TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @VivekGRamaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Dear YouTube… https://t.co/ucaCSLhURh
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a message for the leadership of YouTube. In the last twenty four hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. I think it's better if you unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard. 'censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture.' 'Free speech is a precondition for peace. It's a precondition for the scientific method.' 'What I'm talking about is not a legal point. It's just a cultural point.' 'restore the accounts of those guys.' 'it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country, a project on which we have yet a very long way to go.' Thanks for considering.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a message for the leadership of YouTube. Frankly, I probably could have called you privately, but I think it's better to just talk about this in the open on this particular issue. My understanding is in the last twenty four hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. They have big followings on the American right. I think it's better if you just unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard.
And I say this not because I'm some particular fan or vice versa, at least one of them. Nick is probably not a particularly big fan of mine. No more than Jimmy Kimmel is, by the way, for very different reasons. That's beside the point. It doesn't matter.
The reason I'm asking you to do it is that censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture. And we're the country on God's green earth where we're able to talk to each other in the open. And I want to credit YouTube and Google and your parent company and so much of your competitors in Silicon Valley for creating the first instance of the free and open Internet with search engines. It's a beautiful thing for democratizing speech.
But I think we take a step in the wrong direction when we choke those same technologies that allow us to access open debate and open ideas. It breeds discontent. It breeds frustration. It actually breeds mistrust. If you tell people they can't speak, that's when they scream.
And if you tell people they can't scream, that's when they tear things down. So I think free speech is a precondition for peace. It's a precondition for the scientific method. It's a precondition for our shared unity, our shared national identity as Americans. Now I can understand why you might think that certain types of speech or certain things that are said that are hurtful to other people or that may spread misinformation or may they count as violent or dangerous threats shouldn't be allowed on your platform.
I personally take a broad view of what type of speech is an expression of an opinion that's protected, but that's a separate discussion about whether somebody says a particular thing that you think doesn't belong on your platform. That's one category of speech moderation. There's a different category of saying that you may demonetize certain people. You're not gonna pay them. That even if they're able to speak on your platform, it's not necessarily their right to be paid for doing so or putting advertisers next to their name.
That's a separate discussion. Personally, I don't like any of those forms of speech suppression as a general matter, but at least those are discussions that reasonable minds can have. There's a whole separate third category of censorship, though, that I think is particularly harmful, which is the idea that just because of who you are, your name and who you are, you don't get to express any idea, whether it's misinformation, hateful speech, whether it's dangerous or whatever you deem it to be. Irrespective of that, you're not making that judgment just based on who you are, you don't get to speak of. I think that breeds mistrust.
I don't think that's good for our country. There's legal arguments to be had. I've made legal arguments elsewhere in my books, in Wall Street Journal pieces. And there are legal arguments that you could construct that say that if a tech company is protected by Section two thirty, a government created shield of immunity, that if a tech company is responding even indirectly to the threats of government officials, maybe that is actually even a legal First Amendment violation. That's not even what I'm talking about right now.
What I'm talking about is not a legal point. It's just a cultural point. It's the question of whether this is good or bad for America. And I think we live in a moment right now where when we tell people, whether it's the government or even a powerful company, when you tell people that because of who you are, you deserve not to be heard, I think that actually divides us. Even if it's done with the best of intentions, think it brings most of the rest of the country together, in the long run it actually throws kerosene on the very flame you were trying to quash.
And so that's my ask to you. I'm not trying to do this in some type of faux indignation, angry way that escalates some political fight. That's not the goal. I actually think that it's often possible to get to the right answer through just reasonable, open dialogue. That's what I hope this is.
I hope you're able to reconsider a decision that you made that may have been a wrong decision. And I think we need more space as a country when people do make a wrong decision to be able to be given an off ramp, to be able to say that, you know what, after thinking about it, yeah, we agree, we're persuaded that all else equal, even though we intended well, we ought to let people speak and be heard. That's what I hope happens here. And so my ask is, and again, speaking as a guy who, from Jimmy Kimmel to Nick Fuentes, probably don't like me very much, I don't care. That doesn't matter.
It's not what this is about. It's not even about the content. It's about the principle. I'd ask you to restore the accounts of those guys. Believe me, it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country, a project on which we have yet a very long way to go.
Thanks a lot for considering.
reSee.it AI Summary
I spoke with Holly, a single mom who was assaulted in Cincinnati while attending a friend's birthday party. It's shocking that there were no police or ambulances available that night. Hard-working Americans shouldn't fear for their safety during a night out. Holly mentioned that only one police detective reached out to her, and no local or state officials have contacted her. I’m committed to ensuring that those responsible face justice and that our law enforcement has the support to restore order. Holly appreciates the support and hopes her story prompts action from leaders to improve our cities. We plan to visit her as she recovers.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
I spoke to Holly earlier today (the woman tragically assaulted in Cincinnati this weekend). She’s a single working mom who went to a friend’s birthday party. It’s unconscionable that there were no police present in that area of Cincinnati on a Friday night, or even an ambulance to take her to the hospital. Hard-working Americans shouldn’t have to worry for their safety when they have a good time in our cities. Holly said not a single local or state official had yet reached out as of earlier this afternoon, other than one police detective. Leftists like to lecture about ‘systemic injustice’ while thugs turn our turn cities into war zones. I’m done with their excuses. As governor, I’ll make sure they’re behind bars, not running wild. Our cops will have the green light to restore order—no apologies. Holly appreciates the kind words and prayers from patriots across the country, and hopes that the publicity around her story ensures that local & state leaders clean up our failing cities. We hope to visit Holly soon as she recovers. 🙏🏾
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This is a 5-alarm fire & President Trump’s vision to dismantle the Department of Education is the first step to fixing it. The federal bureaucracy has wasted boatloads of taxpayer $$ while impeding the success of our students. The statistics below are downright brutal.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that the hiring of foreign-born and first-generation engineers by top tech companies isn't due to any perceived IQ deficit among Americans, but rather a cultural issue. Our society has long celebrated mediocrity over excellence, starting from a young age. This cultural preference for normalcy over achievement stifles potential in a competitive global market. To thrive, we need to prioritize hard work, creativity, and rigorous academic pursuits. I see this as a pivotal moment for America to awaken and embrace a culture of excellence.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if we’re really serious about fixing the problem, we have to confront the TRUTH: Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer). That doesn’t start in college, it starts YOUNG. A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers. A culture that venerates Cory from “Boy Meets World,” or Zach & Slater over Screech in “Saved by the Bell,” or ‘Stefan’ over Steve Urkel in “Family Matters,” will not produce the best engineers. (Fact: I know *multiple* sets of immigrant parents in the 90s who actively limited how much their kids could watch those TV shows precisely because they promoted mediocrity…and their kids went on to become wildly successful STEM graduates). More movies like Whiplash, fewer reruns of “Friends.” More math tutoring, fewer sleepovers. More weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons. More books, less TV. More creating, less “chillin.” More extracurriculars, less “hanging out at the mall.” Most normal American parents look skeptically at “those kinds of parents.” More normal American kids view such “those kinds of kids” with scorn. If you grow up aspiring to normalcy, normalcy is what you will achieve. Now close your eyes & visualize which families you knew in the 90s (or even now) who raise their kids according to one model versus the other. Be brutally honest. “Normalcy” doesn’t cut it in a hyper-competitive global market for technical talent. And if we pretend like it does, we’ll have our asses handed to us by China. This can be our Sputnik moment. We’ve awaken from slumber before & we can do it again. Trump’s election hopefully marks the beginning of a new golden era in America, but only if our culture fully wakes up. A culture that once again prioritizes achievement over normalcy; excellence over mediocrity; nerdiness over conformity; hard work over laziness. That’s the work we have cut out for us, rather than wallowing in victimhood & just wishing (or legislating) alternative hiring practices into existence. I’m confident we can do it. 🇺🇸 🇺🇸
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
If you uttered the facts in this IG report last year, you were labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” It’s also notable that the IG report came out literally the day after Christopher Wray resigned.
@greg_price11 - Greg Price
BREAKING: The FBI had 26 confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6, including four who entered the Capitol building and 13 who entered the "restricted area" around the Capitol, according to a just released DOJ Inspector General reporter. https://t.co/Zq9ftlp7Q6
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This is how the deep state works: when they can’t censor your speech or freeze your financial transactions directly, they pressure private companies that they regulate to do it through the back door instead. This is called fascism. The only right answer: SHUT IT DOWN.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Our $35TN debt problem is a symptom of a deeper illness: we’ve replaced self-governance with a nanny state, administered by a cancerous bureaucracy. Fix that & the debt problem disappears. https://t.co/1rEIyoWd5h
Video Transcript AI Summary
I didn't hear any mention of spending or national debt, which is concerning. We need to control spending to address broader issues. The national debt is a symptom of the nanny state, which consists of three parts: the entitlement state, the regulatory state, and the foreign policy nanny state.
To tackle the entitlement state, we should attach work requirements to government aid. For the regulatory state, we need to reduce the number of federal bureaucrats and eliminate unconstitutional regulations. Lastly, we should implement zero-based budgeting for federal expenditures, including foreign aid.
By dismantling these areas of unnecessary spending, we can effectively address the national debt and restore self-governance in the country. The focus should be on these root causes, as resolving them will lead to a healthier economy and civic responsibility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I didn't hear you hear say spending or national debt once. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I
Speaker 0: think that's a problem. And I worked in the Trump White House. I tried to get Trump to talk more about this. But if we don't get control of spending, we're not gonna get control of everything anything else. So I just wanted to get your your thoughts on that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so I was I was somewhat intentional about making a pitch on the national debt or spending not the centerpiece of my pitch, though it leads to the same place. The reason is I think that it doesn't people don't clerically and the the counting nature of it, I don't think that compels people to move. After all, we would have complained about the national debt when it was 26,000,000,000,000. Now it's 34.
35 in counting. Right? There's a national debt clock if you wanna if, you know, but but but who's counting? Right? That's that's kind of part of the point.
Versus getting to the root cause of what gives us that national debt, which is the nanny state as we know it. When I say nanny state, I mean there's 3 parts to the nanny state. Right? And I don't normally give a speech like this, but you guys are at the bleeding edge or at the vanguard. You're policy makers.
You're thinkers. So let's just get to the stuff that my usual adviser would tell me is too boring for for campaign stuff. Okay? So there's there's 3 parts to the nanny state. Okay.
There's the entitlement state. There's the regulatory state. And there's the foreign policy nanny state as well. My vision is shut them all down. Shut them all down.
You solve your national debt problem right there. Let's go piece by piece. Entitlement state, welfare, Medicaid, any type of government assistance, attach a work requirement to it. Make work requirements pervasive to any type of government aid. That's how you shut down the entitlement state.
The regulatory state, we got 4,000,000 federal bureaucrats. Everybody, including me, is talking about the mass deportation of millions of illegals from this country, which I favor. But the real mass deportation we need is the mass deportation of millions of unelected federal bureaucrats out of Washington DC. You shut down the regulatory state that way. And in a post Chevron, post West Virginia versus EPA world, 75% or more of federal regulations are unconstitutional under existing law.
Resend those with a single order that says the Supreme Court has told us these regulations are invalid. Then you move to the foreign policy nanny state. And my view is zero based budgeting for every federal expenditure. Foreign aid should not be an exception to that question either. You've automatically solved our national debt crisis that way.
And so I wanna go to the root causes and 1 by 1 dismantle the areas where we're spending that money where we shouldn't. I find that and I believe that even going forward, that's gonna be a more effective problem to talk to tackling the national debt than to talk about the esoteric national debt where, otherwise, when push comes to shove, everyone's got their favorite sacred cow that they don't wanna slay. And and by the way, I say that as a proud practicing Hindu myself. Okay? I don't, I don't use Don't don't use that as a, you know, use that as an analogy to evoke an emotional response.
Because we need an emotional response to be able to actually tackle this problem. When it comes to it, everybody's got their their favorite favorite thing they don't wanna give up. Actually, if we're principled to say, we wanna actually shut the whole thing down, the extinguishing of the national debt is a side effect of that, but only one of many side effects. The better side effect is we we restored self governance in the country. It's not just an economic argument.
I mean, today, the people we elect to run the government, they're not even the ones who actually run the government. It's unelected bureaucrats, which was actually the view of pre revolutionary England that the people could not be trusted to self govern. What we're actually doing here is not just simulating our economy. Take the regulatory state out. That's the best wet blanket.
We take off our economy to actually deliver economic growth again. It's not just that we've solved our national debt crisis. It's that we've solved our civic crisis of losing our commitment to self governance in the United States itself. So the only reason I didn't mention is because I think it's so much bigger than that, and the national debt melts away as a consequence of pursuing the vision that that I hope I've laid out tonight. Thank you, Matt.
I appreciate it.
reSee.it AI Summary
Our mission at DOGE focuses on eliminating bureaucratic regulations, which is not just a preference but a legal mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court. Key rulings have established that agencies need clear congressional authorization for major regulations, and the end of Chevron deference means they can't impose their interpretations on the public. Recent cases also limit agency powers and allow new businesses to challenge old regulations, opening the door for scrutiny of rules spanning decades. We're committed to helping the U.S. government align with the Constitution.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Here’s a key point about our mission at DOGE: eliminating bureaucratic regulations isn’t a mere policy preference. It’s a legal *mandate* from the U.S. Supreme Court: - West Virginia v. EPA (2022) held that agencies cannot decide major questions of economic or political significance without "clear congressional authorization." This applies to *thousands* of rules that never passed Congress. - In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the Court ended Chevron deference, which means agencies can't foist their own interpretations of the law onto the American people. Over 18,000 federal cases cited the Chevron doctrine, often to uphold regulations, many of which are now null & void. - In SEC v. Jarkesy (2024), SCOTUS restricted the use of "administrative law judges" by agencies. The same agency that wrote the rules shouldn't be able to prosecute citizens in “courts” that it controls. - In Corner Post v. Board of Governors (2024), the Court held that new businesses can challenge old regulations, greatly expanding the statute of limitations & opening many more rules up for scrutiny. So we shouldn't just look at rules passed in the last 4 years, but over the past 4 decades (or more). DOGE is ready help the U.S. government conform to the U.S. Constitution once again. @elonmusk and I are ready to serve. 🇺🇸
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Will entire agencies be deleted? Answer: yes. https://t.co/QPe5VNGDhr
Video Transcript AI Summary
We anticipate significant reductions in federal agencies, including potential closures. Certain agencies may be eliminated entirely, and we plan to cut down on bloated areas within the federal government. Additionally, we aim to reduce spending on federal contractors who are overbilling. The changes may happen more swiftly than expected, thanks to the legal framework provided by the Supreme Court.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you expecting to close down entire agencies? Like, president Trump has talked about the Department of Education, for example. Are you gonna be closing down departments?
Speaker 1: We expect mass reductions. We expect certain agencies to be deleted outright. We expect mass reductions in force in areas of the federal government that are bloated. We expect massive cuts among federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government. So, yes, we expect all of the above.
And I think people will be surprised by, I think, how quickly we're able to move with some of those changes given the legal backdrop the Supreme Court has given us.
reSee.it AI Summary
Biden’s HHS has significantly expanded its focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, employing 207 staff in seven Offices of Minority Health and 294 dedicated DEI personnel, costing over $67 million in payroll. Most of these hires earn six-figure salaries. The latest budget request emphasizes "equity," mentioning it 829 times, prioritizing racial equity and environmental justice. I believe an efficient government should not accommodate such DEI expansion. It's time to take action against this bloat.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has gone wild on DEI: - 207 employees spread across 7 Offices of Minority Health - 294 taxpayer-funded staffers dedicated to "diversity, equity & inclusion.” The price tag for payroll alone exceeds $67 million, with a majority of these DEI hires making six-figure salaries. The latest HHS budget request mentions “equity” 829 times, with requests seeking to address “racial equity and environmental justice” at the forefront. An efficient government has no place for DEI bloat. Time to DOGE it.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
The people who waxed eloquently about “threats to our democracy” were really most worried about threats to our bureaucracy - which is the *actual* threat to democracy itself. https://t.co/5kVfMYwDyE
Video Transcript AI Summary
To reduce the federal bureaucracy, we must recognize that many regulations are illegitimate. The executive branch has created numerous rules unlawfully, and acknowledging this is key to shrinking its size. This approach could effectively curb the bureaucracy's illegal actions and ultimately save the country.
The growth of the federal government is relentless, as institutions inherently aim to protect and expand themselves. It's rare to hear suggestions about significantly reducing its size, but even a modest cut could transform foreign policy, the economy, and culture. There is potential for meaningful change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You gotta get rid of the presence of the people who populate that bureaucracy. But in order to do that, you need this industrial logic. And that industrial logic, in my opinion, is what the supreme court has already given us, which is this mandate to say the executive branch, the fake executive branch, the administer to state, has written all these rules by Fiat. Most of them are illegal. Like, they're actually unlawful.
They're illegitimate. And so if you have an executive branch that says, okay. We're gonna recognize that most of these regulations are illegitimate. There's your blueprint for then shaving down the size of the federal bureaucracy, which is then the permanent solution to stop that bureaucracy from perpetuating this kind of illegal rampant action. And I think that's the stuff of how you actually save a country, boring as that might sound.
Speaker 1: It's not boring, and I think, I I've never heard in all the you know, my whole life in Washington, anybody suggest that this is a process that could really be stalled or reversed. The process being the growth of the federal government, which is just inexorable because the purpose of the institution is to protect protect itself and expand. That's the law.
Speaker 0: Take a law of physics. It's a the debt.
Speaker 1: Government. Every institution exists to protect itself for its own benefit. That's its purpose, and it's demonstrable in its behavior. So, but it's it's so obvious. It's so overwhelming.
It's the largest institution in human history. I've never heard anybody say, you know, we have a shot of, like, lopping off 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, like 8%. Yeah. That I mean, that would change everything from our foreign policy to our economy, to our culture. You really think that's that could happen?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think it could
reSee.it AI Summary
Issue 1 in Ohio is a troubling proposal that would establish a committee of unelected bureaucrats, similar to Fauci, who would have the power to draw election districts without accountability to voters. If one of these bureaucrats commits a felony, they cannot be removed by the public. Additionally, ordinary citizens could be reported to the government for simply speaking to them. A Swiss billionaire is funding this initiative, which undermines self-governance. I urge everyone to vote NO on Issue 1 to protect our state's democratic process.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Issue 1 in Ohio is an insane proposal: they want to create a committee of unelected Fauci-like bureaucrats who *can’t be removed by voters* to decide how Ohio election districts are drawn. If one of those bureaucrats commit a felony, voters can’t vote them out. If an ordinary citizen dares to talk to one of those bureaucrats, they will *report you to the government.* A Swiss billionaire has pumped millions of dollars into our state to push this issue, which makes no sense. Keep Ohio self-governed & vote NO on Issue 1.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Issue 1 is crucial for Ohio's future, as it aims to shift control of district lines from elected officials to a committee of unelected bureaucrats. Currently, district lines are determined by a mix of statewide elected officials, allowing voters to hold them accountable. The proposed change would prevent voters from removing these bureaucrats, even if they commit felonies, as only their peers can do so. Additionally, communication with these officials could be reported to the government, raising concerns about transparency. This initiative is backed by significant funding from outside sources, including a Swiss billionaire, which threatens Ohio's self-governance. Therefore, it's essential to vote decisively against Issue 1 to maintain local control.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It comes down to issue 1 as well. I mean, this one's near and dear to the heart of Ohio's future. Okay? This is a left wing plot to turn Ohio blue because they couldn't convince the voters statewide to do it. Here's what's going on.
Because, you know, first, when this I I wish I had learned about this issue last year. I wish I had learned about this issue much earlier because we could have explained this much better to the people of the state. The more confusing it is, that means the more you have to pay attention. So in the 4 days we have left because this is gonna come down to a razor thin margin. I'm gonna ask each of you to go out and tell those same 10 people about what's actually at stake on issue 1 as well.
Right now, the way we set our district lines, most of you know this, but it's worth saying it anyway, is set by 7 people, 3 of which are statewide elected officials. Because otherwise, there's 2 democrats, 2 republicans, so that's a tie from the legislature. But there's 3 people, the governor, the auditor, and the secretary of state who decide it. And the beauty of those elections, including like several on the state we got Keith Faber here with us. Right?
He's one of them. Those elections are statewide. It doesn't matter how you draw those lines. The whole state gets to decide it democratically. And if you don't like the way they did it, there's a beautiful mechanism we have in America and in Ohio is you vote them out.
They don't want the people to decide. They now want it to be a committee of 6 to 15 unelected bureaucrats, effectively 15 Anthony Fauci's, deciding how we draw our own district lines. And even worse, they don't want you as the voter to be able to vote them out. So I asked the question because, you know, they serve me up the talking points and okay. I got the talking points.
But I wanna get to the bottom of this. I wanna understand the best argument for the other side to what's really going on. So what if they commit a felony? Can you remove them if they commit a felony? No.
You can't. Can the voters vote them out if they commit a felony? No. You can't. Who can remove them?
Only the other 14 other Anthony Fauci's on that committee. It doesn't make any sense. Now you can't make this stuff up. It gets one step worse than that. Not only do they not want you or us as the voters to be able to vote them out, they also don't even want us, the voters, to be able to talk to them.
And if you do, I'm not making this up, they will report you to the government like you're some kind of criminal. This is Orwellian. You can't make this stuff up. And how would this ever pass? The answer is we've tried this in the state in the past.
None of these things have ever passed except this time something's different. You got the money being spent, including, I'm not even kidding you, by a Swiss billionaire who there's no evidence to suggest he's even a US citizen, a citizen of a different country, spending $5,000,000 to govern the way we run our own elections in Ohio? That doesn't make any sense. It's the great reset globally arriving in our own backyard. And that's why I say we don't vote no on issue 1.
We vote hell no on issue 1. Keep Ohio a self governed state. And that's what I'm asking of every one of you to do too.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
We’re not the garbage, we’re *taking out* the garbage. https://t.co/cwNQjVeFLn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alright, let's get started. What do we need?
Right up to the lift, here.
Okay, lift it open. Now, pull both out.
Is it on? Yes, it’s on.
Pull this one back too, or are you good?
You're good for now.
Wait for it to pull all the way up.
The machinery works well.
Should I pull it back again?
Yes, pull it out.
Looks good.
The machinery is impressive; we didn’t even have to use the bat.
Sometimes you might need to, though.
Overall, the machine works really well.
Let’s get some more.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Let's do it, man. What we need? I got I got it. You got it?
Yeah. Yeah. Tell me. What what are we doing here? Right up to the lift.
K. To here. Right up to here. Yep. Come around.
Pretty much right here. Always lift a little. Wait. Is it on? Yes.
Alright. Sweet. Lift it open, and then what are we doing? Pull them pull them both out. Pull them both out.
Right now. That one. Right now. Doing it right? Pull this one back too or you're good?
Yeah. You're good right now. Sweet. For it to pull all the way up? Pretty good machinery, actually.
It kinda works. Should I pull it back again? Yep. Now this pull this goes up. Should I pull it?
Yeah. Pull it out. Pull it out? Yep. Alright, man.
Let's do it. Thank you. Looks pretty good. Oh. Yes.
The machinery's good. It's good machinery. I mean, it's like even have to use the bat once. No. I know.
Exactly. Well, sometimes you might need to, actually. Case. It's a, the the machine works really well, man. Alright.
Let's get some more.
reSee.it AI Summary
I had a conversation with a Kamala voter who claimed her main concern is "disinformation." It was surprising to learn she believes the idea of Covid-19 originating from a Chinese lab is a lie and was unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop story's suppression.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
If you want to understand the decline of America, watch this exchange - with a Kamala voter who said her *top* issue in this election is “disinformation.” Turns out she’s actually a *victim* of disinformation: she thinks it’s a lie that Covid-19 began in a Chinese lab & she didn’t know about the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Top issues for the country include eliminating disinformation and restoring hope in the system. Disinformation, particularly from news outlets, is a concern, with debates about the validity of various narratives, such as the origins of COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The conversation touches on the role of free speech, the responsibility of media companies, and the potential dangers of allowing any authority to determine what constitutes disinformation. There is disagreement on whether closing schools during COVID was justified and discussions about the implications of censorship. Ultimately, the importance of open debate and the protection of free speech is emphasized, highlighting the risks of allowing any group to dictate truth.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think is important for the country? I think, well Pick pick your top two issues. What are the top two issues for the country?
Speaker 1: The top two issues for the country is
Speaker 0: getting happen in the next 4 years?
Speaker 1: Getting rid of disinformation and also securing more hope in our system.
Speaker 2: So disinformation is protected by the First Amendment. You would agree?
Speaker 1: Yes. Disinformation when it comes to news outlets. Is what I mainly talk about.
Speaker 2: So you and I both agree we should pull CNN's broadcasting license?
Speaker 1: More like more like Fox News.
Speaker 2: No. That's the point. Is that all of a sudden, CNN has a right
Speaker 0: to be able to do what they do. Fox Well,
Speaker 1: Fox News is actually currently or actually, I think about a year ago, it was going through a, inflammatory
Speaker 0: Do do
Speaker 2: you think that
Speaker 0: court case.
Speaker 2: Do you think that it should be legal to have different opinions? Of course you do. So we're just Legal? Legal. Legal.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, yeah. I'm mainly talking about, news corporate or, like, news outlets and also big media figures who can spin sort of disinformation and that can swing the election. For example, like, Elon Musk targeting people on his platform that are liberal and targeting or, like, pushing out,
Speaker 0: Why why should that be illegal?
Speaker 1: Because he's trying to sway the election.
Speaker 2: So he's in an event he's a citizen. Should Taylor Swift not be able to speak about? She's swaying the election.
Speaker 1: Well, no. When I
Speaker 2: How is Taylor Swift and Elon Musk different? She's far more popular than Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Because Elon Musk on his platform is prohibiting information about Kamala, Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: No. He's not. She
Speaker 0: so let me let me just say everything. We're we're all against disinformation here. But let me just ask you 2 pieces of disinformation that we know are disinformation. Where did the pandemic begin?
Speaker 1: In China.
Speaker 0: In a lab? No. You don't you don't think it both began in a lab in China? Because that's not widely accepted that that's where it began. Yet if you said that in 2020, and and I I don't blame you, I blame the fact that we created disinformation in this country.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: You're you're you're a victim of disinformation.
Speaker 0: You're you're I'm because it
Speaker 1: was created in a lab.
Speaker 0: It was created in a lab in a lab. In that case. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I and I I
Speaker 0: don't even I don't even blame you. I don't even blame you because the government stopped you from being able to know that. So so right now, we have we're having a conversation where you believe that the pandemic did not begin, that COVID 19 did not begin in a lab in China because guess what? That's exactly what our government required you to believe. If anybody said it did, they required it to be censored.
What evidence do you
Speaker 1: have that was created in life?
Speaker 0: You have actually genetic you now actually have the genetics of the virus to be able to go back to actually the lab that was manipulating a non human virus. It was it was never a naturally occurring virus. The only way that they now know based on the genes
Speaker 1: SARS is not a naturally occurring
Speaker 0: virus. SARS COV 2 is not. It's it's currently again, it's it's It's designed to spread more rapidly. That's exactly why it did. But but but suffice to say that now at least every major scientist or medical researcher today who said 2 years ago that it did not believes this is the most likely origin of the pandemic.
And yet, most of the public, including even yourself, believes what the government told us 2 years ago. That's actual disinformation. Let me ask you another thing. What's the Hunter Biden laptop story on the eve of the last election? The 2020 presidential election.
There was a lot of compromising information about Hunter Biden found on a laptop that was found about a month before the election. Was that made up or was that actually true?
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was prosecuted.
Speaker 0: No. No. What was the was the laptop story, was it true or false?
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 0: He was
Speaker 2: not the worst person.
Speaker 0: But you were told it was false. So we share with you a passion
Speaker 2: for getting rid of disinformation. You have to do it for free speech. The the Central Intelligence Agency came out and signed a letter, 50 of them, saying that this was Russian disinformation. I lost my Twitter account because I started to share the Hunter Biden laptop during the election. 1 in 4 swing voters during the 2020 election said they would have voted differently if they knew about the Hunter Biden laptop.
That's our own government. Hunter
Speaker 0: Hunter Biden's our president.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But his father his dad was all throughout the laptop talking about foreign deals, Chinese cash, Ukrainian meetings, Russian deals. All that was in the laptop.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was prosecuted.
Speaker 2: Right. That's on
Speaker 0: the phone.
Speaker 1: Just like how Trump was prosecuted.
Speaker 2: Right. Right.
Speaker 1: 30 4 felons.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We we got that. So I'm
Speaker 2: I'm going back though to the laptop. Our own government came in and said that that laptop was Russian disinformation. Let me ask you a question though. Do you believe that, saying that closing schools during COVID was a good thing?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. That that is now widely accepted as being epidemiologically wrong, morally wrong.
Speaker 0: Who? We we got a lot of kids who are now suffering from mental health disorders. You have a lot of kids who have failed to acclimate socially, who are 2, 3, 4 years old, But That grew up in
Speaker 2: that neighborhood. Again. More importantly, should I have been able to say during
Speaker 0: the pandemic that closing
Speaker 1: schools was wrong?
Speaker 2: You as an individual? And my my media
Speaker 0: company.
Speaker 1: Your media company? Probably not. But you as an individual? Sure.
Speaker 0: So so we're gonna dis I agree. And this one, we're gonna agree to disagree. We have a different view of speech, basically. Well well, I mean, Charlie, I think we can we even the labels aside, if somebody believes that you should not have been able to say during the pandemic that schools should remain open. If it's your belief that a media company should not have been allowed to say that, then I think if you're voting for Kamala Harris, you are voting for the right candidate for you.
I truly believe that. Okay.
Speaker 2: Sure. She is the censorship candidate. Her belief for the world I I is that if Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk get too powerful
Speaker 1: So when Donald Trump said that people who nail for the national anthem should go to jail, is that free speech?
Speaker 2: Well, he never said they should go to jail. He said they're they're not patriotic. He never said they should go to jail. Yes.
Speaker 1: He did.
Speaker 2: Again, I hate that up. He never said they should go to jail. Yes.
Speaker 1: He did.
Speaker 2: Okay. See this again, you are a victim of disinformation. No. I'm not. Let me ask let me ask you just one more question.
Can men give birth?
Speaker 1: Can men give birth? Yeah. If they're transgender.
Speaker 0: So again, I mean, the the beauty of this country, No, but the beauty of this country is that she gets to have that view and vote for who she wants. And I think we have laid out here, this is a Kamala Harris voter. Right? If you believe men can give birth birth, vote for Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump. If you believe that you should not have been allowed to say as a media company that schools should not have closed during COVID 19, that you should have been banned from saying it, absolutely Kamala Harris your candidate not Donald Trump.
You're a media company. This lays out this lays out the choice of your life.
Speaker 1: Media company should not put out disinformation.
Speaker 0: But who who let
Speaker 2: me just one more question. Who judges judges its disinformation? Who's in charge of that standard?
Speaker 0: It depends on what it is.
Speaker 1: If we're talking about COVID, we should look for the medical scientists and doctors.
Speaker 2: Were they wrong about anything during COVID?
Speaker 1: Some things.
Speaker 2: So then why should we give them unilateral authority? This is where we're different.
Speaker 1: Well, that's
Speaker 2: We believe the first
Speaker 1: science, not, scripture. So science can be changed. What? Yes. That's how science work.
It always evolves. We believe that the earth was in the center of the universe.
Speaker 0: Should immediate company should immediate company be allowed to say that climate change is not an existential risk to humanity?
Speaker 1: It depends on what type of data that they're putting out.
Speaker 0: So if a media company says the climate change agenda is made up on false premises and that, you know what, global surface temperature should be allowed to go up. Should they be banned from saying it?
Speaker 1: Should a media company say that bleach is good to drink?
Speaker 0: They should be allowed to say it. First of
Speaker 2: all, that never happened. That never happened. Never happened.
Speaker 1: They should be allowed to say that?
Speaker 2: And they should be allowed to say it, of course. Because the first amendment protects all speech, hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, and correct speech. You cannot police Or individuals. And no. And companies.
And individual like companies, individuals, LLCs Companies are run by individuals. Platforms. Free speech transcends all platforms all the time. Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: And you cannot all of a
Speaker 2: sudden I
Speaker 0: think this is useful because I do think there's a difference in opinion. So illuminating. And if you have your if you have the views you do, I do think Kamala Harris is your candidate.
Speaker 2: And the final point is under your view, last thing, let's say Trump wins and becomes supreme dictator of America. Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Why would you give him the power to shut up liberal media?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 0: You believe that the experts or whatever should be able to to
Speaker 2: close close this information. If Trump were to win, why would you
Speaker 0: give him that power to shut up liberal media?
Speaker 1: If the liberal media is wrong?
Speaker 2: But Trump would say they're wrong, so he'll shut it up. Well, that's the point of
Speaker 1: Is Trump an expert?
Speaker 2: Okay. That's the point. Is that at some point, that's why you should have first amendment because it's whoever's in charge gets to determine what is right or wrong. That is what Orwell wrote about.
Speaker 1: When it comes to medical and scientific, things like that, it should be
Speaker 2: They were wrong about everything. They were wrong about 6 feet to solid spread. They were wrong about the vaccine, safe and effective. They were Wait.
Speaker 0: They were wrong about whether the Earth revolves around the sun,
Speaker 2: by the way. A heliocentric theory of
Speaker 0: a long
Speaker 1: time. About that. Other scientists.
Speaker 0: The the through And
Speaker 1: not politicians. Right?
Speaker 0: Through free speech and open debate. Yeah. Between more
Speaker 2: of the Open debate gets you to truth, not totalitarianism. Thank you so much. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: That is one of the scariest I've I've I've heard in my 12 years of doing this.
Speaker 0: I see it now. She's a victim. I mean, I'm not I'm not mad at her. No.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the death of the country. If you just say I should be able to shut you up because
Speaker 0: I'm not mad at her, man. I'm not. I'm just saying it's like it's like they This is a victim of what's going on in
Speaker 2: the dungeon
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
An audience member asked John Bolton if the deep state is “real.” He described it as a paranoid conspiracy. I disagreed. https://t.co/VuyfwDZrNv
Video Transcript AI Summary
One speaker disputes the existence of a "deep state," arguing that the idea is paranoid, while another speaker defines "America First" as elected officials running the government and owing their sole moral duty to American citizens. This speaker claims unelected bureaucrats control much of public policy, forming a modern technocracy. They link foreign policy failures to the rise of the welfare and regulatory state, arguing interventionism abroad invites crises at home.
The speakers debate the success of intervention in Afghanistan. One speaker argues the US succeeded in preventing attacks until the Trump/Biden withdrawal, while the other speaker points to the Taliban's resurgence and abandoned resources as evidence of failure. One speaker blames Trump's withdrawal for the Taliban's return, while the other speaker argues the withdrawal could have been executed better. The speaker judges past policies by their results, citing Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan as failures, and advocates for US leaders to prioritize American interests over a bureaucratic vision of advancing democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As to whether there's a deep state, they're not smart enough to be a deep state. If if there were a deep state, we wouldn't be here having this debate. I can tell you there there are a lot of good people, out there trying to do the right thing, but the idea that we're run by a deep state is deeply paranoid.
Speaker 1: I, I respectfully disagree with that actually. We use terms like America first. I'll define it for you. Because sometimes we we are lazy, we bandied around, we don't say what it means. Here's what it means.
2 things. 1 is the people we elect to run the government are the ones who actually run the government and number 2 is those leaders owe their sole moral duty, sole moral duty to the citizens of this country and not another one. That's what it means to stand for America First principles. Let's start with number 1. Today, the people who set most public policy are not the ones who were ever elected to run the government.
In fact, there are 4,000,000 people in the federal bureaucracy including, I'm sorry to say, the National Security Establishment who are not only never elected to their positions but actually according to the supposed interpretation of civil service rules cannot even be fired by the people who are elected to those positions. That's not actually a democracy. That is a new type of modern technocracy that would make our founding fathers, including those you quoted at the start, roll over in their graves that they never imagined. So I do think that a root cause of many of our foreign policy failures is also the same root cause as many of our domestic policy failures including the rise of the welfare and the regulatory state. It is that the people we elect to run the government aren't the ones actually running the government and I do think that the warfare state is upstream of the welfare state.
When you invade the rest of the world, you effectively invite them. That's exactly what's happening to Europe and it's deeply linked to our own border crisis in this country. So So the question is how do we best advance the interest of the United States of America? I'll start again with the question. Well, I mean very quickly because I want to see if we can Just a quick I'll be very quick here.
I just want Ambassador Bolton to give an opportunity to address a question I raised at the outset. If we can pick one example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, any example from the 21st century where that foreign intervention on behalf of the United States actually ended up advancing American interests, I'd wait for the answer to that.
Speaker 0: Afghanistan. Let's start there. Well, let's start there.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Maybe you'll give me
Speaker 0: a chance to finish. After the 9:11 attack, we went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and defeat Al Qaeda and prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States. And at least until, 2021, when pursuant to the Trump agreed, withdrawal proposal with the Taliban and the Biden actual withdrawal, we had succeeded. There were no terrorist attacks against the United States from Afghanistan, after 2,001. Now that foreign terrorist fighters are returning to Afghanistan and even the Biden administration has testified publicly that ISIS k has the capability to launch terrorist attacks against the United States today as it launched earlier this year, in Iran and in Russia.
Speaker 1: And this is where we have a difference in opinion. If you call Afghanistan a success, I look 20 years later, that same Taliban is still in charge armed with 80 plus $1,000,000,000
Speaker 0: Because we gave it back
Speaker 1: to our people that we left behind. How hard is that to figure out? The intervention it's it's like a Marxist argument. Right? The Marxists always argue that the problem with the state intervention is we didn't do enough of it, and that's exactly the form of argument that we have for the interventionist philosophy as well.
Speaker 0: We had a very imperfect government in Afghanistan. We were not there to make it into the Switzerland of Central Asia.
Speaker 1: Taliban is in charge today. And had we stayed had we stayed
Speaker 0: I'll I will finish my sentence. Had we stayed, the Taliban would not be in charge. But it was Donald Trump's desire to get American forces out that produced this catastrophic mistake. I suppose you supported the withdrawal. You're responsible.
That position is responsible for the consequences of Taliban being back in control.
Speaker 1: I respectfully disagree when you actually could have executed a withdrawal in the manner that president Trump laid out. Don't do it during fighting season. Do it in an intelligent way. Don't one at a time. I'll let you come back.
Yep. Sure. So the bottom line is I judge a set of policies by its results. Iraq is more vulnerable to Iranian incursion before we showed up. Libya is a failed state.
Syria, Afghanistan, now run by the Taliban. If we fail to learn from our mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them in the future and that's why I think we have to recenter the obligation of US elected leaders to focus on exclusively what advances American interests rather than advancing a bureaucratic state's vision of what they call advancing democracy.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
I don’t blame the people of Springfield for their frustrations, I blame the policies that created them. We’re here tonight to hear *directly* from the people, without any filters. Kicking off tonight with a shocking story of my own from today. https://t.co/2ihdE2vnmV
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Ben Freeth, a white farmer, sued the Zimbabwean government to stop them from seizing his farm. They kidnapped him, tortured him, and fractured his skull. This is where the road of identity politics necessarily ends. America, beware. https://t.co/snNV3AcRfW
Video Transcript AI Summary
After facing targeting in local courts, the speaker's group approached the Southern African Development Community Treaty court. They received interim relief, preventing their arrest and allowing them to continue farming. Two weeks before their main hearing, the speaker, along with their father-in-law and mother-in-law, were abducted and severely tortured, sustaining 14 broken bones.
The torturers aimed to stop their fight in court, coercing the speaker's mother-in-law into signing a document promising to discontinue the SADC tribunal case. Despite this, the document was never produced. Two weeks later, the speaker, in a wheelchair, attended the SADC tribunal in Namibia. On November 28, 2008, they received a favorable judgment stating they were allowed to stay on their farm and that the Zimbabwe government's actions were against international law and the SADC treaty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, you know, we knew that we paid for it as well. Anyone who went to the law, went to a court was immediately singled out, immediately became a target. And amazingly, 2 weeks after our hearing in the supreme court, we heard about, a new court that had been set up in the region under the Southern African Development Community Treaty. And, this court was for all 400,000,000 people of Southern Africa. And we were able to approach that court, knowing that we would lose in the supreme court, but but knowing that we had exhausted all our domestic remedies, and approached that court and which we which we did and and 2 weeks before our our main hearing in that court.
So we were given interim relief as soon as we approached the court. They said they can't arrest you. You are allowed to carry on farming. You're not committing a crime under the treaty by farming and living in your own home. And we so so we 2 weeks before that main hearing, we we were abducted.
We were tortured very, very severely. My my father-in-law, my mother-in-law, and myself, we had 14 broken bones, between us. We were taken off to a a a dark torture camp where many people had been tortured over the previous few months in another very, very bloody election period.
Speaker 1: What was their objective in torturing you physically? What did they think they were gonna get out of this? To stop the fight in court?
Speaker 0: They got my mother-in-law to sign a bit of paper that we would not continue in, the SADC tribunal. We would not continue in this regional court. But, of course, my father-in-law was was unconscious most of the time at that point. I also had a fractured skull by that stage. They'd be beating me over the head with rifle bats.
And so they got my mother-in-law who who had a badly broken arm, and and was beaten all over her head, and they'd taken a fire and and put it in her in her mouth. They got her to sign a bit of paper to say that we would not carry on in in the court. But, of course, they never produced that. And and 2 weeks later, in a wheelchair, I was able to be in in the court in in Namibia in in the SEDEC tribunal. My parents in law were not.
They were still in the hospital. But I was able to be there and and and able to, eventually, on the 28th November that year, 2008, get, be part of hearing the judgment which was a very favorable judgment which said that we were allowed to stay on our farm, that we that what the Zimbabwe government was doing was was against international law, against the Sadegh treaty that they could not carry on. And and so that was a tremendous judgment on the 28th November 2008.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Ben Freeth, a white farmer, sued the Zimbabwean government to stop them from seizing his farm. They kidnapped him, tortured him, and fractured his skull. This is where the road of identity politics necessarily ends. America, beware. https://t.co/snNV3AcRfW
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
We’re not up against a candidate. We’re up against a managerial machine. https://t.co/0pmr5O8p78
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joe Biden's withdrawal as the Democratic nominee for US president is not surprising given his cognitive deficits. The late switch to a new nominee, likely Kamala Harris, benefits the Democrats as it allows the public to enter a honeymoon phase without scrutiny. However, the more honest approach would have been to acknowledge Biden's unfitness earlier. The speaker believes that the real opponent is not the candidate but the machine of the managerial class that controls them. This presents an opportunity for Republicans to appeal to Democrats who value honesty. The speaker encourages Republicans to focus on their own vision and values rather than getting caught up in the Democrats' tactics. The speaker emphasizes the need for a strong leader and a revival of American ideals.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We learned yesterday what I have been saying for about a year and a half. Joe Biden is now officially not going to be the Democrat nominee for US president. The implications of this are far reaching for a lot of different reasons. One of them is how unsurprising this actually is. We've known about Joe Biden's cognitive deficits for a very long time.
Why was it that it was the obvious public view that he was gonna be the nominee when in fact, the reality is he wasn't? I said this at the presidential debate, the Republican debate back in November of last year, and that was after 6 months of me saying the same thing that Joe Biden would not be the nominee. And I called on Democrats to at least be honest so we could have a frank debate about who we're actually up against. The reality is I think this late switch is better for them than had they made the switch earlier because whoever the new nominee is they're pointing to Kamala Harris. I have my doubts whether it'll end up being her.
But whether it's Kamala or somebody else, when it's late in the cycle, the public's in a honeymoon phase with the new candidate right when November comes around without the scrutiny phase actually beginning. And the reality is the much more honest approach would have been for the country and certainly for the Democratic party to be honest that Joe Biden was not fit to be the president of the United States, let alone the president of the United States over the course of the next 4 years and have made that change before. It's It's also fascinating to me that when I did say that at the Republican debate, it was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Any anymore, we live in a country where when somebody's trying to silence the expression of an idea by calling it a conspiracy theory or anything else, the sad truth is often that means it's when we need to pay most attention. Here's the number one lesson coming out of this swap and this bait and switch at the end of this process.
We're not actually running against a candidate here. We're running against a machine. That's a deep understanding of what's going on that requires rejecting some of the things you might otherwise think. What if Biden wasn't gonna let go? This is one of the questions that people ask.
What would it have taken for Biden to have actually led the country or to have endorsed Harris? That's missing the point. It's not Biden that we were up against at all. His cognitive deficits, and I would argue Kamala Harris' cognitive deficits, they're not a bug to the people who control them. Those cognitive deficits are a feature.
It is a wheel that crushes the will of the manager the managerial class crushing the will of everyday citizens, not just in the Republican Party, but even in the Democratic Party. And I think that actually presents an opportunity for us. It's a rare opportunity, but an opportunity nonetheless to speak to those Democrats honestly and to say, you know what? Democrats, independents, people who might have voted once for Biden or for Hillary Clinton, You may not agree with everything that Donald Trump or the Republican Party says today, and that's fine. No 2 Americans agree on a 100% of policies.
That's a rarity. But you do deserve a president and a party that at least tells you the truth, not just when it's easy, but when it's hard and when it's uncomfortable. And I think this could be an opportunity in that sense for Republicans to win over. Many of those Democrats who may disagree more with Republican policies, but even at their core, reject being lied to, and that's exactly what's happened here. Beyond just this individual game, whether it's Joe or whether it's Kamala, we gotta realize the thing that we're actually solving for is defeating that machine, the rise of that managerial class, bigger than any other individual.
It embodies the philosophy of what the modern left is really about. It's not about individual agency. It's that collective will. That's what this machine really is about. The people we elect to run the government, be it Joe Biden, now they're trying for Kamala Harris or anybody else.
The people we elect to run the government are effectively not the ones who actually run the government anymore. That's really what we're running against. That's what we're running to defeat. That's the system we're running to break. That's what the deep state is really about.
This is about the unelected managerial. You could call them elites. You could call them bureaucrats. You could call them monarchs who have no accountability to the people, but whose decisions are actually most impactful on how citizens live their lives. Now for my part, I am personally rooting for, and I think this should be true for all Republicans, that we're rooting for the Democrats to actually put up the best possible nominee that they can.
I know that might sound a little counterintuitive, but I think that'll be good for the country. It'll be good for the Democratic party. I think it'll be good for the Republican party, and it'll be good for the United States of America. That forces us to say, you know what? Whoever we they put up, we're gonna defeat them by offering our own vision of who we are and what we stand for.
You look at the last week, this is the stuff of American history told even centuries from now. The near assassination of Donald Trump followed by a historic Republican convention, followed by just a week later, he's back doing the exact same type of rally, sending a signal to the country that he's not gonna buckle to fear only the next day for the current president of the United States. Since 1968, we haven't seen something like this, refuse to accept the nomination of his own party, the Democrat party's nomination. This is gonna be the stuff of history that we tell our children and our great grandchildren. But I think in that historical context, what's good for the country over the long run, we should want the Democratic Party to put up the best possible ticket they can.
I'm not sure that they will or not, but that's what I'm rooting for as an American. And if we stick to our own vision of who we are and what we actually stand for, we'll run and defeat them either way. I say that as a citizen of this country who cares about the United States of America regardless of an individual party. Just as a kid in a household has to know, here's the father figure in my house. Here's the mother figure in my house.
Here are the people who lead my household. You gotta know, as a kid, it puts you in a much stronger position if you know this is my father. This is my mother. These are the leaders of the household and the family unit. In that same way, I think citizens of a nation require some sense of who's the leader of a country.
It's not something that's on the front of your mind every day, but in the back of your mind and in your heart to know that you're grounded by a sense of conviction that somebody's actually leading the country. That matters. I think we require that. That's a hole in our heart if that's missing. I think it's the stuff of national decline if the people in a country don't have an emotional commitment to who the leader of their country actually is.
Yes. Joe Biden is nominally the president of the United States of America today. But if you think about who's the leader of the country in the hearts of most people, and I think Tucker Carlson did a great job of making a similar case at the RNC in the last week. The real person who most people now think of as the leader of the country who inspires them is actually Donald Trump. Man who took the bullet, felt the blood, and stood right back up for the people of his country, and that allows us to say, you know what?
This is where we're going. We don't have to be this nation led by a frail, really even mentally incapacitated US president that reflects the vacuum of the moment we're in, but that we can be a nation that's actually proud of who we are, a a nation that actually has a leader even if it's not the current nominal president of the United States. One of the questions I've gotten in the last 24 hours certainly is, how did you predict all of this? Right? I said over a year ago, Biden wasn't gonna be the nominee.
I said further that it was gonna take place after the Republican convention. This is exactly what the Democrats, I believe, want. Have the vice president picked on the Republican ticket. Have the Republicans celebrate their victory on the back of that to be able to pull a bait and switch operation that actually take the sprint to the finish line in November, confuse the public about what Republican policies are and hope to win the election that way. How did I manage to not only predict that, but even darker events that have played out over the course of the last week, over the last couple of weeks?
You rewind back to the late part of the campaign trail when I was headed to the Iowa caucus. One of the things I said is that this is the same party that tried to take Donald Trump off the ballot, that sued him in civil suits, that then tried to bring criminal prosecutions against him, that they were not going to let the man, one way or another, find his way to that Republican nomination. That was my concern certainly last December and this January, and it is shocking and it is saddening that we saw what happened Saturday before last to Donald Trump at that rally in Pennsylvania. I think it was divine intervention. It was divine providence that protected this country from that catastrophe.
But it's worth asking the question, how do you actually foretell the future? I'm not some sort I've been wrong about many predictions I've made too, but one of the things I do wanna share because I think this is useful is forget the idea of predicting events in the future, forget the idea of theorizing what the public might what the media might dismiss as conspiracy theories, forget about all of that. And I'd encourage you to just look at what are the incentives that guide actors. Right? What are the incentives that guide someone to behave the way they do or company to behave the way it does or political party to behave the way it does?
Add up the incentives and that usually gives you a pretty clear picture of where someone's heading. What is their incentive? What do they solve for? What do their behaviors actually tell you that they're doing? This is a party and a movement in the Democrat side that has made it its core reason for existence to keep Donald Trump out of office.
They've tried every which way to stop him within the legal system and extra legally as well. Think about the efforts to remove him from the ballot without going through even the legal system. What they've learned is that has failed time and again. In fact, every one of those have backfired to only make Donald Trump and the Republican Party more popular. So now they're going to their last ditch tactic, which is this final bait and switch operation to say that you've effectively trained Republicans to train their criticism on Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket that's running the country today.
Well, if you make a bait and switch towards the very end, whoever replaces Biden, whether it's gonna be Kamala Harris or anybody else, is in some manner gonna be loved by the public. It's a change. It's the same feeling that a tortured prisoner might have towards his his liberator. That might be the feeling that the Democratic Party and much of this country has towards whoever replaces Biden. The later that takes place, you're gonna have a period of time where the public's gonna fall in love without a scrutiny phase.
Their hope is November comes back around before the public even notices. And you know what? That might be the best strategy they have left. The other strategy they're pairing with that. Look at Kamala Harris' commentary over the weekend, claiming falsely that Donald Trump would sign a federal abortion ban into law, when in fact that has been a distinctive position that Donald Trump, along with other Republicans, including myself when I ran for president, took that this is an issue for the states.
So that appears to be the new Democrat strategy. Lie about what the GOP's position is. Don't debate them on the merits. Instead, just make the public think that the GOP's position is something other than what it is and to hide the ball on who your actual candidate is until as late in the process as possible. Hopefully, that creates one giant collective deflection that creates a last minute shift in energy and momentum.
And you know what? They're rooting for the same pattern they got in 2018, 2020, and 2022, which is the illusion of a red wave that never comes. Our job is to make sure they're not right about that. History will unfold, and we're gonna decide. We're gonna we're gonna see what what actually ends up unfolding for the United States, but I'm rooting for something different here.
I'm rooting for a revival of not just the Republican party, but the revival of our national values, and that's how we get this done. It's not by focusing on the shenanigans on the other side. There's a temptation, a trap to be pulled in and focused on what the democrats' next move is. Who's gonna be the president or the vice president? Who they're gonna pair?
I think if it's Kamala Harris, a guy like Josh Shapiro is a likely VP. If it's not Kamala Harris, it's gotta be somebody who checks those same identity politic boxes while rising above the party infighting. I don't think someone like Michelle Obama is still off the table. But the temptation is to focus our attention on that rather than what's far more important, which is answering the question of who we are, not just as Republicans, who we are as Americans and what we stand for in this monumental moment in American history. Do we believe the ideals of the American Revolution actually still exist, or don't we?
It's been said that sometimes, you know what? We may not you may not have a country where people are willing to fight for those ideals. I disagree with that. The American Revolution was fought for ideals, and the way we're gonna fight for those ideals today is at the ballot box peacefully by reviving the ideals of 250 years ago. Channel that energy in a positive way this time to do nothing more than to vote for the person who's gonna make you more proud of being a citizen of this country, to revive the ideals of free speech and open debate, to say that's how we settle our differences in a constitutional republic, not through the legal system or through force.
The basic idea that the people we elect to run the government should once again be the ones who actually run the government, not the shadow government in the unelected bureaucracy both of the deep state in Washington DC and the managerial class of, say, the modern Democratic Party, the idea of merit that the best person gets the job regardless of their race and gender. Ask yourself honestly, do you think that's why Kamala Harris got the job because of merit? Of course, she didn't. It was on the basis of a modern group identity fixation that has really lost the essence of this country. Merit, free speech, self governance, the rule of law, these are the basic ideals that bind us together across our skin deep differences, even across our partisan differences, And this is a rare moment in American history that we have.
We live in a historic time. The events that have unfolded over the last week and a half are unlike those we have seen in my lifetime. We have an opportunity in this historic moment to revive those historic ideals. And if we do, you know what? It doesn't matter which puppet the democrats put up next.
The temptations to focus on that, that's a trap. Avoid that trap and instead redirect that attention to actually define our ideals, why we believe in those ideals, and why we still are committed to them as we were in 17/76. And I think if we do, 2024 will mark the year where we turn the page on a toxic chapter of our national history. We saw the desire for that at the Republican convention last week. It was a unique convention.
It was a convention of not just unity within a party, but a hunger for national unity as well, and that's the kind of national unity I actually want. Not some fake artificial kind, but the real thing, grounded in a country where, yes, we will deeply have our disagreements. But, nonetheless, in spite of those disagreements, we're still committed to giving every American the chance to express their views. That's part of who we are, and I think that's how we're gonna save this country, not by focusing on the political horse race antics that might be the temptation in the wake of news of the kind we had yesterday. Thanks a lot.
I'll be seeing much more to come.
reSee.it AI Summary
Many were shocked by Biden's cognitive deterioration, but it's important to question the quality of news consumed and the trust placed in institutions. Look into other instances where mainstream media may have misled, such as the Russia collusion hoax and origin of COVID-19. Consider who is really running the country and whether the "deep state" is a conspiracy theory or a reality. Despite the sadness of last night, it can lead to positive change and open closed minds. It's better to unite around the truth than to gloat over who was right first. We all make mistakes, but admitting them and improving is crucial for our nation's future.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
If you were shocked by what you saw last night (as many of my centrist & Democrat friends were), ask yourself why you were shocked. Biden’s cognitive deterioration has been evident for a *very* long time: if you weren’t aware of it, or were convinced those claims were “right-wing conspiracies,” that tells you something important about the quality of the news you’re consuming & the institutions you trust. Ask yourself whether it’s possible that those same outlets which lied to you about the mental fitness of the sitting president might have lied to you about anything else. Look into the Russia collusion hoax, the “fine people” and bleach hoaxes, the origin of COVID-19, Hunter Biden, the evidentiary basis for climate change policies or pediatric “gender-affirming care.” Seek out original sources & uncut video footage, instead of relying on the filter of mainstream media coverage. Ask yourself this too: who is actually running this country? Do you honestly believe Joe Biden is in charge? Is the “deep state” a conspiracy theory, or is it a reality hiding in plain sight? Last night was a sad moment for our country to see a mentally debilitated President, but it can still catalyze positive change & open minds that were previously closed. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. For my own part, I will never fault a fellow citizen for coming to these conclusions “late.” It’s more valuable to unite around the truth than to gloat over who was right first. We’re all human, we’ve all been wrong & been misled before, but we are best off as a nation if we can openly admit it and improve in the future. We’ll have our opportunity to do that this November & beyond.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
After last night, our government owes Americans a simple answer: who is *actually* running the country right now? No more BS or lies, it’s not Biden. https://t.co/7j31T72HFY
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions who is truly leading the United States, suggesting it's not Joe Biden. They emphasize the importance of honesty from the government and express concern over the lack of clarity on this issue. The speaker believes Americans deserve the truth for the sake of national security.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The reality is they deserve to be honest with the American people now. Who is actually running the country? Who is in charge of the United States of America? After last night's debate, I don't think there's a single person at home who saw that, who believes it's Joe Biden because it's not. But we deserve a government that tells us the truth.
And I think 1 of the concerning questions for right now, not even the election, I'm talking about today, the next few months leading up to the election is, who is actually leading the United States of America? The Democrats and the White House have not offered a clear answer to that question. And if they tell us that's Joe Biden, we now know that is a lie, and Americans, I think, demand the truth because our security determines and depends on it.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
If you can’t get a tattoo by age 18, you shouldn’t be able to get a “gender-affirming” surgery or chemical castration before age 18 either. “Affirming” a kid’s confusion isn’t compassion. It’s cruelty. https://t.co/YOpZoV2wAf
Video Transcript AI Summary
When a child expresses gender dysphoria, it should be seen as a mental health issue, not just a matter of gender identity. Society should focus on addressing the underlying causes, rather than affirming confusion. Gender dysphoria spreading in schools is more related to mental health than biology. Chromosomal abnormalities like Jacob or Klinefelter syndrome are exceptions and should be acknowledged separately. Viewing gender dysphoria as a mental health condition can lead to better outcomes for individuals and society as a whole.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When a child says that their gender doesn't match their biological sex, I think that that is a mental health disorder. That's the way it deserves to be treated. And so I think that it's fundamentally a mischaracterization of a traditional, long standing we're talking about millennia for the way in which you think about a basic, you know, religious perspective on a form of basic health care at a way a child is born. That's a different practice from a child who says my gender doesn't match my biological sex. They're actually crying out for help.
And we, as a society, have restricted our ability to help those kids, to ask hard questions like what's going on at home or what's going on at school. That's the compassionate thing to do. I don't think it is compassion to affirm that kid's confusion. That's not compassion. I view that as cruelty.
And so I think the right answer is actually, the compassionate answer is what we've always said from the DSM 5 onward. It's a diagnostic there's a psychiatric diagnostic manual for psychiatric diseases, viewed gender dysphoria as a condition of great suffering. And for a rare few people, it is. But why on earth, if that's a condition of suffering, do we want more people to suffer from it, and yet we see the gender dysphoria, when identified in a school, actually spreads faster? The r squared, if you're to use epidemiological language, is faster than COVID 19's, spreads far more in a school where it shows up than in a school than than prior to a single incident showing up in the first place, which says this has a lot more to do with a mental health status than it does to do with anything grounded in biological reality or truth.
There's one caveat to all of this, which often goes under discussed. But yes, a a good question I think it deserves to be addressed is there's a scarce few people who actually have chromosomal abnormalities. So there's a syndrome known as Jacob syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome in which you have XXY or x y y. That's different from transgender. That's intersex.
That's grounded in biological truth and reality and deserves to be acknowledged. It's often missed in the discussion. And so that's undeniable. It's real and needs to be dealt with in a separate way. But putting aside people with hard chromosomal abnormalities, like Jacob syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome, I think the right way to view any kid who any girl with 2 x chromosomes who says I'm a boy or a boy with an x and a y chromosome who says I'm a girl is to recognize that as a mental health condition that can be addressed in a way that's better, not just for society, but better even for that individual.
And so that's why I take the view that I do there.
reSee.it AI Summary
If a judge donated to "Stop Democrats" and ruled on a case against Biden, the outrage would be loud. But Judge Merchan funding the "resistance" during Trump's trial goes unnoticed. Recusal is necessary, and there's no valid argument against it being in the public's best interest.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Imagine if a judge donated to "Stop Democrats" then ruled on a case against Biden. The outrage would be deafening. But Judge Merchan gets a pass for funding the "resistance" while overseeing Trump's trial. Recusal is the right answer - and there’s no good argument for why that isn’t in the best interest of the public.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Use our military to seal *our own* border. End birthright citizenship for illegals & start mass deportations. Stop federal funding for sanctuary cities. Require Central American countries to shut their own borders & close the Darien Gap before we give another dime.
reSee.it AI Summary
Israel must embrace its founding premise as a Jewish State with an absolute right to exist. It has a responsibility to defend itself using force, as its adversaries understand no other language. David Ben-Gurion would advise not relying on others' sympathy or permission. If Israel wants to eliminate Hamas, Hezbollah, or even target Hamas leaders globally, it should proceed without hesitation.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Now is the moment for Israel to return to its founding premise: the Jewish State has an absolute right to exist. A Divine gift, gifted to a Divine nation, charged with a Divine purpose. Israel has an absolute and unequivocal right and responsibility to defend itself to the fullest, applying the only language its adversaries understand: the language of force. And what would David Ben-Gurion say? Don’t depend on anyone else’s fleeting sympathies or permission to do it. If Israel wants to destroy Hamas, Israel should go ahead and destroy Hamas. If Israel wants to destroy Hezbollah, Israel should go ahead and destroy Hezbollah. If Israel and Mossad wants to pull off Munich 2.0 and take out every last leader of Hamas wherever they may be hiding, from Doha to Dresden, and host a red wedding at the Four Seasons in Qatar the next time Haniyeh and Mashaal show up, they should go ahead and do it.
reSee.it AI Summary
The FBI should be shut down instead of reformed, as reform is a myth. Out of the 35,842 staff members, 56% of professional bureaucrats should be fired. The remaining 44% of employees, consisting of special agents and intelligence analysts, should be reassigned to other federal law enforcement agencies that specialize in their respective areas. These reassignments include transferring specialists to agencies such as the US Marshals Service, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, US Secret Service, Department of Justice, and Department of the Treasury, based on their expertise in crimes against children, counter-intelligence, national security, terrorism, political corruption, civil rights, organized crime, violent crime, and white-collar crime.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
You can’t reform the FBI. “Reform” is a myth. The correct answer is: shut it down. The FBI has a ~35,842 person staff. 56% of the bureau that are professional bureaucrats should be fired immediately. Just 44% of FBI employees are special agents & intelligence analysts—these 15,770 specialists should be reassigned to serve under the narrow focus of other federal law enforcement agencies doing the same specialist work. Reassignments: US Marshals Service (821 specialists/analysts transferred) - Crimes against children Department of Defense - Counter-intelligence > Defense Intelligence Agency (4,159 specialists/analysts transferred) Department of Homeland Security (4,663 specialists/analysts transferred) - National Security - Terrorism US Secret Service (856 specialists/analysts transferred) - Political corruption Department of Justice, within a specialized sub-agency rather than a sprawling investigative bureaucracy (2,555 specialists/analysts transferred) - Civil rights - Organized crime - Violent crime - Science & Technology, including crime laboratory analysis across agencies Department of the Treasury - White collar crime > Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (856 specialists/analysts transferred)
Video Transcript AI Summary
To address the issues at the FBI, simply firing Christopher Wray is not enough. The entire system needs to be dismantled. Although there are risks involved, it is better to cut too much than not enough. Reform alone won't make a difference. The speaker greatly admires Donald Trump but believes it is necessary to bring about change. They compare it to rolling over a log and seeing the creatures in the swamp. The speaker wants to use pesticide to eliminate the problem. They acknowledge the importance of understanding the situation and highlight the need to hold the FBI accountable for their actions. The speaker suggests moving the frontline officers to other agencies while shutting down the FBI's back office bureaucracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You can't do it by just firing Christopher Wray
Speaker 1: at the FBI. I I'm a 100% right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You have to break the apparatus. You have to shut it down. It's the only option. Now there's always 2 risks. Right?
Do do you not cut enough fat? In which case, you know, you haven't you haven't cut enough, or do you cut too much that you take the risk of cutting muscle? Mhmm. I would take that risk over the risk of not cutting enough. If you have an aided hydra and you cut off one of the heads, it grows right back.
You have to gut it at its core. And absent that, no amount of reform is going to make that difference. And so that's why I was so passionate, animated, even running in a race against a man who I immensely admire, which I think I made abundantly clear over the course of the race if you were watching. I respected Donald Trump immensely for his contribution to this country. I think it it takes a businessman.
He did something that nobody had ever else done. Yeah. The expression I use in the campaign trail was he rolled that log over and we saw what crawled out of that swamp. Which I respected. But the contrast I was drawn from your father is I wanna come and bring the pesticide now.
Right? There's a role for the guy to
Speaker 1: I I like that role. You you have. Listen. You you it's clear you you you've done the research. You understand where these things are.
You understand who those things are. And and you're right. It's not just Ray. I you know, I used to do the, often I'd be like, listen, we make a distinction between the door kickers and the bureaucrats at the top at the FBI. But, like, now I'm like, Well, now you're you're arresting innocent people.
You're breaking down their doors with machine guns. Like, when do you guys say enough is enough? Like, I've given you the hall pass for your I'm just doing my job. But when you're doing your job knowingly infringing on rights, when you're entrapping, you know, some meth head to try to pretend there was a government there was a a plot to assassinate and kidnap the governor of Michigan. Like, it's all a lie.
Like, when are you comparable? When do you when do you lose the hall pass I gave you when you're doing your job? Because you're no longer just doing your job.
Speaker 0: So so the next time I have a conversation with your father again, because I've been impressed by how receptive he has actually been to reasoned analysis and argument. I'm gonna actually talk to him about the FBI because, you know, I I know there was there was, you know he's talking about the new building. What are they gonna do? Let's actually just get to the math of this. There's 35,000 employees at the FBI.
Okay? 20,000 of them are the back office bureaucrats in the j Edgar Hoover building and the other back office functions throughout the federal government. That's where the rock comes from. So firing Christopher Wray and giving him a new building, that's not gonna get the job done. We have to shut it down.
The 15,000 people who are the frontline cops, Most of them are just following directives. Don, I'd say let's move them to the US Marshals or to the DEA, flawed as the DEA is, or to the the financial crimes enforcement network of the US Treasury that goes after the SBFs of the world. So just take the the line soldiers, and even if you move them to some of the agencies that have been corrupted. But for the J Edgar Hoover building at the FBI, the institution itself, what I called the failed bureau of investigation, the 20,000 back office bureaucrats at the FBI. We have to be willing to do the hard thing and actually shut it down.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Thank you for coming & don’t forget to grab a Slurpee! 😜
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
We live in a 1776 moment. 🇺🇸 https://t.co/mc37mXFhSg
Video Transcript AI Summary
When America was founded, our founding fathers were insurgents who defeated a powerful empire. However, over time, the insurgent becomes the favorite and starts apologizing for its success. This is happening today. To make America great again, we need to remember what made it great in the first place: intellectual curiosity. Our founding fathers valued education, self-learning, and a desire to explore and improve the world. We should revive this combination of curiosity and confidence. We should expect more from ourselves and our leaders. We need to stay true to the culture of exploration and curiosity that allowed America to succeed. If we don't, we risk losing our freedom of thought and becoming an incumbent that gets unseated by another nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When our nation was born in 17/70 six, we were a nation of insurgents. Our founding fathers stood up to the most powerful empire in the world, declared their independence, and then somehow turned six, searching into reality, they were a band of rebels who defeated the reigning incumbent of their era, but eventually, the insurgent becomes the underdog becomes the favorite, and the new incumbent starts to apologize for its own success instead of working even harder to create even 6, and eventually, that incumbent gets unseated by a new encircling on the other side of 6, it's happening today. Personally, I think that's what many of us sensed when we rallied behind the cry to make America great again several years ago, but here's what we missed. In order to know the story of how we make America great again, we have to first remember the of what made America great the first time around, that is the story of our nation's history. It's a story we've utterly forgotten.
It's the death 6 of intellectual curiosity in America, the thing that really distinguished our founding fathers was their ability to combine those intellectual foundations with the vision for the future that didn't exist in the old world. Six, there was something in the water back then, something in the culture. It was a culture that valued education. It valued autodidactics, people who themselves, it valued a fundamental curiosity about how the world works, a desire to explore it, an unyielding confidence that even if you weren't an expert in something, you could still figure it out with the right combination of self education and Austin, that would distinguish our country because compared to nations like France and England, it's true that America was actually really provincial at 6 time, we were nothing more than a backwater cluster of a bunch of small towns scattered along an eastern seaboard. Six, economically, militarily, geopolitically, we were destined to be nothing more than a footnote in global history.
Six, but the people who those footnotes would have been written about, they were actually deeply curious about the world they seven, about the history to which they contributed, and they were deeply confident in their ability 6, to change every part of it for the better, and that's exactly what they did. So what's the message for us today? Six, I think we need to revive that special combination of curiosity and confidence. Six, I think we wanna be a country of people who, yes, tinker in their garages, who, yes, write a long essay in the evening after working at an insurance company during 6 a, we should expect more of one another as citizens. We should expect more of ourselves as citizens.
We should expect more of our leaders as citizens. Back then, the presidents who left the White House went on to become scholars six today, they sign Netflix deals and go play around at golf. It's easy to say how cool are our founding fathers and then go back to the daily drudgery of our modern technology. But I asked the question of why we can't too be a little bit more like our founding fathers. Six, we political conservatives, we talk a lot about staying true to the political and legal principles of the constitution, and there's no doubt that's important.
But I also sick, we should be inspired to stay true to the founding culture, that founding culture of exploration, of the reverence, of curiosity. That special sauce that allowed America to succeed was our founding father's unique brew of curiosity combined with confidence, and it wasn't just a matter of self indulgence, it was because they wanted to build a world around them that was better than the one it wasn't just to get drunk on their own curiosity. It's because they strive to make America their nation a our nation, it was a desire to create a thriving nation that would outlive them and thrive that nation did. They made our nation six for minds just like them that were just as curious and just as courageous as themselves. And it's precisely at this moment in our history 6, when we stopped being insurgents and started becoming incumbents, that we ourselves lost that sense of curiosity, that we lost that sense of confidence.
And if we don't change course, pretty soon, we're gonna become six, that incumbent that gets unseated by another backwater nation on the other side of a different ocean. The way for us to remain a magnet for those curious people, for those ambitious people around the world, is by cultivating the culture that drew Joseph Priestley here, the same culture six, that drew my own parents. A culture that prizes a free and open debate and speech and inquiry. A culture that doesn't force a monolithic 6, dogma upon everyone, a culture that doesn't force you to bow down to what a politically appointed expert says on a given day, but instead gives you the latitude to question dogmas in the pursuit of truth. Six, you see, that's the greatest thing that our dying fathers can activate them.
It wasn't a lightning rod. It wasn't a stove. It was a country that offered its citizens freedom of honor, the greatest invention that produced so many others that followed, that's the invention we risk losing in a country that focuses on suppressing dissent instead of fostering fear. Can we sustain that special combination of curiosity and confidence. I think that is the defining question for our
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
With all due respect: https://t.co/3tXl7kHgfI
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was the first to advocate for a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine, distinguishing between foreign policy experience and wisdom. Many neocons are now shifting their stance, except for Nikki Haley and Joe Biden who still support the war. It's concerning that neither of them can name three provinces in Eastern Ukraine, yet they want to send our troops there. Don't believe the myth that someone with a UN stint and a high salary has real foreign policy experience. It takes an outsider to see the truth. Look at their blank expressions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So foreign policy experience is not the same as foreign policy wisdom. I want everybody at home to note that I was the 1st person to say we need a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Now a lot of the neocons are quietly coming along to that position with the exceptions of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden, who still support this, what I believe is, pointless war in Ukraine. And I think those with foreign policy experience, one thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have in common is that neither of them could even state for you 3 provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to actually fight for. Look at that.
This is what I want people to understand. These people have I mean, she has no idea what the hell the names of those provinces are, but she wants to send our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it. So reject this myth that they've been selling you that somebody had a cup of coffee stint at the UN and then makes $8,000,000 after has real foreign policy experience. It takes an outsider to see this through. Look at the blank expression
reSee.it AI Summary
I will shut down the FBI and ATF, as reminded by a voter in Iowa. The story of Ruby Ridge and the Weaver family highlights a case of entrapment and abuse of federal police power. Randy Weaver was surrounded at his cabin for refusing to appear in court after selling a shotgun to a federal informant. His son and wife were killed, but Weaver was later acquitted and awarded a settlement. I believe it is necessary to use my Constitutional authority as U.S. President to shut down these toxic agencies.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
I’ll shut down the FBI & ATF and here’s one more reason why. A voter in Iowa recently reminded me of the story of Ruby Ridge & the Weaver family. In 1992, Randy Weaver sold a sawed-off shotgun to a federal informant & was then surrounded at his cabin for refusing to appear in court. First they killed his dog, then they shot & killed his son, *14-year-old* Samuel Weaver. His wife, Vicki, also was shot & killed by an FBI sniper while holding their 10-month-old daughter inside their house. Weaver was later acquitted & awarded a $3mm settlement by the DOJ. Another classic case of entrapment & a disproportionate, politicized abuse of federal police power. I will *shut down* toxic 3-letter agencies like the FBI & ATF that are beyond the point of incremental “reform,” using my Constitutional authority as U.S. President to do it.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
The New Establishment: - Pro-war in Ukraine - Fine with political opponents getting arrested - Anti-free speech - Refusal to debate those who disagree - Bought & paid for by Super PACs - Pretends to be anti-establishment Make no mistake, it’s a bipartisan affair. https://t.co/0sc4f8OaFh
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses their ability to cut through traps and condemnations in interactions with the media and protesters. They criticize President Biden, stating that his movement poses a threat to democracy. They express concern about the removal of a leading candidate from the ballot without judicial process. The speaker emphasizes the need to stand for principles over politics and calls for a government accountable to the people. They argue that the Republican Party needs a clear vision and should not just oppose Democrats. The speaker also addresses the issue of Trump's potential removal from the Colorado ballot and expresses worry about the direction the country is heading. They highlight the divide within the Republican Party and contrast their own approach with that of Nikki Haley, emphasizing their commitment to truth and conviction.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You, you have made quite a bit of waves lately. I mean, it's it's some of these interactions you've had, not just with the media, but with protesters at your events, or honest questioners that you've interacted with. And one of the things you seem to have gotten really good at the vague is cutting through the trap. The trap of, hey, why don't you condemn white supremacy? Whatever the trap may be.
I think it's interesting your your ability to cut through that. When we when we set it next to president Biden yesterday, giving his introductory campaign speech in characterizing the entire race as a trap of your choices whether or not to preserve democracy. What did you think yesterday about president Biden?
Speaker 1: Well, look. He presents himself as some kind of George Washington figure to unite the country. He's more like a George Orwell character out of a George Orwell book. The reality is while in the name of fighting for democracy, he's actually presenting and his movement represents the greatest threats to actual democracy. I couldn't have imagined if you told me when I was growing up in this country, even a year ago, if you told me, that 1 major political party would be taking steps to remove a leading candidate from the other political party from a ballot during an election without judicial process.
Yet that's exactly where we are at the start of the year 2024, Will. And I say this as somebody for whom it would be a lot easier for me too if Donald Trump We're not in this race, but that's not how any of us from Joe Biden to me should wanna win this election. And so I think it's up to us to not only cut through those myths of the mainstream media, as I've been doing for much of this campaign, but that of much of the Democratic Party establishment too. That We The People create a government that is accountable to us, not the other way around. That's a basic 17/76 ideal that should apply whether you're black or white or red or blue for that matter.
And that's why I stand for principle over politics.
Speaker 2: Vivek, we're going to get into the Colorado ballot issue more in just a moment. But I do wanna ask you. So yesterday, Biden gave that speech, you know. I I say he gave a blood red MAGA speech before the midterm, similar tones, all demonizing the MAGA movement. Democrats, however, say he gave this speech before the midterms and we prevailed and we abated the red wave.
Therefore, we will use the same playbook this time. What say you to Democrats who say we've played this card with great effect?
Speaker 1: Well, look, I'm actually gonna not talk to Democrats on this, Kaylee. Let me talk to Republicans. I think we failed to have a red wave because our Republican Party has grown lazy. And I don't just mean lazy in the get out the vote operation sense of lazy. I mean, lazy in the deeper sense of defining who we are and what we even stand for.
Biden bad is not an agenda. I'm sorry. We have to define what is our vision and what we stand for. I think we need to be the party of 17/76, the party that stands for the actual ideals of the American Revolution. The party that actually would make George Washington proud.
To say we stand for free speech And meritocracy and the idea that you get ahead in this country, not on the color of your skin, but on the content of your character, standing against every criteria that was used to appoint Kamala Harris to her position as vice president, competency over identity politics. That's what we need to stand for as Republicans. And so rather than blaming the Democrats on this one, I'm gonna take a long hard look in the mirror for our own movement And say the Republican Party will continue to lose unless we actually have a vision of our own. We cannot just be running from something. And that's why I'm in this race to lead us to something, something that we've been missing for a long time.
And if we embrace that, an actual alternative vision, Then I do think we can win this year in a landslide as I expect we will.
Speaker 3: Well, we didn't hear anything from Joe about what he's for, only, demagoguery about Donald Trump. Again, he said he wants to save democracy, but the process from the left has been to remove Trump from the ballot. Now Kaylee mentioned it. The Supreme Court debate announced it will decide if Trump will be banned from the Colorado ballot in in a historic case. Oral arguments will start in early February, February 8th.
Now you vowed to withdraw from ballots that take president Trump off. Why haven't others? Is it because the premise of their campaign is if Trump gets removed, then I have a better shot? I mean, talk to us about the dynamic of recognizing the persecution of Trump, but also running against them.
Speaker 1: Look, I think some of the ugly underbelly of this is there is an establishment wing even within the Republican Party that is quietly rooting for Donald Trump's removal. That shouldn't be how we wanna win. If you look at a lot of the recent polls, even in Iowa or otherwise, If you look at who's the 2nd choice to Donald Trump on the ballot, I'd be the runaway favorite. So for me, personally, it'd be a lot easier if you weren't here. But I've said, nonetheless, it's the right thing to do to Stand against this election interference.
And think about it logically, Pete. If every other Republican removed themselves from that ballot, if Trump were removed, that would nullify the impact of this interference in states like Maine and otherwise. So I'm hopeful the Supreme Court does the right thing. But even if they don't, I think it's up to us in this Republican Party to say we stand against this brazen form of election interference. At the same time, I'm worried all of this has happened even in 2023.
I'm worried this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I think the system, I'll call it that. The system is sending blaring light signal that they will not let this man get anywhere near the White House again. I'm worried about country. I think we're skating on thin ice right now, and I do think this is going to be a critical year and hopefully reviving our national identity and moving forward and saying this is who we are. But if that's not the road we take, then I'm worried about the direction that we're heading in.
We're skating on as thin ice as as a country as I can remember in my lifetime, And I'm here to do my part to make sure that we actually get through this as one nation, and I do expect to be successful and hopefully reuniting this country.
Speaker 0: Yvonne, head first, after Nikki Haley in almost every Republican primary debate. I think it's fair, and I think charitable to say it's been an odd couple of days for Nikki Haley on her social media feed, a few tweets that went out, and and a few media interactions. I wanna play for you something she said on PBS.
Speaker 1: If you were president, would you also encourage Republicans to look at their nominating calendar, should Iowa still be first on the Republican side?
Speaker 4: It's really important. Look. The structure Sure of it is really pretty amazing that Iowa starts it. You change personalities. You go into New Hampshire, and they continue it on.
And by the time it gets to South Carolina, it gets bigger going into Super Tuesday.
Speaker 0: Obviously, everybody Vivek is focused on the you change personalities part. Now I don't know, Vivek. Is she talking about the candidate? She's talking about the nature of the race. I don't know what what's going on there with the changing of personalities.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I really don't know what's going on there either, Will, but the reality is there's a deep divide in the Republican Party, and I think Nikki Haley and I represent very alternative visions. If you want a historical establishment politician that historically recites with the standard talking points are supposed to be on a given day, changes personalities when necessary, keeps the foreign war machine humming, and wants a domestic surveillance state like we had in the Bush Cheney era post 911. I'm not your candidate. I think from Mike Pence to Nikki Haley to Chris Christie, there are a lot of choices that have offered that in this Republican primary.
But I'm in this to lead our Republican Party to a future that I hope leads us to lasting electoral majorities, but more importantly, reviving our country. To say we put the interests of our own citizens first, that we stand for the constitution, that we stand for the first amendment, that you get to speak your mind even if you disagree with me, And to stand for my own convictions. To be frank with you, and I think this is where she and I differ a little bit, I'd rather speak the truth and share my convictions and lose some election then to win by playing some fake game of political snakes and ladders, saying what you're supposed to say on a given day. Now the bet I'm making is that is the winning strategy because I do trust our voters in the long run, but that's up to the voters. If the voters want a patriot who speaks the truth and shares their own convictions, In my view is you don't even have to agree with a 100% of what I say in order to support me.
You just have to know that I'm telling you what I actually believe without changing personalities a 100% of the time. And that's my commitment, not only as a candidate, but in how I will lead this country because I think we need a government and leadership and a president That unlike the current one we have, tells the truth to the people again. That's my number one commitment as the president, and I'm hopeful that'll be the successful strategy in this campaign.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
TRUTH #2: Capitol police fired rubber bullets & stun grenades into a peaceful crowd, yet later willingly allowed members of that crowd to enter the U.S. Capitol building — only to be later tracked down, arrested, and imprisoned. #EntrapmentDay https://t.co/WutPMEqqZs
Video Transcript AI Summary
I threw flash fans down the street and saw American people protesting with American flags. We felt frustrated because we are not citizens and it seemed unfair.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here we go. I've been throwing flash fans. All the way down the street. Shoot. Look at that shit.
We're gonna shit. These are fucking American flags. American people standing out here protesting the right way, and we're like fucking like, we're not citizens. This is bullshit.
reSee.it AI Summary
The executive orders issued on Day 1 include a reduction in federal agency headcount and the rescinding of federal regulations that do not meet the West Virginia v. EPA standard. Troops will be moved to secure the U.S. Southern and Northern Borders. Nonviolent Jan 6 protesters denied due process and federal defendants prosecuted for political motives will be pardoned, including Trump, Assange, and Mackey. Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, which mandates race-based quotas, will be repealed. Additionally, there will be federal disclosure of communications between federal bureaucrats and private sector actors to address government-disfavored speech or conduct.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Day 1 Executive Orders: - Order 75% headcount reduction in every federal agency & rescind >50% of federal regulations which fail to meet the West Virginia v. EPA standard - Move troops to U.S. Southern & Northern Borders to secure our own homeland - Pardon all nonviolent Jan 6 protesters denied due process & federal defendants prosecuted based on political motives - Trump, Assange, Mackey, countless others - Repeal Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 which mandates race-based quotas in federal government & for contractors - Order federal disclosure of all communications between federal bureaucrats & private sector actors to censor or financially penalize government-disfavored speech or conduct
Video Transcript AI Summary
On day 1, the speaker suggests cutting 75% of the federal bureaucracy and implementing mass firings. They emphasize the need for drastic measures, comparing it to using a chainsaw instead of a chisel. The speaker mentions their support for a figure in Argentina and their philosophy as a libertarian internationalist. They advocate for shutting down administrative agencies that represent a combination of state and corporate power. They propose using the military to protect the country's own border instead of getting involved in foreign affairs. The speaker concludes by stating that they can implement these changes as commander in chief on day 1.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What would you do day 1?
Speaker 1: Cut 75% of the federal bureaucracy. Love it. Mass firing. Mhmm. Not not a chisel.
Bring the chainsaw. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're talking about you're talking about Superdrain, the Superdrain.
Speaker 1: Ultradrain. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 0: I mean drain.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm I'm just so I'm actually people don't like it when I
Speaker 0: say it. Guy in Argentina? Tina?
Speaker 1: That was I like him a lot. I liked him I liked him, like, even when he first started running. We're gonna get that done here. I mean, it's that model here, and then, You know, I'm I mean, I think I think there's I'm a libertarian internationalist combined. Yeah.
That's kinda what I think about as my philosophy, and so The administrative agencies are the hybrid that that hybrid of state and corporate power, a lot of that's mediated through the administrative State, shut that down. Yeah. Absolutely. Commander in chief, use our own military. Here's a radical idea.
Crazy idea. Instead of using our own military to protect somebody else's border halfway around the world or send supplies to some Ukrainian kleptocrat can buy a bigger house, instead of that, How about we use our own military to protect our own border?
Speaker 0: Hey. There's an idea.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I can do that on day 1 as commander in chief.
reSee.it AI Summary
Border patrol agents in Eagle Pass, TX are cutting barbed wire, undermining law enforcement efforts. A federal judge ordered them to stop, but Biden is seeking Supreme Court intervention. Impeachment of Cabinet official Mayorkas is not unreasonable for willfully undermining the rule of law. Accountability is needed.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Border patrol agents are cutting barbed wire in places like Eagle Pass, TX, which I visited recently, totally undermining the rule of law & TX law enforcement efforts. A federal judge told them to stop & so now Biden is asking the Supreme Court to overrule that lower court decision. It’s not crazy to impeach a Cabinet official (Mayorkas) who is willfully undermining the rule of law. Time for accountability.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Texas has laid down barbed wire as a deterrent at the border, but it seems ineffective as people can easily walk across the river and reach a small island considered part of the US. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is said to help cut through the barbed wire for people to enter safely, which contradicts the purpose of the barrier. This raises questions about the incentive structures and makes the rest of the border security measures seem pointless.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So this is barbed wire laid down by the state, by Texas. It does, I have to admit, look like a pretty effective deterrent. This is sharp. I promise you. However, if people get literally walk across that half of the river and getting to that little island, that little small strip right there, That's considered US such that customs and border patrol, I'm told then, actually helps cut Through this barbed wire for people to enter safely.
So that doesn't make sense. Right? The think about the incentive structures. Yes. This looks like a really difficult thing to navigate.
Yet if CBP is cutting a passageway for people to come in, All they have to get to is that little island over there. It kind of makes the rest of this a bit of a farce.
@axios - Axios
The Biden administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to permit Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire at U.S. border with Mexico that Texas officials constructed to prevent migrant crossings. https://trib.al/lb3mpU9
SocialFlow
trib.al
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2023, DeSantis was hailed as the Trump slayer but lacked the necessary charisma. I faced false accusations from the "Never Back Down" Super PAC, labeling me as a puppet of Soros and the WEF. Sadly, this misinformation caused doubt among patriots. DeSantis's popularity declined, the Super PAC was exposed, and a new favorite emerged. Beware of their trap in 2024, as our country's future is at stake.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Here’s what happened in 2023: DeSantis was prematurely crowned by the media as the Trump slayer, but turned out he lacked the “it” factor. They panicked when I surged in Aug/Sept & the corrupt “Never Back Down” Super PAC spread Orwellian lies about me being a Soros/WEF puppet when I’m the only candidate who’s *actually* taken on those very threats to our country. But sadly it “worked”: they sowed enough doubt & a lot of good patriots fell for it. Meanwhile DeSantis cratered anyway, Never Back Down got exposed & imploded, and the real Trojan Horse in 👠 was able to replace Ron as the mega-donor favorite, just in time for them to eliminate Trump in the spring. Don’t fall for their trap. Open your eyes in 2024. Our country’s existence depends on it.
reSee.it AI Summary
The author expresses their intention to shut down the FBI and ATF, citing the story of the Weaver family as a reason. They highlight the events of Ruby Ridge in 1992, where Randy Weaver was surrounded at his cabin after refusing to appear in court for selling a sawed-off shotgun to a federal informant. The author condemns the killing of Weaver's dog and the shooting deaths of his son and wife, emphasizing the alleged entrapment and disproportionate abuse of federal police power. They assert their plan to use their Constitutional authority as U.S. President to shut down these agencies.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
I’ll shut down the FBI & ATF and here’s one more reason why. A voter in Iowa recently reminded me of the story of Ruby Ridge & the Weaver family. In 1992, Randy Weaver sold a sawed-off shotgun to a federal informant & was then surrounded at his cabin for refusing to appear in court. First they killed his dog, then they shot & killed his son, *14-year-old* Samuel Weaver. His wife, Vicki, also was shot & killed by an FBI sniper while holding their 10-month-old daughter inside their house. Weaver was later acquitted & awarded a $3mm settlement by the DOJ. Another classic case of entrapment & a disproportionate, politicized abuse of federal police power. I will *shut down* toxic 3-letter agencies like the FBI & ATF that are beyond the point of incremental “reform,” using my Constitutional authority as U.S. President to do it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses gratitude for the support and acknowledges the mention of the events on January 6th, suggesting the addition of the Ruby Ridge incident. They mention Vicky Weaver and the unjust treatment they faced, highlighting the politicized nature of justice. The speaker appreciates the efforts being made and promises to continue until their goal is achieved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Support you. We appreciate captain. Oh, that's awesome. And, appreciate what you're saying about January 6th. You could add Ruby Ridge, which has Iowa ties and That's actually a good point.
And Vicky Weaver, you go by her brother's house out here. And what happened to them? You know, you It's a good example of the same politicized justice. Yeah. Three Letter agencies have been screwed in for a long time.
So appreciate what you're doing. Thank you. We're gonna change that. Thank you very much. Inspiring.
I appreciate that. We're not gonna stop till we get it done. I promise you that. Thank you.
@Morbidful - Morbid Knowledge
Photo from August 22nd 1992, Shows the last image of Vicki Weaver before she was killed by an FBI sniper during the Ruby Ridge standoff. https://t.co/ydNdG2zzC7
reSee.it AI Summary
The suggestion is to shut down the FBI and reassign its specialists to other federal law enforcement agencies. The plan includes transferring specialists to agencies such as the US Marshals Service, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, US Secret Service, Department of Justice, and Department of the Treasury, based on their areas of expertise. The aim is to streamline and narrow the focus of each agency.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Shut down the FBI. And yes, this is much more practical than it sounds: The FBI has a ~35,842 person staff. 56% of the bureau that are professional bureaucrats should be fired immediately. Just 44% of FBI employees are special agents & intelligence analysts—these 15,770 specialists should be reassigned to serve under the narrow focus of other federal law enforcement agencies doing the same specialist work. Reassignments: US Marshals Service (821 specialists/analysts transferred) - Crimes against children Department of Defense - Counter-intelligence > Defense Intelligence Agency (4,159 specialists/analysts transferred) Department of Homeland Security (4,663 specialists/analysts transferred) - National Security - Terrorism US Secret Service (856 specialists/analysts transferred) - Political corruption Department of Justice, within a specialized sub-agency rather than a sprawling investigative bureaucracy (2,555 specialists/analysts transferred) - Civil rights - Organized crime - Violent crime - Science & Technology, including crime laboratory analysis across agencies Department of the Treasury - White collar crime > Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (856 specialists/analysts transferred)
reSee.it AI Summary
CNN's interference in the Iowa GOP caucus is offensive. They cut off my town hall early and threatened my campaign with a cease-and-desist for posting it on YouTube. Meanwhile, Nikki Haley's scripted town hall from 6 months ago is still up. CNN also notified us that certain qualifying polls wouldn't count for their fake debate. The dishonesty needs to end.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
CNN’s egregious interference with the Iowa GOP caucus is offensive. My CNN town hall with the voters here went so well that they cut it off early & then threatened our campaign with a cease-and-desist for posting it on YouTube, while Nikki Haley’s scripted CNN town hall from 6 months ago is still up. Then CNN notified our campaign within 48 hours that multiple qualifying polls that the RNC used for its debates wouldn’t count for CNN’s fake “debate” that they’re hosting in Iowa on January 10. The dishonesty needs to end.
reSee.it AI Summary
CNN tried to silence my campaign by threatening a cease & desist after my town hall gained 200k+ views on YouTube. Meanwhile, Nikki Haley's town hall, with only 68k views after 6 months, is still up. They're clearly trying to prop up their puppet. CNN was bothered by the positive response my town hall received and replaced it with their own narrative.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This game is RIGGED. CNN threatened my campaign with a cease & desist within 12 hours of posting my town hall after it got 200k+ views on YouTube in a matter of hours. Yet Nikki Haley’s CNN town hall is still up after 6 months (68k total views, sad). They’re trying their best to prop up their puppet. Don’t let them.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
The thing that really irritated the hell out of CNN is that it was actually an excellent town hall with voters who ended up responding very well to my message - so they fretted about people in this country actually seeing it, and substituted their own narrative instead.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Episode 6: Alex Jones. The most censored man in the world. https://t.co/8CqK9LR8Nm
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers cover a wide range of topics including censorship, free speech, and the globalist agenda. They discuss how misrepresentation and censorship can lead to a loss of identity and the creation of straw man arguments. The importance of open debate and critical thinking is emphasized. The speakers also share their personal journey, background in sales, and early experiences with government intelligence. They express their passion for seeking the truth, their involvement in media, and their fight against globalist agendas. The dangers of weaponized judiciary and the preservation of American freedoms are discussed. Additionally, the concentration of wealth in the United States, the hypocrisy of politicians, and the need for an alternative vision are addressed. The weaponization of financial markets, the problem of the captured establishment, and the risks of entering a broader regional conflict in the Middle East are mentioned. The possibility of World War 3 is also touched upon. The speakers stress the importance of competent leaders who prioritize American interests, advocate for peace, prosperity, and national pride, and uphold individualism and faith.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When they censor you and deplatform you, they can instill your identity and misrepresent what you've said and done and then build a straw man and transferring the power themselves. That's the new world order. That's global. Actually the old world order. It is.
You're right.
Speaker 1: It's really just the old world order in new world clothing. Don't let anybody back. Amen. Just do it. The presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy.
Speaker 0: Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican running
Speaker 1: for president. He should not be apologetic to stand up and Speak for the truth. Let's talk truth. I'm talking today to somebody who I'm meeting for the 1st time. I met him a few minutes ago for the 1st time.
I actually don't know a lot about him. The number one thing I know about him is that everybody has told me not to talk to him, which is what Made me wanna actually sit down and talk to him. The United States of America were founded on free speech and open debate. It's in the 1st amendment for a reason. And so you know what?
It's wrong that we've become a culture that wants To censor free speech and open debate. And I think that part of the American way of life is we don't just embrace moderate ideals. That is an extreme idea. The idea that you get to speak your mind as long as I get to in return, that's a wild idea. For most of human history, it was Done the other way.
And that's what makes America great. That's what makes America itself. And so If somebody tells me, don't listen to this person, my reaction is, you know what? I don't listen to him. I'm gonna keep an open mind and hear what every person has to say because I'm a human being.
Each of us as Americans as a human being, we can judge for ourselves what we believe the actual right way forward is for our country. So with that said, I'm I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time. I'm excited about it. Alex Jones, it's good to see you, man.
Speaker 0: Vivek, thanks for doing this because When they censor you and deplatform you, they can then steal your identity and misrepresent what you've said and done and then build a straw man. Yeah. And that's why they fight so hard. 99% of the things they say about me aren't true, and they never show a clip. They just say I've done these things I haven't done.
And it it reminds me of them saying that Trump said after, the thing It happened, in Virginia and Charlottesville that he said, Hispanics are horrible criminals, bad people. He didn't say that. He said they're wonderful, good people, but There are also a lot of bad people coming across the border. They wouldn't show the clip. They would just say he said that, but he had a big enough bully pulpit to override that.
And so it doubled the number of Hispanics when he first got elected towards the end of his, Understood that that that it was a lie, and they then embraced him because of that. But that was because he could show them the actual clip and show them that that there'd been a lie. I'm not as big as from. I'm probably, like, 5% of the police got. And so I have been successfully in many ways, destroyed.
I mean, they built another Alex Jones. That's not Not me. And that's why they say don't ever interview Alex Jones because they're gonna hear something that probably most people are gonna agree with.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it's it's it's interesting. I think that I mean, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the fact that, you know, somebody came up. I don't know if it was someone from your team or someone who's part of your, You know, one of your followers or something suggested it. And I said, okay.
Well, several people are saying suggest to talk to this guy. Let's see if that's something we're open to. And then the reaction that I get is, no. No. No.
No. This is a guy You don't wanna talk to it. It's gonna be politically toxic for you. And my view is no. No.
No. We're the United States of America. So I have no idea if I'm gonna agree with everything you're gonna say or not. But Well, I
Speaker 0: mean, here's your comeback.
Speaker 1: Serious about this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Here's your comeback. Lester Holt last week did a really important interview or 2 weeks ago with the Ayatollah, Khomeini, the the the leader of Iran. Now that guy is praising the attacks on Israel. It's terrible. I think he's a bad guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Khomeini is not Good guy.
Speaker 0: It doesn't mean I want World War 3 with with them either and Hezbollah Amen. Who's got sleeper cells in America and our open border. But that said, everybody doesn't attack Lester Holt interviewing the leader of Iran, the the the the religious dictator. Okay. So, you see Hamas publishing videos of kidnapping Israelis, killing Israelis, Dead bodies, whole houses shot up with dead families.
That's posted on Twitter. That's okay. I actually think that's, I mean, I guess, free speech as long as it has an adviser going on. The kids don't see it. Okay.
It's horrible. First amendment, I don't agree with it, but I understand it needs to be shown.
Speaker 1: That's where I'm at. Is free speech an open debate? I haven't killed anybody.
Speaker 0: I'm not storming Israeli towns and murdering people in mass or coming on, you know, powered hang Otters slaughtering people, but they don't want this to be heard because when I see your message, and I'm not kissing your ass, it's true, you are the most informed and the leaders to attack him, which is true. Geopolitically, you name it, compared to anybody I've ever basically interviewed. And and Tucker Carlson's super smart, and I would say has more charisma, but he I mean, he's a close second. Your grasp because I see the random questions you're asked of just a wide spectrum of things that is amazing. And your understanding that America, The idea of a free market competitive culture is something the globalist can't have because they have a competing corporate, oligarchy or or or or tyranny and and and cashless society, social credit score they're setting up with the ESGs.
And that's the potential of America is so powerful because people aspire to that. America has to be wiped out the political correctness, all the rest of it so that the whole world can be leveled down to 1 giant population that BlackRock and the mega corporations can exploit and control and, quote, control our behavior as Larry Fink said. So congratulations on the work you've done. The number one candidate I support Donald Trump, if something happened to him, I would support you, for president, and I'm very, very impressed. A lot of people say, well, 5 years ago, his views were were a little bit different.
Well, so were mine. And and so people saying, well, he wasn't perfect in the past. Well, I'm not perfect today. We have to be ready as the world awakens the real political system for to have converts to liberty and freedom in Americana. And and and so the fact that you are a leading light, really promoting the truth is amazing.
And the few people that criticize you saying, well, you know, he, you know, he just showed up on the scene. Well, that's that that that that's what happens with innovation and ideas. Of Of course, you didn't just show up with a scene, but exploded on the national scene. And so I really appreciate your campaign. I think it's the best thing out there when you watch these Republican debates.
They're unwatchable except for you. My listeners all agree, the the the the crew all agrees that you why don't we just have you up there for 2 hours instead? Because if there's nothing but talking points and canned garbage from the rest of them, because I can tell you run your campaign. All the rest of these people are told what to say and and and and they're looking at polls and numbers, and it's it's it's synthetic with US real. They're puppets,
Speaker 1: and that's not even their fault. Actually, I've realized at At first, I would think I'm running against these other candidates. They're puppets of a broken super PAC puppet master system, and that's just The state of American politics today. And my view is, you know, if you look at some of the stuff that I've written in my books, my first, you know, book, Woke Inc even years ago, I I agree with 90. Still 99% of what I said, but I moved a little bit.
And that's good. We're human beings. That's why I'm having this conversation. That's why people listen to Contrary voices is we're human beings, not partisan hacks.
Speaker 0: Well, exactly.
Speaker 1: Respond to information and think about it And evolve our views. That's what it means to be a thinking human being, at least to me.
Speaker 0: Well and the globalists have come out in the open.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I
Speaker 0: was talking to Carlson just the other day. I went and visited him in Maine, And we did some hunting and stuff, and he was like, man, I'm more radical than you now. We were sitting there talking because the world it's out in the open. The globalists have taken the mask off.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I know you've been a pro freedom of speech, liberty guy for a decade or more. All I'm saying is what you say is dead on. I mean, I sit there and I watch it. I go, gosh. I wish I could nail it.
And I'm not kissing your ass. It's true. I appreciate it. Nail it. Nail but nail it.
And regardless of what happens, we need people like you, you know, at at the top of government that actually know the subjects and aren't just getting talking points from the donor ass.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so let's just since we're meeting for the 1st time, just a few minutes. I mean, your audience is probably very well familiar with this. But In your own words, it's just to hear it without I didn't Google any of this beforehand. It said, I don't wanna be biased.
What's your Journey to the views that you have now. I mean, what gets you going in terms of your mission? You're clearly passionate guys, wanna revive The essence of our founding ideals of the free exchange of ideas not be controlled in a way that impede the sovereignty of the United States. I know these topics animate you, but what Personally got you to that place right now.
Speaker 0: I had a lot of family, that worked, in the sharp end of the stick in US intelligence, And they never really told me any of the classified or secret stuff. But, like, my uncle was high level. I ran contrite, a bunch of other stuff. And
Speaker 1: Oh, really? So I wouldn't have ever guessed that. You your, What parents or uncles Just a lot
Speaker 0: of people. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. A lot of people in your family were in US intelligence.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, back during the seventies, eighties, and stuff before they went from like intelligence. There was a mobilization of the population against the Russians and others.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and and and so yeah. I mean, I had a lot of family. And I went to a family reunion. It was like a soldier of fortune convention. And, and and and and they would just talk about what the government was doing, what was going on.
They were patriots, but but it's like we sell these whistle blowers now, the government. They didn't like what was happening. So it's not that the government's our enemy. It's the criminals at the top We captured it. So when you're a child growing up hearing all this, I just kinda absorbed it.
I wasn't even really listening to it until later I realized how true it was. And then I started to go to college a little bit, but I was already very successful in business. By the time I was, like, 19 as a salesman, And boom. I saw really this anti American, race based brainwashing that we'd see out in the open now that was going on, you know, here in Austin, the college campuses. And so I decided When
Speaker 1: was this? Just so we track
Speaker 0: This is at about 1993. Okay. And I've been on air since 1994, officially 95. Okay.
Speaker 1: But you're a salesman before that. You were started college. Where was call where was that at?
Speaker 0: I was actually with local community college.
Speaker 1: Here in Austin.
Speaker 0: I was figuring out what I wanted to do.
Speaker 1: Here in Austin.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. I mean, I
Speaker 1: But you were already A successful salesman, so then you decided to find your way out of college.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'd had jobs when I was a kid. Might have had, you know, money and stuff. My parents, you know, were were were were We're successful. And, I would say, I want a new shoes.
I want, you know, to I I I wanna get a new wakeboard because we, you know, we're living the lake. And and my dad would say, well, they'll go get a job. So from the time I was about 13, I had jobs, and then, I I got into different sales. But the biggest thing is I was selling gym memberships and stuff when I was 18, and I was making $150,000 a year to $1,000 a year. And then I was going to community college, figuring out I wanted to go to main college, and it was just insane.
I went and sat in on some UT courses on RTF, radio Radio television films, I thought I might wanna do that because I wanna be politically involved, and they were teaching 20 year old stuff. I was like, you're not talking about the Internet, these classes. Why am I here? Like, well, first, you gotta take all these other classes. So I started out on access TV, in 1994.
Got my own show in 95. Got a website in 97. Got a local radio show in 96. Called up satellite companies, bought the equipment, the station let me put in, the connection of the satellite, syndicated myself when I was
Speaker 1: You're in your early twenties doing Just decide you're gonna do all this stuff.
Speaker 0: Myself at 22, got on suddenly, like, 50 something radio stations. It was insane. Hit the national news immediately, decided to set us on coffee. What were you talking about? Well, instead of selling coffee mugs and, like, newsletters like other talk shows did to supplement their income, I said, I'm gonna make films.
And so I would go and show the UN taking over the national parks and show the UN signs and show what that treaty meant that it was taking control of US, land under UN treaties, kinda like the UN, you know, treaty on health care and and things that's happening right now. And so I just basically exploded, onto the underground scene with conservatives and, people that were aware of of what was going on. And in about 1990 six. I was already reaching millions of people, and so it's been a long long term operation, 29 years on air.
Speaker 1: Ever since?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. We've, you know, 911 happened, and I and I questioned 911. And I was on almost 200 radio stations. I've been offered, you know, by major companies, You know, the next big wrestling ball style deal. I guess Glenn Beck took that deal.
Nothing against him. You know, overall great guy, really smart. And I went from Almost 200 affiliates to 30 something affiliates in 1 month when 9/11 happened. And I wasn't for radical Islam, and I believe Islamists were involved, but I knew about the norad stand down. I knew out building 7.
I knew about a lot of the stuff that I that I was talking to police about that were on the ground that that that they knew it was coming bare minimum. Kinda like I'm against the attack on Israel, and and And Hamas is terrible, but something like 85% in major polls of Israelis think the government knew and let it happen now. So it's the Same thing. But when I said that then, the radio network owners I was on, GCN came to me and they said, listen. We just lost 50 affiliates today.
They're all gonna dump you if you don't stop. And I said, well, it's the truth. I'm gonna keep questioning it. So that just shows I never did this for for for monetary gain or or just to be popular, though I do need monetary operations to fund my operation and be free and independent, I'm not for sale. And so I've already been up and down.
That's why when they Deplatformed me in things and thought I would just give up. I didn't. So I started out on acts of television. And so, I've I've I've started from the very, you know, mail room of media, And I've you know, at 1 point in 2016, 17, much bigger show than Rush Limbaugh, much bigger show than Joe Rogan. Undoubtedly, the the number one independent or independent media show, in the country, over 30,000,000 viewers and listeners.
2016, 2017. Okay. And then that's what they deplatforming because I was just number one. I mean, every day, over 25,000,000 listeners conservatively. And so that's when they said, well, we gotta stop this guy, then that's when they go tax game.
But I've survived that, and now we're we've rebuilt. And In many ways, they were stronger than ever. We're definitely more influential.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you said the motivation's not monetary. I do find that people who are successful, I can see you're passionate. What is that mission? What is it that calls you?
I mean, you've been doing this now For a few decades now, you're clearly called by something. What is it?
Speaker 0: Well, when I was at I mean, 5, 6, 7 old. Friends and family would come to the house about how we play chess with them or poker. And I hear all these guys, you know, FBI agents, army colonels, you know, spooks, talking about the new world order and the global government getting rid of the border and selling out America, and this plan for regional governments, this plan for a computer to run everything. And then as I got older, I I started seeing that in publications being pushed by the media, and then I read books by David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. And and really for a few years, when I got out of high school, would actually go to the UT library and actually pull up the microfilm.
They're like, they would have a head librarian come and say, we've never seen a young person come and ask for us to be pulled. Why are you looking up the New York Times? And they they weren't upset. They thought it was cool. And there I was reading the New York Times, the 19 seventies.
They had a Rockefeller praising Mao Zedong and saying we need that here in America. Mao Zedong was the greatest mass murderer in by triple Hitler and and and and Stalin killed more than what both have been killed, combined. So I I really started reading their plans for global government, casual society, depopulation, the club of Rome. I learned about the Bilderberg group. I learned up with him and grove of all these weird rituals and things.
So I said, well, let me see if this is real. So, you know, 2000, I snuck in there. And sure enough, right, when they said The ritual happened. They did this weird mock human sacrifice, Faustian slash Babylonian, Canaanite, you know, Moloch mock ritual. And and and and so it it was really the adventure of it and the the Mystery of it being told this when I was growing up, kinda ignoring it, then seeing a lot of what I was told come true, and then getting into the books of the establishment, but also reading books that were ring it and saying, I wanna find out, if this is true.
I wanna find out if they're really doing this. I wanna find out, if I mean, I remember they had all these military drills all over Texas in the country with black helicopters in the mid nineties. And when people We'll talk about it. They said that doesn't exist. So we got tips from the military, went and caught it on footage, of them.
You know, they covertly lease a building that was gonna be demolished later, then they'd basically attack it and blow it up and do you they're training. It's okay. They need new training grounds. But then they would deny in the little town where it happened or even the big city that it just happened. So by then, we were catching it on video.
And whereas people had caught it on video before, there wasn't really web streaming of video. 96, 97, 98, that was all coming on board. And so we would go catch footage of that. So, I mean, it was really like ghost hunting, but hunting real ghost. And and and and so I was basically doing private independent Pro American intelligence work for the people, and it was just super exciting.
And because I was so prominent early on and was on shortwave Even satellite and a bunch of radio stations. All these old timers sent me stuff. And, I mean, the former head of the FBI in LA would come on the show and advise me in General Benton k Parton, the former head of the air force weapons development would come on. And so I really starting at about 96, 97, Got the brain trust of all these heavy hitters who are on their own dime would fly to Austin or drive in their RVs. The former head of the star wars program, Doctor Bob Bowman, they get their RVs and drive from wherever they lived.
And sometimes they'd stay at my house, and we do a week on air. Them just data dumping because they've been trying to write books and magazine articles A little obscure things. And so I was thrown right in the middle of this excitement, and it was interesting, and it was fun. And back then, it was more academic. Yeah.
The globalist were getting a lot of things done, but I'd read stuff in the mid nineties about they plan to ban beef, and they plan to have a carbon credit, and they plan to track everywhere you go with switches in your cars. And, you know, they They plan to listen to you through microphones, your cable box, then we bust a cable box open with an engineer on my local TV show, and there'd be the microphone with attics and and just and, of course, now, like, oh, that's voice analysis. That's a voice prompt, but they didn't tell you for a decade that was in there. So so so it was it was just so Exciting to be in a war in my own country against these multinational corporations that wanted to take America over. And so I was always saying, is it real?
Is it real? I gotta tell you. 95% of what the old timers told me, because these old timers were just like my uncle And just like some other family, what they've been telling me, but a lot of these guys were even higher up in it. And so I learned from people that were on the inside what was going on. So I had a long education over the last 29 years.
This has really been an education. Mhmm. And and and so I just get deeper and deeper into my understanding of how it all inter
Speaker 1: man. What I'm hearing is a story of a journalist. Yes. Guy who's curious, records things, describes them, and and and shares them with people. Now Now let me ask a question.
I'll tell you where I'm going with this. You're you're in this to seek underlying truth that other people aren't getting to. That's the what I'm hearing you in telling story. Now once in a while, that means you're gonna find something that looks like it's gonna be one way. It wasn't exactly the way you thought, and so maybe you were wrong.
Speaker 0: I've made a lot of mistakes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and so what do you what do you do in that scenario? Let's say you're a journalist. Because I know how the I know how mainstream media deals with it right now. That's a different way.
They sweep it under the rug. Let's say you're wrong and you just you realize that you had 1 thesis and you're getting to the bottom of it, but then you get to the hard facts And you say, hey. You were wrong about it. Give me give me an example of where that happened actually. I think that's kind of interesting.
Well, well talk about.
Speaker 0: Also, what I've noticed is they've had a lot of national man. TV characters like Homeland and and the and the newer x files that came out 2016 where they admit it's based on me. And Oh, really? And and and Homeland? Oh, yeah.
Oh, wow. And and a bunch of them. You look you look it up. And they'll they'll create the straw and where I'm lying on purpose and I'm getting things wrong on purpose. I never meant I'm wrong.
I always when I said I thought I knew something I was wrong, I always admitted it. And so Give you an example. In the case of Sandy Hook, long before they sued me, long before they came after me, I barely talked about it. If you look at my live as a timeline, At first, I thought it was official and thought it happened, then some professors and people came out with a bunch of anomalies and thought it might have been staged. Just like people are questioning whether Hamas cut babies heads off right now.
You You know? That's the big thing going on. And and I don't think there's really proof to that, but they they blow them up. They shoot them. It's the same thing.
So so Now people are on Twitter saying, oh, we need to sue the people that said they cut babies heads off or we need to sue the people that say it didn't happen because you're not allowed to debate was just small. It really attacked, which we now know that was fake. Or, you know, so many of these other events like operation Northwoods and things where the government did plan to do atrocities or did plan to stage atrocities and blame on an enemy. And so with that, I I started saying, Oh, 2 or 3 years before I got sued. I said, I don't wanna talk about this.
I think the people that said this, it turns out are lunatics. I think the info they put out in there, they were professors and and school safety experts. I found some of what they said the anomalies wasn't true. I think school shootings happen. And because every time there was a school shooting, people would say Alex Jones is saying this isn't happening, whether it was Parkland, any of that.
So I was saying, no. I think it's happening. And then the media and the system went, oh, he's weak on that because they would never they would sweep it over the rug if they were wrong. Let's get him. So then they then they resurrected it.
I was the platform for other stuff. Let me look it up. Then they resurrected it and then blew up a straw man of things I didn't say or do with no proof. I went to their houses, some people in their houses, peed on graves, no proof. Then they sue me.
They get all the discovery. Did you
Speaker 1: ever do any of those things?
Speaker 0: No. Of course not. There's there's there's Start asking. Of course
Speaker 1: not. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Never even been to Connecticut till I was there for court.
Speaker 1: So so where are they getting this this kind of nonsense? Just make it up.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's all the thing is I was I I I cover stories, and then I move on. Mhmm. So I'd done they introduced in court, like, 22 minutes of video of me over 10 years on Sandy that was it. It was not it was not something we made money off of. It was not something that was even a big deal.
We had, like, 1 debate where somebody thought It happened. Didn't thought it happened to to newspaper editors. Callers are calling about it sometimes. It was a big viral story up front. People questioned it, like, 11 years ago.
I didn't get sued for, like, 6 years later.
Speaker 1: Until long after you had already said, hey. I wasn't necessarily right on that one. I wasn't No.
Speaker 0: I mean, I mean, I said I thought I mean, I think Happen. I think it happened. And, I mean, if people track this, it's it's just amazing how it works.
Speaker 1: So you you it's interesting. So this is After years later, after you admitted you were wrong on it, that they chose to come after you.
Speaker 0: Yes. And then the judges in Texas and Connecticut defaulted me, which which is supposed to be if you never show up for court and you're not there, they can default you. And they this is all on the record. Just like the Trump judge, they passed the law in New York. So it's not called the default, but it's the same thing.
The judge doesn't give him a jury, and the judge has found Trump in the real estate, fraud case has found him guilty. Got the loans, paid the loans. Obviously, our logo is not worth 18,000,000. It's worth 100 of 1,000,000. The judge says, no.
It's not. I find that fraud. And the appeals court had to block him taking his hotels and golf courses in New York. 1 judge Yeah. No jury Said, I'm taking everything you've got in New York, and we're gonna take more stuff outside the state.
And Trump said, I would like a jury trial, and they said no. So I had a jury trial, but they found me guilty. The judge did, and they would not let us put on evidence. It it was only a trial on damages. They put on a financial expert and said he's worth $400,000,000.
I had, like, $3,000,000 in the back of the time for emergency backup money. That's gone now. And then they put me through. They told the bankruptcy court they had all this money. And, of course, it was proven.
I told the truth. Obviously, I got a jail about lying there. And they don't care because they said, we want to take him off the air. We want to silence him. We want to end his free speech.
These are quotes that that they said in Connecticut, in the court, outside the court, and in Texas inside I don't score. So now I wanna move on from that because there's bigger things than me, but this weaponization of the judiciary, Giuliani was, basically She defaulted in New York because there wasn't evidence they were asking for. The judges said you're guilty. Fox in its, January 16th
Speaker 1: defaulting business.
Speaker 0: They have in law mean? That a a a default means it's called it's called I
Speaker 1: should know this.
Speaker 0: It's called the death penalty. Pick somebody who Well, it's You shouldn't know it's not supposed to be used.
Speaker 1: But I don't know about it.
Speaker 0: It's called a death penalty sanction. Okay. And so if they say you don't participate in In a civil trial, the judge can find you guilty by default. They still have to have a trial of the damages. They didn't even give me a real trial of the damages.
So this is a fraud on America, And it's very dangerous, and they're defaulting people across the board now. If
Speaker 1: you don't show up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But I did. And then and with me, they said, well, you didn't give us discovery because it didn't exist. They said, show us the marketing material for San Diego. I don't do marketing material for shows.
I look at a bunch of news articles, some video clips. I go on air. I didn't do A a marketing study with you for this?
Speaker 1: This is this is new to me.
Speaker 0: We talked
Speaker 1: for 2 minutes. We talked
Speaker 0: for 2 minutes before we went on there. Right?
Speaker 1: You maybe 2 minutes, minute. You know? A minute
Speaker 0: and a half. He walks in. Boom.
Speaker 1: Sits down. Get on there. Yeah. But But the no. No.
No.
Speaker 0: No. The Dutch says give me the marketing material. Tell me about your plan with Alex. Tell me about the the the secret, plans you guys had in this thing, all the marketing, all the Google Analytics. Tell me about your meeting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's
Speaker 0: Wait a minute. You you don't you're not gonna give me the evidence? You're defaulted.
Speaker 1: This I I I'm just gonna say, I was personally a little bit blushing here. I don't I don't even know about this legal procedure. I I I That's because
Speaker 0: they're not supposed to use it.
Speaker 1: But But they're literally so so it's not even that you don't show up and you default. That's what it's supposed to do. If you're not participating in The process Yes. According to the standards that they set.
Speaker 0: And they they set a bar against you and reach.
Speaker 1: Judge. I'm I'm gonna go I mean, I'm gonna go back and learn the heck about this because this is That's a I mean, if what you described is true, that is a real danger to the integrity of the judicial system. I'm gonna I'm I'm very competitively learn about this myself. But but the point is they can default you even if the judge deems you not Actively or sufficiently participating in discovery.
Speaker 0: Yes. And civil
Speaker 1: trial. Depends on which state I
Speaker 0: see. Like I was telling people, Hey. The judge department, the CIA are involved, was in government documents, running the censorship of us. In the last 6 months, it came out of congress. People thought, oh, yeah.
I know what's on the air showing them The legislation showing them the funding, you know, for the ministries of truth and all this stuff. I'm telling people they're defaulting everybody. They're they they defaulted Trump by the law. How does a judge do this and take what you've got? They they're they're defaulting everybody else where the judge finds you guilty.
So so you, like, you see the headlines. Trump already guilty in New York.
Speaker 1: And then it's just jury trial for damages.
Speaker 0: Yes. But in Trump's case, just like they passed the law so So that woman could sue him saying he sexually assaulted her, and they changed the law. You need to go back decades. New York has passed a law where judges, It's not even default. It it's a new form of it where the judge just says you don't get a jury trial.
Speaker 1: See, this was very concerning to me because, I mean, every a lot of what's happened in the country is very concerning, but the judicial system is the last bastion of protection.
Speaker 0: Totally weaponized.
Speaker 1: It's it's the last frontier For us to be able to say, okay, executive branch badly taken over by 3 letter agencies that nobody ever elected with any backstop of political accountability. Forget about congress. Think about prosecutorial power and the executive branch abuse. But the judicial system is our last best hope for the last ultimate line of defense. But if That itself can sidestep basic principles of confronting witnesses.
Basic principles of being judged by a jury of your peers Rather than by a single judge. This is basic first amendment for I mean, was it bill of rights?
Speaker 0: And that's why they still did the stuff. That's why they still did the How much is show trial where people said his lawyers are terrible, Alex Jones. No. They weren't. They were given a list of things like you can't say you're innocent.
You can't say Yeah. You can't question the witnesses about this or that. So when they're up there with no here's an example. There was an FBI agent in Connecticut. Never saw his name, never showed his picture, never talked body, but I didn't talk about him.
He got up there and said, I got one phone call by somebody asking if I was really an FBI agent because he was there without his FBI You know, holding a gun by the barrel. The Internet question, they might know who he was. He sued me 1.90 plus $1,000,000. Never said his name. Never said his name.
So so here's how this works. With most people, I can come on here. Yeah. I can come on here and and if people like this, they go, I'll go find Alex Jones' show on x or or on Facebook or or on the podcasting thing. I've been delisted from everywhere.
So I have to sit here and point out to viewers. If you wanna find I'm actually saying infowars.comforward/show. And in normal etiquette for a talk show, that's like somebody pitching themselves. No. I'm isolated, surrounded, did can only communicate when people like you let me out of of prison to walk in the yard for a little while, and I can desperately try to, you know, get messages out by Smoke signals to people about what's happening to me, which they admit is the model to shut everybody else down.
So you're a smart guy, one of the smartest. Everybody Those are true by just saying it. I hope you'll go look into this, and I hope you'll find out about it because it is incredible. It is because they I've
Speaker 1: already learned something today. That's that's frightening.
Speaker 0: Now But there's so many bigger things than me. I mean, there's these wars and there's the cash flow highity and the open borders and the I mean, and and and and and all the race baiting. I mean, we're being divided and conquered. That's why your message of coming together or to celebrate Our our hard fought American freedoms is so essential.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the things that's true about the American way is that We're not founded on moderate ideals. Right? The the ideals that set this country into motion. I love that we have a map behind this. Right?
Old world England had a different view. And let's just smoke it out. We could say agree or disagree before we get to the agree or disagree. At least let's get the best Version of the view on the table, which is that people, ordinary people, cannot be trusted To sort out their differences on climate change or racial injustice or whatever it was back in that era For their own good. It's not just that the kings or the aristocrats say, hey, I wanna enrich myself and do it at the expense of the people.
That's what many who are frustrated with monarchy might say.
Speaker 0: It's an arrogance.
Speaker 1: But but it's actually it's actually an arrogance found in what they think of as benevolence. Right? Right? Which is to say that no. No.
No. We're not doing this for us, for our power, and and we'll come to the modern version of this in a second. We're doing this For the sake of people who cannot be trusted and left to their own devices because it's for them we're doing it, which is even more dangerous than somebody who comes in and says, Oh, we're just doing it for my own rich my own private personal gain. No. No.
No. That's not the view. The view is the people cannot be trusted Sort out their differences through free speech. I mean, the idea you get to speak your mind as long as I get to in return. The idea that there's a republic where And that's
Speaker 0: why they can't compete because the rest of the world starts aspiring to that. You've gotta bring that down so people stop aspiring. So that British empire model. Now the BlackRock global banking empire, which which they admit with the ESGs, everything you're you're absolutely dead on. And and if you expand on that But
Speaker 1: But I sorta get the view on the table so people understand because I there's a lot wrong with it. But at least to understand, put yourself the way I am, Alex, is You could try something on like a set of clothes. I agree. And then see
Speaker 0: this general gets in the mind of the enemy.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. And and and and then you say, okay. Here, I I gotta understand why it fits. I gotta really try it on.
Understand why it doesn't doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit you put it back on the rack, Then you understand your own views.
Speaker 0: That's right. This fair competitive system is way more sexy. And in 1950, we had half the world's wealth who were 4% of the population. Now we become globalist and and and and crony capitalist.
Speaker 1: Give me those facts again. Sorry. You're you're going pretty fast there. That sounds interesting.
Speaker 0: In 1950, the United States had half the wealth in the world. Is that right? Because of our invention
Speaker 1: Immediately post World War 2.
Speaker 0: And our yeah. Absolutely. Post World War 2, we had half the world's wealth. We were 4% of the world's population.
Speaker 1: As measured by GDP problems.
Speaker 0: Measured by GDP. So so that's that's GDP of
Speaker 1: the world. What is it today? I should know these things.
Speaker 0: I don't know. Down a lot. I think it's in the late high twenties, early 30th.
Speaker 1: Sounds about right. Maybe a quarter to 3rd.
Speaker 0: I haven't looked at it in a while, but what I'm getting at here is what you said is so Dead on. In fact, I need to make that point more. You could pull these clips up. Remember when Obama went to Latin America the last few months of his
Speaker 1: administration. Yep.
Speaker 0: Then he went to a bunch of countries in Africa, and he gave the same speech, Vivek, in every country. He said he said, quote, you can't have cars in air conditioning, the world's gonna heat up and burn up. Now here's a guy flying on a giant jet with dozens of aircraft. After that, he he has private jet. He has houses at basically sea level in Martha's Vineyard and and, you know, Hawaii, though he said we're already supposed to be underwater by 2000 team.
Though they keep just buying Al Gore, all of them, you know, oceanfront property. Right? You know, not up on cliffs or something.
Speaker 1: You know, like Martha Stewart. They're bearing that cross.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: They're bearing that cross for the rest of us.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, that's it. They're on private jets. You know, people like Ted Turner has, That's like 5 kids. He says, I wanna depopulate 90% of the world's population. Look it up.
Him on Charlie Rose. Well, he has 5 kids. He has jets. He has palatial compounds, But you in Africa, you can't aspire. You need to live in this will eat the bugs, WEF, Rationing for the good of the earth while the ruling class lives like kings and goes around their giant super yachts.
Speaker 1: To mountaintops in Davos.
Speaker 0: With with carbon footprints Thousands of times an American, and an American's car carbon footprint is 30, 40, 50 times than somebody in Congo.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yep.
Speaker 0: So in Congo, you don't get anything. And so it's the decision to not industrialize those countries, and that's how they control third world countries. And then they sit back and say, well, that's why you're in squalor because you're not as good as us. We're gonna, you know, take care of you. But but but now that same inherent elitism beyond racism is now being used against the west, and they're now impoverishing the west as a political tool of control.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is the modern old world European ugly monster rearing its head again.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Which is fascinating. Right? Because We thought that in 17/76, we said on this side of 17/76, on this side of the Atlantic, we do things differently. Well, you know what? We The People do sort out our differences in a constitutional republic, where every citizen's voice and vote counts equally with free speech and open debate.
That's what we thought. And Every little while, that ugly monster rears its head again. World War one was in in some ways the physical conflict of that old world European monarchical
Speaker 0: role. The British Empire, who was the villain of that war, not in World War 2. Hitler was the bad guy there side treaty. They literally said the German problem, the Austria Hungary empire because it was dominant in industry science. It was taken over not with the military, but with all of its inventions.
So it was kind of the new America, but it was run by another royal only. So they had to kill the archduke Franz Ferdinand and start roll once you're dead on.
Speaker 1: And so so this this this battle plays itself out every century or so in different ways. And I think right now, we live in another one of these 17/76 months. Turning. Yeah. That's one way to put it.
I've I've heard I'm familiar with the
Speaker 0: with the It's dead on it. The evolution. Let's use the analogy of America, the United States, and India. I call it I'm sending it for 20 plus years. That's why they do want me off here in US.
What do I stand for? Americana, freedom, soft power, people aspiring to be like America, making us the best.
Speaker 1: American exceptionalism.
Speaker 0: American exceptionalism. Take India, you know, controlled by the British, kick them out, now wildly successful, because, you you guys actually got control of your government, had your own resources. Same thing. I would call that 17/76 worldwide, and that's not America controlling things. It's the idea of freedom, Idea of the people, the idea of loving your nation, empowering the individual, and a meritocracy where the because, I mean, I looked at who used to be.
Speaker 1: What a word. Well, it's it's a bad word these days.
Speaker 0: It is. Well, I mean, I go back and I look at World War 2, and almost all of our generals got there through meritocracy and grew up on little farms or in poor areas of cities. And there were I mean and there was almost nobody whose dad or granddad was an admiral who was there. In fact, it was almost discrimination against or see was what America was doing because George Washington was being discriminated against by by the aristocracy even though he was really, really part of it. He was mad.
That's was one of the Reasons that even the, quote, elites of America, bought the British elites because they were tired of saying, well, I'm actually your cousin, but I'm not a lord, So I can't ship products out of the colonies. And and so if the rich guys want freedom and they finally set up for themselves, that will have to trickle down. And And that's why they could point America's beginning and say we weren't perfect, but it was the idea of the process.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And as more people get into that, That's the victory. So now you look at who is the leaders of the military. They'll have some token people. Oh, look, a black guy, you know, a white lady or whatever. But that's But if you actually look, it's a bunch of blue bloods whose grandfathers were in control at the end of World War 2 when America absorbed the British empire and became this new globalist system.
So America is like the engine and the brain along with the British intelligence of this very evil thing. I love America. I I mean, I've got Jones. I mean, I'm a got Welsh last name on against I'm I'm not an anglophile, but I'm not an anglophobe. But the system of the British Empire and the ghost of it through BlackRock And it's World Institute of International Affairs and the CFR and these corporate management boards are devolving the governments while they expand them and transferring the power themselves.
That's the new world order. That's global. The old world order. It is. You're right.
Speaker 1: It's really just the old world order in new world Clothing.
Speaker 0: That's exactly it.
Speaker 1: And that's we gotta understand. And so so, the optimistic side of me says that what a special time It would have been to be alive in the spring of 17/76. I mean, it's a special time to be alive. You got Thomas Jefferson, the age of 33. People say I'm old.
I'm young. Well, I'm old compared to Thomas Jefferson. He was 33 when he wrote the declaration
Speaker 0: of independence. Genius.
Speaker 1: You have people who are the pioneers, the explorers, the unafraid That said, you know what? We are going to not just be victimized by this. We're gonna chart a new way forward.
Speaker 0: Well, 33 was old. We live in. I totally agree. 33 was old back then because people a lot of people died young. You either live you die young or live a really long time, but the average was we we didn't live as long.
You're absolutely right. People were married by 16. People were explorers by 16. And, you know, Thomas Jefferson lived a long time. About 33, he was leading a revolution against the empire that had never been there.
Speaker 1: And he was inventing things. He was an engineer. He met with the swivel chair, and met a bunch of other things too while he's running the declaration of independence. That spirit in some ways would he would Would history have produced the Thomas Jefferson's and the Alexander Hamilton's of the world if it weren't for the fact that they had this oppressive Regime to stand up against. I think probably not.
Speaker 0: No. I totally agree. You're talking about the hook.
Speaker 1: So this is an opportunity, the moment we live in. I because I I am sick and tired even myself of you you may have I don't know if you've read some of the books I've written or anything like this of pointing out the problem of that, But this is our opportunity now. We're not just gonna throw up our hands and complain about it. Oh, my wife's This is our moment to revive.
Speaker 0: I agree. My wife's a huge fan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Tell her. Thank you. What's her name?
Speaker 0: Erica.
Speaker 1: Erica, tell her.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up this morning, but we don't have anybody to take care of my daughter. She's gotta get her to school. But How old's your daughter? 6a half.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's good age.
Speaker 0: You have one I've got 4 children, 3 of my first wife, and then one with her.
Speaker 1: A good for you.
Speaker 0: 6a half. But but I'm and I mean to interrupt. You're so dead on. I see you talk about this is our 17/76 moment. I really mean that.
This is an Opportunity it is. Yeah. Instead of being left the leftist mind and we're being attacked, we're being oppressed. Let's give up a complaint. Let's innovate.
Let's out Communicate. Let's get let let's use this pressure, like lifting weights or jogging or climbing a mountain to get stronger. That which doesn't kill me only makes me stronger quote needs to come through. And and this is 17/76 part 2 for the whole world. And it's very exciting.
Speaker 1: You know, and I think we've gotta go through stages of this, and and you've been doing this in my own corner of the world. I've been doing this To point out the problem and see it with clear eyes. You can't win a war unless you know that you're in one. That's the first step. Okay?
And you got a bunch of people on that Republican Party stage that have no clue. I mean, they're these are clueless
Speaker 0: They don't even know what exactly. They're just I'm a politician. Yep. No clue. Be rich and powerful.
Speaker 1: Here are my well, my Super PAC provided talking points literally.
Speaker 0: They're like they're like going to a whorehouse and the whores are lined up showing you what they got and telling you their specialty. I mean, mean, they're literally in front of the corporation saying, I'm good at this. I'm good at that. I will
Speaker 1: Mother's milk for them. It's money is a mother's milk of politics. So put them to one side. But My view is you can't win a war unless you know you're in 1. And part of my job has been laying out the weaponization of financial markets, The weaponization of our capital, the weaponization of basically every sphere of our lives.
This fringe minority view has taken over institutions from k through 12 education To our universities, to Wall Street, to Silicon Valley, to our u US military. Now I I I think it's worth pausing. I was gonna get to the positive part before I do that. I think it's worth answering the question of Why this other side has managed to take over every institution? And I have an unconventional theory of this one, Alex.
I think that it's worth seeing. You know, you and I may be you know, we're conservative. People may classify us as being in the right, but take take those labels off
Speaker 0: of the populace.
Speaker 1: I mean, just take I hate I hate labels. They're they're not useful.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: The reductionist. So let's just look at the substance of this. People who would have identified as being on the old left, Right. Occupy Wall Street challenging the bailouts. The old left version of break up big tech.
The old left that was critical Of colleges charging way too much money for providing far less in return. The people who have criticized schools in the inner cities failing to serve black kids in inner city or whatever. Even Even our military, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot of that criticism used to come from what was perceived to be the old left. What happened was each of those institutions, what they did was, If you're Wall Street, you don't wanna occupy Wall Street, but I'll do the new woke stuff. Diversity, inclusion, climate change.
Great. If you're Silicon Valley, I don't like the left wing break up big tech. I'll censor hate speech and misinformation as you define it, but I don't do it for free as long as I get to get you off my back. The US military, if you're Mark Milley, you don't wanna talk about accountability for Iraq and Afghanistan. Forget about that.
I'll talk about white rage and systemic racism. So part of this is a deeper arranged marriage. It's more like I mean, use the whorehouse analogy. It's more like mutual prostitution. Well, that's right.
The power's from strange bedfellows.
Speaker 0: That's right. The power structure has failed. They're not the aristocrats that are doing it for own good. They know they're a fraud. The system's coming apart.
Speaker 1: And and and They know it's a fraud, but it's an arranged marriage that allows them to keep their power in that.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: So so we've so anyway, You you've you've talked about some of those things.
Speaker 0: Happen though? Yeah. I mean, look. There's a meme. It's totally true.
History shows it. Bad times make hard men. Hard men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's a cycle. So A lot of it is our fault. We can't just blame the globalist and the aristocracy. Their rot
Speaker 1: Thank you. Their rot
Speaker 0: is our rot. And so
Speaker 1: That's That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 0: There's so much entertainment, so much food.
Speaker 1: We gotta look in the mirror and ask ourselves why is it that we bend the knee? Because, yes, there I mean, when when the when the Israelites Escape from the pharaoh. They're lost in the desert, yet to find the promised land. What did they say? We wanna go back and be ruled by the pharaoh.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And so we can complain about the pharaoh all we want, and and and it exists. You know, the he has the global ESG movement, modern Stateful.
Speaker 0: To build our own system. That's actually
Speaker 1: What is it that makes us wanna bend the knee?
Speaker 0: That's actually what this book, the great awakening comes out next week. It's available in Infowars right now preorder. This is really important book, defeating the globalist and launching the next great renaissance. I wouldn't even bring the book up till you brought this up. This book is not just about how they're bad.
That's half the book. The rest is solutions. So I I'm really impressed with your work and research. I hope you'll read it. Copy?
Please, sir. For me. Take a couple for your crew as well.
Speaker 1: So Absolutely. I'm gonna,
Speaker 0: But, I mean, you're totally nailing it, and I I I watch and listen to you. That's how I was able to steal your thunder and say You're absolutely in fact, you influence this book. In in me hearing you, we've gotta talk more about solutions. And I was already on that kick, but you're right. That I gotta write a book about solutions and the system we can build that's alternate.
Speaker 1: This is the moment now.
Speaker 0: Now is our moment to blow this up. We gotta have an An alternative vision Yes.
Speaker 1: Of our own. Right? So I think that for me and it doesn't mean we we can't have competing visions. This is the conversation we need to have. If the left is feeding us race, gender, sexuality, climate, How about reviving the individual?
Yes. How about the family?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nation. That not not some nebulous global citizen fighting climate change. I'm a citizen of this nation, the United States of America, and I'm proud of it. I'm not gonna apologize for it. And and by the way, God, I think plays a big role in this too.
I think Revival of faith is something that
Speaker 0: I totally agree with this. I got some books about. And and, again, I'm not against gay people, you know, rainbow flag stuff, but it's it's the new flag. They're even talking about getting rid of the American flag. They're they're not trying to take George Washington statue down, in New York.
They're now, you know, doing all of this, And and this is all unfolding, and and we're having our symbols that rec that recognize who we are and what we stand for away from us and giving us a new one That is a government corporate directed sex cult. I don't care if it was a heterosexual cult showing me their flag and taking down our flag and telling my kids about it. I mean, if if it was some new flag about NASCAR, I'm not against NASCAR, but it was NASCAR stuff everywhere. Them telling my kids pledge allegiance to NASCAR. I'd say this is a NASCAR cult.
Get it out of here. And then what it is
Speaker 1: Cult is interesting. It's an interesting use of the word. So so a cult is a religion that has not withstood the test of time. Okay? So so it's short term.
And so there's old saying actually. I think it came from Blaise Pascal. He was a scientist of all things, but because if there's a hole the size of God in your heart and God does not fill it, something else will instead.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And my my civic version of that.
Speaker 0: They kicked God out and now
Speaker 1: Something some other poison fills the void. Demon is filling it. And and and so my version of that in a civic sense is, If we don't pledge allegiance to the American flag or to a true flag of of our nation, we're gonna pledge allegiance to a different flag instead. I said that as a matter of analogy, but now literally there are different flags. I mean, the transgender flags.
Speaker 0: And more and more were being divided and conquered That's right. Where everybody And and and they they call it the broken coalition strategy. This came out in the Clinton documents in their in their library in Little Rock. And this as they're about to win the presidency, they're having meetings, the papers are public now. We've gotta create the broken coalition strategy nationwide where no group can be powerful and organized.
So the parliamentary system's weak because look at Justin Trudeau. He only gets 30% of the vote, but he has coalitions with the broken Coalition strategy to then have the tyranny of different minorities getting together against the majority.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's such an interesting interesting indication of that because That describes our current moment right now in this country. We have in the name of protecting against a tyranny of the majority, We have created a new tyranny of the minority.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And
Speaker 1: that minority has captured every institution.
Speaker 0: That's what you told the transgender. See, I'm quoting you back. You've fought
Speaker 1: me a lot. You remember that. And I gotta tell
Speaker 0: you, Viv. Of course, I do. I watch you every day. You and Tucker Carlson are 2 of my favorite people, and I tell my listeners who are real alley and don't trust the system. They're like, well, how do we know this guy is good?
And I'm like, there's no way Vivek's saying all these things. That's like High noon or holy water to a vampire. He's not one of them. You do not say these things. This irrevocably damages the lie.
He is good by the very fruit of the tree as Christ said.
Speaker 1: And my view is people should be skeptical.
Speaker 0: I I I You
Speaker 1: know, it's fine if he's always skeptical. But we gotta we gotta We gotta do something about it.
Speaker 0: We gotta
Speaker 1: move on. We gotta do something about it.
Speaker 0: I mean, take RFK Junior. I would say I agree with about 90% of him. I agree about 99% of you. Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: Climate stuff is a little bit off the reservation.
Speaker 0: Well, he used to say we're gonna arrest people the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And it's really hard to walk that back. He's gotta something, but then he says it's out of context, and I kinda He was talking about corporations that lie like
Speaker 1: like cigarettes. I think the climate agenda itself is is a hoax.
Speaker 0: Oh, of course.
Speaker 1: That's as Well,
Speaker 0: I mean, climate change is a constant.
Speaker 1: I think the the any person who leads the United States going forward cannot be somebody who accepts the premises of the climate change agenda as a fixed principle for how long
Speaker 0: it takes. Fear mongering for the cult
Speaker 1: It's disqualifying for the rest.
Speaker 0: You're bad to give control of your life over to them. And let me just Some briefly here. I'm not a petroleum geologist, but I have family that is. They told me this 30 years ago. It it it's not coming from dead whales and dead dinosaurs.
They now have the the devices and systems. They keep finding oil deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, 50, 60,000 feet all the way down to the mantle through the crust, and And they're hitting oil and gas deposits that are so big. They don't have pipes that can contain what's coming up. And what it is is if they if you look at Mars, scientists now believe that it wants that atmosphere, but it's this is a short short science lesson, but it it once had an atmosphere, but its gravity wasn't big enough to hold the atmosphere and had water. We know there's water to the surface.
There's water to the surface of the moon. That's been confirmed. India confirmed that. What what our folks confirmed back in the sixties. So That's going on.
So there's actually giant reserves, and they're saying these gases are bad. The earth used to have way higher concentrations of methane, Carbon dioxide, oxygen, all these things, but it's off gas in the space, and it has retreated underground. So if you look at a 1000000 of years ago, you know, now what what carbon dioxide's, you know, 0 point whatever for, I mean, it's a fraction of a percent, and things used to be healthier. Plants can take 10 times the carbon dioxide. They grow faster, less water.
We need this. So it's really a magic moment talking about God existing that right as the Earth starts to slowly lose its atmosphere. It would probably still be a few 1000000 years. We come along and are digging all this up and terraforming, geoengineering putting it back up. It's good folks.
They wanna ban cows because they off Cast methane, so do you. Methane helps hold heat in. We're we're due for another ice age at 12,000 years cycle.
Speaker 1: Know what's funny, Alex? Is you go to you You might you probably know this, but if you go to the Newsweek cover magazine or Time magazine in the 19 seventies
Speaker 0: Freezing.
Speaker 1: World global ice age. That's what they were saying. And and if you don't abandon our modern way of life for that, for the different direction, we're gonna have a global ice age. More people are gonna die this year of 8 times as many people actually this year are gonna die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. Absolutely.
So these are facts you don't hear in the ordinary climate Discourse. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They also lie. They also lie. They, you know, they say, hottest time ever, Death Valley. No. It's a 134.
It it had a 131 this year. They said Texas, hottest ever, longest spell. And And and then I went back and looked at the books because I remember playing football in, like, you know, 1990. They had to cancel 2 a days because it was a 112, and people were dying all over the city of Dallas where I lived. And and And then it's also in Austin.
So so and I'm but I look at the records. They're just lying. Yeah. So so
Speaker 1: so that's that's I think that's what our Pro American movement needs to learn as we've been lied to 360 degrees so much That it can create first the first form of laziness is just believing what you're force fed. But now our movement understands That you gotta reject whatever you're force fed. I don't care if it's even force fed by mainstream establishment on the left or on the right or whatever. Reject what you're force fed.
Speaker 0: Everything.
Speaker 1: Question everything. It's phase 1. But then at some point, you're not gonna get anywhere just by sitting and questioning. That's the first step. So that's what I was saying.
We we've seen the problem with clear eyes. We understand the pharaoh. We understand to be skeptical. Now I get this. I'm not coming from a place of personal frustration, but when I'm coming on the scene aiming to lead this nation forward, people say, well, you came out of nowhere.
Didn't you co work at a you know, start a biotech company? And at some point I'm gonna say listen people, once we see the problem with clear eyes, we can't just spin our wheels and throw our hands up. We need competent leaders Who share our understanding of the problem.
Speaker 0: The whole power
Speaker 1: actually move this country forward.
Speaker 0: The whole power structure came after you, then they did that whisper campaign that you really secretly establishment because you're going around networking. I mean, I've met with group members. I've met with people that are a day, but it says we not agree with them. But but the whole and and you're not endorsing their system.
Speaker 1: Hell no.
Speaker 0: You're not so but the system has come after you. You've been the main target the last 2 debates. That's the endorsement. Just like people go, wait. They're indicting Trump for no reason that endorses him.
You are the next biggest targeted person.
Speaker 1: Do you see this Hannity interview last night by chance?
Speaker 0: No. I missed it.
Speaker 1: Oh, man. Oh, man. Yeah. I mean, look, I'm making the case say I think it's saying that on one hand, absolutely, Israel is our ally. What happened to them was wrong.
It was barbaric. It was medieval. And, of course, they have a right to national self defense. But I've also said that we should not want to enter a broader regional conflict in the Middle East that doesn't advance US interests because we have to learn from our prior mistakes in this country. And that's arguably not good for Israel, but it's definitely not good for the United States.
And so I also pointed to others in the Republican Party Like Nikki Haley who screech, finish them. Finish them. Talking about Hamas and Iran as though there's no distinction. Finish them. Okay.
What are the consequences of that for the United States of America? I see it. Well, here's the problem. So so so I think he so so interestingly, this guy, Hannity, I was Very disappointed. Comes after me for pointing out that Nikki Haley has made $8,000,000 after her time as the US ambassador to the UN As a military contractor and otherwise, I mean, just that was the one that was the wake up call for me is to see even a purported conservative voice Buy into what is the captured establishment Super PAC puppetry.
Last night, you should watch this one.
Speaker 0: I will. Let me
Speaker 1: say something. Unbelievable.
Speaker 0: Let me powerful. Let me say something to Sean Hannity because I know him. Hey, Sean. The border's been completely wide open for two and a half years. The border patrol admits tens of 1,000 conservatively of Hezbollah and Hamas fighters have gotten across.
They've caught a bunch of them. If these are 90% military age Do you know what Hamas will do? They're here in our country. You know what Hezbollah will do? So so It's
Speaker 1: in the United States of America that we need to bring up.
Speaker 0: Look at black lives matter endorsing the attacks on Israel. So we have this problem, and Iran has a high-tech military. And it's not that I'm, quote, scared of Iran, but We need to support Israel, but obviously not have our aircraft carriers attack Iran. And then now we're fighting Russia through NATO, and we're fighting Iran. What's gonna happen, Sean?
Use your head. This is how World War 3 starts. Just like World War 1, World War 2. Once World War start, other people say, hey. They're tied down.
China is gonna go into Taiwan, dummy, and we can't take on China too.
Speaker 1: And the the saddest part of this is that if There are Republican presidential candidates who stand to make money off of it because they're on the boards or have been on the boards of Boeing and are collecting Stock options while they're running for president and have had family military contracting businesses and made a habit of making money off their time in government. This is why we have 1 crime family right now in the Biden family that has sold off our foreign policy to make their family rich. I could care less if you have an r after your name
Speaker 0: Or a d.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna do the same thing.
Speaker 0: And that's why it's so refreshing when you're on the stage. Because, literally, we've said this on air. We've covered it live. I was doing it super crowded. I'm like, Vivek's the only guy Let's do this.
This is all talking points crap. They're all gonna do what the military industrial complex says. Again, military industrial complex, they said a year ago with Biden in December, we can't You have tanks and f sixteens and cruise missiles, that'll escalate to World War 3, but they went ahead and violated their own RAND Corporation threat manipulation boards. So so, see, your money is not gonna be worthy then in your golf course stock options if we have World War 3 cuckoo. And and now China China is messing India India's got aircraft carriers out there about to go to war.
Pakistan We
Speaker 1: are marching our way to World War 3. I am increasingly worried that there are people in the United States rooting for it, and this is our moment to say, hey. We can actually now we've seen the problem. We can't just spin our wheels and complain about it. We have a chance to lead this country to shut Down the deep state, declare independence from China, end World War 3 and our path to it, protect our own homeland because that's That's our job and the moral obligation
Speaker 0: Peace, prosperity, American way. And then pride.
Speaker 1: And pride. Provide pride in this country, and I think that we have a chance to do it.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, the International Bureau of Atomic Scientists forget the exact name of their doomsday clock have and and were very respected. They've never moved the clock this close. I mean, folks, China and India are basically already at war. Pakistan's ready to go. Iran is already in a proxy war with Russia against us.
China's getting ready to move into Taiwan. The minute that China's moving all the way down the Philippines, they're in gun battles with with the Vietnamese trying to take Their waters and oil fields, I mean, the the the these are the crazy times that that that that it kicks off, and it's already begun. In fact, Most analysts say we're already in World War 3. The question is, will it go nuclear? And that's why, Vivek, I am really glad you are the most successful person on injecting these topics.
Because I see you inject topics at the national level that would have never been there that are so vital. And and so, I mean, I they make assassinate Trump. So, you know, if you're, I mean, I'd like him to get elected, but but but if not you, I think, Kennedy, it is gonna pull more from the Republicans, if he runs independent, which he is. So I like a lot of his ideas, but I think it's, destructive. And now so I'm not gonna support Kennedy as a third party candidate because that'll pull from the Republicans.
So, again, I hope nothing happens to Trump. But if something does happen
Speaker 1: Oh, god forbid. Yeah. We don't want we don't want that. I I think I think we what we want is to advance the interests of this country and the people of this country to once again be in charge of who leads our nation.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's all I ask. And I'm gonna play my part to make that happen. I'm glad we met, man. We met literally 1 or 2 minutes. We chatted before we just this is the first conversation we've ever had.
Speaker 0: Well, Well, I'm impressed. I mean, you're showing up here, like, 6:45 in the morning. We're taping this, and you're I I hear you're off the border?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm going to the border, and then I'm going to New Hampshire. And we're all over the place, but I'm I'm around the clock.
Speaker 0: Well, you're a business man.
Speaker 1: Pulling me out of here, actually.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, thank you. Hey. Remember, I
Speaker 1: We're gonna go past from here.
Speaker 0: I'm an Internet prison, so infowars.com. Banned out video has all our banned videos. Banned out video, the book, the great awakening. I hope you'll read it. I hope you'll come on my show soon and tell me what you thought.
I'm a big fan of your work.
Speaker 1: Thank you, man.
Speaker 0: Good luck. It's man. God bless you, man. Be safe.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
CNN allegedly issued a cease & desist to the author's campaign shortly after their town hall received significant views on YouTube. The author contrasts this with a CNN town hall featuring Nikki Haley, which has been up for 6 months with fewer views. The author believes CNN is favoring their preferred candidate.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This game is RIGGED. CNN threatened my campaign with a cease & desist within 12 hours of posting my town hall after it got 200k+ views on YouTube in a matter of hours. Yet Nikki Haley’s CNN town hall is still up after 6 months (68k total views, sad). They’re trying their best to prop up their puppet. Don’t let them.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
A random person in Maine decides one day that Trump shouldn’t be on the ballot & there you go. It’s unconstitutional. It’s monarchical. It’s anti-American. But it’s happening. Time to wake up. https://t.co/wsAzPVWbc1
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers discuss the issue of one person having the power to change election rules. They express concern that this could lead to the disenfranchisement of Trump voters in the upcoming election. One of the speakers, who is also running in the same race as Donald Trump, pledges to voluntarily remove themselves from the GOP primary ballot if any competitor, including Trump, is forcibly removed through this unconstitutional maneuver. They call on other Republican candidates to take a stand against this election interference and protect the integrity of the primary process. They emphasize that this is not a partisan issue but a matter of upholding the constitution and American values.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vivek, the secretaries of states. In 2020, secretaries of states, 1 individual, would come in and wipe away the laws of the legislature and say, because of COVID, I'm changing mail in balloting. 1 person changing election rules. That was 2020. 2024, 1 person saying I am disenfranchising Trump voters.
Your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Well, look, Kayleigh, I think you phrased it well, but I would say that this is not an action of 1 person. This is the action of an entire system That has an anaphylactic reaction to 1 man. And I think they're dropping the bed breadcrumbs. They're making it clearer by the day. I'm concerned that they will not allow this man to get anywhere near the start line of the election, let alone the finish line.
And I say this as somebody who's running in the same race as Donald Trump. This is not how we should want to win. So I stand by the pledge I made earlier on the back of the Colorado decision, and I reiterate it today That I will voluntarily, as a Republican candidate, remove myself from any GOP primary ballot where one of my competitors, Donald Trump included, is forcibly removed through this unconstitutional maneuver. And I think one thing that the other Republican candidates can do, Kayley, is to fight against this, To say that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley and Chris Christie do the same thing that if Maine is gonna do this, we then take Maine out of the GOP primary process. That's the logical way to handle this, and so I made that announcement tonight.
I challenge every one of my other competitors in the GOP primary to do the same thing, to say that we will not Stand by idly and watch this brazen form of election interference in the GOP primary itself. And I think that that's Not a left wing or a right wing issue. It shouldn't be. This is about the constitution and who we are as Americans, and that's why I've taken the position I have.
reSee.it AI Summary
The system is targeting this man, disregarding the Constitution. I urge DeSantis, Christie, and Haley to withdraw from any state's ballot that removes Trump, to avoid endorsing election interference. This political issue extends beyond the Democrats.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This is what an *actual* threat to democracy looks like. The system is hellbent on taking this man out, the Constitution be damned. I stand by my prior pledge to *withdraw* from any state’s ballot that ultimately removes Trump from its ballot. I call on DeSantis, Christie, and Haley to do the same - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal and brazen election interference in the GOP primary. This cancer in American politics isn’t limited to the Democrats.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Open your eyes, people. That’s all I ask. https://t.co/l64E5db5ks
Video Transcript AI Summary
They are attacking Donald Trump in Maine, which is unconstitutional and un-American. The speaker is standing against this and promises to remove their name from any ballot if Trump is removed. They warn that we shouldn't be fooled by their tactics and that we need to open our eyes. Next year won't be what they're telling us, so we should prepare for something different.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sometimes the truth hurts. That's when it's most important to see it. What they're doing to Donald Trump right now in Maine, you see the news today, it's unconstitutional. It's anti American. It's wrong.
I'm doing everything I can to stand against it. I'm I'm the only candidate in this race who has said, I will remove my name from any ballot where they remove Trump as well. But we gotta open our eyes to the fact that they're not gonna let this man get anywhere near that finish line. That's the hard truth. We can't fall for their trap.
They're selling us the rope today that they they'll use to hang us tomorrow. All I'm asking you to do is to open your eyes right now. See what's going on. They have fooled us time and again. Fool me once, shame on them.
Fool me twice, shame on us. Open your eyes the pull. If you see what I see, then you understand that next year isn't what they're selling you. It's gonna be something it's gonna be something else altogether. Get ready for it.
reSee.it AI Summary
There is evidence suggesting that the events of January 6th were not as they seemed. The presence of undercover officers and the actions of the Capitol police raise questions about the narrative. This raises concerns about the potential for the deep state to manipulate events for political gain. Once you become aware of this possibility, it is hard to ignore.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
If you’d have told me nearly 3 years ago when I was just a CEO that Jan. 6 was an inside job, I would’ve said that’s crazy talk. It’s not. There is now clear evidence that there was at the very least entrapment of peaceful protestors, similar to the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot & countless other cases. The FBI won’t admit how many undercover officers were in the field on Jan 6, Capitol police on one hand fired rubber bullets & explosives into a peaceful crowd who they then willingly later allowed to enter the Capitol. That doesn’t add up & the actual evidence turns the prior narrative upside down: if the deep state is willing to manufacture an “insurrection” to take down its political opponents, they can do anything. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
reSee.it AI Summary
God's existence, two genders, fossil fuels for human flourishing, reverse racism, open borders, parental control over education, nuclear family as ideal governance, capitalism fights poverty, three branches of US government, and US constitution as protector of freedoms.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
TRUTH. 1. God is real. 2. There are two genders. 3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels. 4. Reverse racism is racism. 5. An open border is no border. 6. Parents determine the education of their children. 7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind. 8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty. 9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four. 10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.
reSee.it AI Summary
I will withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot in support of Trump's inclusion. I urge Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same, as failure to do so implies endorsement of this illegal move with grave consequences for our nation.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes an attempt to remove President Trump from the Colorado ballot, calling it unconstitutional and a departure from the principles of American democracy. They pledge to withdraw from the GOP primary unless Trump's name is restored, and urge other Republican candidates like Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same. The speaker believes that all GOP candidates should stand up for the people's right to choose their leaders and not allow the unelected judges to sideline Trump. They emphasize the importance of doing the right thing for the country's future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They have just tried to bar President Trump from the Colorado ballot using an unconstitutional maneuver that is a bastardization of the 14th Amendment to our US Constitution. This was a provision, section 3, that was designed to bar Confederate members. People switched to the Confederacy from actually being able to serve, that's very different than what's at issue here to say the least. This is a hollowed out husk of what the country was built on. The basic principle that We The People select our leadership, not the unelected elite class in the back of of palace halls.
That's old world Europe, not the United States. That's why I'm making a pledge today that I will withdraw I pledged to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot unless and until Trump's name is restored. And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie and Nikki Haley do the same thing, or else these Republicans are simply complicit in this unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional republic. I refuse to be complicit in that. I think what they're doing is wrong, and I think it's up to Republicans to step up and stand up with a spine for our country's future.
That's really what's at stake, whether We The People actually have a say in deciding who leads this country. Yes. It would be easier for other Republicans like me who are running in this race to say, hey. If Trump is sidelined, there's our opportunity. No doubt other candidates are probably privately celebrating with their corporate sponsors.
That's not the right thing to do. I think the most useful thing that every GOP candidate can do right now is to join me in that pledge. I'll say that I will withdraw from that Colorado GOP primary on the ballot until Trump's name is restored. This belongs to the people, not to the unelected Democratic cabal of judges in Colorado or any other state. And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley and Chris Christie do the same thing, or else they're complicit in what this security state is trying to do to shut down Trump.
I stand by that, and I expect them to do the right thing.
reSee.it AI Summary
In an unprecedented decision, Democrat judges in Colorado are barring Trump from the ballot, using the 14th Amendment. This tactic is seen as an attack on democracy and an attempt to silence political opponents. However, there are legal problems with this decision, as the 14th Amendment does not apply to elected officials like the President. The use of this narrow provision is concerning and goes against the intentions of the Framers.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
This is what an *actual* attack on democracy looks like: in an un-American, unconstitutional, and *unprecedented* decision, a cabal of Democrat judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado. Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan Establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again: the 14th Amendment. I pledge to *withdraw* from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is also allowed to be on the state’s ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley to do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country. Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice. The 14th Amendment was part of the “Reconstruction Amendments” that were ratified following the Civil War. It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office. These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States. And there’s another legal problem: Trump is not a former “officer of the United States,” as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply. As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), an “officer of the United States” is someone appointed by the President to aid him in his duties under Article II, Section 2. The term does not apply to elected officials, and certainly not to the President himself. The Framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision—intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office—being weaponized by a sitting President and his political allies to prevent a former President from seeking reelection. Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers.
reSee.it AI Summary
The author believes that the media is missing the truth about the events of January 6th. They argue that there is evidence of entrapment of peaceful protestors, similar to other cases. They question the number of undercover officers present and the actions of the Capitol police. The author suggests that this evidence contradicts the previous narrative and raises concerns about the deep state's ability to manipulate events. They emphasize the importance of recognizing this evidence.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Too bad for the media, we’ll take the TRUTH on Jan. 6 mainstream. There is clear evidence that there was at the very least entrapment of peaceful protestors, similar to the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot & countless other cases. The FBI won’t admit how many undercover officers were in the field on Jan 6, Capitol police on one hand fired rubber bullets & explosives into a peaceful crowd who they then willingly later allowed to enter the Capitol. That doesn’t add up & the actual evidence turns the prior narrative upside down: if the deep state is willing to manufacture an “insurrection” to take down its political opponents, they can do anything. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the protest, some individuals had plans for violence, but most were peaceful. The use of rubber bullets and tear gas angered the protesters, leading them to charge towards the Capitol. Contrary to what was shown in the released video footage, the Capitol police actually opened the doors and allowed people to enter. The protesters were then subjected to a massive manhunt and arrested for being in the Capitol illegally. This is seen as entrapment, where the government manipulates individuals into committing acts they wouldn't have done otherwise. Similar tactics were used in the past against civil rights activists and left-leaning individuals. This is a civil rights and civil liberties issue that needs to be addressed. The speaker believes that all peaceful protesters should be pardoned.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sir, can you tell us a little bit more Yeah. About what happened? Yeah. About the whole group. Just the truth.
Yeah. We all Absolutely. I mean, so so basically, Now, some people had potentially plans of being more violent or not, but mostly peaceful protesters there. Then they fire rubber bullets and tear gas. So then the people are pissed.
So then they start charging. Then when they get to the capitol, the capitol police just open the door and say come on in. But the video footage that got released before was just the response Exactly. That's how it's to the tear gas Yep. And to the rubber bullets, Which they didn't show you before.
Oh my. So the the rubber bullets and the tear gas create a massive response. They show angry people in response to the tear gas and the rubber bullets. Because these are peaceful people just saying I'm sitting and somebody's fine rubber bullets at you. Then you say, no.
I'm mad I'm pissed at that. So that's what they then show. But then they get to the door, and then they have people on the inside just said, hey, come on in. And the people who are then coming on in, they're been the subject of a massive manhunt. Then Then they then arrest to say you were in the capital illegally when that's exactly what it was set up to do.
So that's wrong. That's called entrapment, when the government puts you up to do something that you otherwise wouldn't have done, our law says the government can't do that. And it turns out and it's actually not just the conservatives. I mean, if you go to most of our history, like, they were doing this to actually the FBI tried to do this to people who were civil rights activists or people who were thought to be left leaning communist in the fifties or sixties. And so it was wrong then, but it's wrong now.
But this is a civil rights and civil libertarian issue of our time. And so, you know what? There you go. Take somebody to talk about it. Right?
This is not supposed to be they they did not want their viewers to hear what I have to say but they're gonna keep talking about because that's what the truth is. And every one of those peaceful protesters is gonna get a pardon from me because entrapment is wrong.
reSee.it AI Summary
The 14th amendment states that only those born or naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This applies to both the child of a Mexican diplomat who is here legally and the child of an illegal alien. Birthright citizenship is not guaranteed in either case.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
The kid of a Mexican diplomat who is in this country *legally* doesn’t enjoy birthright citizenship. Well, neither does the kid of an *illegal* alien either. Here’s what the 14th amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States.”