know, Bob Woodward, who was himself a national security plant. Bob Woodward who was himself a national security you know plant um Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein wrote an article in um Rolling Stone in 1973 that disclosed that 400 of the leading journalists in our country and the leading editors in our country including the New York Times and Washington Post all the television networks were on we're all CIA assets but there's a and then the CIA then said okay we will stop and we're but they continue to be the biggest funder in the world of journalism so they they spent ten billion dollars a year which they

funnel through USAID to fund journalism. They own some of the biggest magazines in the developing world, in Europe, etc., and newspapers and television stations, etc. But they said, we're going to stop Operation Mockingbird in the United States. We're going to stop propagandizing and spying and censoring. But then in 2014, Obama passed an executive order or issued an executive order that allowed it to start again. And so there are some very interesting articles recently by CIA historians, Dick Russell, who wrote one for The Defender,

about the infiltration of on of the CIA CIA control of certain US journals including Daily Beast on Rolling Stone oh yeah the guy who runs rolling so no it's slackman comes out of the national security community salon slate daily coast. I think a national geographic scientific American liberal outlets. I, yeah. And then, um, and then there's another, I guess the CIA is, or I wrote the best biography of, um, of Allen Dulles. It's called the devil's chess board.

He wrote a book about the assassinations as well called about CIA involvement in the assassination called brothers. He's an historian named David Talbot. He was the founder of salon actually. And he's written some really good articles about, um, about the CIA control of, uh, you know, a whole nother group of journals. Oh, it's, you know, I think group of journals oh it's you know i think operation mockingbird is up and running yeah well the psyops that they're doing now make uh mk ultra look like child's play yeah so i i kind of want to ask you um is there any way that you know people outside

of politics could not fall for these psyops is there from anything from your experience any way to kind of resist against this larger kind of takeover i would say the way to do it is to elect me president because i will dismantle this it's a simple solution anybody else has the capacity to do it how many uh how many people are going to fire on day one i'm not you know what i'm going to do there's certain people who need to be fired particularly in the public health agencies that EPA and others who I know because I've litigated against all those agencies I know who is very very corrupt there I know their names and you know that people that need to be moved you know when I sued Monsanto we found discovery documents that showed that the

head of the pesticide division for a decade was a guy called jez roland was secretly working for monsanto all the time and concealing and twisting all the science and bringing in these mercenary scientists from the pharmaceutical industry we call them by ostitudes you know to do the studies um and so and there are people like that in all of the agencies. But it's not just firing people. It's getting rid of the perverse incentives that put agency capture on the steroids.

You know, 50% of FDA's budget comes from pharma. NIH is allowed under the by dole act to collect NIH scientists collect $150,000 a year on products that they regulate and NIH itself. I mean NIH owned the Moderna vaccine, so getting billions of dollars in profits. And there are six guys at NIH top top dogs who get $150,000 a year forever because they worked on that vaccine. These are the guys that you want looking for problems in the product.

You don't want them, you know, you don't want them being incentivized to overlook stuff, which is what they did. Are there any agencies that you think should be abolished completely? Abolished completely? There are memes such as Thomas Massey routinely

files a bill to abolish the Department of Education. People say abolish the ATF. The left says more abolish the police. He just did one with ending the U.S. Federal Reserve. It's pretty clear the Federal Reserve is printing us into poverty. They're the ones giving BlackRock and State Street all the money and the Fed.

Yes or no? Infinite money. Infinite money. It's insane. ATF or the Fed or both. Would you get rid of them? No, no. The Fed, I would, you know, listen, the Fed is the center of all problems, including all the war machine.

You know, without fiat currency, we couldn't drive the war machine. It functions to funnel money to Wall Street away from the American middle class. It functions to destroy local controls, local economies, Main Street, small businesses, and to financialize our economy and to send all of our industry abroad. So it needs to, you know, fundamental reforms. My uncle saw that, and that's why my uncle launched the silver certificate, the gold certificate. He understood what, you know, what it was doing was corrupt, and that he was trying to figure out a way to get us at least a little bit back toward base currencies.

If elected, sorry, I don't want to cut you off, but I do want to ask a question about immigration. If elected, would you end birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship, I don't know. I would have to look at that. I mean, I think there's a, isn't there a constitutional provision that said if you're born in this country that you're a citizen is that what you're talking about we read it the 14th amendment all people all persons born in the states but but the argument

is that it says so you're still you're talking about about amending the u.s constitution yeah i think i wouldn't incentivize illegal immigration real quick that there's i would shut down the border let me put it that way there you go the before the man says if you're that mark i'll tell you exactly how the amendment says if you're born here and subject to our jurisdiction you're a citizen some have argued you are you're here others have argued no you're a foreign national

uh... i digress yeah what's your what's your border plan uh... i'm gonna do a book couple of the one is just actually shut down the border you need infrastructure policy and personnel infrastructure is we need to complete the 27 caps in the wall that you know in the urban area you don't need a build a wall all the way from proud 2200 miles from Brownsville Texas to from C to shiny I go in the urban areas where illegal immigrants can quickly disappear, you need a big physical barrier. And I've been down there multiple times. And we need to fill those gaps.

We need in the more urban, rural areas, you need to make sure that you need to complete the fencing. We need to have the long distance cameras, the nightlights, the sensory devices that President Biden removed. And there's a few miles of access roads that need to be completed. In policy, we need to reinstate the Migrant Protection Act, which requires that migrants who are coming in from other countries and have an asylum claim that they lit it that they adjudicate those while they're still in Mexico before coming to the United States and change the catch and release program back to catch and return program we need

personnel the Border Patrol roster because of demoralization because all the unfair criticism they've been getting is now you know at bare minimal levels we need to we need to revive levels, we need to, uh, we need to revive that and we need to send probably 300 asylum court judges to the border. I have another program that I think will be more effective, which is I'm going to order the state department and the post office to provide a passport cards to every American

who can't afford them and and that means that you'll be able to walk down to any post office with proof of citizenship and you're going to be able to get have a federally issued photo ID is going to do three things one is the big dispute between Democrats and Republicans about showing voter ID at the voting booth. The reason Democrats don't like that is because there are a lot of people in this country, millions, tens of millions, who don't have driver's licenses. And they're almost all Democrats.

So there are elderly people whose licenses have expired. There are urban minorities who don't drive and they're students who don't have their license yet growing numbers of students don't have their license and um and for a lot of those people going to dmv is just torture they're not going to do it and so they don't have ids they're never going to get ids and if you require that they have an ID to vote it means they've disenfranchised 10 million Democratic voters that's why they fight so hard we've got um Reverend Al Sharpton Andrew Young a bunch of other civil rights leaders who agree that if I issue photo IDs, every American that they will withdraw their objections to requiring,

um, uh, uh, photo ID at voting booths, we eliminate this big source of tension. It does a couple of other things. Well, but we, so one is, let me just finish. One is that if you don't have a photo ID in this country, you're a second class that it's such a, you cannot open a bank account. You cannot check into a hotel. You can't see your child at school. You can get on an airplane and, and so it makes being poor even worse. It takes care of that issue. And then finally,

it's illegal already in this country for an employer to hire an illegal undocumented immigrant, but they all do it because all you need to do is check off check a box that says i saw their social security card the social security card doesn't have a picture on it they're easy to fabricate they're passed hand-to-hand at work sites in new york i'm gonna make it that everybody to get a job, you need to show a federally issued photo ID. If you can't do that and the employer hires you, he is going to go to jail. And that will end the border overnight. Nobody's coming in here.

99% of those people, when I interviewed, I only interviewed 300 people in one night. All except for two, and I'm here for a job. So you're saying everyone would need a federal id or is a state id good as well i mean we have a government issued photo okay okay and and and it's not an id where your medical records your financial records or anything else it's just a photo id from the post office it's a passport card but so this would also're saying, so for voting, you would need a voter ID, but you would need any kind of government-agent photo ID. I like that. I do. That's great.

Then we get voter ID, and you make it easy to get IDs. That's fantastic. Passport cards are great, by the way. I got one. Yeah, federal ID. I suppose we are just about at time, and I really do appreciate you coming and hanging out with us. I enjoyed talking with you guys.

Tremendous respect. I'll give you my honest take. I think some of your answers are viewed a little politically, but I think a lot of it is, I think your answers are respectable. I think when you're asked about questions you didn't know, you simply said, I just don't know, and that means a lot. My last question for you will probably just make everyone angry, but'm gonna ask you anyway have you ever heard the song kennedy by kill hannah i don't know i don't know it's a it's a it's probably it's probably no one knows what it is from it's a chicago band and the song is literally him saying i want to be a kennedy and live fast and cars and basically describing your family but i thought that was funny what they think is my family.

What they think is your family and the tabloids and all that. So is there anything else you wanted to add as we wrap up? Anything you want to shout out? I'm grateful to you, Tim and Luke and Phil and Anna Claire. Thank you for getting a full name. Thank you all very much. Where can people find out more information about you and your campaign? Kennedy24.com.

And, you know, we're collecting signatures in most states right now. We just got on the Florida ballot today. And, yeah, so if people want to volunteer or help with the campaign, we'd love that. One last serious question, though. I heard you say on an interview that you believe before the CNN debates you will have enough states to qualify. You already have the polls. Well, the weird thing about CNN is CNN made, I think, a big mistake, which is that it offered two criteria. One criteria was that you need to be on the ballot in sufficient states

to get 270 electoral votes. Well, by that date, we will have enough signatures to get, by the June 20th date, which is the cutoff date, we will have enough signatures to get 343. So we will be able to qualify. Guess who can't qualify? Biden. Biden or Trump. Because they're not going to be on any ballots.

They're the presumptive nominee. Their parties own the ballot slots, but they don't own them yet. This is why Biden's not on in Ohio. He's not going to be on the ballot. He's not going to be on the ballot. That's crazy. I don't know. I can't believe they're not going to figure it out.

DeWine said everyone has to come in on Tuesday and fix this. We'll see what happens. All right. All right. Thanks for hanging out. Do you guys want to shout anything out before we go? Yeah. Thank you so much for having the conversation.

We agreed on some things. We disagreed on some things, but we at least had the conversation. We thank you so much for coming in here and taking our questions. Really appreciate it. I thought the conversation was fascinating. If you want to support me, and if you like the shirt that I'm wearing, that says Trust God, Not Government, get it on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. And we're raising money for our new studio called Seamus' New Liver on SaveIrishman.com. SaveIrishman.com. Check it out.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Kennedy. We appreciate it. Thank you, Phil. Good to meet you guys. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remain. You can catch us on tour this summer with Megadeth and Mudvayne on the Destroy All Enemies tour

starting, what is it? August 2nd going through September 28th. You can check out our new single Divine on Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, Amazon Music, and Deezer, Dozer, whatever. Yeah, so... Dozer.

Yeah, that's what it is. I mess it up all the time. You know the internet. You know the internet. Anyways, Left Lanes for Crime. See you guys later. Hannah Clare. What a cool job. This is a very fun show. I mess it up all the time. You know the internet. You know the internet. Anyways, in the left lane is for crime. See you guys later. Hannah Clare. What a cool job. This is a very fun show. I'm Hannah Clare Brimlow.

I'm a writer for scnr.com. That's Scanner News. Follow all of their work at TimCastNews on Instagram and Twitter. I'm really appreciative that you came out tonight. It's so fun to have you here. If you want to follow me personally, I'm on Instagram at HannahClareB. And I'm on Twitter at HannahClare.B. And I'm on Twitter at HannahClareB. Thank And I'm on Twitter at HannahClaireB.

Thank you guys for everything you do for us. Bye, Tim. We're back Monday with a special pre-recorded episode because we're here at the LP National, and it's Memorial Day, so everyone's off, but we're going to have an episode for you guys. Thank you all so much for being members at TimCast.com. Go there, click Join Us, subscribe to support the show, and we will see you all next time. you