reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @TheReportX
@TheReportX - The Report
@MJTruthUltra This is one of those propaganda films they are making, One Battle After Another. https://t.co/6uGWb1ufzG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Checklist:
- Identify setting, actions, and sequence of moments.
- Preserve key quotes that drive meaning and plot.
- Track relationships and motivations (family dynamics, vigilante context).
- Condense repetitive dialogue; keep unique or surprising details.
- Highlight notable elements (Medal of Honor moment, “French seventy five,” pronoun usage).
- Do not add interpretation or opinions; present claims as in transcript.
The scene unfolds around two central figures amid danger and family history. Speaker 0 builds a closed circuit and cautions, “Very important to keep your cap shunted like this so you don't accidentally detonate your charge.” Speaker 1 counters, urging, “Don't stop. I want you to create a show. This is an announcement of revolution. The message is clear.” The tension escalates with a veiled threat: “I'll be seeing you very soon.” Then Speaker 1 pivots to a public confrontation: “for bringing justice to the vigilante group known as the French seventy five, we are here to award Stephen Lockjaw with the Medal of Honor.”
A cryptic dynamic follows as Speaker 0 states, “You have to understand the will of you.” The dialogue shifts to family history and peril: “Me and mom, we used to run around and do some real bad.” “They got hurt. Now they're coming after us. I'm sorry.” “I didn't ask for this. That's just how the cards were rolled out for me.” The retort lands: “It's not cards. You don't roll cards. It's dice.” The exchange intensifies: “Dad, what is wrong with you?” “You're right.” The speaker announces a plan: “Let's go. I got a tunnel. What? What's going on? I need a weapon, man.”
A resource constraint and protective impulse come through: “All you got is goddamn nunchucks here. You know, I can get a gun.” The protective motive is explicit: “I wanted to protect you from all your mom's stuff and all my stuff even though I know that's impossible.” The threatenings’ line of no return arrives: “This is the end of the line. Not for you.” A moment of uncertainty about new allies follows: “Woah. Who's this?” “Oh, they're just my friends.” The pronoun question—“Now is that a he or a she or a they?”—is answered: “It's not that hard. They, them.” The response seeks politeness: “Okay. I just wanna be polite. Yo. Say it. Say it, baby.” A brief affection is exchanged: “Love you, Bob.” “Love you too.” The closing conveyance frames a philosophy of liberty: “You know what freedom is? No fear. Just like Tom Cruise.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And what I'm doing here is I'm creating a closed circuit. Very important to keep your cap shunted like this so you don't accidentally detonate your charge.
Speaker 1: Don't stop. I want you to create a show. This is an announcement of revolution. The message is clear.
Speaker 0: I'll be seeing you very soon.
Speaker 1: And what about seeing you first? For bringing justice to the vigilante group known as the French seventy five, we are here to award Stephen Lockjaw with the Medal of Honor.
Speaker 0: You have to understand the will of you.
Speaker 1: Me and mom, we used to run around and do some real bad
Speaker 0: They got hurt. Now they're coming after us. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I didn't ask for this. That's just how the cards were rolled out for me.
Speaker 0: It's not cards. You don't roll cards. It's dice.
Speaker 1: Dad, what is wrong with you?
Speaker 0: You're right.
Speaker 1: Let's go. I got a tunnel. What? What's going on? I need a weapon, man.
All you got is goddamn nunchucks here. You know, I can get a gun.
Speaker 0: I wanted to protect you from all your mom's stuff and all my stuff even though I know that's impossible.
Speaker 1: This is the end of the line. Not for you.
Speaker 0: Woah. Who's this?
Speaker 1: Oh, they're just my friends.
Speaker 0: Now is that a he or a she or a they?
Speaker 1: It's not that hard. They, them.
Speaker 0: Okay. I just wanna be polite. Yo. Say it. Say it, baby.
Speaker 1: Love you, Bob.
Speaker 0: Love you too.
Speaker 1: You know what freedom is? No fear. Just like Tom Cruise.
@TheReportX - The Report
@TuckerCarlson Here is the Fox News report after 9/11, which they removed from the archive! https://t.co/vg1zfCqVVe
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fox News reports that more than sixteen years after Pollard, US investigators believe Israelis are again engaged in spying in and on the US, and may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11. Since 9/11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, some failing polygraphs about alleged surveillance; there is no indication they were involved in the attacks, but investigators say they may have gathered intelligence in advance and not shared it. "Evidence linking these Israelis to nineeleven is classified." A group in North Carolina is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs. As many as 140 Israelis have been detained since the mid-nineties in an "organized intelligence gathering activity" penetrating military bases, the DEA, FBI, and private homes; many claimed service in military intelligence. Dozens were detained at mall kiosks selling Puzzle Car and Zoom Copter as a front. Investigations point to Amdocs Limited, "an Israeli based private telecommunications company," that "generates billing data for virtually every call in America," with NSA warnings of records possibly falling into foreign hands; Comverse Infosys, "a subsidiary of an Israeli run private telecommunications firm," provides wiretapping equipment, CALEA interception, and concerns of a "backdoor" vulnerability. The Israeli embassy denies spying, "simply not true."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It has been more than sixteen years since a civilian working for the navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work. Now Fox News has learned some US investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on The US, who may known things they didn't tell us before September 11. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four part series.
Speaker 1: Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained, either under the new Patriot anti terrorism law or for immigration violations. A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained according to investigators who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in The United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the nineeleven attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are, quote, tie ins. But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, quote, Evidence linking these Israelis to nine eleven is classified.
I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information. FOX News has learned that one group of Israelis spotted in North Carolina recently is suspected of keeping an apartment California to spy on a group of Arabs who The United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in The United States. Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid nineties.
These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, quote, may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity. The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Basal Al Academy. They repeatedly made contact with US government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork. Documents say they targeted and penetrated military bases, the DEA, FBI, and dozens of other government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, quote, stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept, and or explosive ordinance units.
Another part of the investigation has resulted in the detention and arrests of dozens of Israelis at American mall kiosks where they've been selling toys called Puzzle Car and Zoom Copter. Investigators suspect a front. Shortly after the New York Times and Washington Post reported the Israeli detentions last month, the carts began vanishing. Zoom Copter's webpage says, We are aware of the situation caused by thousands of mall carts being closed at the last minute. This in no way reflects the quality of the toy or its salability.
The problem lies in the operators' business policies. Why would Israelis spy in and on The US? A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country a and said, quote, according to a US intelligence agency, the government of country a conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against The US of any US ally. A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and quote, the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every facet of their political and economic policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and The US is a high priority target.
The document concludes, quote, Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives. A spokesman for The US excuse me, the Israeli embassy here in Washington issued a categorical denial saying any suggestion that Israelis are spying in or on The US is quote simply not true. There are other things to consider and in the days ahead we will take a look at The US phone system and law enforcement's methods for wiretaps and an investigation into the possibility that both have been compromised by our friends and allies overseas. Brett?
Speaker 0: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was gonna happen on nine eleven? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?
Speaker 1: Well, it's very explosive information, obviously, and there's a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have known? Almost a direct quote, Brett.
Speaker 0: And this going to the fact that they were spying on some Arabs. Right?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Alright, Carl. Thanks very much. Reported on the approximately 60 Israelis who had been detained in connection with the September 11 terrorism investigation. Carl Cameron reported that US investigators suspected some of these Israelis were spying on Arabs in this country and may have turned up information on the planned terrorist attacks back in September that was not passed on. Tonight, in the second of four reports on spying by Israelis in The US, we learn about an Israel Israeli based private communications company for whom a half dozen of those 60 detained suspects worked.
American investigators fear information generated by this firm may have fallen into the wrong hands and had the effect of impeding the September eleventh terror inquiry. Here is Carl Cameron's second report.
Speaker 1: Fox News has learned that some American terrorism investigators fear certain suspects in the September eleventh attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them by knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone. How? By obtaining and analyzing data that's generated every time someone in The U. S. Makes a phone call.
One sitting and safe, please. Here's how the system works. Most directory assistance calls and virtually all call records and billing in The US are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Limited, an Israeli based private telecommunications company. Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.
In recent years, the F. B. I. And other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing.
But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the Super Secret National Security Agency, headquartered in Northern Maryland, issued what's called a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information report warning that records of calls in The United States were getting into foreign hands in Israel in particular. Investigators do not believe calls are being listened to but the data about who's calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. Quote, widespread data mining techniques and algorithms combining both the properties of the customer, like credit rating, and properties of the specific behavior. Specific behavior such as whom the customers are calling.
The Amdocs memo says the system should be used to prevent phone fraud, but US counterintelligence analysts say it could also be used to spy through the phone system. Fox News has learned that the NSA has held numerous classified conferences to warn the FBI and CIA how MDOC's records could be used. At one NSA briefing, a diagram by the Argonne National Lab was used to show that if the phone records are not secure, major security breaches are possible. Another briefing document said, quote, it has become increasingly apparent that systems and networks are vulnerable. Such crimes always involve unauthorized persons or persons who exceed their authorization, acting on exploitable vulnerabilities.
Those vulner abilities are growing because according to another briefing, The US relies too much on foreign companies like Amdocs for high-tech equipment and software. Quote, many factors have led to increased dependence on code developed overseas. We buy rather than train or develop solutions. US intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of Amdocs information and Amdocs insists that its data is secure. What US government officials are worried about, however, is the possibility that Amdoc's data could get into the wrong hands, particularly organized crime, and that would not be the first time that such a thing has happened.
Fox News has documents of a 1997 drug trafficking case in Los Angeles in which telephone information, the types that Amdocs collects, was used to quote completely compromise the communications of the FBI, the Secret Service, the DEA, and the LAPD. And we'll have that and a lot more in the days ahead, Brett.
Speaker 0: Carl, I wanna take you back to your report last night on those 60 people who are Israelis who were detained in the anti terror investigation and the suspicion that some investigators have that they may have picked up information on the nine eleven attacks ahead of time, not passed it on. There was a report, you'll recall, that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, did indeed send representatives to The US to warn just before nine eleven that a major terrorist attack was imminent. Why does that not how does that leave room for the lack of a warning?
Speaker 1: Well, remember the report, Britt. We did it first internationally right here on your show on the fourteenth. What investigators are saying is that that warning from the Mossad was nonspecific and general and they believe that it may have had something to do with the desire to protect what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. The suspicion being perhaps those and methods were taking place right here in The United States. The question came up in the Select Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill today.
They intend to look into what we reported last night and specifically that possibility. Brett?
Speaker 0: So in other words, the problem wasn't lack of a warning. The problem was lack of useful details. Quantity of information. Alright, Carl. Thanks very much.
Coming up next. Israeli based company called Amdocs that generates computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, US investigators digging into the nine eleven terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs. In tonight's report, we learned that the concern about phone security extends to another company founded in Israel that provides the technology that the US government uses for electronic eavesdropping. Here is Carl Cameron's third report.
Speaker 1: The company is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli run private telecommunications firm with offices throughout The U. It provides wiretapping equipment for law enforcement. Here's how wiretapping works in The U. S. Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation's elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies.
Custom computers and software made by companies like Comverse are tied into that network to intercept, record, and store the wiretapped calls and at the same time transmit them to investigators. The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system. Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned October 18 in a hand delivered letter from 15 local, state, and federal law enforcement officials who complained that quote, law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALIA was enacted.
Converse insists the it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Converse have in effect a backdoor through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties. Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Converse works closely with the Israeli government and under special programs gets reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS, and FBI have all told FOX News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Converse is considered career suicide. And sources say that while various FBI inquiries into Converse have been conducted over the years, they've been halted before the actual equipment has ever been thoroughly tested for leaks.
A 1999 FCC document indicates several government agencies expressed deep concerns that too many unauthorized, non law enforcement personnel can access the wiretap system. And the FBI's own nondescript office in Chantilly, Virginia that actually oversees the CALIA wiretapping program is among the most agitated about the threat. But there is a bitter turf war internally at FBI. It is the FBI's office in Quantico, Virginia that has jurisdiction over awarding contracts and buying intercept equipment. And for years, they've thrown much of the business to Converse.
A handful of former US law enforcement officials involved in awarding Converse government contracts over the years now work for the company. Numerous sources say some of those individuals were asked to leave government service under what knowledgeable sources call troublesome circumstances that remain under administrative review within the justice department. And what troubles investigators most, particularly in New York in the counter terrorism investigation of the World Terror World Trade Center attack, is that on a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and surveil immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place. Brett?
Speaker 0: Carl, is there any reason to suspect in this instance that the Israeli government is involved?
Speaker 1: No. There's not. But there are growing instincts and an awful lot of law enforcement officials in a variety of agencies who suspect that it had begun compiling evidence and a highly classified investigation into precisely that possibility. Brett.
Speaker 0: Alright, Carl. Thanks very much.
Speaker 2: On a long standing government espionage investigation, federal officials this year have arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to a, quote, organized intelligence gathering operation. The Bush administration has deported most of those arrested after September 11, although some are in custody under the new anti terrorism law. Cameron also described an investigation into the possibility that an Israeli firm generated billing data that could be used for intelligence purposes and described concerns that the federal government's own wiretapping system may be vulnerable. Tonight in part four of the series, we'll learn about the improbable roots of the probe, a drug case that went bad four years ago in LA. LA.
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, 1997. A major local, state, and federal drug investigation sours. The suspects? Israeli organized crime with operations in New York, Miami, Las Vegas, Canada, Israel, and Egypt. The allegations?
Cocaine and ecstasy trafficking and sophisticated white collar credit card and computer fraud. The problem? According to classified law enforcement documents obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught admitted to having hundreds of numbers and using them to avoid arrest. Quote, this compromised law enforcement communications between LAPD detectives and other assigned law enforcement officers working various aspects of the case.
The organization discovered communications between organized crime intelligence detectives, the FBI, and the Secret Service. Shock spread from the DEA to the FBI in Washington and then the CIA. An investigation of the problem, according to law enforcement documents, concluded, quote, the organization has apparent extensive access to database systems to identify pertinent personal and biographical information. When investigators tried to find out where the information might have come from, they looked at Amdocs, a publicly traded firm based in Israel. Amdocs generates billing data for virtually every call in America, and they do credit checks.
The company denies any leaks, but investigators still fear that the firm's data is getting into the wrong hands. When investigators checked their own wiretapping system for leaks, they grew concerned about potential vulnerabilities in the computers that intercept, record, and store the wiretapped calls. A main contractor is Converse Infosys, which works closely with Israeli government and under a special grant program is reimbursed for up to 50% of its research and development costs by Israel's Ministry of Industry and Trade. Asked this week about another sprawling investigation and the detention of 60 Israelis since September 11, the Bush administration treated the questions like hot potatoes. I would just refer you to the Department of Justice with it.
I'm not familiar with the report.
Speaker 3: I'm aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained. With respect to why they are being retained detained and the other aspects of of your question, whether it's because they are in intelligence services or what they were doing, I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that.
Speaker 1: Beyond the 60 apprehended or detained and many deported since September 11, group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents describe as quote, an organized intelligence gathering operation designed to quote penetrate government facilities. Most of those said they had served in the Israeli military which is compulsory there, but they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping. Earlier this week, the Israeli embassy in Washington any spying against or in The United States. Tony?
Speaker 2: Carl, we've heard the comments from Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell. What are officials saying behind the scenes?
Speaker 1: Well, there's real pandemonium described at both the FBI, the DEA, and the INS. A lot of these problems have been well known to some investigators, many of whom have contributed to the reporting on this story. And what is what they say is happening is supervisors and management are now going back and collecting much of the information because there's tremendous pressure from top levels of all of those agencies to find out exactly what's going on. At the DEA and the FBI already a variety of administrative reviews are underway addition to the investigation of the phenomenon. They want to find out how it is that all this has come out as well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political ramifications of the story itself.
Tony.
Speaker 2: Alright, Carl.
@TheReportX - The Report
@MeghanMcCain Your grandfather helped cover up the USS Liberty attack by Israel. And now, you’re continuing that same legacy of betrayal. https://t.co/ei4Or7eKLe
reSee.it AI Summary
I pointed out the hypocrisy surrounding the ban on raw milk in the UK and USA, initiated by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Interestingly, Abby Rockefeller, a descendant of John D. Rockefeller, operates a biodynamic raw dairy farm in New York, despite her family's efforts to restrict public access to raw milk. Additionally, I noted that Queen Elizabeth II and her mother also consumed raw milk throughout their lives. While the elite maintained access to unprocessed nutrition, the general public faced health issues and rising lactose intolerance.
@TheReportX - The Report
The Rothschilds banned raw milk in the UK, and the Rockefellers did the same in the USA. Now here’s the hypocrisy. Abby Rockefeller — the granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller — currently runs a biodynamic raw dairy farm in upstate New York. Yes, the very same Rockefeller family that lobbied to eliminate raw milk access for the general public… quietly preserved it for themselves. And it wasn’t just them. Queen Elizabeth II and her mother also drank raw milk — and never stopped. While the elites maintained their access to real, unprocessed nutrition, the rest of civilization was made sick, weakened, and increasingly lactose intolerant.
@TheReportX - The Report
FULL INTERVIEW: Vivek Ramaswamy With Dr. Ben Carson @VivekGRamaswamy https://t.co/yEt4smiGo4
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this episode of "Common Sense with Dr. Ben Carson," Dr. Carson interviews Vivek Ramaswami, a successful entrepreneur and former presidential candidate. They discuss the importance of common sense principles in politics and the need to restore accountability in government. They also touch on topics such as term limits, reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, and addressing the national debt. Ramaswami emphasizes the shared values of Hinduism and Christianity and the need to focus on individual responsibility rather than victimhood. He expresses hope for the future of the country and encourages people to stand up for their beliefs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of Common Sense with doctor Ben Carson. I'm your host, Ben Carson. And I've got a guest today who epitomizes common sense. He's a very successful entrepreneur and, has run for president of the United States and is working very hard on preserving our country. I I wanna welcome to the podcast Vivek Ramaswami.
Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 1: Doctor Carson, good to talk to you. At, you know, long last, we've been looking forward to this. So let's, let's have a good conversation.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, you you're a tremendous, inspiration to a lot of people because you're so articulate. But more than that, you're logical. You make sense. And, you posted, not too long ago, some principles that you believe in that, you would help anyone who expected your support to believe in. What what were those what were those principles, and why are they so important?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look. I I think that first of all, I love the title of the podcast, Common Sense, because it speaks to a shared set of values that I think most of us hold in common. But if you also even go back to our revolutionary roots, Thomas Paine's original work that started the American Revolution was called Common Sense. One of the things I did during my presidential campaign, and I know that you know what that's all about, having been through it yourself, We created these pamphlets called truth on the front, but it was modeled exactly on the visual format that Thomas Paine used 250 years ago.
And I think we live in this 1776 kind of moment today where it is those basic common ideals that are on the table right now. So the principle that I've espoused, for example, what I call the American truth pledge that I've advanced after my campaign to say that I'm supporting candidates across the country, black or white. It doesn't matter to me. Man or woman, I don't care. Do you espouse the basic ideals that this nation was founded on, including the idea that the people we elect to run the government should actually be the ones who run the government, not the shadow government in the bureaucracy that runs the show today.
It's not a democrat idea or republican idea. It's a basic American idea of common sense. The people who we elect to run the government should be the ones who actually run the government. That the first and sole moral duty of US leaders is to US citizens, period. Not the citizens of a different country, but the citizens of this country.
Again, that's not a partisan idea. It's a it's an idea that's founded goes to the heart of what this country was founded on back to George Washington.
Speaker 0: The founders put together some pretty good, you know, they looked at every government that ever existed. They were eclectic, and they kinda Yes. Pulled good stuff and left the bad stuff out and put together something that was pretty, admirable. But
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Needless to say.
Speaker 0: We have a situation now where we have to wonder, how do we enforce the principles? I mean, the Supreme Court, for instance, you know, said that the taxing mandates were unconstitutional. They said that, you know, forgiving the student loan debt was unconstitutional, and administration does it anyway. I mean, how how do we actually enforce what is supposed to be done?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I think a lot of what's happening isn't even coming top down from the US president. Take that first principle. Right? The people we elect to run the government should be the ones who run the government.
That's not the case today. Today, the people who wield the levers of power, and and I know that you know this well as well as those who've seen it firsthand, it's really the 3 letter agencies. It's bureaucrats. Not even the people at the cabinet level appointments, but even at layers beneath them that set the policy of the country. And so I think part of what we're missing, and it's part of why, like you, I'm focused on making sure that we do have the right chief executive.
I think and for the next 4 years, that's gonna be Donald Trump, who exercises the appropriate executive authority vested in the US president by article 2 of the constitution of the United States. And I think that's something we've been missing certainly in the last 4 years. But even if you look from most of the last several decades, the idea of the president being the one who actually runs the show has been more often than not not the case. It's actually been the bureaucracy underneath that gets away with sidestepping what the constitution demands. And so you gave 2 two examples of that, but we see that every day from our foreign policy to our domestic policy to education policy.
And I think that once we restore that accountability that agree or not. I mean, you you know, it's the person who's elected in congress or in the senate or even the presidency may not be the one that people like you and I agree with. But at least let's start with this. At least the ones who we elect are the ones who actually set policy, not the shadow government in that deep state. Once we fix that, the rest becomes much easier.
Speaker 0: It's interesting that there are 4,000,000 employees in the executive branch government. President only gets to change 3,000 of them when he comes in, so that's a drop in the bucket. And these people have been there for 20, 30, 40. There were even people at HUD had been there for 50 years. Unbelievable.
They know how to slow off things. They know how to speed things up. And, we that's a that's an issue that we're gonna have to find a way to deal with. You've got some ideas on how we shed some of those 4,000,000 people, aren't you?
Speaker 1: I do. And I think that you're right. I mean, the way you pointed that out was eye opening to most people. That of the 4,000,000, it's only a few thousand that technically the president can individually fire. And so, you know, I think that there are some some steps taken in motion even toward the end of the first Trump term of schedule f expansion that that few thousand could be a lot more than just those few thousand.
I think those are steps in the right direction. But I think we gotta take a bigger leap forward than that, which is to read the current law very carefully, which says that, yes, the president cannot individually fire those individual bureaucrats. The whole idea is that you wanted to prevent fear of political retaliation. But here's what the president can do under current law is mass firings, large indiscriminate layoffs. And so what I think we need, doc Carson, is we need about a 75% reduction across the board in the number of federal bureaucrats.
Not to say that I'm picking on you or you because you're a bad person and you did a bad job. It's that of those 4,000,000, we need fewer than 1,000,000 right now. And those large indiscriminate layoffs, bringing an ax, the chainsaw, not the chisel, that's actually something the president is allowed to do right now even under current law. He can't pick and choose which of those 3,000,000. But if you just say 3,000,000 out the door and it's done as a mass indiscriminate layoff, even in stages, that is something that's permissible under current law.
I think some of these agencies need to outright be shut down. Take the Department of Education. I don't think we need a federal Department of Education. Shut it down. Take the nuclear regulatory commission that's been an impediment to nuclear energy in this country.
Well, I think that other parts of the federal government can handle nuclear safety in a way that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not. Shut that down. So those are examples of how I would do it.
Speaker 0: And what about the idea of maybe decentralizing some of the agencies, spreading them out Yes. In other parts of the country?
Speaker 1: I love that idea for two reasons. 1 is, first of all, it makes the people at least who work in those agencies more accountable to the people. Right? So I'm talking to you from Ohio. I spent I know you spent a lot of time there some a number of years ago in Iowa.
The Department of Agriculture could easily sit in one of these states rather than Washington DC. I mean, the agency you ran, certainly HUD. I I think that although in that one, you put in the inner city of DC, maybe you see part of what you're working on. But there's a lot of these other agencies that could be more accountable to the people. But one of the reasons I love moving agencies out of Washington DC is that that's also one of the way of implementing these mass layoffs while even avoiding the severance costs of it, to be honest with you.
Because if you tell people they have to move, a lot of those people won't even move from DC. That's an automatic downsizing in much of that employee base right there. And so the Department of State, Department of Treasury, fine. Those stay in DC. But most of those agencies don't need to be in DC.
I think they can actually create a greater sense of accountability and cohesion with the rest of the country. And the downsizing and the number of staff that work there goes naturally right along with that. So I think that's a great idea, and I think it's one we hopefully will will be acting on as a country soon.
Speaker 0: Well, there's a good chance you'll be running one of those agencies, so we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: I love your I love your your experience. Right? Because I think you have seen I mean, someone like you who's a brilliant surgeon going in with with a lot of common sense to see a place where common sense may be in in demand. I'm sure I'd have a ton to learn from you, from what that experience was all about.
Speaker 0: But it was, it was challenging sometimes with some of the difficult people, who felt entitled, to their positions. The only way to get rid of them sometimes was to tell them we're gonna promote you, and we need you to, work on, multifamily Igloo's or something in some of Alaska.
Speaker 1: So backwards. Yeah. Get someone out of a position. They they the fame promotion is the way you do it. So I I just wanna change that basic rail system.
Right? And I think if we can come agency wide across the entire federal bureaucracy of ways of massively, not a little bit, but massively downsizing the scope of that federal bureaucratic headcount. I think that's one of the most important ways we actually get our country back.
Speaker 0: It's a great idea. Now what about, term limits? How do you think we can get those? Because the congress has to vote on their own term limits. That seems pretty unlikely.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'll give you two answers there. One is let's focus on the kinds of term limits that we do need, that we can get even without congress acting. That's term limits in the bureaucracy. So I think most positions in the federal bureaucracy should be subject to the same term limit as the US president.
After all, if there's one executive branch, the US president leads that executive branch. The US president can only be the president for 8 years. Okay? Period. That's just how it works.
Two terms. I mean, in the most extreme scenarios, it's actually 10 years if somebody serves, but whatever it is. Let's say 8 years. I think that if you're working in that federal bureaucracy, learn it reporting into that US president, you shouldn't be able to occupy your position for more than 8 years either, at least for most positions. That's the kind of term limit the next president can implement without asking congress for permission or for forgiveness.
And it actually helps effectively make sure that we bring fresh lifeblood into the government and into Washington DC. So that's one type of term limit. Then we go to a different type of term limit, which is the one for congress and the senate, and there we run into this obstacle that you correctly point out. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg problem we have going on here, which is that on one hand, the term limit has to be passed by the very people you're trying to term limit out. How do you do that?
So think about common sense. Here's one of the ideas I have to hopefully work around this. I think we can, which is use those perverse incentives in our favor. Effectively strike the deal. Here's what the term limits are gonna be.
3 terms for congressman, 2 terms for the US Senate. And let's throw some other things in there too. Say that, you know what? You can't trade stocks while you're in Congress or while you're a bureaucrat. You can't be a lobbyist for at least 10 years after you leave that government.
The whole package of things that you would think congressman would never vote for, term limits that are against their own interest. But then as the final sweetener, the deal I think we could do is to tell them, and if you agree to this, those don't apply to you, actually. You're gonna grandfather in the people who are already in there who vote for that policy. But anybody who comes after them is bound by those same rules. I think in that case, this would immediately get through because these are wildly popular policies.
And the only reason they're not passing is because it's against the self interest of the people who are there. And so thinking about it, the way I think in the business world, as you know, my background's not in politics. It's in it's in the world of business. What is one of the things you learn is use people's incentives in your favor. And so as broken as that is, that's how we use those incentives in our favor to say, alright.
As dirty as it is, it does apply to you, but anybody who comes after you who who wins in an election and that's how we fix this country in
Speaker 0: the long run. That's a very unique idea. Makes a lot of sense. You had a incredible, business career. You're obviously very smart.
Why would you go into politics? What what made you decide to make that turn?
Speaker 1: For me, it was a sense of duty to this country, actually. I mean, the choices I made coming out of my education were to win through the system of American capitalism. I didn't grow up in Wells. I know I know you didn't either, but it's like so many Americans who've lived the American dream. I've lived the full arc of that American dream.
My dad was facing layoffs at the GE plant in Evendale, Ohio. He had to go to night school for 4 years. I used to sit in the back of the class. When he was going to those law classes, he got a law degree while he was in the middle of his career going to night school to be able to keep the job at GE amidst their layoffs. That made me, I would say, ambitious to succeed through capitalism.
Who was this Jack Welch guy laying off 2 thirds of the people in my dad's plant? Well, tell me about what that path looks like. And so I got in the world of business, and, you know, everybody has their chip on their shoulder and whatever it is from their upbringing. And in some ways, some of the challenges we faced growing up gave me my chip on my shoulder, you could say. But that's what I was focused on.
And and I don't think anybody should have to apologize for their success in this country. I think we should be proud of it. But at the same time, you know, I think that now I'm in a phase of my life saying that though I've won through the system of American capitalism and and achieved success in the American dream, there's more to this country than just the individual side of it. And part of our duty as citizens is to do what we can to pass that country on to our kids and their generation. And I'm worried that that country where I live that American dream, where people like you live that American dream, that isn't going to be available to our kids and their generation unless we step up and actually do something about it.
And so for me, it was a sense of gratitude to this country, actually. I think it's probably much the same for you. It's it's a sense of duty and gratitude.
Speaker 0: No question. Speaking of, the future, why is it that you think that young people, people in your generation and even younger don't seem to be that concerned about the accumulating national debt. It will have an enormous impact on the quality of their lives. Did they just not understand that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that I don't know that I think it's that they don't understand it. It's more that they're more concerned with what's staring them in the face. I mean, a lot of young people, I think, have been disillusioned and jaded where, you know, they've been told for years, go get that college debt and get a head start in the American dream. Go become a gender studies major in California, and somehow that's gonna give you a head start.
It didn't work out that way, and they're saddled with debt. They were told things about the war in Iraq that didn't turn out to be true. Many of their peers went and go died fighting those wars, fighting for other people. That accumulated a lot of our national debt too. So I think that it's become this feeling of jadedness.
It's almost a sense of cynicism to say that, okay. Yeah. We've been lied to for a long time. Now we have this debt. Well, thank you very much.
That's a theoretical abstract concept. But right now, I'm ready to hear about what affects my life and makes it better right now. And so one of the things I'm looking at is I'm sure I think we as a movement should be looking at is, how do we deliver solutions to the national debt that actually grow that economy at the same time rather than first going to what are we taking away from you? Right? So if you go to young people who have been lied to from the Ward Rock to the 2008 bailouts to a 4 year college degree getting them a head start, which they didn't have a chance to enjoy, and then say, oh, by the way, you'll be the 1st generation that doesn't collect Social Security Medicare benefits that are still being deducted from your paycheck, which by the way is pretty paltry for most people.
People don't respond well to that. But if we take a different approach to say, you know what? Here's how we're gonna pay down our national debt. We're not gonna fight foreign wars that don't advance our interest. 7,000,000,000,000 of that $33,000,000,000,000 national debt today is owed to those 2 wars in just Iraq and Afghanistan that didn't advance interest, so we won't make those same mistakes again.
And then we're gonna have an instant problem that at least makes this manageable. And I'll tell you one way we can make this manageable. Get the oil and natural gas out from underneath our ground Absolutely. And then sell it. And buy down about $8,000,000,000,000 of our national debt that way.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: That I think is actually appealing because that brings down that addresses inflation, increases supply of energy, delivers economic growth, and addresses the national debt. And if you bring the national debt down by 50%. Yeah. That that's that's a solution.
Speaker 0: And it hurts Putin also.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It does. And and and
Speaker 0: and I mean, who's funding his war?
Speaker 1: Of course. I mean, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine had it not been for the fact that we had shot our own selves in the foot when it comes to domestic energy production in the United States. And so energy security is economic security, but energy security is national security. And so I think that the more we focus on what are we going to do to grow the pie and actually deliver prosperity while fighting the national debt rather than falling into the trap that I think some Republicans fall into, which is just talking about what are we gonna take away from you. I think the more productive the next step in fighting our national debt is gonna be.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, it's encouraging listening to, people like yourself because, our country is going to need very bright people who think out of the box. And it's sad to say that thinking logically is thinking out of the box.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And for the box has become very constricted and, doesn't really point us in the right direction anymore. But I wanna ask you about, ESG, DEI, all these things that seem to be infiltrating every aspect of our society. You know, recently, the Glass Lewis recommended that the stockholders vote against me because I'm the chairman of the nominating governance committee of, a fortune to buy other company. And we dropped from 33% limit to 25% limit when we added a couple of people. So now I'm a bad person.
But, of course, how how stupid is that? Because if they voted against me, then they got a problem with that minority rep.
Speaker 1: It's a never ending game. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Playing with the numbers instead of playing with what needs to be done for the viability of the company.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 0: And I
Speaker 1: think that we gotta get beyond this identitarian obsession. And each of us is an individual, an Asian, not just the product of our genetics or gender or our skin color. And I think part of what this ESG movement has done, in this case, it's the s prong of ESG. So it's environmental, social, and governance factors, but the s refers to social, is to take that toxic, divisive, and anti meritocratic ideology and import that into corporate America's boardrooms, where you'll you'll know this well if it's a public company, for example, that you had experience with. Most public companies in America today are owned by large index fund managers, BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, and so on, who are using the money of everyday citizens, probably probably people watching this conversation right now, to vote for policies in corporate America's boardrooms that most Americans don't agree with, climate change emissions, caps, racial equity audits, etcetera, but also which don't advance their best financial interests.
A company isn't better off if it's constrained in who they can hire for the job. They're not better off as an oil company if they have to limit their emissions when Chinese companies aren't doing the same thing. And so that's actually what's on the line is capitalism itself is corrupted when the people who are the asset managers looking after other people's money aren't actually looking to maximize value for those shareholders. And so one of the things I did, this is before I ran for president, is I founded a company called Strive. And I'm a big believer in driving solutions through the private sector and through the market wherever possible.
But when I founded Strive, the sole goal was to create an alternative that said, you know what? To everyday citizens across this country, if your money's being invested in public companies, vote for policies that advance your interests financially. What maximizes profit? What allows companies to be most successful rather than advancing somebody's environmental or social goal? And STRIP cost over $1,000,000,000 in assets under management in the 1st year after launching its first fund.
That's twice as fast almost as it took JPMorgan or others to get to the same place. And so that shows that there's a hunger out there in this country for alternatives. But part of the change we have to drive is not just through government, it's through that private sector as well.
Speaker 0: Boy, we could talk to this man forever. It's that's so much common sense, to be so young. Of course, I used to hear that when I was young too, but, it's gonna help us. And, there's hope for our country, I do believe. But I wanna ask you, you talk about the nation of victims Yeah.
And the victim mentality, which is really a problem because if you think you're a victim, you are 1.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And, you know, we hear so often about the wealth gap, for instance, between black families and white families in this country, and it exists. There is a wealth gap. But interestingly enough, if you look at Nigerian families, Ghanaian families, and people from some other, countries with population is predominantly black. There's no work yet. But if you go into a Nigerian home in this country, what do you thought?
A bachelor's degree is the baseline. That's where you start Mhmm. And a tremendous emphasis on family. Same thing with Ghanaians. And here's what's interesting.
If you take traditional black American families who have those values, family and education, there's no wealth gap either. Could we be looking at the wrong thing when we're looking at skin color?
Speaker 1: I think we're looking at the wrong thing, and you nailed it. You said that more succinctly than I ever have, which is that imagine if you sort of take even just take the fatherlessness issue. I mean, you could take education, family values, but let's just take one metric, fatherlessness. If you don't have a father in the household, you're 8 times more likely to end up in prison. You're 10 times more likely not to graduate from high school, etcetera.
So that's that's true whether you're black, brown, Asian, or white. Then you just look at okay. Are there disparities amongst different communities in the rates of fatherlessness? Yes. There are, but that's what explains the difference in actual undesirable result.
And so go to the root cause. Address that in a way that helps people of every skin color, white, black, brown, and everything in between. And so that's what we need to have the courage to do is to speak that hard truth. Now the irony here is that the likes of Lyndon Johnson, right, president Johnson, through the so called great society, the greatest misnomer for a policy proposal that I've heard in my that we've probably seen in modern American politics, probably in history, said in the name of helping black Americans or whatever, we're gonna adopt policy that actually didn't help them at all. Paying single mothers more money not to have a man in the house than to have a man in the house.
Pay people more money to stay at home instead of to go to work. That's not just bad for them economically. It's bad psychologically. It's bad mentally. If you lose your sense of self worth and dignity, part of which you get through hard work, then you actually think of yourself as worth less.
Then reinforce that with an educational system or a military or an institution that tells you you can't achieve anything you ever want because the color of your skin limits you. I can't think of something more toxic to tell a kid today than you can't achieve something because the color of your skin. That's a new form of psychological slavery in this country. And you said it well. I mean, if you think of yourself as a victim, then you are 1.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And that's what we need to declare emancipate ourselves from today.
Speaker 0: Well, we're gonna be wrapping up in a minute here, but I wanna ask you something that a lot of people have had in their mind that is about Hinduism. Does Hindu theology and Christian theology align?
Speaker 1: Deeply common values. Absolutely. In fact, John Adams, when he left the White House, he actually, in his famous letters to Thomas Jefferson, became something of a Hindu scholar and a Sanskrit scholar. And there was extensive reflectors even from him to Thomas Jefferson on this dating back to, you know, not too many years after our own founding, after those two guys were out of office. So I'll tell you the heart of of my faith, and it's a little bit different than, you know, exactly what the Christian faith is, but grounded in the same values.
There's one true god. He puts us here for a purpose. He works through us. It is not being done by us. It is being done through us.
But we are all still equal. Even though God works through us in different ways, we're still equal because God resides in each of us. Similar to saying because we're each made in the image of God. And I have some understanding of this because I went to Christian schools, and I read the Bible for the first time in 9th grade. And I can tell you when I read those 10 commandments.
Right? There's one true god. Don't take his name in vain. Observe the Sabbath. Honor your parents.
That was a big one in my upbringing too. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't steal.
Don't commit adultery. Don't covet. Those are the same values that undergird the the Hindu upbringing that I had in this country. And the beauty of our foundational values, the Judeo Christian values that America was founded on is they actually reach people of faith even beyond just the traditional Judeo Christian background, but those are the values that the country was founded on. And
Speaker 0: Amen.
Speaker 1: And and even Thomas Paine, whose namesake of common sense we're we're honoring maybe today or Thomas Jefferson. They had slightly nontraditional beliefs from the traditional Christian view, but they knew that those were still the Judeo Christian values that the country needed to be founded on. As John Adams said, our constitution was made for a moral people.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's a value that I share deeply and wanna revive in this country as well.
Speaker 0: And as we've thrown those values away, look what's happening. We need to bring it back. Last question. What gives you hope for our country?
Speaker 1: What gives me hope is actually the last year of traveling this country, not meeting people through TV screens and social media and and media. But actually I mean, you did this as well. You know what this is like. Tens of thousands of people in the flesh, in rooms, without any TV screens in between. And what I think I've understood is just even relating to that last question you asked me.
I think most of us in this country, 80 plus percent of us, certainly, share those same values in common. And I didn't just go to Republican events in Iowa. I went from the south side of Chicago to Kensington in the inner city of Philadelphia to Flint, Michigan, places that aren't necessarily traditional places that Republicans would go in a primary. And what I saw in this country is a group of people who forget the labels, black or white or even Democrat or Republican, who share the same foundational values in common, but who need to be given permission to actually state their views in public. And the more we're able to do that, I think the more we realize that even though you or I might disagree with our neighbor on, I don't know, what the tax rate should be or whatever issue of the day is.
Mhmm. We share the same founding values that this nation was built on. That the people we elect to run the government should run the government. That you get to speak your mind freely as long as I get to in return. That you get ahead in this country, not on the color of your skin, but on the content of your character and your contributions.
Yes. What gives me hope is I saw over that last year that most of us in this country share those values in common. And as long as we start speaking our minds openly again, not self censoring, not saying one thing at the dinner table, but another in public. You know, say the same thing at the dinner table that you'll say at public and vice versa. I think we're gonna get this country back.
Overcome that culture of fear, and I'm hopeful for it.
Speaker 0: Well, what gives me hope is people like you. And, I've been to a number of universities lately. We'll have several more on the schedule. And seeing a lot of young people waking up and not just accepting the propaganda that's been giving them and studying and knowing who we are and what our values are. And, if we can get people to be courageous, that's really the key because you can't be the land of the free if you're not the home of the brave.
You certainly are brave, and you have, been out there suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and you're gonna be around for a long time. You're gonna play a big part in what happens to this country. I just wanna thank you for doing that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, doctor Carson. The honor was mine. As I was mentioning before, my wife met you years ago when she was a student, and you were an esteemed surgeon. And you're one of the people who apparently, she told me, actually, she met you and your wife in person, and she went on to become a surgeon herself. And so Thank you.
That's an example of you giving inspiration to what was once young people too. And so I'm I'm honored to to be talking to you, and I know you're gonna do your part. I'm gonna do mine, and and that's how we're gonna get our country back because every one of us do what's asked of us.
Speaker 0: I want you all to remember how important it is to stand up for what you believe in because people who think logically like to know that there are other people who are with them. And when you're just silent, they don't know whether you're with them or not, and that sometimes dampens their enthusiasm for fighting some of the Marxist tendencies that are starting to invade our country. We need to support each other, and we need to be respectful of everybody. And that's it for this week. Hope you enjoyed this episode.
Make sure you rate us, review us, tell your friends about us. You can get, the podcast on, Apple Podcast for free, Stitcher, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. We have a whole bunch of them now. You could sit there and listen for many days and, be inspired by the common sense. Help spread that common sense.
And remember the cornerstone principles of faith, liberty, community, and life. See you next week.
@TheReportX - The Report
FULL Vivek Ramaswamy Town Hall in CNN @VivekGRamaswamy #Vivek https://t.co/bK0f4oy3pP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ohio businessman Vivek Ramaswami participated in a CNN town hall in Iowa, where he faced questions from voters on various issues. He differentiated himself from former President Donald Trump by emphasizing his commitment to reaching a new generation of voters and his ability to combine business acumen with a deep understanding of the law and the constitution. Ramaswami also discussed his plans for securing the border, ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, and addressing income inequality. He expressed his belief in the importance of diversity of thought and meritocracy rather than quotas based on race or gender. Overall, Ramaswami presented himself as a candidate who values hard work, honesty, and the principles on which the country was founded.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, and welcome to Iowa, home of the first contest of the 2024 presidential race, now just 33 days away. We are live here at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa for CNN's town hall with Ohio businessman Vivek Ramaswami. I'm Abby Phillip. Mister Ramaswami Has made a name for himself in this field with his bold and sometimes controversial positions. Now he is prepared to face his 1st test before voters Right here in Iowa where he is competing with his rivals including the current front runner, former president Donald Trump.
Now tonight's event is about the voters. Mister Ramaswami will have the opportunity to answer questions directly from Iowans on the issues that will help determine Who wins the Republican nomination? And I will, of course, have some questions of my own. In the audience here are voters who say that they plan to participate in the Iowa Republican caucuses, both registered Republicans and also voters who plan to register as Republicans. To find tonight's questioners, we reached out to Republican affiliated groups as well as business groups, farm associations, parent groups, young professional organizations, religious groups, and conservative advocacy organizations.
Guests of the Ramaswami campaign and of Grand View University are here in the audience tonight, but they won't be asking We have asked everyone here to be respectful to each other and to mister Ramaswami so that the voters in this room and at home have a chance to hear from the candidate. Now please welcome, Vivek Ramaswami. I wanna get right to the audience and bring in Simona Yientes from Clive, Iowa. She is self employed and serves on the board of a Christian school in Des Moines. She's a Republican, but she says that she is still undecided.
Simona?
Speaker 1: Thank you. First of all, welcome to Iowa, and Merry Christmas from Iowa. And thank you for really adding some important conversations to the to the campaign. So some local commentators refer to you as maybe the younger Trump, not a politician, which would place you running in the same lane as President Trump for getting votes. So other than being younger, how would you different your differentiate yourself from president Trump?
Speaker 2: So look. I I appreciate that question, and I get it frequently these days on the campaign trail. It's not just being younger. I think we are reaching a new generation of voters in this country. We've been to most of the college campuses across this state, and I don't think that's something the Republican Party has done a great job of.
There's a reason why these revolutions, these revivals are often led by the next generation. Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. I'm an old man by comparison, actually, to Thomas Jefferson. And I will say this. It's gonna take a president who, yes, comes from the outside, is a businessman.
I believe it's gonna take an outsider with sharp elbows at times To come take on the federal bureaucracy, to shut down agencies that need to be shut down, to implement that 75% headcount reduction I want to see in the federal bureaucracy. But it's also gonna take a president who has a deep first personal understanding of the law and the constitution. And those 2 things don't usually go together. I've actually hired many people in my career over the many companies that I've started. And Those 2 skills, you might have the academic law professor types over here, you might have the business types that are gonna get something done.
That's what gives me my sense of purpose in this race, And I think I'm the only person in this race who brings both of those attributes, an understanding and a commitment to the constitution, but combine that with being an outsider who can actually get things done. And I think that's gonna be take the combination that actually takes to revive this economy and revive our constitutional republic.
Speaker 0: And if I may, mister Ramaswami, Simona's question was about How you would be different from
Speaker 2: Donald Trump.
Speaker 0: So how specifically would you differentiate yourself from Trump?
Speaker 2: Look. I think some are some policy areas. I mean, take The Iowa carbon capture pipeline. The use of eminent domain right here. It doesn't affect many in the national audience, but it affects people in this room.
I'm seeing many heads nodding. You're familiar with this issue. They're using eminent domain to seize farmland, to build a carbon capture pipeline using federal subsidies. I'm the only candidate in this field Who has taken a clear stand in being against those kinds of policies, the unconstitutional use of eminent domain. So we can go into other specific examples, but it comes down to a commitment To the constitution.
A deep understanding of the constitution, swearing an oath to the constitution and keeping it, and combining that with being an outsider. And, yes, reaching and inspiring the next generation of Americans. I think I'm the best person in this race to do those things, and that's why I'm in it.
Speaker 0: Let's bring in now Jacqueline Ricconosh. She's a health care IT manager from West Des Moines. She's a republican who says that she's undecided. Jacqueline?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. I'm a switch it up. With the number of illegals, illegal aliens crossing the border daily And being best to cities across the United States, how do you plan to secure our border and remove illegals from the US?
Speaker 2: And that 2nd part is the harder part. I'm glad you asked it. Let me start with the 1st part of how we'll just secure the border. These are basic things we can do. The country that put a man on the moon can get this done.
It's just a question of political will. So one thing I've said is we will use our own military To secure our own border. Right now, we can use it to secure somebody else's border. Let's use it to secure our own southern border And our northern border too. Don't forget about that.
Our northern border has seen more illegal crossings this past year than the last 12 years combined. That's where this front is going, and I visited both in the last several months. If we're able to do that, use our military, complete the border wall, Stop federal aid to any Central American country until they have secured their own borders for every country between Venezuela and Mexico. Then I want to implement, I would say, the best border policies of all, which is ending the illegal incentives to be here, End birthright citizenship for the kids of illegal migrants to whom the 14th amendment does not apply. End federal funding to sanctuary cities using Our own taxpayer money to pay effectively for breaking the rule of law.
And then there's the hard question. I don't wanna leave you hanging on that one Because many people skip this one, but this one's the hard one. I do believe that anybody who's in this country illegally Needs to be returned to their country of origin, not because they're all bad people. In fact, many of them are good people. Many of them, if we're being honest, If we were in their shoes and there's a president of the United States who's been giving them a wink and a nod to come on over, if we were in a tough spot, maybe we would have done the same thing.
So This is not a value judgment about those people. It's a value judgment about this country. We're founded on the rule of law, and as a father of sons in the White House. I can't look them in the eye and tell them they have to follow the rules when our own government isn't following its own rules. Then there's the question of how, and this is the part many Republicans skip.
There's only 6,000 or so ICE agents on the front line. How could they possibly tackle Millions of illegal migrants who were in this country illegally. Here's the answer. There's a provision in the law. We don't need new laws.
The existing law, it's called 287 g. It allows you to actually serve an ICE agent to allow local law enforcement across this country to serve their warrants. That's a 1000000 law enforcement officers. We can then get that done. But, again, all it takes is a president with a spine.
And if I swear an oath to the constitution, I intend to keep it. That's how I'm gonna lead this country, and I think that's how we're gonna solve not only the border crisis, but the crisis of the abandonment of the rule of law in this country. That's how I expect a lead.
Speaker 0: You just said that you would end birthright citizenship
Speaker 2: For the kids of illegal
Speaker 0: kids of illegal migrants.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: Immigrants. There are currently millions of such People, children, some of them some of them adults. Would you retroactively strip them Great
Speaker 2: question, Abby. So I'm glad you asked that prospectively. So January 20, 2025 forward, there is a concept in the law known as a reliance interest. If you've relied on the government, we're not gonna be able to retroactively date that. But from January 20, 2025 going forward, if I'm the president, if you're born in this country as the kid of an illegal immigrant, You will not enjoy birthright citizenship, and that's what the 14th Amendment says.
It says it only applies subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That's in the Opening section of the 14th amendment, when it talks about birthright citizenship. So in the same way, and I want people to understand this because some people call this a controversial view. I don't think it needs to be. The kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here legally and he's born in the United States, that person doesn't enjoy birthright citizenship.
Nobody contests that. Well, if the kid of a Mexican diplomat who's here legally does not enjoy birthright citizenship, Neither does or should the kid of a Mexican or Venezuelan migrant who's here illegally. And there's been case law on this at the appellate court level. The one case that's ruled agrees with me on this. I believe the current Supreme Court agrees with me 6 to 3 on this.
All we need is a president with a spine who, I go back to that first question, Abby, understands the constitution. If I'm gonna swear notes to the constitution, I better darn well have read it. You suggested That's what I'm gonna do.
Speaker 0: You suggested, though, the courts would have to weigh in on this. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2: I expect that this will go to the Supreme Court, and I expect the current Supreme Court will agree 6 to 3 with me on this based on my study of the court.
Speaker 0: Alright. Let's turn now to Mike McCoy. He's an insurance company CEO from West Des Moines and a trustee here at Grand View. He's a republican who says that he's deciding between you and Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Mike?
Speaker 4: Thank you. So what makes you think that Putin would be responsive to your Ukraine solution?
Speaker 0: And before you jump in, mister Ramaswami, I just want to, ask you to remind the audience here what the solution is that he is referring to.
Speaker 2: That's fair enough. So I've proposed and thank you for coming prepared. I appreciate that. I proposed a reasonable end to the Ukraine war. I don't think this war is advancing our interests.
I think we're spending $200,000,000,000 of our taxpayer money that would be better used to defend our own border. But even worse, I believe it's increasing the risk of World War three Because it's driving Russia further into China's hands. So what I've proposed is a reasonable deal that would allow Ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact. Yes. With some territorial concessions of the Russian speaking regions in eastern Ukraine and a hard commitment that NATO will not admit Ukraine to NATO, But only if Putin exits his military alliance with China.
That Russia China alliance is the top threat that we face today. So do I trust Vladimir Putin? Of course not. Is Putin a great craven dictator? Absolutely, he is.
But we will trust him to follow his self interest Just as he will trust us to follow ours. Because you asked a good question, I'm gonna go into this detail. Nixon did this in 1972. When he pulled Mao Zedong out of the USSR, that was a China Russia alliance back then. Did we trust Mao?
Of course, we didn't. But there were kinks in that armor back then. There are kinks in that armor today in the Russia China relationship. Look, when Putin and and Xi Jinping met, Putin sends then weapons to India and Vietnam. That's sending a signal to China.
China doesn't appreciate that. China wants to complete a railroad in northeast China to the ocean. Russia's not letting them. So if we look closely, there are kinks in that armor, but it's going to take a visionary leader who's gonna say, we're gonna use the Ukraine war as an opportunity To say to Russia, you know what? We'll reopen some economic relations with Russia as Nixon did with Mao.
But we're gonna require no more joint military exercises, No more military sales between Russia and China. Weaken that alliance. That's the single most important thing the next president can do To reduce the risk of World War 3. And I want you to understand, I'm the only presidential candidate really talking about that Russia China alliance. Yet that is the single greatest threat we face to the United States of America today, and I do think it's going to take a leader coming from the outside of the existing foreign policy I'll remind you, the one that got us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where thousands of our sons and daughters went to go die, Adding 7 trillion to our national debt 20 years later with the Taliban still in charge in Afghanistan and Iraq still a broken country.
If that isn't a sign that we need fresh blood in our foreign policy establishment, I don't know what is. And so I think it's gonna take new leadership, and that's the deal that I would do.
Speaker 0: Thank you. This Ukraine topic. I wanna follow-up. You wanna suspend support for Ukraine in this war and get the United States out of that conflict.
Speaker 2: As part of this deal that I've laid out.
Speaker 0: If Putin doesn't take you up on that deal, would you allow Putin to use force to take all of Ukraine if he wanted to?
Speaker 2: So we're gonna do I think the deal we're gonna do now is actually gonna allow Ukraine to come out with its sovereignty intact, which is not even the path that Ukraine is on.
Speaker 0: Does not take you up
Speaker 2: on your deal, which So look. I'm not. Look. I'm convinced on my ability to negotiate.
Speaker 0: Decided to use force to march into Kyiv, take all of Ukraine, Would you, as president of the United States, allow that to happen?
Speaker 2: Abby, that I think is a fictitious scenario for a lot of reasons. Part of the reason Putin's been able to seize Eastern Ukraine is they have not had the same level of resistance as the rest of you.
Speaker 0: How is it a fictitious scenario when
Speaker 2: Because nobody has tried to do it and has failed to do it. Well And and so what I would say tried
Speaker 0: to do it, I think, is the point I'm trying to make.
Speaker 2: And he failed to do it because I think that this it's a fair question.
Speaker 0: Because the United States backed Ukraine.
Speaker 2: No. He failed to do it for a deeper reason. And now this This gets into some details in the Ukraine war, but if you wanna go there, I think we should go there, which is that the eastern regions of Ukraine, these are Russian speaking regions Where most of the people who live there don't even view themselves really as part of Ukraine. They have not been represented in the Ukrainian parliament For the better part of the last decade, almost the entire last decade, so there was no counterinsurgency or resistance. That's why Putin was successful in east Eastern Ukraine, but not the rest.
So again, I come back to principles There are a lot of scenarios we we can't map out in advance, but the basic principles are this. Russia's in a military alliance with China. I'm gonna play hardball and require that Russia weaken or exit its military alliance with China. But we also have to stand by a few things that Commitments we've made that NATO should not actually admit Ukraine to NATO. We made that commitment.
Gorbachev made it was made to Gorbachev by James Baker In 1990, we haven't kept that commitment. We should keep that commitment too. And I think that that level of diplomacy avoids us using I let's look at the alternative now, Abby. We're looking talking about sending another $61,000,000,000 to Ukraine. It is unclear to me or anybody else what the next 100,000,000,000 is gonna do That the first 100,000,000,000 didn't accomplish.
And so I don't think throwing bad money after bad is gonna be the solution here. I do think diplomacy is the solution, But it's gonna take somebody who is committed to advancing US interests to get this done.
Speaker 0: So my
Speaker 2: foreign policy is avoid World War 3, declare independence from China, And then focus on securing our own homeland, which we're not talking about.
Speaker 0: I wanna get back now to our audience member. We have a question now from Nicole Ryback. She's from Des Moines And as a college admissions counselor, she says that she's currently registered as a Democrat, but now intends to switch parties and is planning to participate in the Republican caucuses and register as a Republican. She's undecided on which candidate to support. Nicole?
Speaker 5: Thank you and welcome. I'm gonna throw it back to the United States and talk a little bit about How you feel about the growing differential between the top 1% and the middle class in the US, and how you plan on addressing it in your presidency?
Speaker 2: Great question. And to tell you the truth, I don't feel great about it. A lot of this is the product of the Federal Reserve, actually. Seems like a technical subject a lot of people don't like to talk about. I think this is fundamental.
So the Federal Reserve has, since the late nineties, taken on the role of playing effectively god For the financial system, for a lot of that period, raining money from on high like mana from heaven. We've been skiing on artificial snow, and It's really flowed down through the top 1%. A friend of mine actually has a funny expression, but I'll share it with you. He says, you know, if you're a nurse, you'll go home with some extra latex gloves. You're a teacher, you might go home with some extra pencils.
If you're a banker, you go home with a few extra dollars. And that's the way it's worked through the Federal Reserve System. Trickle down economics, I believe, does work when it's driven by gains in the real economy, but it doesn't work when it's created by artificial paper wealth generated by Fed Reserve policies. So I put the Fed back in its place. The reason real wage growth has not gone up for the bottom 99% adjusted for inflation.
It's been flat. The reason why is the Federal Reserve has treated wage growth as though it's a leading indicator of inflation and try to tamp it down like a game of whack a mole for the last 25 years, so you get what you pay for. My view is I'll put the Fed back in its place. A single mandate for the US Fed. What is that?
Dollar stability. Peg the dollar to commodities. That ties the hands of our government. That's a good thing. We had our greatest GDP growth in this country Before we left the gold standard.
I think that's telling. So when the dollar is stable, that's how you actually help the bottom 99% in this country. That's how you see a real real wage growth. And I want people to understand, we you hear a lot of tales and mythology, I would say, about the current economy. Let's make it simple.
What's going on? Prices are going up. Interest rates including mortgage rates to buy your home are going up, but wages have remained flat. And so I'm not gonna be the person who comes in here and tells you. Some people say am I too pessimistic at times?
I'm a realist. I'm not gonna tell you the American dream is alive and well right now. It is not. It's alive and hanging on for life support, But I believe it can be. And I do think it's gonna take now more than ever a CEO in the White House.
Somebody with fresh legs. Somebody, I believe, from the next generation to look at this differently, apply some basic economic common sense, and that starts with reform of the Federal Reserve. So thank Thank you for that question. Welcome to the Republican side.
Speaker 0: Let me ask you, mister Ramaswamy. 2 years ago, you floated the idea to dramatically increase The inheritance tax up to 59%. You said then, we shouldn't allow people to become billionaires just by having rich parents. Would you push for that as president?
Speaker 2: That's not part of my policy platform as president. One of the things people should know about me is that I'm not a standard candidate. I've written 3 books in the last 2 years. They're not candidate books. I said that I brought up Thomas Jefferson earlier.
I admire him because he was one of the few truly intellectual presidents we've had. And so I like to explore ideas. One of the things that an 11th grade English teacher, missus Smith, taught me is that you don't really understand what you think unless you can offer the best Statement of an alternative view. And so that's what I did in my books. I wrote my book first book was Woke Inc, and I often joke.
I agree with about 95% of what's in there. And so my view is this. What we really need is a 12% flat tax across the board. Ordinary income, capital gain, corporate, flatten it all out, And then here's how we get the money back for the system, end the crony est deductions. The deductions and the loopholes and the and the rebates That a lot of corporations, a lot of special interests have lobbied in.
It's about $700,000,000,000 a year. Just the tax compliance costs. Just the out of pocket costs. Not even counting the time you spend Preparing your taxes. Give that back to the people.
That's how we actually restore, again, a big part of our economy, grow our economy. That's the way I would do it.
Speaker 0: You are it's It's probably no surprise to folks here. You're very wealthy. You've made a lot of money in your life.
Speaker 2: So do
Speaker 0: you do you want your wealth do you believe it should pass down to your children?
Speaker 2: So that's a it's an important question, actually, and I want to speak on behalf of both my wife and I. My wife, Apoorva, she wanted to be here today. She's not here because she was treating cancer survivors at Ohio State's Hospital. That's where she's kept her full time job while we're going through this. And, know, in many cases, our health care system or I should call it our sick care system is so broken that she doesn't even get paid for many of the procedures she does to improve Patients' lives.
That works for us because we are in the position that we're in. But I'll tell you this, we're spending immense amounts of our family's fortune On this campaign, we didn't inherit our wealth. But that's the inheritance we actually care about giving our kids. It's not a bunch of green pieces of paper. It is the country that allowed us to live the American dream that each of us did.
My parents came to this country 40 years ago with no money. And, yes, in a single generation, I have gone on to found multiple multibillion dollar companies. Did it while marrying Apoorva who lived her American dream, raising our 2 sons, Following our faith in God. That is the American dream. That's the inheritance we care to give our kids.
And even if you're just speaking really honestly and some people hit me for this, but I stand by it actually. I've gone to college with when I went I went to Harvard, And my dad was working at GE. He faced down layoffs under Jack Welch's tenure. We had a solidly middle class upbringing with some ups and downs along the way. I went to school with kids who were the kids of billionaires.
That was new to me. I had never encountered that in my life until I got to Harvard College. And I'll tell you something, Abby. It's it's interesting. They weren't many of them weren't happier for it.
To the contrary, I was actually able to follow my hunger and my passion and my ambition, Maybe even more freely than many of my other fellow peers. I'm grateful to other peers who may not have had access to basic education, But there are also those who don't have basic access to having their own ability to live the American dream because they're encumbered by that inheritance as well. So I'm not one of these guys who fetishizes Lavishing children with a bunch of wealth. I want to give them the country that allows them to live the American dream through meritocracy That allowed a poor Vinay to succeed as well.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to the audience. We have here Riley Miller. He's a law student at Drake University and a clerk In the Marion County attorney's office, he's a Republican who is currently undecided. Rylan?
Speaker 4: Thank you. On the debate stage, you have somewhat abandoned, the tact and diplomacy that I would Look for in a president. I'm all for, keeping it real and dogging the establishment, but there's gravitas and, that I look for in those who represent our country. How do you see the balance between keeping it Being authentic and maintaining that presidential demeanor.
Speaker 2: I appreciate the question. I think it's very candid. This is what I love about Iowa. I get tougher questions from you guys than I do from the media. That's and that's good.
That's why we're here. So I I appreciate that. Look. Here's the standard I use for holding myself to or holding any president to. I want us to be able to look our kids in the eye and tell them that I want you to grow up and be like him.
It's been a long time since we've held our presidents to that standard. That's the standard I want you to hold me to. That's a high standard. Now I think about that in judging the way that I comport myself in different areas. Am I gonna tell my kids to go to school and be a bully?
No. I'm not. But I'm gonna tell them if somebody bullies you or hits you, you're gonna hit them back 10 times harder. And that's the way I'm gonna lead this country. You can't you have to be, As we say in our family, you have to be strong enough to protect your kindness.
So if you watch those debates carefully, I don't engage in four letter words. Mean, there are other candidates who've called me dumb, scum, and worse that I'm not gonna repeat here. I didn't go after them, but if they're gonna come after me, I'm not gonna be a president, whether it's Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin or anybody else Who's gonna roll over? When I'm leaving the United States, the same rule applies. If you hit us, we hit you back 10 times harder.
But it's not for the sake of being a bully. It's for protecting our inner kindness too, and I think it's important that we have a president that has both of those attributes. I've done more podcasts probably than probably than most presidential candidates in history combined, mostly because podcasts are new. I'll admit that. But I will tell you, that's a different setting, and so I believe I think it's the book of Ecclesiastes that teaches, and my faith teaches me the same thing.
There's a time and place for everything. There's a time and place for fortitude. There's a time and place for justice. There's a time and place for mercy. And I think it's going to take all of those attributes, Every last ounce of each of those attributes to stand for this country, to reunite this country, and revive who we are.
You don't want a wilting flower in the White House, But you also want somebody who understands what we are fighting for. That's the standard I want you to hold us to. We will Aspire to hold ourselves too, and I think that sometimes being a parent is what gives me my moral clarity. And I hope through the rest of this campaign, we're just getting warmed up. I hope to be able to earn your trust that, yes, I do have what it takes to tell you the truth.
I'm not going to hide the truth from you. You want someone who's gonna speak truth to power, vote for somebody who's gonna speak the truth to you, to the Republican Party. Do it unvarnished without sugarcoating, and I don't do much sugarcoating. But also somebody who, as you, I believe, want, can stand for the ideals that would make our founding fathers proud and would make our children proud as well.
Speaker 0: Speaking speaking of those debates, let me ask you about something that you said at the debate last week. You used the phrase Inside job to describe what happened on January 6th. The next day, Capitol rioter, Alan Hostler, highlighted your comments at his sentencing. He is going to prison for 11 years. A a a hoster, threatened members of congress.
He brought Hatchet, knives, pepper spray, sun batons, tactical gear to the US Capitol. Are you concerned that a convicted felon like that is now promoting your Comments in court.
Speaker 2: So here's my concern, Abby. And I wanna tell you guys where I'm at. If you had told me It's close to 3 years ago that January 6, 2021 happened. If you had told me 3 years ago back when I was a biotech CEO, not steeped in this world. I was just consuming passive media, but was focused on my world of developing medicines.
If you had told me that January 6th was in any way an inside job, the subject of government entrapment, I would have told you that was crazy talk. Fringe conspiracy theory nonsense. I could tell you now having gone somewhat deep in this, It's not. I mean, the reality is this. We do have a government.
First of all, we have technology that has lied to us systematically over the last several years About the origin of COVID nineteen, about the Hunter Biden laptop that we were told was false by 51 CIA experts and otherwise before we now know that it was true. You can go straight down the list, the Trump Russia disinformation collusion hoax. All of it. Now we come to January 6th. The reality is we know that there were federal law enforcement agents in that field.
We don't know how many. I think it's a shame if if I may finish just answering.
Speaker 0: Well, let me just I I I'm gonna go ahead and interrupt here because
Speaker 2: Because I noticed that there were doesn't approve it as best as I know.
Speaker 6: There were federal agents. Be able to talk about this.
Speaker 0: You're saying that there were federal
Speaker 2: agents This is important to talk about.
Speaker 0: Miss Muskogee, there were federal agents in the crowd on on on January 6th. Yep. There is no evidence that there were federal agents in the crowd On January 6th.
Speaker 2: So why before congress when pressed on what the number was? They didn't say there were none. They just couldn't say there
Speaker 0: were none. Saying that there's no that you have not seen evident any evidence So we've seen multiple And
Speaker 2: so you've seen informants suggesting that they were we know people were we know people were FBI informants who were asking
Speaker 6: Is there any evidence may
Speaker 2: may just They just finished me, and I'll become that question.
Speaker 0: Well, let me clarify.
Speaker 2: I know it's very uncomfortable for you.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna clarify my question. Uncomfortable issue for many
Speaker 2: people, but we have to do the truth here.
Speaker 0: I'm gonna clarify my because I wanna make sure that you understand what I meant.
Speaker 2: I understand this deeply. And I told you, I was Where
Speaker 0: 3 years ago. I'm with her now. The evidence Yes. Where is the evidence that the government Had applied to this. An inside job
Speaker 2: But no. I'm not an inside job is.
Speaker 6: I'm not
Speaker 0: gonna I'm not violence on January 6th.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna let you put words in my mouth. I'm gonna put my words in my mouth, And I'm gonna tell you what what I
Speaker 0: mean by that. Evidence that the government was involved Entrapment. Planning or executing January 6th. So I'm gonna
Speaker 2: I'm gonna give you I'm gonna give you hard facts. And and if I may, Abby, I Why did they suppress footage of now what's been released? 200 hours of footage of shooting rubber bullets into that crowd. Shooting tear gas into that crowd. You didn't see that before.
You saw what the response was to that. Now you see footage coming out of actually rolling out the red carpet For Capitol Police, allow
Speaker 0: Mister Ramaswami again. Right through the front door. Vast majority I mean, how that cut out
Speaker 2: evidence shouldn't have been released before,
Speaker 0: Mister Ramformi, the dashboard footage shows
Speaker 2: In my deeper question, yes.
Speaker 0: Being overwhelmed. Violence
Speaker 2: really important. Rioters.
Speaker 0: That I'm
Speaker 2: gonna give you a hard I'm gonna give you
Speaker 0: some hard facts.
Speaker 2: So what here's what entrapment cherry pick. I'm not cherry picking. Let let me finish that.
Speaker 0: Let me finish that.
Speaker 2: I'm not
Speaker 0: cherry picking. Examples To
Speaker 2: to the contrary.
Speaker 0: The country Not a cherry pick example.
Speaker 2: You know
Speaker 0: cherry pick that is what happened. The government cherry
Speaker 2: pick 12 hours of footage when there was 200 hours of the cherry picking was the government, not me. Release the whole thing. And let me let me just finish one thing too, because this is super important as a topic. So when you I think there's a civil libertarian issue of our time. When we first kidnapping.
I wanna keep it going to be really clear on this because it's the same issue in the same FBI, same even part of the FBI. Three people who were in alleged plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer Were acquitted at the end of trial because it was entrapment. That is government agents put them up to do something they otherwise wouldn't have done. They give him credit cards With spending limits of up to $5,000, encourage them to buy munitions, plan something they weren't otherwise willing to plan. So much so, and I want people at home to know this, Especially CNN viewers to know this is that one of the jurors went to those defendants and apologized afterwards, gave him a hug, Apologize seeing what the government had put a poor guy up to who had to go to some Mexican restaurant across the street to get hot water.
These people were exploited with credit cards up to $5,000, FBI agents putting them up to a kidnapping plot that we were told was true but was entrapment. Same thing with the Capitol Police. People letting you free money. Many of those people then
Speaker 0: put charge. Tommy. Look.
Speaker 2: The government cannot put you up to do something and then charge you for
Speaker 0: your money. That's wrong. Don't wanna have to to the left of the fight I don't wanna have to interrupt you. I really don't. But I don't want you to mislead the audience here or at home.
Speaker 2: I think they've been misled by mainstream media.
Speaker 0: 14th people media has misled them. 14th people were charged in that plot. A majority of them were I said 3 of
Speaker 2: them were acquitted on grounds of entrapment. What you what That's a fact. What folks Was I wrong
Speaker 6: about that? Folks need
Speaker 2: to understand. Wrong about what I said? What folks need
Speaker 0: to understand 3 people were
Speaker 2: acquitted on grounds of entrapment.
Speaker 0: 9 were apologized. Were convicted.
Speaker 2: But the 3 who were put up shot never Back to the move to
Speaker 0: January 6th.
Speaker 2: That's unacceptable in the United States.
Speaker 0: Look, I I just want people to understand. 3 people were acquitted. 9 people were convicted in that plot. But let me get back to our audience here. Let's bring in Joe Freml.
He's from Des Moines. He's a student at Drake, and he's a Republican who says that he supports whoever wins the nomination. Joe.
Speaker 7: Man, thank you. I love seeing you get fired up. So
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Good to see you, man. I see you're a basketball player.
I've been playing tennis with some Drake tennis players. They got some good players.
Speaker 7: Oh, yeah. Some of my boys play there, so it's awesome. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The
Speaker 7: Biggest question about your legitimacy as a candidate has been your age. You know, I was a 22 year old college kid. I love the idea of having younger candidates in office, but how has this been a challenge for you?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, it's been a big challenge. I mean, frankly, most caucus goers are 3, 4 times your age. Let's be real about that. And I want people like you to come out to the caucus, and we're going to college campuses for that reason.
One of the things I want people to understand, what I see when I go to college campuses, I think actually many Republican candidates are scared of facing off with your generation, actually. Some of them hit me for being on TikTok because it reaches you all. I think we should be reaching out to young voters. What I see isn't a base of young voters who's against our shared values. I see a lot of peers in your generation and our generation that are lost, Hungry for direction.
Right? The left will prey on that vacuum with race, gender, sexuality, climate. I'm not gonna blame them. I'm gonna blame the Republican Party. We've gotten lazy just criticizing that vision without offering our own vision.
Individual. Family. Nation. God. Yes.
I said the cheat word. That beats race, gender, sexuality, and climate if we have the courage to actually stand for something. And so I believe that your generation, I believe that we're at a tipping point, and there's a reason. I you know, I've talked about Thomas Jefferson. He was 33 when he wrote the declaration.
He also invented the swivel chair while he was at it. Think about that founding spirit. We're the pioneers. We're the Floors in this country. The unafraid.
The people who nobody and no government dares to stop. That's who we are as Americans. Our pursuit of excellence, that's what makes us American. And I think it's going to take somebody in your generation. Somebody whose best days in life are still yet ahead.
To see a country whose best days are still ahead of itself, and I I hope that's the case for me. I don't take every day for granted. Every day we wake up is a new blessing, and I'll leave it at that. I don't take tomorrow for granted, but I hope my best days are still ahead of me. And I think as a leader, I reject this narrative that we have to be that nation in decline, that we have to be ancient Rome.
What's your name again, sir? Joe. Joe, I think our nation, like you, is actually A little young. Going through our own version of adolescence. Figuring out who we're gonna be when we grow up.
And when you view it that way, it all makes sense again to me. It does. You go through that identity crisis. You lose your way a little bit. I don't know about you, but I did some stupid things.
Right? But we're stronger for it when we get to our adulthood on the other side. So, no, I don't think we have to be that nation in decline and tell the people in your class the same thing. We can still be a nation in our ascent. If the people of the last 25 years got us to where we are, maybe we try something a little different.
Somebody with fresh legs. Somebody may be the age that our founding fathers were when they signed that declaration. And I think we live in a 17/76 moment. Let's give that a try and see what happens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Alright. We've got much more ahead. We'll be right back with more from presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy. Welcome back to Iowa at CNN Town call with Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswami. Let's turn to Jenny Mitchell.
She is an entomologist at Iowa State University From Boone, Iowa, she is a Republican who is currently undecided. Ginny?
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thanks for being here, and thanks for coming to Iowa so much. We appreciate your visits. So freedom of religion is a part of our constitution and, obviously, a huge part of our country. What do you say to those who say that you cannot be our president because your religion is not what our founding fathers based our country on?
Speaker 2: I would say that I respectfully disagree, and, you know, I want people to understand this about me. I would rather speak the truth and lose an election than to win by playing some political snakes and ladders. I mean, if I wanted to map out my political career and really solve for that, you know, I could Fake convert. You know, I'm not gonna do that. I'm gonna tell you about my faith.
I'm Hindu. Now I went to Christian schools. I went to St. Xavier in Cincinnati, And I actually have been on the board of SANEX, except for hiatus to run for president. And I can tell you with confidence that We share the same value set in common.
I'll tell you about my faith. My faith teaches me that God puts each of us here for a purpose. That we have a moral duty to realize that purpose. That God works through us in different ways, But we're still equal because God resides in each of us. Now I had what you would call not a Traditional upbringing, but probably a very traditional upbringing.
Right? My parents taught me family is the foundation. Marriage is sacred. Divorce isn't some option you just prefer off a menu when things don't go your way. Abstinence before marriage is the way to go.
Adultery is wrong. That the good things in life involve a sacrifice. Now are those foreign values in this country? I know it could look that way at times. You turn on the television, go to the movie theater, your local DEI training at a company or what they're teaching your kids in schools.
That could Seem a little unfamiliar. I don't think it's unfamiliar to most of us. I think those are the same Judeo Christian values that I learned at saint x, when we get to the Ten Commandments, what do they say? There's 1 true god. Don't take his name in vain.
Observe the Sabbath. Respect your parents. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't cheat.
Don't steal. Don't commit adultery. Don't covet. That's when it hit me. We share the same value set in common.
It's another core teaching in my faith, which is that we don't get to choose who God works through. God chooses who God works through. So we get to the Old Testament a little bit further along. We get to the book of Isaiah. I don't know if Many of you're familiar with with that one.
God chose Cyrus, a Gentile all the way in Persia, To lead the Jewish people back to the promised land. And so, yes, I believe God put us here for a purpose. My faith is what leads me On this journey to run for president, my gratitude to this country is what leads me. And even when we think about the founding fathers, I'm a fan of history. Okay?
I talked about Thomas Jefferson earlier. We'll stick to Thomas Jefferson. He was a deist, actually. Let's be honest about it, because the the left wants to rewrite our history and tell you he was Slave owner and evil man. No.
I reject that. But we're not gonna have anybody rewriting our history. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He made the Jefferson Bible. You know how he did it?
He didn't believe in all the parts of the New Testament, but he took a blade, razor blade by hand, glued it together, and that made the Jefferson Bible, which we have today. John Adams wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson, actually became something of a Hindu scholar after he left. And so I think it's important to see our founding fathers three dimensionally, Not the way that they've been rewritten post 1990 either. And so, yes, do I would I be the best president to spread Christianity through this country? I would not.
I'd be not the best choice for that, but I also don't think that that's the job of the US president. But will I Stand for the Judeo Christian values that this nation was founded on, that I was raised in, even in the Hindu faith. Yes, I will. You're darn right I will. And as a young person picking up on that strand from earlier, I think it's my responsibility to make faith And patriotism and family and hard work, cool again in this country.
I think they're pretty cool and I think that's my job. As your next president and to back to the First Amendment, we will stand for religious liberty in a way that neither Republicans nor Democrats actually have. That's what the First Amendment says. You get to practice your faith. Every pastor in this country gets to do his job without the government getting in their way.
That's what I'm gonna keep as a
Speaker 0: Let me ask you about a little bit of news. The Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case, this term that could potentially restrict access nationwide to a widely used abortion drug called Mifepristone. You oppose abortion, but do you believe that the court should limit the distribution of this drug nationwide?
Speaker 2: So I think this is a question. It's the job of the Supreme Court. Who would have ever thought to judge the law? This is a case about administrative law. Actually, this is less about the abortion question, and it's more about did the FDA exceed the scope of its statutory authority When it approved Mifepristone on an emergency basis, and these emergency approvals are generally reserved for life saving therapies that need to be brought to market Quickly.
So this is a symptom, Abby, of what's going on in the administrative state. The people who we elect to run the government, They're not even the ones who actually run the government right now. It's the bureaucrats in those 3 letter agencies that are pulling the strings today. So the most important Supreme Court case of our lifetime, and I want people to understand this, came out last term. It's West Virginia versus EPA that said if Congress did not expressly give an agency the right To write a regulation, then that's unconstitutional.
And so it is my opinion, it's the Supreme Court's that'll matter, but I'm pretty sure they're gonna come down where I where I am on this, That the FDA exceeded its statutory authority in using an emergency approval to approve something that doesn't fit Congress's criteria for what actually counts as an emergency approval. So, yes, I hope they follow the law. I hope that's where they come down. And if the people of this country disagree with that, we have a mechanism for that. It's called the democratic process.
Do it through the front door of Congress. And there's 1 thing I'm gonna do as the next president. It's to shut down that 4th branch of government. Rescind those unconstitutional federal regulations that Congress never actually passed. And, yes, lay off 75% of the federal employee headcount.
That's the
Speaker 0: I wanna get to our question. But just before we do that, just so that everyone is clear, you do believe that the Supreme Court should Ban Mifepristone.
Speaker 2: I believe that the Supreme Court should put the FDA back in its place.
Speaker 0: That But as it relates
Speaker 2: to this particular That's before the court.
Speaker 0: But as it relates to
Speaker 2: this should rule on the law.
Speaker 0: It relates to this particular drug And as it relates to this particular drug And as it relates to this particular drug you believe that that will ultimately result in Mifepristone being banned nationwide?
Speaker 2: I believe it will result in Mifepristone being taken off the market Until they go through the process that's ordained for every other drug that doesn't go through emergency approval. Okay. The FDA should follow the law if the rest of us do too. Simple thing to ask.
Speaker 0: I do wanna go to our audience again. We've got Claire Musselman here waiting to ask a question. She's a professor at Drake University who teaches In the College of Business and Education, she's a Republican from West Des Moines who is undecided. Claire?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Abby. Thank you also for spending time with our students at Drake. A professor, I think it's super important that we get that opportunity, so thank you for spending time with them. As president, what specific strategies would you implement to Promote diversity and inclusion in leadership roles within both public and private sectors. How do you plan to support the advancement of underrepresented groups, Including women in these areas.
Speaker 2: So I'll be very honest with you. I'm gonna share with you Tom, a soul quote that stuck with If you care about somebody, you tell them the truth or at least what you believe. If you care about yourself, you tell them what they want to hear, and I'm I have a feeling I'm not gonna tell you what you want to hear on this one. So I think the diversity, equity, inclusion agenda has been abused. In the name of diversity, we have, at many of our universities, Totally sacrifice diversity of thought.
In the name of equity, we've perpetuated a lot of inequity and inequality of opportunity through affirmative action and otherwise. In the name of inclusion, we've created a new culture of exclusion where certain points of view aren't welcome. So especially in a university setting, what do I care about? Diversity of viewpoint. This is important, actually.
I think diversity of viewpoint is part of what this country was built on. Well, the best way to Foster diversity of viewpoint is to screen candidates for the diversity of their views, actually. Many look at the board members of many universities. You wanna go through their partisan affiliation. It's not Eightytwenty.
It's gonna be like 90:10 in the other direction. That's completely at odds with the representation of this country. So do I value diversity of viewpoint? Absolutely. Do I think we're doing a good job of that?
No. We're not. And it's not an accident. In the name of diversity, we've actually created a new culture of conformity. And so I think it's entirely possible to have a group of 10 people who look similar to one another, who have different views.
I think it's entirely possible to have a group of 10 people look different from one another or who look the same as one another but have different views or look different from one another and have the same views. And so I think the best way to screen candidates for the diversity of their experiences Is to actually ask them about the diversity of their experiences. And I think the use of these racial and gender quota systems, I think I've actually created a new form of racism in the United States that otherwise would not have existed. It's sad to me. I mean, I've hired, Not because I was thinking about it consciously.
Plenty of black women in different positions of authority in this campaign or other companies or whatever. And I can tell you it saddens me when people look at somebody who I hired on the basis of merit and say that they only got that job because of their race or Gender. That doesn't do anybody a favor. And so I think if we restore true meritocracy in this country and embrace true diversity of thought, chances are we're actually gonna have A bunch of different shades of melanin and a range of genders in different positions, but let it be not the goal. Let it just be a byproduct of selecting for people who are the best person for the job and especially in a university setting, diverse viewpoints as well.
That's what
Speaker 0: And that's a good place for us to pause. We'll be right back with more from presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswami. Welcome back to CNN's town hall with presidential The candidate, Vivek Ramaswami. Let's go straight to the audience. We've got Rhonda McCoy here.
She's a retired French professor from West Des Moines. Rhonda is a Republican who is undecided in this primary. Rhonda?
Speaker 10: Good evening. Thank you for being here. What is the most important For interesting thing you've learned about Iowans during your travel through the state.
Speaker 2: I've learned a lot. I think Iowans I think one thing I share in common with Iowans is a level of candor, actually. Everybody everybody told me about Iowa nice. That's what I was told before I came here. What I've actually found is Iowa candor.
And I appreciate that because that's the true form of nice. Know, we we did this is the 10th event we're doing today, actually. So we've done 10 events like this across the state, and I found that people Appreciate that. We're visiting they call the full Grassley. It's it goes all 99 counties.
We're doing that times 2, actually, going in this in this year period. And it doesn't feel like work to me, actually. Feels like we're having open conversations. I find that they don't appreciate pre canned speeches, So I've mostly dispensed with that. Or if I'm gonna do it, I'll keep it to 2 to 5 minutes.
I find that they actually appreciate and relish Open conversation and candor. I think that's one of the things that surprised me most. The other thing that I think that surprised me was Somebody told me this. We ran the, Des Moines turkey trot. We were here on Thanksgiving.
And as I was running, somebody wished me good luck, and then she said, but you know how to spell luck. Right? And this is an expression I had learned from my parents a long time ago. She says, you spell it w o r k. And I said, you know what?
That sounds like something that my parents taught me when I was little. But I think that that's also something that I found amongst Iowans is they value people who work hard because many of you do work hard. A culture of farmers. A culture of people who are business builders across the state. And I think that's something that we would do well to make a national value in this country again.
Embrace hard work. Give us back our sense of purpose. That's how we revive this country. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, a big thank you to our audience, and thank you to mister Ramaswami. Thank you. Thank you to our host here at Grandview University. C.
Caitlin Collins is up next.
Speaker 2: Thank you, guys.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Kalyn Collins here in New York. You have been watching a live CNN town hall with