Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #936 Christie DROPS OUT, Caught On HOT MIC! Townhall w/ Vivek Ramaswamy & Candace Owens

Episode Date: January 11, 2024

Tim, Ian, Luke, & Serge join Candace Owens & Vivek Ramaswamy for a special episode of Timcast IRL live from Iowa! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome, everybody, to this special podcast town hall hybrid event. We are here in Des Moines, Iowa. It's going to be a whole lot of fun. We got big news in politics today. Chris Christie has dropped out of the race and was caught on a hot mic. So this story is pretty wild, and we'll definitely talk about that. Because there is an interesting bit of information coming out. Chris Christie said that Ron DeSantis gave him a phone call and was petrified that he was going to, and then he stops

right there. And then someone else says to him that Ron may get out of the race after Iowa, which would be really, really interesting considering there's so very few people left. But today, we're going to go over some of the big stories in the news and in this country over the past several years, which have bubbled up into this very serious presidential election cycle. And of course, we are hanging out with some really awesome people. The first thing I want to do is give a shout out to Based Records. They produce awesome music. They're helping build the parallel economy, and they've helped sponsor this event to make it all possible. You've got Chad Prathers, I'd Be Jolly Too. Check out that song. You've got Hi-Rez's Triggered and Ain't No

Rock and Roll from Five Times August. We're big fans of these guys. They've all been on TimCast IRL before. Seriously, BassRecords.com, thank you guys so much for helping make this event possible. Also, become a member at TimCast.com because we are going to have a special members-only, uncensored, after the show, VIP behind the scenes with none other than Vivek Ramaswamy, who is joining us today. How's it going, man?

It's good to be here, man, with our live studio audience in Iowa. Live studio audience. We've got a bunch of people hanging out. Love these guys. Love my Iowans right now. Now, for the people who don't know you here, how would you introduce yourself? I'm kidding, of course. Well, I think we've spent a lot of time here in Iowa, but Vivek, people have really gotten their pronunciation down over the course of this campaign.

If there's one thing that we've gotten out of this campaign, people have really understood how to say it. Rhyme something with cake. Yeah. Yeah. We have so many people on the show, and we'll be like, it's Vivek. And they'll go, oh, yeah, sorry. We also have Candace Owens hanging out. Whoop, whoop.

Where's my applause? What's up, Candace? A live studio applause. Yeah, get her up on the mic. Can you hear me better now? Oh, yeah. Yeah, Luke Rutkowski, of course, was already talking. Yeah, get her up on the mic. Can you hear me better now? Oh, yeah. Yeah, Luke Rutkowski, of course, was already talking. Yeah, hell yeah.

Welcome back, beautiful and amazing human beings of Iowa. Let's hear it from the crowd here. I think it's going to be a really awesome, incredible show. The conversation definitely is going to be spicy, I think, to say the least, but everyone here, as there's a lot of crazy things to talk about in 2024 that is already shaping up to be one hell of a year and i think it's fair to say it's only going to get crazier from here yeah man deep fakes it's going to be so wild you guys this this ride is this a simulation are we in some sort of

yes is actually the answer dude ian was intending to make the show as crazy as possible let's go deep what's up everybody hello looking good in the house so uh the first thing I'd like to do, because this is a special episode. We're going to be talking about a lot of things pertaining to this election cycle. I'm going to call out Vivek Ramaswamy right here in front of all of these big fans of yours. Because you said in a CNN town hall that it's beginning to look, I'm paraphrasing, but it's beginning to look like January 6th was an inside job. And I must call you out, sir, because I will tell you definitively, it was an inside job. And the media, of course, criticize you for pushing conspiracy theories. They're lying.

They, I want to call the media specifically, first and foremost, a handful of media outlets, many of whom may actually be in the room today. And so no disrespect to the individuals. I know these people aren't the ones who wrote the stories. But the first thing I have for everybody is the definition of inside job from Oxford languages. And inside job is defined as a crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred. That's simple, right? Like some guy robs a bank and a security guard opens the door to let him in. That's the assistance. That's an inside job. How about that?

I also, just for good measure, got the definition from Merriam-Webster, just to be sure. And it once again says something very similar. Done by or with the help of someone in a position or within an organization or group. So I got a question. Let me go through these stories real quick. So we have this from CNN, fact-checking Vivek Ramaswamy's CNN town hall, where they say a false claim that police rolled out the red carpet on January 6th. They go on to say that you said it was an inside job.

They say, facts first, Ramaswamy's claim that the rioters were invited into the Capitol is false. About 140 police officers were assaulted while trying to stop the mob from breaching the Capitol, et cetera, et cetera. This is a trick that many in media do where they will take a true statement, a fact, then try to apply it to a totally different set of facts. Is it true that police officers were injured? Yes, it is. Is it also true that police opened the doors and fanned people? Yes, it is. Here's a story from CNN.com that I will use to debunk CNN.com. Man who said January 6th was magical acquitted in U.S. Capitol riot case, where they say a federal judge on Wednesday found Matthew Martin not guilty of four federal misdemeanors related to trespassing. Martin, who worked for a government contractor before his arrest following the riot, successfully argued that a U.S. Capitol police officer waved him into the building.

At least one video played during the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm in a waving motion. Yeah, CNN really doesn't want to admit it, but let's break down the facts here. A judge determined a police officer made a waving motion, thus a man who entered the building felt he was invited, and thus there were no criminal charges to be had. The case was dismissed. If the police officer assisted that man,

would that not be an inside job, according to Oxford? Here's an article from CNN. Joe Scarborough lambasts Capitol Police. You opened the effing doors for them, going on to say that they politely opened the doors for terrorists who had scrawled and or murdered the media. If the police politely opened the doors, providing assistance to these people to come in, would that not be an inside job? And how about this one from the New York Post?

January 6 footage shows Capitol cops escorting QAnon shaman to Senate floor. So I have to just simply say, when we say something like it was an inside job, or it appears to be, they'll immediately respond by saying, what's your proof that the Biden administration did it? Well, I never said that. I said it was an inside job. The Capitol police were taking selfies with people, in some instances, opened the doors and let people in. I'm glad to have called out these news organizations, first and foremost, NBC News, of course. Vivek Ramaswamy promotes January 6th conspiracy theory by suggesting it was an inside job. I think according to CNN's own reporting, as well as the Oxford definition we've here,

definitively stated and proven it was an inside job. My question is, if the people inside are under duress and they let the people outside in because they're afraid for their lives, is it still technically an inside job or was it provoked by the crowd's, you know, fear, essence of fear? It's a bit, I kind of lie with you that I think it is still technically, you know, neutrally an inside job. You're also assuming that that was the case, right? I mean, I think that's even under that most charitable interpretation. Those aren't necessarily the same people. You're talking about thousands of people.

So some people had some violent behavior outside. Different people who show up at a door are allowed in in a friendly manner. From the standpoint of the person who was allowed in, it doesn't matter what circumstance the police officer was under. The question is, what do they believe the government is telling them? So from the standpoint of that defendant, I'm a guy who walks up to the house of the people, wants to walk in, take my iPhone around.

You see many of those people. Okay, probably the first time in the Capitol building. And they were allowed in by a federal police officer that are the Capitol police. Now I find weeks or months or a year and a half later, I'm part of the largest manhunt in modern American history to be put into prison in many cases, charged, held without even being charged. So I think at the level of the individual, this is what it comes down to. It's not about finding what circumstance was or wasn't understandable for the government. For somebody who's going to be locked up, we better darn well apply the highest standard of a burden of proof to say that's what we're going to apply before you lock you up. And so the Capitol Police initially were sitting on a lot of that footage.

They said it sat with Congress. So many of those defendants were charged without getting access to that video footage. And again, the justification they made was, you know, usually the DOJ. Again, from the standpoint of an individual defendant, it doesn't matter. It's the government that's coming after you to put you in prison. And if the government's going to come after you to put you in prison, a couple basic things have to be true. That government did not actually cause you or incite you to commit the crime. And we're just talking about the Capitol Police dimension of this, let alone the FBI dimension. And the other thing that has to be true is you have a chance to defend yourself with full exculpatory evidence, including the video footage of the circumstances of you being allowed into that very building you were allegedly trespassing in. If neither of those things were the case, then I think that that's not a crime. And anybody who has been convicted or pressured into a false plea deal under those circumstances will, on my

watch, get a pardon on day one because that's the right thing to do to stand for the rule of law in this country. Would you retry them with the new evidence? I think that it would depend on the circumstances, but when you think about somebody who was, first of all, peacefully protesting that day and allowed in in those circumstances, there's something bigger going on here. In that same year, we've applied a totally different standard of the rule of law to violent riots. I'm not going to call them mostly peaceful protests. It's a translation if you're decoding the media lingo on this one. Mostly peaceful protest in the year 2020, for Antifa or BLM, refers to violent riots. Against the backdrop of a year where there were all kinds of peaceful to violent riots across this country. And so against

that backdrop, I believe, especially what these people have been put through already. This is years of hell that we've put citizens of this country through. Anybody who was peaceful and did not physically assault somebody that day will get a day one pardon from me. And then I'm going to go down the list, even of the people who allegedly, right, I don't believe anymore the government, they just said you're violent as an allegation. Now let's get to the facts and go down the list. Anybody else who had their constitutional rights denied during that process will also in addition get a pardon. I can't commit to that on day one, but on day one, I commit to start the process of going case by case. And it's not even about those defendants individually, though that matters, of course, to me. It's about the future of going case by case. And it's not even about those defendants individually,

though that matters, of course, to me. It's about the future of this country, because if we put ourselves in a position where they can go after political opponents for this reason, they can go after political opponents for any reason. You got Julian Assange rotting in a foreign prison, while the person who leaked to Julian Assange is a woman by the name of Chelsea Manning, who effectively got her sentence commuted by President Obama because she's transgender. I actually have increasingly concluded she's probably not even transgender. She's probably just smart, knowing that that's how you have to identify to be a member of a politically favorable class. And so the two standards of the rule of law are really what irk me the most. And so this isn't just for the people

who are there on January 6th. It's for the rest of us in this country as well. And so I don't think retrial for most of those cases is the right answer. If you're a peaceful protester on January 6th, you're truly peaceful and you were convicted or forced to plead or coerced to plead under false pretenses, you will get a pardon on day one when I'm in office. I want to bring up real quick just to highlight again what CNN said in their article fact-checking you when they said about 140 police officers were assaulted while trying to stop the mob from breaching the Capitol. It's not shocking that almost every single news story that we hear about January 6 involves those who are acting violently. But I think perhaps one thing that we can do better, especially, you know, we've got scanner.com, scnr.com. We have a news team.

Is focus on those who are peaceful, nonviolent, and shut up after the fact. I met a woman at a restaurant, and this is in the Maryland area. She went down to D.C. with her husband. This is a story she told me. She showed up an hour and a half or so after the rioting had already concluded and people were actually leaving. She walks up to the Capitol building with open sidewalks. There's people standing on the grass talking. There's people walking around. The doors are wide open. Her and her husband walk up, see people and the police standing there, walk on in.

Walking around. She said she was in for a few minutes, asked what was going on. They said nothing much and said, OK, and she left. She was sentenced to 18 months in jail. The court did not care that she was nonviolent, that she was just a tourist who went to see Donald Trump speak, was unaware of any barricades. I think the issue is, especially for the corporate press, those stories aren't newsworthy for them. They're not going to get clicks. If you take a look at how CNN reported

the acquittal of Matthew Martin, they still just don't want to admit that a police officer waved a man into the building and a judge agreed he was welcomed in. They still try and make it seem like it's all a misunderstanding and the cop wasn't waving him in. Yeah. And you know what, the corporate press piece is interesting of this because some of the people who are now, they're not going after, there were members of the press that day in the field covering it as members of the press, but they're part of the corporate press, somehow that was immune from investigation. You have independent journalists who are actually documenting what was happening, are the ones that the Justice Department's now going after. You have the likes of Owen Schroer,

who was actually yelling, as best I know, didn't even go in the Capitol, was on a megaphone yelling 1776. I don't think that was a crime in this country, but apparently that was. By definition, they ended up spending time actually, unfortunately, under prosecution and under conviction. So I think it's a violation of the rule of law. I also think you haven't even gotten to the to the spicy stuff. But first of all, I want to say one thing. I'm glad that CNN, you know, at least took the approach they did. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here doing this, actually.

Probably CNN. probably. CNN, I did a town hall here in Iowa about maybe a month and a half ago where we started to talk to this woman, Abby Phillips, who was moderating the town hall. They literally cut it off five minutes early, like it was supposed to be. There was a full time, there was a full run of show. By the time I start talking about January 6th, and there's only a

few third rails that you really can't touch, but for whatever reason, this is one of them. They end the whole thing five minutes early, trot out a bunch of different experts explaining to their audience why everything they just heard was misinformation and needed to be debunked as dangerous for the future. And then that's when they start calling us.

And they actually, on YouTube, funny thing is, they threatened us with a cease and desist for putting up that town hall while Nikki Haley still sat up there for six months. I think part of it is, Tim, it's not just that it's less spicy for less clicks. I think there's something deeper and more ideological definitely going on here that they believe

it is their responsibility to make sure the public does not hear what, in this case, hear the facts of what happened, but even in other cases, viewpoints that are alternative to their own. I do think that's an important part of what's going on at the highest levels of these organizations. Well, this is the thing. We don't know a lot of the facts. How many FBI agents played a role in what happened?

How many undercover police officers or other federal agencies participated in this event? Why did it take so long to respond? What just happened to Ray Epps and how was he able to get that kind of deal when there's so many people rotting away in solitary confinement right now? And you don't even have to go as far as to say it was an inside job or it wasn't an inside job. The burden of proof is on the government. The people have questions. We should demand answers. And I think we need a full investigation, not just of that event, but the entire FBI from its inception, they have been doing illegal, horrible things to the American public, lying, spying, destroying people's personal lives, blackmailing individuals,

including MLK. And more importantly, when you look at what happened specifically in 2001 in New York City, the FBI also played a major role in that incident that they were never held accountable for. We need a full investigation into the FBI. Would that be something that you would support? Yes, but I think I have gained enough of an understanding of the FBI such that I can confidently say the correct answer is not to give them some new building or anything else. It is not to replace Christopher Wray, which is just a fake mirage. Get Christopher Wray out, you get James Comey 2.0. I'm convinced the right answer is to shut down the failed Bureau of Investigation, the FBI. That's the only answer that remains. I actually think you guys are, you know, playing

almost nicer with respect to the facts that we do have. As I said, you know, I agree that it appears to be an inside job, but we don't really know the full extent of what happened. I will say, though, it's interesting. I don't know if you guys have talked about this in the show before. I've kind of gone deep on this because I think it's important not just for this incident but for the future of the country. You know who the Detroit field office head was at the time of the alleged Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot? Are you guys – is this something you've talked about before or not really? I've talked about it extensively. Take it away. This you guys, is something you've talked about before or not really? I think we have, but take it away. Yeah. So this is, this is important though,

to understand the nexus. It's kind of an underbelly in our law enforcement. So the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot actually began as a plot to storm the Capitol in the state of Michigan. And you know how it started? It started with people at the FBI putting people up to this. Poor guys. One of them was actually supposedly getting hot water from a Mexican restaurant across the street. These are people who are not doing well in their life, who they've put up and cultivated with $5,000 credit cards with $5,000 limits to go buy munitions and otherwise. Initially, what began as a plot to storm the Capitol, but eventually ended up being a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. A good number

of the people who were captured here, like we're talking about a high proportion of them were absolutely federal informants. And yet the Detroit field office head, and they took that all the way to trial. Several of the people at trial were acquitted on grounds of entrapment. One of the jurors at the end went to one of the defendants, just gave him a hug and apologized for what he had been through because the juror actually had to see what the FBI put these people up to. And you can't make this stuff up. In October of 2020, three months before January of 2021, guess who gets a promotion to be the D.C. field office head was none other than that Detroit field office head. And what do you have on January 6, 2021, three months later is a storming of the U.S. Capitol. So there's a lot here that suggests,

I mean, the D.C. pipe bomb story at the DNC and the RNC headquarters. Why haven't we heard the first thing about what we actually know, despite the existence of video footage about that, and the careful coincidence of exactly when that pipe bomb at the RNC headquarters happened to have been discovered with the timer on it down to the time where the actual vote was supposed to be cast for certifying the results of the election. It's just an impossibility. That was the number one thing for me. I mean, the day after, and sorry to cut you off, but the day after January 6th, I was like, this is complete setup by the FBI. I mean, if you mean to tell me that I was living in Washington, D.C. at the time, a couple of blocks away from the White House when January 6th happened.

It was a very bizarre day because we had an entire summer of people rioting. It was scary to go outside. I was pregnant at the time. Cars set on fire. Every day there was a crazy protest, people storming buildings at all times. Suddenly, after the Summer of Love BLM, we were getting phone calls, people asking if we were okay after January 6th when there wasn't any sounds outside of where I lived. If you mean to tell me that in Washington, D.C., where you can't walk two feet,

it is the most surveilled building in the world, okay, that a couple of blocks away from the White House, they can't figure out where they're, again, cameras on every single corner, every inch, who got out of their car, placed pipe bombs at the RNC and the DNC headquarters, and went away. And let me tell you how extensive their search was. This is something that people are not talking about because you're talking about people that stood trial. And of course, that's the most important people that are being locked up, people that have committed suicide. Let's not forget to talk about people that have killed themselves for fear of being locked up because they showed up to support the sitting president of the United States.

I have two friends from Stanford, Connecticut, who showed up to hear Donald Trump speak and went home. Okay. That was it. They never went into the Capitol building, nothing. After the speech, they didn't go up. FBI agents showed up at their house. This was a harassment and intimidation campaign that took place. If you even showed up to support President Trump, they got questioned. They got questioned. They found a picture of them on Facebook with a MAGA flag. They heard Trump speak and they went home and these people were questioned by the feds. So they had enough resources, right, to send them out and hunt down people that were posting pictures, but they can't find out who just tried to blow up headquarters in Washington, D.C., a couple of blocks away from the White House. And you want to know what the weirdest part about this is?

And I'm just, as I go deeper learning facts about this, Kamala Harris, the number two, for better or worse, to succeed the U.S. president, was at the DNC headquarters that morning. With all the level of security there, then suddenly, then randomly, they just see it on a park bench later. So I think there's enough facts here to know the government has not been transparent with us but furthermore we know capitol police officers let him in we know that the video footage was success was selectively released such that you did not see shooting rubber bullets and tear gas into the mostly peaceful crowd you saw the reaction of those

people hidden capital after releasing that, and then you did not see initially Capitol Police officers allowing people in peacefully. It's a distortion, and we just deserve the truth. Well, I have a question for you. So I've often talked about the May 29th insurrection. May 29th, 2020, thousands of far-left extremists stormed the barricades of the

White House, fought with hundreds, if not several hundred police officers injuring around between 70 and 140. They firebombed the White House grounds. That's true. They set fire to a guard tower and they set fire to St. John's Church. This is a historical church the founding fathers would go to. It was so severe that the president was forced into his emergency bunker, thus disrupting his official duties. Really? Yes. Wow. And my question is, where was our commission? Where was the, I mean, the photos of that day when I go to family gatherings over the holidays and I show a photo of an aerial shot of D.C., which many of you may have seen smoke rising out all around the White House in the surrounding areas from fires that were being lit the president was forced into an emergency bunker against his will and

The media made fun of him and called him bunker boy for having had to experience this Donald Trump said I went down they showed me and he clearly didn't want to be there When law enforcement then cleared out the extremists who had laid siege to the White House, I'm being purposefully hyperbolic, you'll understand why, Donald Trump came out the next day and took a picture, and they attacked him and insulted him for having defended the White House and a church that was set on fire by an extremist faction, a faction so extreme, in fact, that similar groups and cells within the same ideology had seized several blocks

in various cities, in Atlanta, in Seattle, in their Capitol Hill occupation, and in Minnesota with George Floyd Square. Videos emerged out of, I believe it was Seattle, of armed groups walking around with AR-15s, pointing them at drivers. People of a similar or same ideology, in fact, many of these people do coordinate, engaged in insurrection. Now, of course, we can calm down and say a bunch of extremist activists riding in the streets, no insurrection. Fair point. Then neither was the Capitol. Well, what about Brett Kavanaugh?

Was anybody alive for the Brett Kavanaugh hearings? Do you remember them storming in, going into senators' offices? I mean, I'm telling you, D.C. was insane and nobody cared until January 6th happened. This was like a routine thing that was happening to get their ideas across. They were doing sit-ins. They were walking in the halls uninvited. They couldn't get these people out. I mean, it's just crazy to think that suddenly they focused on January 6th.

And it's hard to imagine that the feds were not in on it when we know we have all of these pieces of footage. At the very least. One thing, because I think there's two strands here. Both are interesting. I think there's two different points and both are interesting. But I think it's important not to mix them up because it might risk us missing the real plot here, which is one is, have we applied the different standard of rule of law throughout this country over the course of 2020? Absolutely, we did. Antifa, BLM, you name it. If you have a left-wing ideology, it was mostly peaceful protest, you ignore it. That's a glaring point and deserves to be called out. And I think that there can be no justice with two standardsth was not some small joke. This was significant in terms of revival that had otherwise receded over the course of 20 years since the

post 9-11 period. And so maybe I've just told you what I actually think is going on here. But that's what I think the facts suggest is there was a reason for these people to not only get Donald Trump out of office, but to discredit this, to relegate this line of thinking, the movement behind him to the dustbins of history. And this was the way to do it. So I think that there was a lot of depth to this. And it wasn't just that, okay, well, like this was, I mean, these are two different standards, two different bad things. Yes. But this was, I think, a very serious forethought exercise in accomplishing something. And unless we see through it, first step when you see a problem is to name it. Unless we do that, they are going to accomplish what they set out to

accomplish. That's what I believe. I'd like to jump to some breaking news from today, and then we'll get into some core issues that are happening. We've got stories on immigration. There was a school in New York that they told the kids to go remote. You can't use school anymore because illegal immigrants are coming in. We have a breaking story from James O'Keefe, where he actually tracked down buses engaged in human trafficking. And they flee from him. It's really interesting. But we'll start with this story from our good friends at the New York Times.

Christie caught on hot mic disparaging Haley and DeSantis. Now, the interesting thing here is, of course, that he dropped out. But we also have this hot mic moment I want to play and get your thoughts on. Hopefully this – will this play properly? I mean, I hope so. Let's play it. I can hear it down here. Is there a way to get it to play on the speakers? There is no way to get it to play on the speakers?

Not right now. I can't even hear it on the headphones. Okay, well, we can't play it. Unfortunately. We know what he said. I've heard it. We've heard it. We've all heard it. So, I want to clarify some things because in the tweet that went to initial that started getting a lot of play, it's got half a million so far. It says Chris Christie says Nikki Haley is quote gonna get smoked and you and I both know it. She's not up to this. In regards to Trump, Christie says

Ron DeSantis called him up petrified. Now what Christie says is Ron called me petrified that I was gonna or something like that and then cuts off someone else that intervenes and says he's probably getting out after Iowa. I personally do not believe Ron drops out after Iowa, but I'm curious. There's a few things. Candace, you actually made a really good point about this if you want to. So when I was sitting down and I think I actually said this on my podcast, but during the first Republican debates, it was the energy going into it was essentially that DeSantis was going to have to come out and say stuff against Vivek, obviously, because Vivek was having a surge in the polls. And interestingly enough, he didn't say anything to Vivek, but then suddenly Chris Christie just went like an attack dog. And I just thought it was really odd.

I was like, this feels strangely coordinated to me. I feel like Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis are maybe friends, and they're all friends, and they all know that this is the guy that they have to attack. I felt this. I said this in my podcast, and then I thought it was really interesting that DeSantis called him, petrified about whatever it is. I just thought to myself, why is DeSantis calling Chris Christie at all? Do they have a relationship? Again, these are just questions.

We probably are not going to get the answer to them, as they're already working on a spin and saying that DeSantis was just calling to, you know, bid him farewell from the race or something. Petrified. Yeah, DeSantis was petrified that Christie would do something. Right. We don't know what he was going to do, but that's according to Chris Christie. I'm curious as to why they were in conversation at all and why DeSantis would express to him his fear over something Christie might do? I haven't talked to either today, I can tell you that. So I'll tell you something. I think that there's something deeper going on, and this is today a footnote.

It's a footnote, but a footnote in the deeper game that's hiding in plain sight. I think, Ian, you said, oh, is this all just one giant deepfake? I actually think it is, actually. I think we're witnessing a deepfake in real time, and the deepfake is this all just one giant deep fake? I actually think it is. Actually, I think we're witnessing a deep fake in real time. And the deep fake is this. And the people who are the subjects to it, I think every one of the people who is a subject to it, for better or worse, is falling for the deep fake, which is that this system, the system has made a decision, the same one that they thought they were making back when Donald Trump was exiting office. Okay, they didn't get it right that time around to make a decision that this man shall not be allowed anywhere near

the White House again, period. They will stop at nothing. And at this point, I really mean nothing to keep this man out of the White House. So what are they trying to do? I was trying to figure out for a long time. It didn't feel like it was going to be a Trump versus Biden race. There's a lot with Biden. They've got the documents case coming out. Why are they trotting that against Biden after like 10 years? Hunter Biden, okay, we could have talked about it now. Suddenly it's gaining credibility. Didn't feel like it was going to be Biden. So I think incorrectly assumed that it was going to be Gavin Newsom or somebody else. This is the new puppet. Other than Biden, they want to trot out. And I think what became increasingly clear is that they've actually found a much more convenient new puppet, a puppet who

actually can give them a lot of air cover by being within the Republican Party or the guys of the Republican Party itself. And that's Nikki Haley, of course, the very people who are paying to keep Trump off the ballot in lawsuits like Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, or even Larry Fink, the king of the woke industrial complex, the leader of BlackRock. Look at who they're supporting. It's not Gavin Newsom. It's not Joe Biden. It's Nikki Haley, actually. And so what they want to do to put it in plain sight is to make this a two horse race between Donald Trump and a puppet who they can control. I believe that's Nikki Haley. Eliminate Trump from contention and then trot in their controllable puppet into the White House. That's the game that's hiding in plain sight, and I think everybody's falling for it, actually. I don't think they're falling for it.

I think it's very odd every time we look at the polls or the news organizations. They keep telling us Nikki is surging, and it's so obvious if you speak to people that she's not. After every single debate, they're like, Nikki won, Nikki won, even when it's so obvious. She's not even third place in terms of who won, and they're trying to convince us.

It's a full propaganda effort when it comes to Nikki Haley. And you're right. It's pretty sinister what they're doing. But the people I don't think are falling. The only part that I'm worried the people are falling for is some idea that this system is literally going to somehow stop short of literally stopping at nothing to keep Donald Trump away from the White House. You think is it Trump or is it what he represents, the methodologies that he's used, like canceling the Trans-Pacific Partnership kind of isolationist mentality? I think the third rails there are definitely foreign policy. I think ending the war in Ukraine on the terms that either I or Trump have suggested definitely hits the third rail. I think the preservation of the national security state is a third rail. Those are the two big ones.

The preservation of the national security bureaucracy at home. You talk about the anti-woke stuff, the transgender stuff. Yeah, I mean, we have disagreements on the partisan basis, but that's all fine. It's mostly a deflection, actually. It's almost a convenient fact that Nikki Haley occasionally gets to say things that pay homage to the anti-woke movement. I don't think she has actual beliefs, but at least it's part of the cover. The real third rails are foreign policy.

Keep the interventionist, neoliberal, neoconservative worldview of the U.S. as the hegemon that actually gets people to cut in on the rake here at home, the likes of the John Boltons and the Nikki Haley's. And then third rail is the national security state at home. But I think in Donald Trump's case, I think that they've convinced themselves that with this man in particular, he is so dangerous to the future, he's demonstrated himself to be, their words, you know, their view, not mine, that they have to and have a moral duty

to this country. And when you believe you have a moral duty to do something, then you're bound by your more subordinate moral constraints, because there's the everyday moral norms you operate against. But if you think it's about the future existence of humanity or a nation, then those ordinary constraints no longer apply. And I think that's the mode the existence of humanity or a nation, then those ordinary constraints no longer apply. And I think that's the mode this system is now in. The ordinary constraints are, okay, you let people on a ballot, not anymore. You don't prosecute people for made-up crimes, especially in the middle of a presidential election, not anymore. And if they've ratcheted up each of those times and none of those things work, I just think eventually they're just going

to stop at nothing, whatever it takes to take Trump out after they've narrowed it down to a two horse race between Trump and Haley, which in turn is why I'm in this till the very end. And I think that we have a responsibility to this country to make sure that that plot doesn't play out. They're selling us the rope today that they'll use to hang us tomorrow. That's what's happening. And I don't want people in our movement to fall for the other part of this, to somehow think that that actually isn't going to be successfully executed. This hot mic moment where someone mutters, Ron's probably getting out after Iowa. Let's imagine the scenario that Ron actually decides for whatever happens in Iowa, his showing wasn't good enough, and it's time to end this race. The worst possible thing imaginable would be you then leaving the race as well, because it would by default give

us either Trump or Haley. And I'm definitely not. Exactly. For that reason. That's a nightmare scenario. But, you know, look, I think, you know, I have my own views. I think we're going to deliver a major surprise here in Iowa. We can talk about that separately. I think we're going to shock the system and the vibes on the ground are very good. But as part of the 50,000 foot view here, I actually think if you play this out intuitively, it feels like the next step in the game among the corporate candidates is Ron would make a good vice president for Nikki, right?

Christie out of the way is one footnote today. All right, eliminate part of the consolidation in New Hampshire. Christie's not running for president of the United States ever. He was arguably running for, like, vice president of New Hampshire. But anyway, once he exited, we'll actually combine that in to prop up Nikki a little bit more. The next thing is you take the Ron DeSantis, Ron DeSantis is not in New Hampshire so much, but in certain other states, Florida or otherwise, turn that over as well to the anti-Trump movement. I don't think Ron knows that. I think if people

asked Ron DeSantis, he would say, of course I would not be Nikki's vice president. And I think inside him, he probably would believe that that's actually what he thinks. But that almost pretends that what he thinks actually matters. His daughter is the one that put him up to run for president in the first place. I don't think the man on his own volition, and you know, other people who put him up to run for president at a time where it didn't make sense for him to do it. The same people are going to put him up to be Nikki's vice president. So you play this forward. That's where this goes. Final step, take Trump out of contention, trot the corporate puppets into office. That's where this plot ends. And I feel like I see this with the level of clarity that makes it torturous. It's like a

kind of form of torture to watch this playing out in real time without standing up and actually doing something. Let me let me real quick just to get it in their scenario. Donald Trump wins the primary. He said he comes right on out and says, Vivek Ramaswamy, you are my vice president. What do you say? Donald Trump wins the, you're saying, Donald Trump wins the primary and then that. So I think we just have to have an honest conversation.

I mean, if that's the scenario we're in, that's not what I'm playing for, but if that's what we're in. I have an inconvenient attribute, which is that I have opinions. I have strong opinions about things. I'm not somebody who really, you know, rolls over or whatever. But what I've said is Donald Trump has my full support if he's the nominee. And I expect his full support if I'm the nominee.

But I don't think we get to that place. That's the whole premise of, I mean, when you think it's Gavin Newsom or Joe Biden is the puppet, you think you might get to that place. I don't think they want Biden or Newsom. I think Nikki is a far more reliable pawn for the system with respect to the two things they care about most, which is keeping the foreign war machine humming far more reliable on places from the Middle East to Ukraine. She's far more hawkish than actually anybody in the Democratic side. And with respect to the national security state, I don't think Joe Biden could have come up with the idea if he tried to tie every social media account and internet account with a government-issued ID. So I don't think it goes there, Tim. I think where it goes is they want this late in the primary,

and then they get the air cover because the Democratic Party's brand isn't doing too hot. The permanent state is fundamentally nonpartisan at its core. So they get the air cover of saying, yeah, we weren't even doing the Democrat game where most of the Republican base watching cable news thinks it's about beating Biden. They're missing the plot. That's what's going on. It's actually a really great point. We were talking just the other day. There was a story, a JP Morgan top strategist, I'm sure you heard, said his prediction is that Joe Biden drops out just after Super Tuesday due to a health issue. I view that as a very, very good strategy for Democrats. I had been saying for some time that I believe Joe Biden will drop out. His health is just not there.

His polling is not there. It is political suicide. However, many people pointed out in our chats and in our audience that it's too late to have a primary. There's nothing they can do. Actually, that sounds like the best play. Joe Biden says, I'm running. No primary to be had. Don't worry about it.

Come March, he says, oh, no, my ailing heart. This gives the DNC the ability to just appoint who is going to be their nominee. However, I think you actually make a much better point. Why even worry about going into a political conflict with Donald Trump and the populist Republican base when you can win from within? Exactly. And that's exactly what's going on and also they have they have this ailing Kamala Harris problem because if anything other than Kamala Harris is the nominee then they got the racist you know misogynist thing going on which underlies which undermines their own self-stated narrative and I think just the brand of the Democratic Party for the Larry Finkster

the establishment puppet masters of the world it's a little tarnished right now let them heal themselves we're going to do this within the Republican Party with a much more reliable vessel with a little bit more of a polished exterior, a little bit more committed on the pro-war agenda, and a lot more committed on the censorship and national security agenda here at home. I think that actually gets their job done much better without some of the inconveniences that come with Biden. So like you, I was initially of the mind that, you know, who are they going to trot out instead of Biden? And nothing quite really, the shoe didn't really fit with any of them. Michelle Obama, Gavin Newsom. And then you see, it's just staring in plain sight. They're already halfway through

doing it within the Republican primary. And then it's game over and they get the air cover of saying they weren't even propping up Democrats. That's what's going on. Let's let's jump to some stories on some key issues. I have this tweet from James O'Keefe. This video was was pretty shocking to watch. There have been reports about buses that have been trafficking illegal immigrants. In fact, I can say this as well. I have personally confirmed the existence of major airline boarding passes that state no name given. This story was broken by Ashley St. Clair. We're still waiting on vetting and development. So by all means, anyone in the press who wants to doubt this story, feel free to do so.

But I will put my reputation on the line and say I have reviewed the materials. It's more than just a boarding pass saying no name given. We've had our own employees at Timcast with witness on these flights doing these events, planes full of illegal immigrants carrying these bags with instructions. They don't speak English. Someone is doing this. And it may be not just we know the Biden administration has been facilitating much of this. We know this because back in 2021, there was a report about migrant children, illegal immigrant children being smuggled on flights in the in the in the late hours, the early hours of the morning into places like Tennessee and Westchester. And we from those stories and from the expansion of them, so we know that exists, we also know that yes,

Greg Abbott and other governors have been sending illegal immigrants deeper into the country in various places. The question is why is this happening? Why isn't our border being secured? Why is it that when James O'Keefe, and this video, it's crazy, they follow a bus carrying these illegal immigrants. The bus tries to hit them. The bus tries fleeing and swerving through the road, going on and off exits, trying to lose them because journalists are following them and then actually stops and

does not release its passengers and then leaves again. Something about what they're doing has them scared. Someone will find out they're doing it. But I'll give you one quick story that happened to me personally. Outside of this, you know, Ashley St. Clair showed me the materials. It's a boarding pass that says, no name given. Do you want to board a major airliner with people? Our security, our TSA, has no idea who these people are, where they come from. I was in Chicago over the holiday. We flew on a private jet. How about that? It's really fun, isn't it? And our shuttle bus driver said, the other day, a 737 came in, and we were told by

our bosses that it was the Blackhawks. How fun is that? Oh, you're going to get to go service a plane, pull out the luggage for a famous hockey team. He said when they pulled up to the plane and opened it up, there were three garbage bags in the Ford cargo hold. That's it. No luggage, nothing. They then found out that the entire plane, 140 passengers, were illegal immigrants, and he said it was swift air. I don't know. That's what he told me. I asked him, did they lie to you, claiming it was the Blackhawks, because you would not have served that plane had you known you'd be facilitating illegal immigration? And he went, bingo, exactly. So my question now is, with all of this news breaking, and this is a massive story,

I'm interested in your view on what's going on. I want to know how you plan to handle it, what you would do. And I also want to know your position on how do we handle the fact that there are federal law enforcement officers actually facilitating this? Yeah, well, I think it's, again, one of these, when it comes to the media, third rail issues, when you name what's going on, so forget the labels, great replacement theory, whatever, just forget the labels. What's going on is what's the most parsimonious explanation is there is a facilitation of mass illegal migration into the United States to secure lasting electoral majorities for the Democratic Party. And the reason, you know, that's not a conspiracy theory is it is a pre-stated strategy of Democrats dating back to about 10 years ago.

And it's not a surprise when you got Mallorca sitting by Joe Biden's side about 10 years ago, the guy who's actually running the Department of Homeland Security right now, who is in turn refusing to enforce the Remain in Mexico policies. Yes, that's exactly what's going on and hiding in plain sight. And the math makes sense. It works. So now you have AOC coming in for cover in recent days, which was yesterday or the day before, saying that actually the right solution isn't building the wall, but to document the undocumented, which is the next step to them participating in those elections. And so if somebody tells you this is what I'd like to do, then they take actions consistent with achieving what they'd like to do, and then consummate it by actually doing that very thing in changing the composition of the electorate and translating into who actually ends up voting in elections. You tend to believe that that's the most parsimonious explanation, not something else that we're otherwise struggling to figure out how

to solve. Well, once we figured out how to solve that, we realized it's not a technical problem. I think sometimes it's what bothers me in a lot of the border discussions is people get into some sort of, and I've done this too, I'll get into technical details. Do we need aquatic barriers in the Rio Grande? What do we think about the airlines? How should they be conforming the standards to the other people at the TSA, the thousands standing around, as I call them at the airport, or what are they doing? None of that matters. Actually eliminate the intention. Get the intentions in the right place. Say our intention is for people who enter this country illegally to not be in this country. Technically, it becomes actually a very easy challenge to solve. Militarize the southern

border. We're militarizing other people's borders. How about militarizing our own with our own military? Militarize our border as we are doing and should not be doing for others. Use the aquatic barriers in the Rio Grande. Stop giving money to Central America. Most of the people coming through Mexico, 80% of them didn't start in Mexico, require each of those countries to build a border barricade all the way from Venezuela to the southern border of Texas and birthright citizenship for kids of illegals. The 14th Amendment does not apply to the kids of illegals. I can go to the legal argument on this. They duped Donald Trump on this one. They said you need a constitutional amendment. Actually, you don't. Stop federal funding for sanctuary cities.

We're paying for this. Our federal taxpayer money is actually paying for this facilitation of the domestic transfer to sanctuary cities. And then anybody in this country should be returned to their country of origin if you're here illegally. It's that simple. Now, they say there's only 6,000 ICE agents, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents. Well, again, if you read the law, there's a section in the law, I think it's 287G or something like this, that allows ICE agents to serve their warrants via local law enforcement. You just need, again, somebody running, ideally the entire executive branch, a president who tells the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to use that authority to work

with local law enforcement. Now you've got a million people, not just 6,000, to get the job done. So I gave you all of this as though the technical challenge was really the challenge. It's not. It's a challenge of intention. Right now, there's been a longstanding intention to fundamentally change the composition of the U.S. electorate. If you call that a great replacement theory, CNN will have a conniption. If you say that, you know what, this is part of an electoral strategy, they would ask you what's so wrong with that. But either way, we got to at least air what it actually is to be able to have a debate whether this is desirable policy or not. But if you say if you like it, and if you support people coming in

and replacing the local population, you, of course, get promoted by the corporate media. There's crazy stats out there talking about how there's more illegals brought into the United States than actual babies born inside of this country. This is, to me, the weaponization of human trafficking, the introduction of the third world into the United States than actual babies born inside of this country. This is, to me, the weaponization of human trafficking, the introduction of the third world into the United States that's going to create a super elitist uber class and a poor poverty everyone else class. This is far beyond just even a great replacement. This is essentially the destruction of this country from within.

How can we roll this back? How can we go back from hundreds of thousands of people coming into this country in such a weaponized way? Millions of people. Well, you can draft them into the military. Send them to Ukraine. Because the idea of mass deportations is like a storybook Nazi Germany visage. I can see the images of newly deputized ICE agents,

like a 19 year old cop going and like grabbing some woman and pulling her out of her house and her screaming as the baby's lying on the ground. Like the world will not tolerate it. Even our own country, as much as I'm not saying that deportations are, are off the table, but that's the imagery that would be swung with something like that. So what do you do? Send them to send them into the army, go let them earn their citizenship by fighting in the Ukraine? I don't know what the plan is.

The only thing I would say about that is, one is I do favor in substance doing this as humanely and respectfully as possible in substance, largely because for many of these people, it's not necessarily their fault, right? If you're sitting in Honduras or wherever and you got a U.S. president,

an entire apparatus that's giving you a wink and a nod to come on over, who knows? Maybe if many of us were in their shoes, we would have done the same thing, especially with parents of children who want better lives for our children. So I just think it's the right thing to do for this country because we're a nation founded on the rule of law. That's not something that's necessarily hostile to most of those millions are not otherwise innately bad people, but these are people, regardless of whether they're good people or bad people, we're a nation founded on the rule of law. So I can't, with my level of sort of moral clarity on this, I can't be a father of two sons in the

White House, tell them they have to follow the rules when I'm leading a U.S. government that actively isn't following its own rules. And so I think as respectfully and humanely as possible, we have to return them to their country of origin. But there's a philosophical point here too, which is, I think once we fall into the trap as leaders of trying to make decisions based on how we fear they will be portrayed, then we're done making the right decisions. And we're just down the road of actually dancing to what we think we're going to be portrayed as. And it becomes circular. Whereas I think the job of a good leader is to do what is right. And when the public does not agree with you to persuade them of the fact that that was still the right thing to do. I do think the public are now very aware of the problem that's happening

right now. I'm totally comfortable with mass deportations. I could definitely stomach watching mass deportations happen. I mean, we've been forced to stomach watching it happen the other way. I don't know if I'm broken on the inside, but I mean, reading these stories about people that can't afford groceries and yet are having to watch buses and schools emailing them saying, hey, don't come in today because we've decided to give the school that you've been funding for years with your tax dollars to illegal immigrants so they could sleep. I feel bad for those people. You know what I mean? I feel bad for the American people that are looking at the, suffering at the gas pump, suffering at the grocery stores, and constantly being told by

the left that you need to feel bad for someone else somewhere more than you feel bad for yourself. I think it's time for Americans to get a little bit more selfish in that regard and stop. But I think they will do. I think we're suffering enough now that people are going to. Yeah, you got to militarize the border. There should be I mean, this is I don't hear this enough in the rhetoric, but there should be machine gun nests pointing outward away from our borders saying and but then what you need is a leader at the top that's not waving people in because if they're waving people in, no, no, no machine gun nests. That's not we're not going to do that. But if I think that unless you tell them to stop coming and I mean, you do it with more than just your words, that it's not the problem isn't going to stop.

Well, I appreciate what I would describe as Ian's big ask. And now we're going to walk way back from machine gun nests on the border to like maybe a fence. Yeah, it's not even that you status authoritarian. It's it's it's more about not incentivizing this from happening. I mean, giving our resource, giving our tax dollars is essentially telling a lot of people, because I covered this situation on the ground in Mexico. I covered it in Europe, in southern Italy as well.

I covered it all over the world. And all these people were told, hey, come on in. We're going to take care of you. We're going to give you all the opportunities. We're going to give you everything you want. But they don't tell them how essentially a lot of multinational corporations use them as slave labor. They don't tell them about a larger Koch brother plan that we used to have members of the Senate to talk about, specifically from Vermont, that no longer bring it up as a key issue, as, of course, it is affecting everyone.

It is affecting the blue collar middle class Americans, and even more importantly, the poorest people in this country that are now left out literally in the cold. It is a lie when they say that these are jobs Americans don't want. And we saw this when Donald Trump, I think the number was around 600 or so individuals deported from meat processing plants in the South. And then once several hundred people are deported, these companies say we need to hire. So they have a job fair. Who shows up? Americans. And there were interviews, and you can Google and watch these videos. One man has asked, why are you coming to work at this plant? These are jobs that Americans don't want. He goes,

are you kidding? Pays 14 bucks an hour. That's more money than I'm making right now. It's a good job for me. They want you to believe nobody wants these jobs as they give them away and drop the prices. And I got to say, it is these large multinational corporations that know they can pay people under the table dirt wages. And this is how they get cheap labor. I just want to say one thing to Ian's point from earlier. I think it's important to understand what's going on on the ground and on the border. Have any of you guys been to the southern border? No, I have.

Because actually, you have. So I think that that probably affects your view candace it definitely affects mine having been there it's not like you have this situation where illegal migrants or whatever are trying to cross the rio grande sneak across get a sprint and then do you shoot them or not it It's not one of those situations. It's organized by our own government. It's facilities. It's actually what was striking about it is there's a lot of things in life that are pretty disorganized. Like starting a startup company is pretty disorganized. You guys, maybe you guys maybe have a similar enterprise here that you started from a ground floor. I've seen, you know, a lot of things that are good in life are disorganized. This is not disorganized. This is striking because of how markedly organized it actually is. There's a process.

They give you forms. Here's the box you check. You don't have to know English. They'll just tell you which box to check, seeking asylum. Do you have to show proof of political persecution to get asylum? Not at all. It's just a procedure you go through. You know exactly go from point A to point B to point C.

And so part of militarizing the southern border is the signal that we send, because that's the signal we're sending right now. Not only coming in, but then you can show up to Sanctuary City. You get baby formula, you get sneakers, $7,000 per migrant per month, converting South Shore High School on the south side of Chicago

into an encampment for migrants. So I think part of what we're doing is offering a clear statement. We end federal funding for Sanctuary Cities. You know in advance that if your child is born in the United States, they're not going to actually enjoy citizenship. Oh, there's a wall and a fence and people wearing camo because they serve in the U.S. military facing outward. I'll never have the military carrying out domestic law enforcement functions, but facing outward against what currently is an organized invasion

into our country. That's, I think, what's going on. And so this idea of, yeah, guys with guns and do you shoot or not? It's just like, just, it's just not even close to what's happening right now. And I think part of this is, goes back to, it's not the technicals that matter. It's a statement of intention. If we believe, and we have a national consensus, and I believe we basically do, but the Democratic Party needs to align and admit it openly, that we do not want large numbers of illegal people entering this country, we absolutely and quickly can put an end to it as a technical matter. The problem is there's a statement of intention that not only is that not what much of the Democratic Party believes, that same wing actually believes it is inherently a good thing. And the question is, how do you adopt policies that facilitating it while pretending like you actually wish for the opposite? That's really what this is about. So all the technical solutions become really details, footnotes,

compared to really a debate about the intentions. Do you want a mass change in the composition of the U.S. electorate and the composition of the ethnic and linguistic background of people in the United States, or don't you? That's what's on the table. When it comes to using the law, you said earlier you want to stick with the law, focus on the law. And really, as the president, that is your job, is the commander of the military, number one. But law and order, I get. But sometimes law and order can be used for evil. I agree. And we need to be diligent or at least judicious about how we implement, I don't know if you want to call it prosecutorial or commandorial, you know, expression. You get to pick and choose when you enforce, when you enforce the law.

So like deportations, I I'm still my jury's out on this one right now. It was for me for a while, too, but I think it's only I feel nothing. Yeah, I look like let, let me stress. I'm getting people to turn on their neighbors and be like, I think he's illegal. Yeah, we're not talking about that. Look, humans can do bad things. I actually have a tremendous amount of respect for people who are willing to traverse miles through desert, dozens or hundreds or thousands of miles, because the dream of America is so incredible.

But it's got to be a legal process. But it's not even the dream that's being sold to them anymore. You're being offered free stuff now. This is not the American dream, and I'm suffering so much in this country, and I'm willing to traverse through the desert for an opportunity. Like you said, it is now systematic. You are going to have a better life. As soon as you get here, it's all set up for you.

I met a journalist that found the dumping point, where they're being told to dump all of their IDs. They're coming in on flights from other countries, the dumping point where they're being told to dump all of their IDs They're coming in on flights from other countries dumping their IDs because they're being told to she had three bags Filled with their IDs and then they were handed these pamphlets from the UN by the way, which was beyond bonkers She showed me this pamphlet that was coming from the UN and they're being told to do this to come into this country Because they know that there are politicians that are setting up an entire system for them where their lives will be better. So this is not the same mentality of people that are coming at the border right now. We have to let go of this idea that they're just these suffering people who are willing to do anything for an opportunity. They're just being offered handouts at the expense of the American people. And it's like an assembly line to bring

them in. Free health care and free gender changes. I'll use it to segue. One of the things I've heard quite a bit, many people back in my hometown Chicago have said, I can't afford to pay the rent. My groceries are too expensive. We just went to Hy-Vee grocery store out here. It was great. But yeah, it was expensive.

I mean, I got three things of salami. I always love buying salami and cheese dip. A couple things of heavy whipping cream with our coffee. Four grocery bags. It was $300. To be fair, we got some vitamins and some protein powder. I know those are a little bit more expensive. But I was surprised to see this little bit was so much.

And I hear people say, why are, in Chicago particularly, when I went and visited home, they're paying these people rent. They're putting them in hotels. They're giving them our schools. They're getting a free pass from our tax dollars. And I can't afford to pay rent. I can't afford to survive. So part of the immigration issue that many people are feeling is the economic hit they're taking. We're paying taxes that are supporting all of these flights where they're bringing in hundreds or thousands. These buses, they're being paid for by the American taxpayer while the

American taxpayer suffers and can't afford to pay rent. Yeah. And I think actually that's what makes this a nonpartisan issue. This should actually be a slam dunk issue for us. So I, this was your hometown, Chicago. I didn't realize that. I visited the South side of Chicago earlier in this campaign, which is a very traditional campaign. South shore. South shore. And a couple of different areas too, but we went to Shore High School is where we finished the day. Oh, really? That's where you grew up? Midway Airport.

Two blocks away. All right. Well, good deep dish pizza and all that. It's called soup. There's some things to like. Well, that's the tourist stuff. Art of pizza. Yeah, but that's what I am when I go.

I mean, we don't get to go to Chicago every day, so we pick some on the way out. But, you know, it was interesting where it was a room full, you know, maybe like this one. A little bit different ethnic composition. It was 95% black, 150% Democrat, as they told me before you went. Maybe that's how they count their votes. But anyway, it was interesting, right? The first part of the exchange was contentious because some people came with some questions that were – I think there were some people who had some real animus to me in that room. One woman, she asked me a question,

walked straight out because she didn't like my answer on racial reparations. But actually, things changed pretty quickly when we got to the question of illegal mass migration, where they're literally converting the local high school into an encampment for migrants at a cost of $7,000 per migrant per month when the people in that community, Americans, are asking the question, what about me? And actually later it came up, somebody else asked me on their own, I wasn't bringing up foreign policy,

why are we sending our money to Ukraine? Almost challenging me like I was a person who would, presumably because of being a Republican or whatever, believe that this was a good idea. And I explained that, no, no, no, no, this is actually a very bad idea. We should not be doing this. And we actually left with a lot of common ground on both of those issues, which is why I think it's actually very important not to see the America First movement through the prism of even the Republican Party. I mean, the Republican Party

means very little. It doesn't mean anything to be a Republican. It doesn't predict what you mean based on foreign policy. It doesn't predict what you think about free speech. It doesn't predict what you think about national security, state overreach. So that label means a lot less. But I think that because of what you just to deliver a landslide election in 2024. And a landslide minus some shenanigans is still a win, which, you know, I think is something we have to prepare for. And that's kind of my whole M.O. in this thing. I saw several polls. Many of you may have seen them. The youth vote swinging towards Donald Trump. That's pretty shocking. But I have to imagine if, you know, from where I grew up in Chicago, I've got my relatives talking about they're talking about building physical encampments, taking a whole area in the south side and building a camp from scratch. I remember when I was 16, I got my first paycheck.

Doesn't everybody remember that? And you're like, I was supposed to get paid, you know, eight bucks an hour. I worked X amount of hours. And then you look at your check and you're like, where's my money? And then all the older guys laugh and they were like, look at the tax section. It's called theft. Now, imagine. that's right. Now imagine 16, 17, 18-year-old kids working their first job or whatever, get that first paycheck.

They see how much money is taken from them, from their hard labor. They work their fingers to the bone. And then at the same time, on the news, your tax dollar is $7,000 per person per month. We're talking about $84,000 a year for free to people who are not from this country, who have not worked for this country. And you, hardworking young man, have a third of your income taken by the government to give to them. And maybe it's because we have a $34 trillion national surplus to spend on this. I'm just kidding. It's actually a $34 trillion national debt. We're already in the hole. And so anyway, I do think that the silver lining of this is that the more we kind of talk about this through classical Republican versus Democrat, you know, fire Biden kind of mentality

stuff, which is super boring and not the right way to look at this election. I think the more we're going to fall into the trap of getting another 50.1 election, we're playing tug of war and MSNBC is trotting out the winner six days after the ballots are cast. That's not the direction we need to go. I think there is a movement that transcends partisan and racial boundaries. I think it translates, it transcends national boundaries right now, too, in many ways, what you see in certain other countries. But in this country, I can get 75, 80 percent of this country agreeing on many of the things we're talking about right here. Hypothetical. You get elected day one. What do you begin doing to help alleviate the stress on the economy and the average person to help them increase their standard of living and better

the economy? Yeah, look, I think that there's some very basic things to do. One is the easiest thing you could do to alleviate both the national debt and the economy at the same time. There's a lot behind this, but I'll just get to the punchline. Get the oil and natural gas out from underneath our ground. We know how to do that. Sell it and buy down about $8 trillion of our national debt. That takes us from 34 to 26. Next, end this, you know, in a lot of the foreign wars in Ukraine elsewhere, that's another $7 trillion of our national debt. Now our national debt problem, $7 trillion was due to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't want to be on the track to do the same thing. And then initiate a mass firing, not a chisel, but a chainsaw-style firing. A fuera.

Of 70, yep, 75% of federal bureaucrats start that on day one. That is, of every four people there, three of them will be gone, definitely by the end of the first term and preferably sooner. And the problem is when you've got a bunch of those people showing up to work who should have never had that job in the first place, they start finding new things to do. A lot of them is writing regulations that Congress never authorized, which is acting like the wet blanket on the economy. And my first action as it relates to the regulatory state is any law that Congress didn't actually pass or specifically instruct an agency to write a regulation for, it's my view and the current Supreme Court's view that it's unconstitutional. Rescind all of them and state on day one we're stopping enforcement of those

regulations and view them as null and void. That grows this economy. It increases the supply of housing. Think about housing. We have land use restrictions. We have EPA restrictions that are limiting new housing construction. Increase the supply. Brings down the cost. Grows the economy. Energy. Unlock the supply of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear energy. Increase the supply. Bring down the cost. Grows the economy. Stop paying people more money to stay at home instead of to go to work. Increase the supply of labor. Most small businesses, the hardest thing they find right now to expand is to hire new people to fill those roles. So even before I get to reforming the Federal Reserve, which is a favorite topic of mine, that's not a day one item. Just literally day one. These are the kind of steps we can put into motion. And yes, I think we get back to 4% GDP growth, possibly 5% GDP growth. It could be even magnitudes. We might land magnitudes of growth because what we're going to do

is transform into a hydrogen-based fuel economy. Here we go. They figured out at Rice University how to... He's not wrong. Yeah, they take what's called... That is interesting. He needed to hear that. But he's not, you know, but I think that...

They figured out how to make it profitable to make hydrogen, essentially. This has been the entire time. It's like it costs too much money to make the fuel. They figured out you take any carbon trash, you hit it with a laser called flash jewel heating, 7,000 degrees for 0.1 milliseconds. And it turns it into, you can get hydrogen and graphene as a byproduct, which you can use as a building material to build houses, build roads, to enforce your roads by making them three times stronger. It's 200 times stronger than

steel by weight, this material, pure carbon. And for every kilogram of hydrogen you produce with this process, you get about $4.50 of graphene. And then we can sell the graphene. You can also take the oil that this would displace. Technically, a hydrogen economy might displace the oil. You can turn the oil into graphene so we can keep pumping it and we can keep selling it. Now, as esoteric as that may be for many people, the core fans of the show have heard it a million times. Is that right? I think the actual simple message, though, is innovation in the energy sector beyond just oil.

It could be hydrogen. It could be fusion. I mean, there's big breakthrough there. Nuclear energy. You can pump the hydrogen through the natural gas lines of the planet, so we've already got an infrastructure. The guy's name is James Tour at Rice University. I'll put you in touch with if you want to go.

I would love to learn more. You're going to say something? No, I was just going to talk about nuclear energy in terms of one of the main obstacles to this. And this, I think, to the extent that this involves actually what exactly laser accomplishes, but is it sort of splitting of the nucleus? It's electricity. Oh, what do you? I think that it would or would not fall within the NRC's and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No, it's not nuclear, this process. It's a physical breakdown.

Just physical breakdown. Got it. So I'll have to learn more about that. But I'm talking about at least the production of more kinds of energy in the United States, including nuclear energy. Again, one of the obstacles is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And again, the right answer is you can't reform these agencies. I think the right answer is to get in there and just shut them down one by one. Just say afuera. Afuera. No, afuera means

outside. You're trying to say fuego? Is that what he was saying? When outside, he could throw it out. No, when Millet was pulling the things off the wall yelling afuera. That means outside. I've said this many times. I have not made Javier Millet look like a moderate.

By the end of my first three months, I haven't done my job. So I like the guy. I've actually been following him for a long time. He goes around with a chainsaw. Chainsaw first, chisel second. I think that's one of the things that got me excited about you just as a candidate. It's remarkable to me that we have all of these people that are running and they make it seem like being America

first is something that's dirty. Like it's something that's wrong. And I just could not get over all of them parroting this point that we could do both, right? That drove me crazy. I wanted to scream as I was sitting there. We can do both. We can take care of the Ukrainians and every other country. We can do it. Look around you. That's what I came out. Look around you. Does it look like we are successfully doing both? Have we been successfully doing both? I mean, this country has been in a steep decline and a large part of it is because what ends up happening is what we saw on that stage and what

we've seen just throughout this entire election process is just people are bought and paid for, right? And the people that they tend to sell out are always the American people. We're told that we have to feel bad. We have to put ourselves last. It's always an American last perspective. And so it's just been exciting to have you get up there on the stage and everywhere that you've been going. And you've been doing so many podcasts without question. I think everyone can agree that you have been the hardest working candidate this election cycle. I've seen you everywhere. I mean, I appreciate obscure podcasts. It's, it's, it's really wonderful. Just the work ethic is so impressive. Um, and you're young and I'm a mother of three. And so it was something that was very

important to me. And I'm just kind of show and so it was something that was very important to me And I'm just kind of showering you with the compliments here, obviously But that is something that's very scary for me because when we talk about even the process of illegal immigration You think about as a parent? This is also going to become issues down the line when we talk about the violence that is going to be imparted in inner cities This is something that terrifies me something that terrifies me. You have unchecked people coming into this country We know that they are coming from countries where the cartels are running things This is something that terrifies me, something that terrifies me. You have unchecked people coming into this country. We know that they are coming from countries where the cartels are running things.

We have no idea who is being brought into this country at this moment. As a parent, that's terrifying. And I just think a lot of the candidates are not willing to talk about these issues in a way that provides clarity to those of us that are worried about the future for our children. I think most of the candidates are really reading scripts provided to them by their super PACs or the people who fund them. I mean, I think that's effectively what American politics has become for the worse. And I think you've got to be willing to say, I mean, it's sad the system works this way, but we've put, our families put over $25 million, close to $30 million into this campaign. There's going to be more going in. It's what it takes to run presidential elections. that's the real cancer on american politics and the super PACs culture selects for candidates that just make them vessels for advancing what that super PAC industrial complex wants to advance and so one of the things i think again this is an opportunity to go beyond traditional

partisan boundaries building towards a reagan 1980 style landslide you got ukraine in that category you got the southern border in that category i think we should be favoring ending super PACs, not by violating any First Amendment rights, but by just saying that, you know what, if there's a $3,300 maximum that you can give to a campaign, that's what it is in the GOP primary. That's a lot of money, but it's not enough to corrupt a politician who's running for president. That if there's a super PAC that's donating to presidential candidates, if you're donating to that super PAC that's donating to presidential candidates, if you're donating to that super PAC, you should also be capped out at $3,300 per person. I don't think that that's too much to ask. This used to be a left-wing idea, actually. I think that right

now we're at a place where the Republican Party absolutely can and should embrace it. I think it'll be wildly popular. And again, part of building towards an 80 plus percent electoral majority, minus some shenanigans, is still a decisive landslide victory. But anyway, I think that's what's going on is you kind of have candidates when you start to think that they're actually advancing their own convictions. We're kind of missing the point. They're vessels for advancing what the donors really want to wield them to actually stand for. There's this issue in Iowa right now, actually, which is super interesting. I was actually at an event at the state capitol earlier today. It sounds like an esoteric issue maybe, but it's not really because it affects every American. They're building a carbon dioxide capture pipeline across this state that we're in right now.

They make a lot of ethanol in the state. They say capture carbon dioxide, build a pipeline across the state, and then bury it in the ground in North Dakota. Why? No one really knows why other than the fact that our federal government's providing subsidies in the name of fighting climate change because carbon dioxide is a bad actor. It doesn't make any sense. Carbon dioxide is plant food. So this idea of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere being some sort of worthy goal, I could go on for a full day about why that's based on a false premise. But we're using our own taxpayer money to pay people in the state. There's a business, a couple of businesses,

that are now using eminent domain to seize the land of farmers here, rights to use their land, when most Iowa farmers who I've met do not like that being built across their backyard. So I could go a little bit longer on this, but the point I'm bringing it up is not a single other Republican candidate, not a single one, has expressed opposition to this carbon capture pipeline. Why? Because the most powerful people, at least in this state, as it relates to the Republican donor establishment, do not permit you to oppose the carbon capture pipeline. And so again, it

comes back to that mega money in politics. Could we go a little bit deeper here? Because you mentioned the Federal Reserve just a little bit. And this is an institution created in 1913. That's a quasi-private cartel parading around like it's some kind of private bank when it's essentially not. Thomas Jefferson said that he believes banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies with their corporate bailouts, with the inflation, which is essentially a tax on the poor, a theft of resources from the poorest people in this country and the Fed. Yes or no? I would like to, but that requires legislation. that I will keep as your next president, and here's the promise I'll keep with respect to the Fed, is a 90% headcount reduction at the U.S. Fed combined with restoring effectively a single

mandate, one purpose, peg the dollar to commodities, stabilize the dollar as a unit of measurement. It should be just a basic function of arithmetic and nothing more. And again, part of the problem is you got those 23,000 people or so at the U.S. Federal Reserve now that we don't need to do that narrow function of pegging the dollar to commodities. They find things to do. That's where the central bank digital currency comes from. That's where a lot of these other the CBDC, which is a backdoor way of ensuring a government surveillance system of being able to wipe you out for doing something the government didn't approve of. That's how you get to reigning money from on high like mana from heaven in the aim of balancing inflation and unemployment. It's like the equivalent of hitting two targets with one arrow and missing at both. So hopefully that answers your question. We'll dive a little bit

into that because one of the big stories today is that the SEC has approved Bitcoin ETFs. I believe more than just, I think it's crypto market ETFs. And there's a lot of people who are concerned about it, a lot of people cheering it on. But this brings us to the acceptance of the U.S. government as it pertains to crypto and the fear that they're going to push central bank digital currency, also known as CBDC. Could you explain to people what that is and your position on CBDC? Sure. And so let's just take decentralized options in the blockchain like Bitcoin or otherwise. Put that to one side. I think greater decentralization at least as an option that's available to hold the dollar to its feet as an alternative to opt out from that system is a good thing. Let me pause you real

quick. Sorry. There's probably a lot of people who don't know what central bank digital currency even is. I was going to segregate the issue of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency away from the central bank digital currency, which the easiest way to think about this would be turning your dollar into effectively a digital asset that's centrally monitorable. We could use, you know, talk about which way they would use the blockchain or not. It doesn't matter. The simple way to think about it is take the cash in your pocket and convert that into the equivalent of like tokens you'd get in a digital video game. And they can either up or down the number of points you have,

which are dollars in your bank account, not based on what you deposit or take in or take out, but based on whatever the government actually decides is the criteria for increasing or decreasing what's in your bank account. Indeed, they're doing this in China. In fact, that's one of the principal arguments for bringing it to the United States, is that China is adopting a digital yuan as an equivalent of a central bank digital currency in China. Now, we have to ask ourselves, why is China doing it? The general argument in the UK, which is moving in this direction, and the US, which is taking the earliest of steps to move in this direction through the so-called FedNow program. The argument is we have to keep up technologically with China, keep up with the Joneses or keep up with the Jinping's, as the case may be here.

Right. You have to ask yourself, why is China doing it? They want to actually be able to exert monitoring and control and discipline of their own citizens. It's the ultimate manifestation of a social credit system. So that's what this is about in China. Now, there's a version of this. It wasn't exactly through a central bank digital currency per se, but to at least understand the impact it could have on your life, look at what they did to the Canadian truckers. They cut off access to their bank accounts. They cut off access to their Canadian dollars when they took a position against vaccine mandates and a position against lockdowns that they couldn't address through any means other than through using the weaponization of

the financial system to do it. So if we bring that central bank digital currency to the United States, it offers another tool for what would be otherwise a tyrannical permanent government to be able to more effectively implement its will. To be clear, and some people fall into this trap of thinking that just because we eliminate the tool, we've eliminated the intention. No, the intention still exists. But that doesn't mean that you still give them the same tool that would allow them to more quickly implement what they already are looking to in other ways. I'd like to elaborate on why this would be so nightmarish. Several years, I mean, we're talking eight or so years ago, 10 years ago, we started seeing the rise of social media censorship.

If you tweeted something that was against the popular narrative, you'd get suspended. Many of us were called conspiracy theorists for arguing what was actually happening. In fact, it was reported by, I believe it was Gizmodo first in May of 2016, that Facebook had staff removing conservative news outlets from their trending tab. That's just your ability to speak. I know, one of the more serious things to lose, to not be able to engage in the public sphere. Imagine the same scale of censorship, but in terms of you buying milk, bread, and eggs.

Yes. One day you wake up and you go to the grocery store and you're using your app, because that's what the central bank digital currency will be, forced to be on your phone, and you'll walk up, you'll put your milk on the self-checkout because there's no humans anymore. You'll scan your phone and it'll say you have been banned from purchasing for 24 hours due to hate speech. Or docked a certain number of dollars.

By the way, just going back to just bring up COVID and the things that we saw throughout COVID, that was one of my major concerns that I spoke about. Just the digitization of everything that was happening at that time. Suddenly, like they were trying to say your menus could have potentially have COVID. That was one of my major concerns that I spoke about. Just the digitization of everything that was happening at that time. Suddenly, like they were trying to say your menus could have potentially have COVID. They kept saying that dollar bills, this was, do you remember this in the news? Dollar bills could spread COVID and suddenly they didn't want any more dollar bills. We're no longer accepting cash. So many restaurants, grocery stores, no longer accepting cash because it could potentially spread COVID, which was an absurdity in my mind, an absolute absurdity. But a lot of these things are now long lasting, right? In terms of the fact that there's not that many human beings. I don't know if it's the same where you live, but not many human beings at the grocery store anymore. They kept up the things

after COVID that they said were just for COVID. And I felt that it was very much because they did want us to move in this direction as a society. Well, you can see it in Las Vegas. Potentially to prep us for this. And I just want to play that one step forward to tie earlier to one of an increasingly what looks like a Republican policy of certainly of a certain candidate of tying your government issued ID to your Internet account or your social media account. So now combine that with the central bank digital currency. Now you don't have to tie it, just milk in the grocery store. Every time you hit like on a tweet that does not match the regime's approved narrative, we could dock you 50 cents.

If you hit retweet, you actually dock you a dollar. And so Jack Smith, I just want to tie this together, right? Right now in the subpoena for one of the federal cases against Donald Trump, there's so many of them you lose track, but it's one of the Jack Smith's federal prosecutions. In that subpoena, I think it's worth people understanding it certainly affects people who are watching us right now. It might affect

some of us in this room, maybe some of us at this table. I don't know. Not me because I wasn't using Twitter back then. But if you retweeted or liked one of Donald Trump's posts in that year. That's now the subject of Jack Smith's subpoena. So let's play that forward. Your username or whatever has already been the subject of that subpoena. Now say that that handle was tied to your government-issued ID, which is also tied to your digital dollar. He can't convict you in court necessarily, but why don't we give him a nice little spanking, take a few dollars out of their bank account? That's literally where this vision of the so-called Great Reset, that's where this lands. That would be a coup.

That would be something that would be an attempted coup by global enforcement powers that we cannot allow to happen. They can already freeze your bank accounts when you're under investigation, say you worked for a company, and then all of a sudden one day you can't buy things. But with the central bank digital currency, it goes so far beyond that. It's a social credit system. But it's automated.

Yeah. It's to where it won't even be a judge saying, I think there's probable cause to freeze his account. It's going to be a machine saying, your account is frozen. And good luck. Imagine having to go to the DMV every time you needed to get your bank unbanned. And this is the – tell me if this is like too abstract and we can sort of bring it back, but it's a pattern that repeats itself in so many different places where right now you're right. They can freeze your bank

account even as it exists today, but it takes something that requires the government to take a quantum step, right? You have to have a preponderance of evidence that's 50.1% chance of actually having done it. And then to actually convict somebody, you have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's 99.999%, 100% certainty. So you have to take these quantum steps of certainty. What the central bank digital currency does is it takes this system that ties a quantum level of certainty and just makes it continuously varying, right? So it's not like Jack Smith is going to say that you're going to wipe out your entire bank account and freeze your entire bank account. The way this would work is I'm just going to dock you by 50 cents. Like, I think that's actually the thing to see is it wouldn't be, if we're using the analogy, Tim, I think it would be less that we're not going to allow you to buy the milk at all.

It's going to be that instead of having $100, you now have 99. So it's designed to change behaviors at the margin, and that's really where this is different from the current status quo, where they technically could also freeze your bank account entirely, couldn't buy any milk. It's not that. It's that you like to post we didn't quite like. We see that because of your government-issued ID

tied to your social media profile. It's not like we need to go to the court system for that. It's not like you've done something criminal, but we're just going to dock you a little bit with a little so-called nudge in the right direction. That's actually what's actually far more frightening with the CBDC. There's so much more here too. We can't even begin to imagine. How about geo-locking transactions? Meaning, let's say there is a political rally happening in DC and the president says we're going to have a rally. So then anybody who attends that rally, their their their their ability to transact is shut off within 50 miles. And just these individuals, all of you can't buy train tickets. You can't buy

milk. You can't buy pizza. You can't go to the you can't go to McDonald's to buy food. And for anybody who thinks that's a ridiculous example, I believe it's Bank of America that handed over records for anybody who was in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 to Jack Smith, which is exactly not that far from what you're describing today. So but I think it's worth him. I think for the people, there's a lot of people in New Hampshire that fit this category when I'm campaigning there who come up and ask, like, to be the first question they ask at a town hall is like, tell me about your position on CBDC. I share why I think it's a risk, but I think it's important not to fall in the trap of thinking just because we've stopped that, you still have a government that can do a lot of these things to you. It's just that it becomes a lot easier for the government to do these things to you when they can do it in small increments, rather than Bank of America having to hand it over to a prosecutor who needed to go through probable cause. A lot of this can just be done much more easily. So even as we put the kibosh on the CBDC, and I will, and that's easy. It's just simple executive action. This is never going to happen in the United States. I'll get that done in January of 2025. A year from now, we're good. It's still just, you know, it's like a water balloon. It's like a hydraulic pump system. You squeeze it here, it's going to show up somewhere else. And so we're always kind of one step behind. And the reason

people don't pay attention, ESG, CBDC, whatever, is the more you acronymize it, the more boring you make it, the less likely you are to, the people are to pay attention to it. We have time for one more second before we go to questions. So I want to bring up this issue. This is from Reuters.com. Ohio House of Representatives overrides veto of bill banning gender-affirming care. So one of the big cultural issues, of course, is the issue around transgender youth, transgender ideology, gender ideology as it pertains to sports. And, of course, one of the truths that you have listed is that there are two genders. So many of us were shocked to see that in Ohio, despite the fact that the House passed this bill saying no to child sex changes, the governor tried to veto that.

I'm curious your position on this, if you'd like to elaborate and break it down. Yeah, it happens to be my home state, actually. Born, raised, and live in Ohio now as well. So I was disappointed but not shocked is how I would characterize it based on the governor that we now have in Ohio. I actually spoke to the lieutenant governor. I was sort of a what-the-heck call who I actually have a good relationship with, and it turned out that he is also against the position the governor took. And so the governor of Ohio is, you know, he's like the equivalent of, you know, it's like the Chris Sununu's, the Nikki Haley's, the, you know, Chris Christie's, you could say, of the

world. DeWine, the governor of Ohio, just falls into that category. I mean, there's a brand of people who put a nice little R after their name, but aren't really thinking according to clear principles. They're easily captured. I think in this case, what my understanding was, and I haven't talked to the governor, but I've talked to a lot of people who are familiar with the situation, is a lot of people are making good money off of some of this gender conversion stuff and sold a myth that somehow this is going to cause suicides amongst kids and you're going to have blood on your hands. And so what ended up happening was they just got him to veto it. Well, I'll, I'll, I do want to get into your position, but I want to address what you just

said about the, the, the myth of the suicide. And I'll use, I'll use the numbers that are widely accepted. There's something referred to as desistance. Are you familiar with this concept? Not really. Desistance is not detransition. Detransition is if someone identifies as trans, undergoes what they like to call gender-affirming care, and then backtracks. Detransitioning.

Desistance is when a child says that they're trans and experiences symptoms of gender dysphoria, but without any transition, eventually grows out of it. Typically, this happens around puberty. The accepted rates are between 65% and 95% of young children who experience gender dysphoria will grow out of it, and they call this desistance. That means if we give the most benefit of the doubt we could

to the gender ideology argument, around 65% of children will desist. OK. Their argument, however, is it's lifesaving to transition these children. But suicide rates could be as high as 48 percent. This means that you are increasing the likelihood of suicide by transitioning a child. If there is a two to one chance the child will desist, do not transition them

and then give them a 50% chance of suicide. Well, yes, it is a fact that suicide rates go up after they transition. I cover this extensively on my podcast. I've had detransitioners on my podcast, people that have gone through with the procedure, got the bottom surgery, as they call it, and then woke up one day

and realized their entire lives were a lie. And to hear those stories, I mean, it's incredible. It's a true evil, and it is being backed by big pharma. There is a lot of money, obviously, with these procedures, the drugs, the puberty blockers that they're putting them on, Lupron. And it's part of a larger problem, something that I'm obviously very passionate about in terms of people not being educated and being sold lies and then going through a very radical route via big pharma to earn money. I don't know how far you want to go with this because I see a link to transhumanism. I see a link to eugenics. I see the rise of autism also linked to a lot of this as well. There's a

lot of different components that we should really talk about. And I think more importantly, especially when it comes to the kind of chemical biological war against human beings. When you look at male hormones and women's hormones, they're being dysregulated. They are being directly attacked. Fertility is being directly attacked by a lot of forces outside of us. How can we address a larger, what I see clearly, a depopulation agenda that has clearly been put in play and being used against us right now. To wrap it all together, I suppose, as president, what could you do to address these issues around gender ideology and even a decline in fertility? Oh, so those are, I think there's a couple of different issues. I mean, gender ideology,

a lot of this is being foisted through the Department of Education, right? So the Department of Education actually uses the federal money as a noose to get local schools to adopt ideologies that the Department of Education decides are the acceptable ones. Keep in mind, the origin of the Department of Education, people sometimes forget, was to prevent Southern schools in Southern states from siphoning money away from predominantly Black school districts to white ones. But it's come but somehow that institution has taken on its purpose to foist these radical gender, and in some cases racial ideologies,

also onto local schools. So as it relates to the schools and the ideology piece of it, a lot of this is the head of the snake, the Department of Education. A lot of it violates existing civil rights laws and otherwise. So enforcing the laws in the books combined with actually shutting down the Department of Education is a pretty good start.

Now, as it relates to what I see as an appropriate place for a federal, you could talk about how Reagan did it using, you could talk about technically using, how do we get, said, the drinking age of 21. It was a 1984 law that effectively says you don't get highway funds unless you adopt this particular set of laws that set the drinking age at 21. But forgetting about the legal mechanics, and just as a matter of policy, what we want in this country. If you're not 18 years old, you should not be getting any chemical castration or genital mutilation, just as you can't get a tattoo, just as you can't have an addictive drink of alcohol. And so my view is we do live in a free country. If you're an adult, a fully grown adult, you're free to dress how you want. You're free how to identify how you want, as long as you're not

harming anybody else. Don't expect to change the way we compete in women's sports. Don't expect to change the way we label our bathrooms, to change our language. But if you want to live your life the way you want, as long as you're not hurting somebody else with a presumptive expectation that the rest of society bends to your delusion, you're free to do so. But kids aren't the same as adults. And so I think protecting children is a policy position we've already well accepted in this country. And so the same logic and the same mechanism we use to prevent you from drinking by the age of 21, that we prevent you from getting a tattoo by the age of 18, you should not be undergoing genital mutilation or chemical castration as a minor in this country. And I think there's a pretty broad consensus around that.

And I want to add to this. I think it's interesting because when it comes to the issue of drinking, you can have a drink at the age of 21 and be fine. You can have a drink at the age of 31 and be fine. It's alcoholism that's bad. But if at the age of 21 you decide to undergo permanent and irreversible surgery and that was a mistake, you can't come back from that. That's right. So there is a serious challenge in how we deal with an issue like this because I don't want people to take their lives. I that was a mistake. You can't come back from that. That's right. So this is, this is, there is a serious challenge in how we, how we deal with an issue like this, because I don't want people to take their lives. I think that's horrifying. But we did have a guest

on this show who said that she thought she was a man. She believed the gender ideology. She was being fed on the internet. And she talked to, I think she said she talked to her brother and he said, get your hormones checked first. You likely have a hormone imbalance. So instead of adopting the gender ideology and taking testosterone, when she went to the doctor and got her hormones checked, it turns out that she did have a hormone imbalance. So they prescribed her female hormones. She said almost instantly gender dysphoria disappeared, and she was in alignment with her own body. Yeah.

And so my concern is if someone like that were to undergo a surgery and then regret it later, I'm not going to pretend to know what a doctor. Can I just say one word about this? I don't know this person or this individual, but there is a really small number of. So I say there are two genders and it's a clear, clear point. There is a small number of people in the general population who have chromosomal abnormalities. So we have, you know, what, 23 pairs of chromosomes. Two of them are sex chromosomes. One is X and Y if you're a man, X and X if you're a woman. XYY or XXY, and that's like a real thing that's grounded in truth. It's not made up. It's in your genetics. One is called Klinefelter syndrome. One is called Jacob syndrome. These are exceedingly rare. We're talking about one in thousands at a much lower rate. So in those particular cases, yes, those are instances of what you will call intersex, which is a different phenomenon than trans. But what's happened is, let's take those rare cases to one side.

And I don't know if this person you had here had such a thing or not. I would have said, not just go check your hormones, go actually get a genetic test and actually understand, are you one of the rare people with one of these chromosomal abnormalities? It's inborn. But for the purpose of this discussion in our modern politics, I don't think that this pertains to public policy. Take that off the table. That exists. And we're going to acknowledge that. That's like a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of population. It's always existed. It's a chromosomal abnormality. For the rest of people, transgenderism, the belief that your gender does not match your biological sex, that if you're XX,

but you believe you're a man, it is a mental health disorder. And it needs to be treated as a mental health disorder through mental health care, which often isn't covered by private health insurance. A lot of this is through pharmaceutical intervention. They prefer pill-pushing behaviors as an alternative. Or people who run surgery centers prefer surgery, peddling surgery, as an alternative.

This is a mental health condition. And once we see it that way, we realize the compassionate thing to do is from a standpoint, because I think we've gotten put into this box of being somehow antipathic because of adopting this set of views that I think seems like most of us share. I don't think the compassionate thing to do for that kid is to affirm that kid's confusion. That's not compassion. That is cruelty. And I think we should actually feel that. It shouldn't be just a thing we say. We should acknowledge that and act with the compassion and say that kid's going through a struggle. Help the kid get through the struggle. That's what we should be doing. Not surgically

operating on them and chemically castrating them. You pointed out that it is a mental health disorder. It is listed in the DSM-5 as a mental health disorder. This is an academic statement. This is not meant to be invective. But there are many people that I speak with who are liberal or Democrat that get offended when I point out the fact that it is listed in the DSM-5 as a mental health disorder. And my argument is there's another mental health disorder called PICA. Are you familiar with this? No. It's where people eat things that aren't food. We don't affirm these things. We try to help these people because I agree with you, as you said, to tell someone eating pennies is something they should do is cruelty to them. See, I think that one of the things I would say if someone left on this who finds that offensive is, isn't that really

stigmatizing mental health disorder to say that you consider it so offensive to have a mental health disorder that that should trigger the fact that you have a mental health disorder, that that should trigger the fact that you have a mental health condition, to say that that's in such a category, that it is so offensive that you said such a thing about me. I think the compassionate thing to do is actually recognize that there are many Americans who go through a lot, especially now more than even 30, 40 years ago, social media and otherwise playing the loss of purpose, the loss of faith. We can go deeper on that. Yes, there are all kinds of mental health conditions that are rampant in the United States of America today. We should have empathy towards people who suffer from those mental health conditions. Figure out how we're going to address that.

Bring back psychiatric institutions. Bring back mental health institutions. Address the violent wave of violent crime across this country. But we're not able to talk about that because now what you've actually done is abandon your left wing crony quasi compassionate instinct, supposedly compassionate instincts to actually just say we're demonizing you because you have a mental health condition, as opposed to saying that's the truth of what's happening here. That's what I that's what I find odd about that left wing reaction of transgenderism, though. What we've seen over the last 10 years, I would say, is definitely these people are not being born with a mental disorder. What's happening is they are being given a mental disorder.

Conditioned into it. Yeah, this is like a Munchausen by proxy, societal Munchausen by proxy, where you have teachers are conditioning them. You have parents on the internet that want to be seen as accepting and they're training their children. They're confusing their children. It's actually systematic abuse. And the way you know that's true, Candice, is actually you look at, in COVID-19, they

would talk about this coefficient R squared or whatever fancy way of saying how fast a virus spreads from person to person. The R-squared rate for— Transgender. Exactly. At a given school where a kid starts to identify as a gender different than their biological sex is arguably far greater than it was for COVID-19. Zero percent in my high school. And now it's like one in four. It's not linear.

It's like an exponential curve. So, usually around this time, we would go to our super chats. I will go through these. We'll grab a few good questions. But as we're setting up the event, of course, the events team over at TimCast was like, we're going to ask people to submit questions, and then we'll get them

to ask the questions. And I said, I don't think Vivek wants to do that. I think we should just grab random people and let them ask their questions. Yeah, I don't like pre-screening. Yeah, I said, I think we should just have real questions, whatever they may be, and I'm pretty sure we can handle it. So we're going to go- I mean, I'm not ready for Xi Jinping if I can't handle some audience questions.

Hey, but look, it's fascinating. Every other political campaign is, give us the questions beforehand because we don't want to look bad on TV. So we're trying to go for it. I think Phil Labonte, of all that remains, is here. He's going to be helping. Hello. Hey. There we go.

How you doing, everybody? It's Phil's discretion, I guess, right? So what we're going to do is young Andrew here is going to grab you. If you put your hands up, we're going to have one person waiting here. One person's going to come up here and ask the question. When this person gets done, you can go ahead and move on, and we'll move on like that. Everyone okay with that? I'm okay with that. Everyone okay with that?

Yes. Thank you very much. Andrew, go ahead. What's your name? Drew. This question's for Vivek, but Candace, feel free to add in since you've done a lot of journalism on the topic. I speak not only for myself, but for countless others without a voice and parents that had to bury their children too early. How will you achieve tangible accountability for those permanently damaged by the COVID-19 vaccines? When will it happen? And why is it important to you? Army Sergeant Retired Drew. Thank you. Drew, thank why is it important to you? Army Sergeant retired Drew. Thank you, Drew. Thank you for your service to this country. Thank you, Drew. I'll say a couple of things. And you're right. Candace has been

ahead of the curve on this issue for the last several years. But I'll tell you what we can do. You can't change the past, but you can at least make sure that where there has been injury, there must be justice. And I think as far as I know, I'm the only presidential candidate to pledge to do this. I will require Congress for this one. I'll try to be clear, but it will require Congress. I will repeal the special liability exemptions that pharmaceutical companies enjoy in this country. It is dead wrong, and it is unjust.

Normally, any product that's sold to you, if it harms you, you can sue the manufacturer, except for vaccine manufacturers. Why? Crony capitalism, pharmaceutical industry lobbying. It's disgusting. And actually, I love Reagan as a president for a lot of things that he did. He was wrong on this one. And actually, closing the psychiatric hospitals was the same thing. Reagan was actually pretty good at getting lobbied by the pharmaceutical industry. People will get mad for me saying that it's just a fact. It doesn't take away from his other accomplishments. So that's number one. Number two relates specifically, this one doesn't require Congress. I'm going to do it in my capacity as commander in chief for our U.S. military, especially for you as someone who served. That's why I'm adding this extra element to this.

Anybody who lost their job in the U.S. military for making what for many of those young men is obviously the right choice, young men and women alike, is that you will have your position restored with full back pay times one and a half. That's something I'm committed to do as the next president of the United States as well. And make sure something like this never happens again. So those are two examples of tangible things I'll be able to deliver you. And I'd like to give the obligatory for our friends over at YouTube. Make sure you talk to a trusted medical health professional and not podcasters about how to take care of your health needs. But thank you so much for your question.

There's so many people that have been injured and hurt here and they don't have a voice. So thank you for being that voice. Did you have a follow up, Candace? Yeah, no, I just wanted to add on to it just to make sure that people understand this is the issue I'm the most passionate about. I have an entire show called A Shot in the Dark to educate people. It was not the COVID-19 vaccine first. It's all of the vaccines. And people are not aware of what the ingredients are, are not aware that the FDA inserts.

I created the show. I do not use weird sources. It's the CDC website and the FDA inserts that warn you of what can happen if you take these vaccines. It's important people to understand the history of the illnesses that you think you're fearful of, that you have no idea. Mumps, measles, rubella, people don't know anything about these diseases and yet think that big pharma came and cleaned these things up. It's a deep dive that I've done. It's the most important work that I do. And to know that these injuries, people getting sick, the seizures, the autoimmune diseases that we're seeing today,

it is all related to the vaccines that they're giving children. And it is directly related to the lobbying. We've got more big pharma lobbyists than we do have Congress members in D.C. And that is entirely problematic. But if you are a parent or if you are just a person that is not educated about vaccines, I created an entire series on it called A Shot in the Dark. And as I said, we only use above the board because I am not a doctor. You should not listen to me. I am just a mother of three children. I don't vax any of my children, as people know.

But it's get educated, you know, be informed before you before you jump into getting vaccines. You should understand what the risks are. Yeah, Bill Gates definitely knows what's right. Right. And I want to stress this point, too, because a lot of people have also responded to us when we've said, you know, find a medical professional you trust. Hey, if you go to a doctor and they're a bad doctor and they're not giving you good advice, you got a bad doctor. Same is true for any plumber or carpenter. There are good doctors out there that can tell you what you need to know, and I recommend you find them. It's very empowering to question your doctor.

The first time you do it, you realize they're just people, and they'll answer your question. Second opinions are a normal thing. I don't trust fat doctors, but that's just me. Anyway, shall we? Hey, can I actually ask? I got two people here I was going to bring up earlier I forgot. If you guys are kind, if we could pull up a chair. I actually got Jeff Shipley and Steve Holt, two

state legislators here in Iowa who actually endorsed me in the last 24 hours. And actually one of them, I want to bring up, these are good, a lot of these are state level questions, two smart guys, strong constitutionalists and Steve Holt in particular was a, I hope Steve doesn't mind me saying this, was a strong Ron DeSantis

endorser and came over today as well. So I'm glad you guys came over to join us up here. Eddie, you're here too. I didn't know you were here. Wow. Three strong constitutions. Bring them up here. We can just spread them out around here, have some lawmakers, especially the Iowans asking the questions.

These are the people they've elected. Do we have any other questions? I'm glad to have their support. Phil? Yep. Good to see you guys. Yeah, you can lend them your I'm glad to have their support. Phil? Yep. Good to see you guys. Yeah, you can lend them your mic if they wanted to say anything. Yeah, absolutely.

Same as mine, and then we could grab more questions as well. Welcome to the freaking show. Should these gentlemen introduce themselves? Yeah, absolutely. Do you guys want to, let's... Yeah, Eddie's right by you. You want to start with Eddie? Oh, here we go.

Eddie. Hey, Eddie. Eddie was the first one to endorse me. I appreciate that. Hey, go lean in. We got you on the camera right here. Hey, what's up, Iowa? That's all I got to say.

I think technically I have known Vivek longer than anybody here. I followed this guy. I saw him on CNBC. And something told me, you know how we used to say back when we were kids, something told me to follow this dude. I liked what you said. It wasn't about politics. And ever since then, I've been following you long since you.

Woke Inc. book tour, I think. Yes. And you signed that Woke Inc. book to my favorite Iowa legislator. Thank you very much. That's all I got to say. It was the first one I met, but it was also my favorite. And I've loved it ever since. When Vivek announced I want to say March, February, he had a 0.1% name recognition.

Not approval. Like nobody knew who this guy was and I said you know what if you drop this guy in Iowa his message is going to resonate and you have to hear him like four or five times because everyone else is well-known but I just knew that this message would begin to resonate so thank you man I appreciate the support good guys oh yeah Eddie Andrews I represent Johnston Urbandale Saylorville and a little bit of Southwest Ankeny right here locally in Polk County. Good man. Good man.

Steve Holt, you always want to say a quick hello before we take more questions probably. Sure. That's good. Yeah. So good evening, everyone. I'm Steve Holt. I spent 20 years in the United States Marine Corps. I've been in the Iowa House of Representatives.

I'll start my 10th year. If you Google me, you'll find out I'm the guy that ran the bill that banned gender transition surgeries and I'm also the guy that ran constitutional carry in Iowa you'll find I kind of do those things I Had I had earlier Endorsed governor DeSantis early on I didn't know know a lot about Vivek. And my decision today to endorse Vivek wasn't anything about Governor DeSantis, but rather his message has resonated with me. We are having an identity crisis in this country because of the relentless attacks on our

national identity by the left and by the mainstream media. This is a 1776 moment. And as a United States Marine who fought for this country for 20 years, I'm not going to miss that moment. And I'm proud to be supporting. God bless. Here we go. We got a strong liberty minded patriot here too. Greetings. Well, hello. I first just want to thank God and thank you guys. It's an honor to be with so many amazing Americans here on this panel and in this room. It really is a great privilege. My name is Jeff Shipley. I serve Iowa House District 87.

I'm in my sixth year as a legislature, and it's just very exciting to be a part of the caucus process and influence the national debate here. Thank you, man. Thank you. Can I make a little more of a point? Yeah, sure. Candace, if I don't get a picture with you, my wife's going to kill me. I will let you get a picture with me. Two pictures. Thank you, man. Thank you. Candice, if I don't get a picture with you, my wife's going to kill me. I will let you get a picture with me.

Two pictures. Thank you. Shall we grab some more questions? Yeah, let's do it. Actually, I go by Eve Apologist on the Discord. Hi, everyone. Glad to be out here. Good to see you again.

You're on number three now, but hello. I know you see a lot of people, so I'm probably just, yeah. But I'm here. It's good to see you. Thanks. Okay, so tough question for you today. We're going to talk religion, okay? Vivek, considering your experience attending Christian schooling

while not identifying as Christian, could you elaborate on how that experience aligned with your family's religious beliefs and if you faced any judgments or challenges from the institution or your peers? My concern is that as I prepare to get married and hopefully become a mother, that our family may experience difficulties and even imposter syndrome as we venture into exploring private and homeschooling options. And the same is true of the overarching focus on what are called Judeo-Christian values time and time again and have me as a traditionalist

wondering when the other shoe will drop for me and my loved ones who are not religious yet share are called Judeo-Christian values time and time again, and have me as a traditionalist wondering when the other shoe will drop for me and my loved ones who are not religious, yet share the same values from a secular viewpoint. I know that your first truth is God is real, and although I respectfully disagree with that solitary point, I would earnestly like to know if you think it's possible for families with a focus in secular humanism to have a similarly positive experience in religious education, or a place in your movement where one of the tenets of unifying principles stands in direct odds with our religious freedoms? So it's a great question. I first of all think that

the job of the U.S. president is to swear an oath to the Constitution and to keep it. That includes the First Amendment, which includes religious liberty, the freedom of religious exercise, which includes the right not to practice a particular faith either. And so that's squarely the job of the U S president. And I think that, I mean, that was a, there was a lot of thoughtfulness in that question because yes, I was the lone Hindu student in a Catholic high school in Cincinnati, Ohio, and I did take a lot away from that religious education despite not converting to Catholicism at the end of it. And so my core belief system is that there's one true God. God puts us here for a purpose. It's our moral duty to realize that purpose, that we're all equal. God works through us in different ways, but we're all equal because God still resides in each of us. That's the heart of my faith,

my Hindu faith. I think there's deep compatibility with the values. It's a different faith and a different theology, but the value system, including the Judeo-Christian values that this country was founded on. Now, what do the Ten Commandments say? I read them for the first time in ninth grade. There's one true God. Don't take his name in vain. Observe the Sabbath.

Honor your parents. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Don't covet. Broadly, in simpler terms, That's what broadly they say. If I, as a Hindu, can certainly find common purpose with those shared values, and I do,

and I think those are Judeo-Christian values, I think this nation was, as a historical fact, founded on Judeo-Christian values, then I believe somebody who has a Kantian worldview, or pick your favorite secular ordering, can also find common cause with those values. I believe it's easier to arrive at those values just mentally if you anchor yourself grounded in God. I think it's actually a lot harder to get there through secular worldviews. If you want to follow, you know, Immanuel Kant or whoever else, I think it's a harder path. But to answer your question, can somebody who is secular, non-religious, agnostic, or atheist still find common cause with the shared value set that this

country was founded on? Absolutely. And even more, even if you disagree with some of those values, do you have the right to live in this country? And are you still protected by the same constitutional rights? The answer to that is also absolutely yes in the United States of America. And that's what it means not to run for pastor. And I would be certainly an odd choice to run for pastor of a Christian church. But that's not the job of the U.S. president. The job of the U.S. president is to swear an oath to the constitution and to keep it. As far as I know, one of our conversations, Steve is a Christian, Eddie's a, Eddie, were you your pastor, your minister?

And I think that we're not here out of our role to join the ministry together, but out of our shared commitment to the constitution. And so the answer to your question is yes. And I am sharing with you always what my true convictions are. We are one nation under God. It's part of our creed. I think part of what's happened in this country is we've turned God into a four-letter word, which I don't think should actually, is good for our culture. I don't think it's good for kids. I don't think it's good for national unity. But that doesn't mean that if you're an atheist, somehow you're not welcome in this country. I think that as long as you share the shared commitments to the Constitution, you're still an American, and that's what matters. So thank you. I appreciate that. How you doing? What's your name? Summer. Summer? Yeah, I'm nervous. I might yak. That's okay. Okay, Summer. Okay. On January 4th, a deranged individual named Dylan Butler went to the Perry High School.

He killed 11-year-old Amir. He wounded seven others, including four students, three staffers, before killing himself. I'm genuinely terrified. Can we mandate the presence of armed staff members in public and private schools? Schools contain America's most valuable resources and should not be soft targets. There are many teachers, janitors, counselors, and school administrators that would be more than willing to receive training and obtain a conceal and carry permit to protect our children. I want at least one armed staff member in the building before the school's doors open in the morning.

I mean, it's really a tragedy what happened here in Perry, Iowa. And I think the worst tragedy of all was the fact that the reaction to it was, I mean, just certainly from a national perspective, it was almost numb, actually. It wasn't a national story. It was a story here in Iowa. I happened to be in Perry the morning when it happened. We saw a bunch of ambulances, helicopters. You knew something was going on. The question was, we're going to cancel our event. We canceled the political event, but we kept the event intact as a prayer session and an open discussion for people in the community. And it was amazing the number of people who came who otherwise wouldn't have just because they wanted to speak openly. The short answer to your question is I don't think one is sufficient.

That's just a logistical point. I think we need a minimum of three armed security guards in every school across this country. Some schools that are really large might be benefit from four or five. States that lack the funding to do it have a great place to start. Shut down the Department of Education, return the money back to states, and for a tiny fraction of that, you could have three to four in every school across this country. Steve, you were going to mention something? Jeff, yeah. I just want to tell you that there's a school district in Iowa that was going to, they went through extensive training.

They were going to arm personnel, not teachers, but they were going to arm personnel. They went through extensive training with law enforcement. They were actually putting more rounds down range than police officers were. The training was extensive. They had lock boxes. They covered every base. It was amazing. And then they weren't able to do it because the insurance company, we have unfortunately about one insurance company in this state that, that,

uh, insure schools. And they said, we won't insure you if you, if you have armed personnel in the school. And so the legislature and I, we're working to try to address that and fix it. We're looking at school resource officers, a lot of other issues, but absolutely trained individuals that are trained properly in a school, that is your absolute best line of defense, and we're working on trying to make that happen in Iowa. Thank you so much. How you doing? What's your name?

Jeremy. Hold on. We had a follow-up to the question. So this is certainly, I think, the most important issue we're facing with. And what we're seeing among kids just represents the corruption of our nation and just the decay of where society has gone, because you can predict the future of a country just by looking at the kids. This has been a hard issue for me because over two years ago,

we had an incident in a school district where a teacher was stalked and murdered by students, and the weapon was a baseball bat. I think what I want to say is that this is a much larger pattern, and the catastrophe in Perry, there's been a long, a very growing pattern of very violent behavior. So there's a student in Ames beaten unconscious, a part of some strange race-bait exercise where, you know, they wanted the autistic kid to say the N-word, and then they wanted to beat him unconscious. And he had to leave the school in an ambulance. And I can only imagine the trauma of a student having to witness that, and now the trauma of that student still being in the same building with those kids who perpetrated that horrific act of violence. And it's much more severe than just this incident.

And armed security is a great way to prevent the symptom from manifesting. But there's something much, much deeper going on in the hearts and minds of our children where they're willing to, you know, commit these psychopathic acts. So it's a very serious issue and it's much more widespread than just these events. This is certainly a growing pattern. The pattern appears to be growing worse, and I'm truly frightened. And I was having a conversation yesterday with our colleague, Representative Bowden, about these issues, and I just wanted to get on my knees and pray because we need as much help as possible in navigating these issues and giving our children a life worth living and the meaning and the values.

So it's horrific and yeah, armed security is certainly a great step in the right direction, but we need to go as deep as possible to help these kids through whatever they're suffering through. That's good, thank you. Gene. My name is Jeremy.

My name is Jeremy. So Vivek, I was, like I feel like this kind of goes along with the last question. I feel like this kind of goes along with the last question. I feel like morale has been on a steep decline in this country for quite a long time. I feel like mental health kind of plays into that and kind of going with the last question. I believe a big reason for that is the American dream is just getting farther and farther out of reach for a lot of us. So my question to you is, will you get foreign interest and corporate interest out of real estate? And if so, how would you make that happen?

Sure. I think with respect to China, I think it's a simple answer. China is buying up land in this country. They shouldn't. Any CCP affiliate should not be buying land in the United States of America. And that's an easy answer, but I think there's something deeper going on in this country. There is a sickness, and I think that what happened in Perry, Iowa, that's a symptom of a deeper void in this country, a void of purpose and meaning and identity. And I'll be the first to say, I don't think a U.S. president can alone fill that full void, but I think we can fill it partially with a national identity that we lack right now. We're hungry to be part of something bigger than ourselves, yet we can't even answer

what it means to be an American today. And I think that's half the job of the next U.S. president, actually. We actually have had some great policy discussions today. But I think half the job of the next U.S. president, not a congressman or a senator, but the U.S. president, is to revive our national character, to answer who we actually are as Americans, to fill that void of purpose and meaning with something other than wokeism or transgenderism or climatism or COVIDism. Otherwise, it's the same reason you see depression, anxiety, fentanyl, suicide, gender dysphoria. These are symptoms of that deeper void of purpose and meaning. And I do think part of the job of the U.S. president is to get out of the way so that pastors and parents and teachers and coaches across this country can play their role, too. But I'm stepping up and volunteering to play my part to revive that missing national identity in this country.

And yes, you're right. People tend to be more proud of a country when they're making more money in that country. I'm not this guy. They really wanted me to be the fake optimist. The American dream is alive and well. I think that was actually literally a line of one of the other presidential candidates, but it's not. It's alive and hanging on for life support is where we are. But I think it can be well again. And I think that that's going to take simple economic policies that at least grease the wheels for still filling that deeper hunger. We're using our taxpayer money to pay people more to stay at home instead of to go to work. Now, I talked earlier when Tim asked the question about stimulating the economy, that's bad for the economy because that stops businesses from growing and filling open positions,

which is this top obstacle to business growing. But take the person who's receiving the money. Do you think it's actually good for them? I mean, my generation, how old are you, man, if you don't mind me asking? I'm 42. We're in a similar generation with a lot of us here, give or take, is we're the first generation, ours, that the parents of our generation are actually responsible still for the financial sustenance of people our age and younger. For a majority of us, that's the first time that's happened. You think it's good for you to be in your parents' basement playing video games, smoking pot? Is that good? Is that actually good for you? Again, it's not compassion. It's almost

a form of cruelty driving depression and anxiety and worse. And so that's where the economic malaise and the psychological malaise of this country go together. And I do think it's going to take a president with fresh legs coming in from the outside, seeing it as part of our responsibility to address that national identity crisis to get this right. And I hope I'm up for the job. I think I am. That's why we're doing this. Thank you, man. Usually around this time is when we rep. But I think if everyone's cool with it, we'll maybe another half an hour to give you more time to answer questions. I'd love to see unemployment that you get a little

and then it scales down and after six months it disappears unless you get a job and then you actually get paid a little bit more than when you weren't working because we need to incentivize people to take the job. Well, we'll try and get as many questions as we can in and we'll do something that the cable TV channels can't do and go long because we can.

I love that. Got some more questions? A lot of questions. Why is graphene the best? Question for Ian. Why are you so cool? It's mostly your endorsement, Ian. It's this cool shirt that Tim bought me.

Oh, thanks, Phil. What's your name? Brad. Thank you. I'm nervous, too. All right. Don't worry. You should be.

You're fine. You good? I'm good. I feel like you've been grilled for a few hours, so I was going to do a question, but I just want to give the first part, which is a compliment. I'm continually impressed with your poise and strength as the media seems to attack you. I'm a combat veteran of the Marine Corps, and now I do neurosurgery for a living. I know I don't look like it. I have a sleep tattoo.

I'll never get a job, right? In both my careers, people like you have made great leaders. So thank you. Thank you, man. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your service to this country as well, my man.

I appreciate it. What's your name? Julie. I just wanted to ask you your opinion on all this green energy stuff and the climate change stuff, because honestly, I don't think the government should be telling me, you know, what kind of stove I should have. And for some of us who live on a lower income, you know, the burdens that that kind of stuff would would cause would be, you know, astronomical. Yes. Well, I'm going to say something that you're not supposed to say, even in the Republican Party, but it's the truth. The climate change agenda is a hoax. And here's the dirty little secret. It has nothing to do with the climate.

What it has to do is, I can almost at least prove it to you very quickly, the very people who are most opposed to the use of fossil fuels in the United States are also the ones who are perfectly fine shifting those same carbon emissions to places like China in the name of stopping global warming. You can't believe both those things at the same time. Or the very people who are most opposed to fossil fuels are among those who are the most opposed as well to nuclear energy in the United States, which is the greatest form of carbon-free energy production known to mankind. Again, you can't believe both those things at the same time if you're applying principles of logic. But if you're subscribing to a quasi-religious cult,

I won't even call it a religion because the religion has withstood the test of time, I would call this a cult, climate cult, You can believe anything you want. And they even have their patron saint, a modern, what they view Joan of Arc figure, a psychologically challenged individual known as Greta Thunberg, who they view as a modern Joan of Arc patron saint type figure. It has all the qualities of religion, flogging yourself, gasto, self-punishment, engaging in the equivalent of wearing a hair shirt and flogging yourself. Many religions across cultures, Hinduism has a version of this too, is engaging in sort of bodily discomfort and harm to substitute for this self-punishment. That's kind of what the climate religion is. It has all of the elements of religion except not having withstood the test of time, which is why I call it a cult. Now, what am

I going to do about it? Any mandate from the federal government to even measure carbon emissions is out the door. I think we're even measuring the wrong thing. We should be measuring human health, economic mobility, prosperity, rather than this one arbitrary measure of carbon emissions. And the problem is when you start measuring it, you actually have something that all four of us here are opposed to, is all kinds of strange things the federal government starts doing, like subsidizing people to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, build pipelines, bury it in the ground. You have all sorts of strange things like subsidizing electric vehicles. I have no problem with somebody choosing to buy an electric vehicle because it looks cool or drives the way you want

it to or whatever reason you want to, really. Just don't expect me to pay for it, which is exactly what's happening today. And by the way, if they can build a pipeline across your backyard without your consent to bury carbon dioxide in the ground, next up is your gas stove. They'll come and take it, leave a $50 check in your mailbox. That's eminent domain for you. Or take your cow or take your combustion engine vehicle. And so this is a cult. I think it's one of the greatest threats that we face in the United States of America to our sovereignty today is the global climate cult. And it is shameful that I think it is outside of the Overton window of even the Republican Party to actually talk about it in the terms that I just did. But we have to see that. If you think COVID, it sort of has a similar pattern to it,

but at least that came and went. This one's here to stay. I think that was just the practice round for the climate emergency that's coming up. And actually, I've supposedly been the most censored presidential candidate, according to this nonprofit group. But one time where my social media account was outright locked, it's only happened once, was when I stated certain hard facts about the climate movement. Eight times as many people died last year of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. The earth is more covered by green surface area coverage today because carbon dioxide is actually plant food. And the reality is 98% reduction in the climate disaster death rate over the last century. The number of people who die of climate-related disasters, for every 100 who died in 1920, that number is two today. That's due to advances

powered by fossil fuels. And so that's the inconvenient truth for the actual climate movement. And it's going to take a leader with the spine at the top in the United States not to do the waffly thing. The Republican thing to do here is, why are we moving so quickly? China's not doing stuff either. I mean, these are sort of Nikki Haley type talking points or even other Republicans. It doesn't matter. That's a standard Republican line on these matters. I think the right answer is actually to start with the truth. This is not an existential risk to humanity. Climate change has existed as long as the earth has existed. And we should not be focused on one metric of carbon dioxide emissions when people are dying more of bad

climate change policies than they are of climate change itself. And so the humane thing to do is to say no to this cult and yes to human flourishing and growth, regardless of the carbon dioxide emissions that it results in. That's what I would say. The carbon itself is a very valuable asset. And there's going to be a mad dash on the on the air when people realize you can take carbon dioxide out of the air, turn it into graphene. You can take the methane out of the air, turn it into carbon dioxide and then turn it into methane, turn it into graphene rather, and then use it as a building material. And there we need a global coalition so that we don't pull too much of it out of the air because people are going to start harvesting that carbon dioxide. And I don't want to kill the trees. Like you said, it is food for the greenery. So we need to find some sort of mediated stasis. Right on. So I hope that addressed

your question. Yeah. I have one more thing I wanted to say. I'm not from Iowa. I've been here volunteering. I'm from Nebraska. But I wanted to say to everyone that is from Iowa, please caucus because it must be exciting to be a part of all of this and have candidates come. We don't see anyone in Nebraska unless, you know, they're worried about that one electoral vote that we might give to the Democrats. So we don't have a primary till May. So if you are from Iowa, please, please, please caucus on the 15th. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I'm going to use that as an opportunity, Tim. I'd be remiss if I didn't say it tonight, but I mean it. Every person's

vote in the Iowa caucus, you could make the argument that it's like the equivalent of a million people in the impact that it has in actually selecting the next U.S. president. I laid it out earlier, and so I don't rehash our earlier discussion. I believe we're being led by the system into a trap right now. And I promise you, I don't relish this job, but I'm here for a reason. We've done over 390 events in Iowa. That's more than all of the other candidates combined, I think, by a multiple. We're not doing this for any reason other than the fact that I think our country requires, like right now, a leader who's actually able to take our America First movement to the next level and who is not the subject of elimination in the subject of an actively

playing out plot that we can see in straight eyes. And so I'm asking everybody in Iowa who is here to do the right thing for our country on January 15th. And I'm asking you to caucus for me. And if you do, I think we're going to have a major surprise on Monday. And I think we're going to do everything in our family's part and we're going to succeed at it to make sure that our country's best days are actually, not in some fake politician way, but in a true way, actually still ahead of us. So thank you, everybody, who comes out on Monday night to do that as well. I appreciate it. What's your name?

Elliot. Candace, gentlemen, I appreciate you all making it out here, braving the inclement weather. So I got out of the Marine Corps about a year ago, largely due to how the current administration handled, as Ian so correctly frames it, our surrender in Afghanistan, as well as the way service members were treated in regards to the COVID vaccine mandate. And though I appreciate your answer to the first question, Mr. Raviswami, as Commander-in-Chief, do you have any plans as it relates to restoring Americans' trust in our military institutions? And do you intend on holding military leadership who implemented these disastrous policies accountable? Yes. And I think the way we're going to restore trust isn't by fake jingoism.

It's by actually acknowledging the failures and instituting accountability for those failures. It comes on a couple of levels. First is generations of foreign wars that have not advanced our interests. $7 trillion of our national debt owed to the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan that palpably could just look at the results. 20 years later, for God's sake, the Taliban is still in charge.

20 years later, Iraq is a more broken country than we showed up, sending tens of thousands, about 15,000 of America's sons and daughters' lives, sacrificed in those two wars, adding $7 trillion to our national debt. So yes, I do hold accountable the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, some of whom are back at it again, available on the Republican ticket to be voted for for U.S. president, to be trotted back and to bring back a Dick Cheney vision for our foreign policy

that should be relegated to the dustbins of history. So, yes, we need accountability. I think we also need accountability in the nearer term for the self-hatred that our own military is perpetuating in our own ranks. And there's a connection between these two. I'm referring to the rise of sort of the woke infection in our U.S. military ranks. These are not two separate issues. What happened is that General Mark Milley's of the world wanted to deflect the left wing criticism. Keep in mind, it was generally a Republican idea to favor the Iraq war. The left used to hit him for that to say, okay, well, we'll just say the magic words, systemic racism we get this right, restore the true purpose of the U.S. military? What is it? To win wars, to actually avoid wars through being strong,

in protecting our own homeland right here at home, which is more vulnerable than it has ever been. So I believe that the top purpose of the U.S. military should be to protect Americans against threats, make our national defense spending directed towards our own national defense. That includes cyber attacks, super EMP attacks that could take out our electric grid in a matter of days that we're more vulnerable to now than ever. I do view it as an invasion on our own southern border, and I believe an outward-facing function for our U.S. military at our border, as we talked about

earlier, is an appropriate use of our military. And that's how we restore trust. I think people would be happy to serve this country if they knew it was actually to serve Americans rather than to fight somebody else's war halfway around the world so some Ukrainian kleptocrat can buy a bigger house. That's not going to happen on my watch. And's how we restore trust. Thank you. Is Apoorva here? My wife? If Apoorva's here, bring her up at some point. She's going to come.

She's putting the kids to bed, but she wanted to make it for the end of this. Shout out to Apoorva. The generation. What's your name? Alex. Nice to see everybody here. Big fan of the show. Big fan of Uvavake. In primary schools in Russia, they currently teach their students jabbing across before they ever teach a hook for two years. In China, they have masculinity training for their young men.

If you look at the obesity rates in America, we have done a severe disservice to our youth in physical education where traditionally you look at like the De La Salle program out in California back in the 1930s. We were going to go a certain direction and then we flipped to another where kids can just opt out of PE. What can you do to help make America's youth strong as president of the United States? Yeah. You know, I think that what's put aside the presidential authority here, I think that a lot of this should be driven by the states. I'm a constitutionalist. I believe that which is not reserved to the federal government

is reserved respectively to the states and to the people. And I believe that because they're not my words. They're the words in our Constitution, in our 10th Amendment. But let's just talk about the broad policy. I've actually just, as a citizen, advocated often for the SAT, standardized testing. I think you have verbal and math. They added a writing section. I think it's not bad to bring back a physical fitness section as well. Just measure it. Different institutions can put different weight on what they want to weight it in. Not all students, not all schools should weigh the math scores the same way as the reading score, as the same way they weigh the writing scores, the same way they weigh the physical fitness score. But I think we should make it something worth aspiring to in this country.

So that avoids any kind of mandating or anything like that as a basic first step, just signifying we're measuring something because it's worth measuring. Carbon emissions, not worth measuring. Physical fitness in young people, worth measuring, right? And so the things that you actually measure are the things that actually presumably matter. We used to have the presidential fitness test. It was actually under, I think it was President Obama, and it might have been a little bit of a pet project of Michelle Obama, for whatever reason, to eliminate the presidential fitness test. That's not what it sounds like in the context of me saying it, of the U.S. president, that we could determine the, I think it doesn't hurt for a president to disclose how many push-ups and pull-ups they could do too. It doesn't hurt, but that's not what I'm talking about.

It refers to the presidential fitness test in junior high school. That refers to a number of attributes of how you're able to perform on basic parameters of physical fitness that allows us to hold our system accountable and teachers accountable and schools accountable for how well we're doing on that metric, just as well as how well or these days how poorly we're doing on the metrics of math or reading proficiency. So I think that measuring it alone and making that a norm in this country would be a free, non-cost enhancing, non- non liberty infringing way of actually doing what I think is good and important for our country and oddly enough I don't think it's that odd actually that's going to have a palpable impact for the better on the mental health epidemic in this country actually a lot of young

kids are going to be mentally and psychologically a lot better off if we actually start just measuring and aspiring towards improved levels of physical fitness as well. I think most of us know that intuitively. It's definitely true from a data perspective as well. So that'd be my answer to your question. And I do think, I've already been talking about it. People have asked me, why is this guy running for president? What does this have to do with it? Well, what it has to do with it is it still relates to that root cause and that loss of purpose in our country. And I do think that measuring physical fitness

is strictly a good step for our youth and including integrated into our schools and standardized testing. Thank you, man. Appreciate it. What's your name? Ryan. Ryan.

Hey, Ryan. There you go. So I've followed your campaign since basically the beginning, and I love your message. I think you could fix this country. We've seen what they've done going after Donald Trump, indictments, even trying to remove him from the ballot in certain states. My question is, how do I vote for Vivek Ramaswamy without sending the message that I am okay with what they are doing to Donald Trump? I think your question weighs on the minds of a lot of people I met today. What I saw in many of the rooms I was in was a sense of struggle with that question of loyalty. And I think our loyalty, my loyalty, and I know Donald Trump's loyalty and the loyalty of the people participating in this caucus process is for the country. Let's just agree with that. Whoever you're going to vote for, that's what matters here. Not loyalty to me, not loyalty to Trump. It's loyalty to the United States of America. I think if you want to, I'm going to be blunt about this. I think if you want

to save Trump and save this country, a vote for me is actually the way to go. What they're doing to Donald Trump is wrong. I have stood up against it at every step of this process to the point of derision, to the point of people have, there's, I mean, people have had all kinds of conspiracy theories about me, but one of them and more popular ones is there's some kind of Trump plant that Trump and I had some kind of deal early on in this campaign to somehow eliminate Ron DeSantis as though this was a worthy goal for a guy who's got other things to do in life than to focus on eliminating Ron DeSantis from contention. No, that was ridiculous. But I'm saying that I've been so strongly supportive of Donald Trump in the face of these prosecutions that even many people circulated nonsense like this. I've stood up against, I went to the Miami courthouse,

I've stood up against these persecutions. For God's sake, I have actually written a FOIA demand and submitted it, Freedom of Information Act request, to know what Biden told Jack Smith, what Merrick Garland told Jack Smith, followed through on that, taken legal steps, and I hope we get accountability. I think that we weren't, I wasn't planning on announcing this tonight, but might as well just say it. I think tomorrow morning, if not by noon, by tomorrow morning in the next 48 hours, I am submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing for why they need to overturn Colorado's disastrous decision to try to keep Donald Trump off the ballot because it's the right thing to do for this country. And as somebody who's been trained in the law, I feel like a sense of obligation to do that. If somebody who understands the Constitution, it's my belief that every other Republican,

myself included, needs to withdraw from any ballot that forcibly withdraws Donald Trump from the primary ballot because that's how you actually stop the brazen election interference in our own primary. If every other Republican nullifies Maine, then it has no impact. So that's the length to which I've gone. And so people know this about me when I'm saying this. At this point, it is my firm conviction that this system, which has ratcheted up the threat level one by one to eliminating Donald Trump from the ballot, will stop at nothing.

I'm increasingly certain it will stop at nothing to keep this man away from the White House. So I think the best way to literally save Trump is to at least have arguably somebody the system might actually even some elements of it prefer less than Donald Trump for what I'm bringing to Washington, D.C. And I think that's also what this country requires. I think they duped him at many steps. They told him you can't fire those civil service bureaucrats because of so-called civil service protections. Read the law. Those civil service protections do not apply to mass firings. Mass firings are what I'm bringing to the D.C. bureaucracy. So I will honor the man, and I have, and I think it's the right thing to do. I will do

it as the next president because he kept us out of foreign wars that didn't advance our interests and he grew this economy. Those are no two small accomplishments. But our America first agenda does not belong to Donald Trump, just as it doesn't belong to me or anybody else up here. It belongs to you, to us, to we, the people of this country. and we owe it to this country to make sure that movement does not end with Donald Trump, which is what the system has set up to do. I believe we're being led into a trap right now, and it pains me to watch it. So I'm asking you to do the right thing for this country. If you want to support Donald Trump even, or what he represents is actually more precise. The right way to do that, to see this through for the

country, is a vote for me in this Iowa caucus on Monday. And I think people are, there's an emotional component to this. I actually think we need to vote with our brains. There's times when you vote with your heart. There's times when you vote with your brain. Your heart can get you to the doorstep of why America first matters. But now voting with your brain is asking, are you going to look back? Here's the thought experiment that I'd like for every voter in this state to go through. And I think a lot of them are considering myself for Trump heading into Monday. Do you think you're going to look back a year from now and say, whatever God forbid happens this year, say we were shocked by what happened. I mean,

last time it was a man-made pandemic and a tech rigged process leading up to an election that we all know was absolutely an unfair election. That was last time. What do you think they're going to do this time? Are you going to be shocked next January and say, oh, I was shocked that that happened? Or are you going to say we should have seen that coming? And I think it's exactly going to play out. If it's not me in the nomination slot, it's going to play out exactly the way I laid out. It's going to be Trump in a two-horse race versus a puppet who they can control. One way or another, they're going to eliminate him.

We're going to look back and say that should have been obvious when, in fact, right now, people are behaving as though it's not. And we're going to regret the result. And I don't think there's a good chance. I don't think we have a country left, not the same country that we know and love. And so we owe it to this country and to our founding fathers to make sure the 250-year experiment does not end this year

and that we have yet another 250 years and then some left to go. That's why I'm asking you to vote for me. If you want to save Trump and save this country, vote for me. And I hope that gets you to the place where you make the right decision for this country. Thank you, man. I think we have enough time for two more. Two more questions.

What's your name? Tim. Good name. It's a great name. Hi, my name is Simon, and I have a question about civic duty voting. I'm trying to get my friend to get on the Vivek train, but he likes a lot of the most of your things except for civic duty voting. And so I have his concerns. He just doesn't think it has a point to it.

Young adults voting, there's no other way to get young Americans to vote besides making it harder. The test will only hurt the Americans who don't have access to good education or resources. So poor communities is what he said. Also, you're an adult at 18. You can be tried by court. You can go into the workforce and be a part of the community. You should be allowed to vote without taking a test like an American citizen is what his concerns are. Cool. So what I would tell your friend is, first of all, I would say this in a friendly way, relax, in the sense that anything touching this would require a constitutional amendment. But why don't we talk about forgetting the plumbing of how we accomplish it? Let's at least see if we agree on the spirit of it, which is that in order to be a full citizen

of a country, and citizenship is not about what you get. It's actually about what you give. Women didn't have citizenship and didn't have voting rights in this country. People think it means, what do you get? You get the right to vote. No, women were citizens all along, didn't have the right to vote. So if you actually trace our history, what's the origin of citizenship? Citizenship is about allegiance. It's about duty. It's actually why I don't believe that dual citizenship is a coherent concept in the United States. It's all about, or in any country, it's about allegiance. And with allegiance comes a duty.

So with that said, the basic point I was making is, what's your basic duty at least we should expect of someone to a country? Some people will make cases for mandatory military service. I don't. But I think the basic table stakes of your duty to this country should be to know the bare minimums about this country and the Constitution and our history. works. And we know that we, that's an intuition we already track because if you're an immigrant to this country, we say you can't vote. You can have all kinds of other benefits. We give all kinds of benefits to illegal immigrants to this country. There's all kinds of things we do. But at least when things have worked the way they're supposed to, you can't vote in this country until you become a naturalized citizen, which requires you to pass a basic civics test. And so if we require that of a legal immigrant to this country before they cast a ballot at the ballot box, I think it's reasonable for every high school senior

who graduates from high school to at least know the bare minimums about the country that every immigrant has to know as a condition for becoming a voting citizen of this country before the age of 25. I think it's a reasonable thing to ask. Now, if you've had life experience as an adult, I'm willing to drop it. If you say that you've served in a military first responder role, great. That's a different way of having allegiance or service to a country. But the bare minimums, so nobody has to take a civics test there, but the bare minimums are to say that you have some knowledge of the country of which you're a citizen. I was here in Iowa, and so this actually generated a lot of controversy. My campaign staff hated me for rolling out this idea because it didn't poll well. I said, well, at least can we poll it? I said, yeah, I'd love to see the data. It did not poll

well. I came back and I still rolled it out in the speech where I was planning to because I think it's the right thing for the country. So I'm aware that it has not been a friend to my vote-gathering process in this campaign. But I think people have come around to it, actually, over the course of the year. Some of my other positions have had the benefit of this, too, my position on Ukraine or otherwise. But in this one, it so happens, I think people have come around to it. A 10-year-old girl in Iowa, her name is Lena, she came to one of my events. Having heard about this controversy, she heard me take a beating from it from mostly on the left. They claimed it was Jim Crow or something like this. Everything's Jim Crow.

If you're a 10-year-old and somebody says Jim Crow, I think you might think it refers to air. It permeates and it's everywhere. But anyway, she heard a lot of this criticism, and she printed out the 100-question civics test. Most adults in the United States would fail it if they took it right now. 60% is a passing score. She's 10 years old. She comes out with a printout with a handwritten note showing me and telling me that she got 100%,

100 out of 100 at the age of 10. So I don't think this is something that results in some socioeconomic struggle. If this 10 year old girl in Iowa can know the first thing, I mean, questions like how many branches of government are there? What branch of government does the US president lead? I don't think it's too much to ask an 18-year-old to know what branch of government the U.S. president leads before they show up at the ballot box to cast a vote for the

U.S. president. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask of a country. And I think that that's what it means to be a citizen at this point. So tell your friend to look at the spirit of that and don't worry about the plumbing so much. Thank you. What's your name? Hi, I'm Brittany. Big fan of Tim Kass. Big fan of Candace. Hello. Hi.

Okay, so Vivek, thank you so much for being here. I know the weather is not ideal right now, but thank you for being here. So your slogan has been truth and it's all over this room. Many Americans over the years have felt lied to by our government and that they have pulled the wool over our eyes with so many occurrences in history especially in the last four years. Recently you have been speaking what recently happened with January 6th and you're constantly getting attacked so thank you for speaking the truth on that. Thank you. There have been many there have been so many whistleblowers such as Snow, to expose the truth to the American people about what is going on behind closed doors.

My question to you is, do you have it on your radar to grant pardons to those who told the truth to the American people and also to release documents that would uncover a lot of unknowns to the American people or to provide protections to future whistleblowers? Yes, yes, and yes is the answer to your questions. I mean, I think that, so if we had a resource, I'd pardon it and be a clemency, but I think that if you swear an oath to the Constitution, your job is to keep it. And so you cannot systematically participate in the violation of those constitutional freedoms and constitutional rights without exposing that to the public. And I think we, the people, deserve a government that just tells the people the truth again. Not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. Sometimes it's ugly.

That's when we need it the most. And I think we've been systematically lied to. You could just go to the last eight years, seven, eight years. Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Made up. COVID origin. Couldn't say that it came from a lab in China when it was obvious that it likely came from a lab in China now that we know that it did. How are my days being spent in Ukraine right now? The truth about what happened on January 6th. The truth about the Nashville transgender shooter manifesto. We actually went down to Nashville, Canada, signed an event there together calling on the local police or the FBI, either one, to just release that manifesto.

And how we were actually lied to, even in that community, they said there's a lot in there that it's not what you think it is, but it could be dangerous to release. Then it gets released, and we see it was just actually a race-baiting, psychologically challenged person. A government that has systematically lied to its people. The reason people don't trust the government is that the government doesn't trust the people. Trust is a two-way relationship, actually. And so I think the two ways we rebuild trust in this country...

We had the event last night. You were out of the way. Both of you were there for the press gaggle afterwards. That was a fun press gaggle we had last night. People should watch that one. It was the longest one I've done in a long time. We do you were there for the press gaggle afterwards. That was a fun press gaggle we had last night. People should watch that one. It was the longest one I've done in a long time. We do the events and the press will come up afterwards. It's about 35 minutes.

I think we want to rebuild trust in this country. If two things happen, I think we have taken a quantum leap forward. We're back on track as a country. They're easy to do. The President of the United States tells the American people what we know about the subjects where the government has lied to the people. UAPs, tell us the truth. What happened on January 6th? Just tell us the truth. What was Saudi Arabia's role in 9-11? We know we lied to us. Just tell us the truth. Just go straight down the list. What was or wasn't known about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Just tell us the truth. How many times

as a government official, we saw the Twitter files, any time a government official has pressured a private actor or a company or a bank or a tech company to do something the government couldn't do directly, just publish it as a first step. Tell us the truth. Was our taxpayer money used to fund the gain-of-function research that resulted in the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic? That's the first thing that it's up to a U.S. president to do from the standpoint of the government. And then if just one person in the media,

just one, I don't need NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN and everybody else doing it at the same time, just one of them, look their audience in the eye and tell them when it came to the Hunter Biden laptop story that was suppressed on the eve of the last election, when it came to the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, when it came to the origin of COVID-19, when it came to the truth of the totality, at least even, of what happened on January 6th or the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot or whatever. We didn't tell you the whole truth.

We're sorry about it. Here's why we didn't. These are institutional failures. And here's why we're going to make sure that never happens again. And I know you're still not going to trust us tomorrow, but we hope to re-earn your trust by repeatedly telling you the truth transparently. And we regret what happened. And we fired the people who were accountable for hiding it from you. If you have a president who does that from the White House, and just one, not all of them, just one actor in the mainstream media who does that, looking their audience in the eye on a TV screen and telling them the same thing, we are well on our way to reuniting and reviving this country. If I'm your president, that's going to happen from the presidency. And I think there's probably at least one good enterprising smart person still left there in the mainstream media

that could step up and do the same thing. And if those two things happen, I am confident that we don't have to be mired in this divisive decline that we're in, but that we still can be in our ascent. I believe that. And I'm going to do my part. And I hope those in the media who have failed

have stepped up and do their part. And, you know, all I'm going to ask is of the citizens of this country to do your part here in Iowa starting on Monday. And that's what gets us there. So thank you. I appreciate you asking the question. Sometimes I think that it's more valuable to lie to the people.

And it's actually better in that we're talking about like secret weapons programs. You mentioned UAPs. If we're working on like the atom bomb, they didn't want to come out and be like, by the way, Germany and everyone listening, we're building an atom bomb. They didn't. They were like, are you building an atom bomb? No, we are not building an atom bomb. So there's times that you want to blatantly lie and not even say that the thing is not existent. So I disagree about the distinction between secrecy versus lying.

Certain state secrets need to be state secrets. Yes. Systematically lying when asked about it, I think, is a different matter. And so I think that's a hard line to draw. But you and I would still agree that at a certain point, you have a government that still tells the truth to the people again. And I think we deserve to know the truth of all the way what happened to I mean, what's the truth of what happened with JFK? I think we should know. I mean, I think the public should know. We've been non-transparent about it every step of the way. People call me conspiracy theorist for asking the question. That's not the point. The point is the government just deserves to at a certain point in time, tell the people the truth again. And I disagree with you even in the near term. In the short run, it could be a more convenient thing to do to lie to the people. But in the long run, I think the answer is always to actually

stand for the truth. And if you get into the specifics, even of geopolitics, this relates to the historical neocon neoliberal view of strategic ambiguity, right? So non-transparency at home goes hand in glove with the foreign policy worldview of strategic ambiguity. It's a whole worldview that says you're going to actually be in a stronger position if you don't tell people what you're going to do. I actually view it the other way. I think that if we have clear red lines and actually say that, you know what, we are nuclear equipped and here's where we are, that's actually going to, if we tell a country that if you cross this red line, we're actually going to have major consequences to pay for it. That's more likely to actually avoid war than it is to actually engage in strategic ambiguity. And so it's just a totally different worldview from the traditional neoconservative neoliberal vision that I'm bringing, which is transparency at home, which actually translates to you don't need the national security charade if your whole foreign policy strategy was also grounded in truth. And actually saying that this is what we're okay with, and this is what we are affirmatively not okay with.

And here are the conditions under which we will blow you to annihilation because we have to. And if you cross that red line, we follow through and do it, but the rest of the time, we're not going to pretend like that's a possibility either, and so it's a total alternative worldview all the way up and all the way down, but it is grounded in, yes, absolute truth and transparency, and so that's what I'm going to bring, and if you think that that's dangerous, if you think that that poses risks to the future of our republic then I'm not your guy I'm not your candidate but if you believe with

me that in the long run this is the way to respect the founding ideals of this country and to lead a country that is stronger over the long run for relying on truth both in our foreign policy and our domestic policy then I don't think there's anybody in this race who comes close to being able to deliver that in the way that and our domestic policy, then I don't think there's anybody in this

race who comes close to being able to deliver that in the way that I will. So that's what I offer. I want to thank Vivek for having us out and for everyone else here who's joined and has hung out with us. We've got a special members-only segment, VIP. We're going to be hanging out at this private party, keeping the conversation going for a little bit while longer. So head over to timcast.com, click join us. And in a few minutes, we will have up a live feed hanging out on the couch, talking a little bit more about what's going on behind the scenes. And I want to say thank you to everybody who showed up here physically, everybody who watched the show. You can follow the show at Timcast IRL everywhere. You can follow me personally at Timcast to make sure you smash that like button, subscribe to this channel. But let's, I don't know if you want the last word, so we should go around before coming back to you, Vivek, and we can have a look.

Yeah, let's do that. Luke, if you want to shout anything out. Yeah, sure. If you want to support me, you can on thebestpoliticalshirts.com. The phrase that I'm wearing right now was actually highlighted by Politico, and they were actually showing a picture of my hat. But they conflated this issue with conspiracy theories. And what happened with Jeffrey Epstein is not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fact. Independent media has been talking about it for many years now, while the corporate prostitute horse dream media

has literally been covering it up. Shame on them. Criminal actions by these SOBs that deserve to, of course, be recalled. Fight back, spread the word, wear the shirts. Thebestpoliticalshirts.com is the best way to support me. And even though, Vivek, you want to peg the Fed and I want to end the Fed, thank you so much for coming here and being a part of this broadcast. I want to end it too.

And taking questions that are not scripted. We're actually going to continue the conversation on also thebestpoliticalshow.com where we are going to have you as a guest soon as well. So I look forward to that as well. Thank you so much. Thank you, man. Yeah, Ian Crossland, if you don't know what's happening, guys, follow me.

And take care of yourself, your stomach and your heart and your brain. Kind of reduce the acidity. Let the oils flow through you and get in touch with God that way. It helps pretty good. So now's the time to start eating healthy and do a plank. Do like a 30-second plank or something. No seed oil. Graphene.

No, graphene. And then we'll talk about graphene. Ian, it's been a pleasure to sit next to you tonight. Candice has been a special guest. Guys, you know where to find me. You can subscribe to my YouTube channel. Also, just want to re-mention the series, A Shot in the Dark, for people that are interested in learning more about vaccines and big pharma.

I think it's the most important work that I do. And I just want to say it's a tremendous honor to be on the road with Vivek this week. We're going to be hitting a bunch of campaign stops tomorrow. Just love his vision for the future. So just as much as I can throw power to him, I'm really impressed with your campaign. Thank you. I appreciate it, Candace. Thank you. Close us out. Yeah, well, look, I am guided by my gratitude to this country. Actually, I am not I don't covet the office of the president.

And if there's somebody else who can step up and do this job better than I can. They will have my support and full optimism for the country. But I do think we're in the middle of a kind of war in this country right now. And I don't use that word lightly. I don't think it is a war between black and white, as the media would have you believe. I don't even think it's a war between Democrat and Republican for some of the reasons we've talked about here. I think it's a war between those and Republican for some of the reasons we've talked about here.

I think it's a war between those of us who love the United States of America and our founding ideals and a fringe minority who hates this country and what we stand for. It's a war between the permanent state and the everyday citizen. And I think we need right now more than ever a commander in chief, a general who's actually going to lead us to victory in the war. I think you got to know you're in a war to win one. Can't be asleep at the switch. I think you can't be bought and paid for by that existing system. Every politician is dancing to the tune that their biggest donor, my biggest donor is me. I don't report to them. I report to you, the people of the country. But I think now more than ever, it's also going to require somebody with fresh legs. And I think somebody from the next generation to reach and lead the next generation of Americans. And so if you agree with me on that, I'm going to ask you to vote for me starting in Iowa on January 15th. It's going to be a cold night. I'm told it's like minus 12 cold.

No, no, no. Minus 22. Minus 22 cold. Well, I think that this could actually be for the people who want to support me to be the next president. You know what? George Washington, I don't think, complained about the weather when he crossed the Delaware either. And I think we're in a 1776 moment. I think we are in a war for the future of our country. So despite it being cold, I'm going to ask the people starting right here in Iowa to safely bundle up, be warm, but come out on the night of the Iowa caucus, do the right thing for this country. And if you circle my name that night, I think we

have a good shot at winning the Iowa caucus. And if I win the Iowa caucus, I'm your next president. And if I'm your next president, we get done the things I'm telling you we will get done. And I am confident that our best days are actually still going to be ahead of us. So thank you guys for having me. Thank you, everybody, for hanging out and watching this show. And we'll be back tomorrow. We'll see y'all then.