Shawn Ryan Show - #71 Vivek Ramaswamy - EXPOSES Deep State, BlackRock, Big Pharma, Central Bank Digital Currency

Episode Date: August 21, 2023

Shawn Ryan Show is an open platform. Our goal is to bring truth and share untold stories that the media wouldn't otherwise cover. Part of that goal is to give the American people an opportunity to hear from their leaders and prospective leaders in a long format. We're done with the 15 second sound bytes. That's why 2024 Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is on this week. Vivek is the son of immigrants turned American success story and entrepreneur. After graduating from Harvard, he founded Roivant Sciences, an incredibly successful biotech company. He would later co-found Strive Asset Management, an investment firm that positions itself in opposition to environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG). In February of 2023, he announced his candidacy for the Republican Party's nomination for President in the 2024 election. Vivek has been a stark critic of the woke agenda and vows to dismantle the ever elusive deep state. This episode explores his upbringing and his ultimate goal of reestablishing a government for the people, by the people and of the people. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://preparewithshawn.com https://lairdsuperfood.com - USE CODE "SRS" https://blackbuffalo.com - USE CODE "SRS" https://meetfabric.com/shawn https://1stphorm.com/srs https://ziprecruiter.com/srs Vivek Ramaswamy Links: Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/vivekgramaswamy Twitter - https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy Campaign - https://www.vivek2024.com Please leave us a review on Apple & Spotify Podcasts. Vigilance Elite/Shawn Ryan Links: Website | Patreon | TikTok | Instagram | Download Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today we have a presidential candidate on the Chonrine show. I would pay close attention to this one because there are actually real solutions to a lot of the problems that we face here in America today and it is also very informative on a variety of topics such as who is the deep state, BlackRock, how do we fix the southern border and more. I'm going to say this again to any presidential candidate who needs a voice. The Americans are tired of listening to five-minute sound bites that are scripted from your campaign managers. We want somebody who can get out amongst the people, hold a long-form conversation without fear and be able to think on your feet without a teleprompter.

If that's you and you need a voice whether you're Republican, whether you're Democrat, whether you're somebody in the middle, this is your spot. I'm giving it to you. or somebody in the middle, this is your spot. I'm giving it to you. Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, please welcome Vivek Ramaswamy to the Sean Ryan Show. Vivek Ramaswamy, welcome to the show. It's good to be on with you, man. I'm honored to have you here, Presidential candidate. We got a lot to talk about. Yeah, I've been looking forward to this. Good, good. So, quick intro. You're an author, entrepreneur, a GOP, Presidential candidate, speaking hard truths, courageous

contagious, the godfather of the anti-woke movement, author of woke ink, capital punishment, and nation of victims. So, we got a variety of topics I want to cover, but everybody always gets a gift when they come on here. Thank you, man. What is it? Those are my gummy bears. Are you kidding? Yeah, so, you know, I is it? Those are my gummy bears. Are you kidding?

Yeah, so, you know, I'm almost time to eat one right now. Have it and try one right now, actually. You know, I probably should have put some pudding in there for you to take the DC to that nursing home that runnin' up there on a text card. It's what we'll talk about that. It's a, it is a gerontocracy in the country right now.

So, do you make these or you brand them or? We brand them. Good, where do you get them from? We get them from Michigan. Michigan, all right. Pretty close to where I am. Trying to pop a couple of these. Made in the USA.

Mm-hmm. Good job. So the effects of those won't kick in for another 30 minutes. Okay. Okay. You got me looking now. I'm just kidding.

I was a little in all 50 states. You just gonna be bears. Thank you, man. You're welcome. I'm always a fan of, if you get a gift, you know, take it on the spot because time flies and you later forget. So, you're gonna be gummies, yeah.

Good. But, you know, the pudding to DC, it's a joke about it, but, you know, the pudding to DC, it's a joke about it, but, you know, I am extremely concerned about the state of this country and so many aspects. And, you know, we talk about national security with China, with the southern border, with big tech, with big pharma, all these different avenues, but

nobody's talking about who's running our country. And what I mean by that, I'm not, I'm not even talking right or left right now. I'm talking about we have a bunch of geriatrics and nobody is driving this car. The motor's on and nobody's behind the wheel. We just saw Mitch McConnell totally space out or have a stroke or whatever happened. I mean, then we saw, what, a day or two later, we saw a fine-steen, we even read the notes. We've got Biden who can't figure out

how to put a sentence together. And I know there's more of these people. This is the biggest threat in my opinion to our national security. We have a bunch of people up there who, I mean, there's nobody upstairs. Nobody's driving that car. So, Sean, this actually gets to a deeper issue.

I think the tempting thing to say on the surface and there's a lot of truth to it, is that we have a gerontocracy in the United States, you what you call the nursing home. And I do think that there is a need, a requirement in this country for a new generation of leadership that can actually inspire, reach and bring along young Americans, the next generation for whom we're creating a country. But that's just the surface. You want to dig deeper.

This is not an accident. This is by design because what really is happening in Washington, DC is that the people who we elect to run the government are not the ones who actually run the government. That's the dirty little secret in all of this, is that in some ways it was designed to be a bunch of hollowed out husks serving as puppets for a managerial class that's really in charge in this country. That's actually why it's not just the old guys, why they want John Federman in the seat that he's in. You need puppets who are pliable, who are moldable, who are adaptable to the demands of a permanent state and administrative bureaucracy, a deep state that is absolutely the chief policymaker

in this country. And the elected officials are really just people who enjoy being on cable television at night. They say, okay, give them that. We don't, the people in the deep state, they don't thrive on attention and ego. So we'll give the Nancy Pelosi's and the Joe Biden's and the Republican equivalents, the ego hit,

the dopamine hit from being able to be a famous person who stands in front of a camera. When in fact, the real laws of this country are not passed in Congress, that is designed to look like a beautiful building. I took my three-year-old son there, three, four weeks ago, maybe three, four months ago, when I was there for a Sunday show. It feels like you're going to a museum because that is not where the laws of this country are passed. They're passed in the drab administrative buildings that you would never dare go.

It's designed to look and be boring for a reason. And I think once you see that, you understand why it is where we are, because the question is, why on earth would we put these people in charge who couldn't pass a basic cognitive test if they were asked to perform a function or an activity of daily living? And the reason is that actually is just a symptom of the deeper problem, which is that the people we elect to run the government aren't even the ones who are actually running it, and that was by design. And that's what I'm going into fix, but we have to be able to see that with clear eyes.

It's not just I'm a young guy versus these older guys. It's that I'm an outsider running against a system that is designed to keep the democratically accountable people let alone an outsider out of their business. And that's what's going on. I mean, I see that and I've been calling this out for a long time. I mean, a lot of people have been calling this out for a long time, especially when it comes to the deep state and the puppets and all this stuff. But, you know, maybe you have a little more insight.

I can't figure out who the deep state is. This is the whole point. It is not one person. The model of there being one puppet master individually saying that I'm pulling the strings, it's the wrong mental model. In fact, in many cases, it's comprised, this is the harder part to see, because then it gets really confusing when you first think of it this way. There are many good people as individuals in their individual capacities, as lives, as fathers, as neighbors, as coaches, who are part of that machine. It's the nature of the beast itself is not comprised of one human being with an intention. It is the machine, the Leviathan itself that goes beyond a human individual. So it is a creation that's a beast.

You know, think about the FBI, right? So I've said I would shut down the FBI and I can go into the details of how to do it. One of my motivations for being in this race certainly is I am the single presidential candidate in the last 30 years, who has the deepest understanding of how to actually shut down the deep state, the administrative state.

We can talk about that, but the FBI is one of the institutions that I've said that I would just shut down. Most people who work at the FBI, I genuinely believe it, are individually good people, but they're part of a machine that is bigger than the sum of its parts that has a culture unto itself. It is still the J Edgar Hoover building of the FBI that people walk into every day and report to for work. It is an agency built in the shadow of a legacy that was fundamentally corrupt even at its inception, or at least through most of the 1930s and 40s, when it got off the ground. And so that is really what we have to see is this isn't a human that we're up against, any

individual human. It's individual human beings, democratically elected representatives of the actual democratic will of the people, up against a machine, a monster that we've created that actually has to be shut down in order for us to actually have any chance of winning. And I can go to great detail on that. So it's not an individual. Is it an entity of individuals that are all conspiring together or is it totally decomparitalized? It's totally decomparitalized. I think that that's actually what makes it so hard to capture.

Sort of like there's an analogy and we'll come back to the deep state piece of this, but it's deeply related to say censorship in this country. The way censorship is increasingly being carried out is initially the first version, the version that our founding fathers would have cared about would have been the government carrying out censorship directly saying that you, Sean, can't speak to criticize me as a member of the government.

What they started to do is they started to be a waterfall. It wasn't the president directly saying it, but it was administrative agencies. So it's the bureaucrat saying that you're creating misinformation that engenders and dangers the public. So I as the president, I'm not gonna be an autocratic king, but it's just gonna be the technocrats saying that, hey, here's some things you can't say. Then it goes one step further down the waterfall,

because that's still the government to say, okay, well, we the technocrats can't do it, but we'll have a meeting with you if you're a social media company. And we'll tell you that, hey, you know, the guy who used to work for me now worked in the private sector, that's the place I'm gonna work later on as well.

So we already have a friendly, peer-like relationship, not that we think we're doing something corrupt, but it's just the same kind of people who we understand each other. We have the common good in mind, and come on. You know the truth, that people need to take vaccines,

that people can't be trusted with a hunter-biden laptop story. It's probably Russian disinformation on the even election. Come on, you know what I'm talking about here. People need to take the vaccines. We've got to build public trust. I want to tell you about this business venture

I've been on for about the past seven, eight months. And it's finally come to fruition. I've been hell-bent on finding the cleanest functional mushroom supplement on the planet. That all kind of stemmed from the psychedelic treatment I did. Came out of it got a ton of benefits. Haven't had a drop of alcohol in almost two years. I'm more in the moment with my family.

And that led me down researching the benefits of just everyday functional mushrooms. And I started taking some supplements. I found some coffee replacements, I even wrapped a brand. And you know, it got to the point where I just wanted the finest ingredients available, no matter where they come from. And it got to this point where I was just going to start my own brand. So we started going to trade shows and looking for the finest ingredients and doing that, I ran into this guy, maybe you've heard of him, his name's Laird Hamilton, and his wife Gabby Reese.

And they have an entire line of supplements with all the finest ingredients. And we got to talk and it turns out they have the perfect functional mushroom supplement. It's actually called performance mushrooms. And this has everything. It's USDA organic, it's got chaga, Cordriceps, lion's mane, Miyataki. This stuff is amazing for energy balance, for cognition. Look, just being honest, see a lot of people taking care of their bodies.

I do not see a lot of people taking care of their brain. This is the product, guys. And so, we got to talking and our values seemed very aligned. We're both into the functional mushrooms. And after a lot of back and forth, I am now a shareholder in the company. I have a small amount of ownership and I'm just, look, I'm just really proud to be repping

and be a part of the company that's making the best functional mushroom supplement on the planet. You can get this stuff at layeredsuperfoods.com. You can use the promo code SRS, that'll get you 20% off these performance mushrooms or anything in the store. They got a ton of good stuff. Once again, that's layeredsuperfoods.com. Use the promo code SRS that gets you 20% off. You guys are

going to love this stuff. I guarantee it. I need you to make sure that you're looking after which users are criticizing our government policy. So say I'm Andy Slavitt in the White House and say you're a counterpart at Twitter and we're having a conversation saying, and I'm not making this stuff up, this is just literally what happened. Why is, what was this guy's name, you know, an individual, an individual critic of the government, Alex Baronson. They're literally name him by name.

Hey, Alex Baronson, that guy, he's criticizing government policies on vaccination. That's eroding public trust. He's part of the disinformation dozen. Why haven't you shut it down yet? And you come back and say, well, you know, we think we have a free speech platform. No, no, no, you don't get it.

Come on, you understand this. think we have a free speech platform. No, no, no, you don't get it. Come on. You understand this. We're in this for the country. Why haven't you shut down his account yet? So then that horizontal managerial class goes and shuts down its account of that person because they know that the government side of it is still their regulator. So now we've gone from the president to then delegated to say, okay, the president's not doing censorship.

It's just the administrative state. Now it's not just the administrative state, but it's the private sector, it's becoming more and more decentralized. And then what does Twitter do? Or what does Google do? They don't even have human beings doing it, they train AI to do it, right?

And so they kick it out to AI algorithms, which are themselves automatically without human judgments squashing certain kinds of information that they've been trained to view as dangerous false or misinformation. A dirty little secret is that many of those algorithms have been so trained that the AI itself now spots American flags that are on someone's profile.

So if you're somebody who has an American flag in your social media profile, the algorithms are already trained to pay greater scrutiny to what you say. Are you serious? I'm not joking about this. And it's not a human being that made that judgment. It's the AI that itself has been trained

to say that these are the kinds of people who need to actually be silenced and suppressed. It's a dirty little secret in Silicon Valley. And actually, it's many of the same third party firms. So it's just the cascades. You go from the president to the administrative state, administrative state to executives at Twitter or YouTube or whatever. Executives to then third parties, but the same third party firms that are working for the

big tech guys and the third party firms themselves writing algorithms and AI to be able to decentralize it. So why do I bring that example up as it relates back to our example of talking about the FBI? It's a machine that we're up against. If we think it's individual person-to-person combat, we found the bad guys.

We walked into the globalist cabal, and here we got them with smoking cigars in the back room, deciding this is exactly how the rest of society lives at large, that's the wrong mental model. That's how it worked in the old world, that's true, because what we have today going on in the United States of America is a modern 1775 moment.

Right, that's where I think we are in the country. And in the old world, the way it worked is there were a group of people who got together in the back of palace halls and determined what was right for the rest of society at large. Because the old world vision, and it's absolutely a vision that's rearing its head again in this country today, is that we, the people, cannot be trusted to sort out our differences through free speech and open debate in a constitutional republic on how we fight climate change or racial injustice.

Sean Vivek, we the people as individuals cannot be trusted. It has to be decided in the back of palace halls by the enlightened elite. And we fought a revolution to say, hell no to that vision. That yes, we the people in this constitutional republic decide how we self-governed thank you very much. Well, now that old monster is rearing its head again, except this time they say, well, it's maybe in the back of palace halls, like a three-letter government building in Washington DC.

But you show up there, and it isn't quite there. There's no smoke and gun. There's no smoke in cigars. So you say, maybe it's the corner office of Blackrock, and they're avenue of their sea suite on Park Avenue. Well, it's the corner office of Black Rock and their avenue of their sea suite on Park Avenue. Well, it's not quite there either. It's woven into a machine of a horizontal managerial class comprised of people in three literatencies in government, comprised of the people who professionally sit on corporate

boards, the associate deans of God knows what at universities, the ambassadors to some second-tier nation in Europe that was a donor to a political party, it's the same managerial class that makes it very hard to identify because it pervades multiple institutions both within and outside of government. That's what we're up against. And I think that's the moment we live in today. The real divide in the country is not, in my estimation, at least, between Republicans and Democrats. And that's why I very rarely talk

about Republicans and Democrats. It rather boars me, actually. I think the real divide is between the managerial class and the citizen. Do we trust we, the people, to sort out our differences through free speech and open debate? And I think that elevates What this election including this GOP primary is all about

Do you stand on the side of incremental reform within those existing institutions in which case you should probably go with somebody else? Or do you stand for revolution? And I stand on the side of revolution the the American revolution, the ideals of 1776 that we need to revive. That's the moment we live in in this country. And I think it's going to take deeper than just scratching the surface of even Republicans or Democrats or even pointing to individuals, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell,

there to old, yeah, that's true. But there's something deeper going on. And I think that's what we have to open our eyes to. That's what pulled me into this, because I have to get anybody else really seasoned this way. That's the best description of the deep state I've ever heard. So how are we gonna break that up?

I mean, that sounds extremely complicated. It is, well, here's what I'll say. It is hard in that it won't be easy. But it is simple in that it's not complicated. Okay? And I think we got to keep that distinction and clear in our minds. We have three branches of government. It's actually pretty simple. It's enshrined in a readable document cover to cover.

I do it from time to time. The U.S. Constitution, something that we've forgotten maybe needs to be taught in high school. I personally think every high school student should have to pass the same civics test that an immigrant has to pass in order to become a citizen of this country. Young people don't know anything about what that flag represents. Many of them, that's when you don't know what it represents. It's why you bend the knee to a trans flag instead of the flag in the United States of America. Their teachers, there's actually a sad story of a teacher recently who removed the flag

of the Pledge of Allegiance and put the trans flag up instead as we pledged, as the kids in the classroom Pledge of Allegiance to it. But that's because when the symbols themselves lose their meaning, we got to restore the meaning for the symbols to actually mean something back. And so anyway, I go back to, what do we have? It's not abstract theories. It's enshrined our Declaration of Independence, which is the best mission statement

for a nation known to mankind. It is enshrined in the US Constitution, which is the best operating manual for a nation known to mankind, certainly a free nation. And so I don't think that this is complicated. I think it is hard. The distinction that I would draw. It's hard in that it's not easy.

So I'm not blive about the challenge, but I have a pretty clear conception of how this works. There's one executive branch of government. Article two of the Constitution does not create two executive branches, a president and then a separate administrative state. There's one executive branch of government. It's called the Unitary Theory of the Executive.

I comment this as an outsider. I think that's definitely what it's gonna take. An insider who grew up in professional politics and even learned to say the things that I'm saying now or in woking as a second tongue. That's good if you're a governor or a lawmaker or a state legislator or a senator. When you're talking about the next president, you need an outsider who has a first personal native understanding of how to get this done. But it's going to be an outsider who also deeply understands the Constitution. Somebody who understands that if someone works for you and you cannot fire them, that means they don't work for you.

It means you work for them because you're responsible for what they do without having any authority to actually change it. I refuse to be a hollowed out husk as a CEO of a company. I refuse to be a hollowed out husk as a chief executive of the executive branch of the government, read article to the Constitution, that's not how it works. Now you also need a president who has an understanding of the laws passed under that Constitution. So we have some time, I'll get deep with you here. Tackling the deep state, let's get deep on how we dismantle it.

Let's do it. With everything you guys are saying that's going on in the world right now, does anybody get the feeling that something bad might be coming down the pipe here? I know I sure do. But between the distractions and smoke screens in the media, we probably won't see it coming. That's why it's smart to invest in emergency food right away. As they say, it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. My Patriot Supply is the nation's leader in high quality emergency food. Head to my website PrepareWithShon.com and you'll save $200 on your three-month emergency food kit from

my Patriot supply. Enjoy a wide variety of delicious meals offering over 2,000 calories every day for optimum strength under stress. Stock up before panic sets in. Free shipping is automatic and your order ships fast. Go to PrepareWithShon.com. PrepareWithShon.com. Preparewithshon.com. As a parent, my number one priority

above everything else is my kids' well-being. I just want to see them chase their dreams, experience all life's adventures and really I just want them to thrive in today's world. But as a parent, I know that life can be unpredictable. And that is important to plan for the unexpected, so that my kids can thrive in this world no matter what life throws at us. Fabric was designed by parents for parents to help you get a high quality, surprisingly affordable term life insurance policy in less than 10 minutes. Get your personalized quote

in just minutes and then apply when it's convenient for you. It's all online and all on your schedule. You could go from start to covered in less than 10 minutes with no health exam required, with over 1,700 five-star reviews, the rated is excellent on Trust Pilot. Fabric has more than just life insurance. Their easy digital platform also lets you create wills, access college savings funds, and manage your family's finances right from your phone. So your family is prepared for anything.

Join the thousands of parents who trust Fabric to protect their family. Apply today in just minutes at meatfabric.com slash shon. That's meatfabric.com slash shon. M-E-E-T fabric dot com slash shon policies issued by western southern life assurance company not available in certain states prices subject to underwriting and health questions very poorly understood laws by former presidents the even trump i think this is where he fell short is that the advisers who came from that same managerial class me be in the national security establishment i love Trump's instincts to have got John Bolton in charge of as your chief and most important foreign policy person

as your national security advisor. He's an old school neocon, so Trump has his hands hamstrung a little bit if the guy you're working through actually has a completely different vision. Same thing for the administrative state. He wanted to dismantle the deep state, but they told him things like, oh, you can't do it because there are civil service protections. Well, here's my suggestion. Read the law, okay? And I have the civil service protections only apply to individual

firings because the thing they're supposed to protect against, and we can debate whether we like this or not, but this is the law, that we don't want a president who's elected by the public to politicize the firing of any particular expert, because say, let's say you're, you know, some underling in the State Department, and you said something I don't like about, you know, abortion, but you're a competent person, and I'm the president, I say, well, fire him.

That's what the laws are designed to protect against. Okay. We could debate whether that's a good thing or not, but that's just how the civil service rules work. On their own terms, those laws do not apply to mass layoffs. Say, I instead come in and want to say that I want to lay off 75% of the people or shut down this agency, the civil service protections don't apply to that. I'm the terms of their own law. So you have trauma. I mean, the people around them basically

did not want him to do the things he wanted to do. So they tell him, I don't know, the civil service protections stop you from those firings. How about actually go into the root original purpose and then read the law and actually say, all right, well, how about just a mass firing? And mass layoffs are absolutely what I am bringing to the Washington, DC, Federal bureaucracy. Take some other laws, you know, the 1977 Presidential Reorganization Act. This is a law that basically says that there's limited circumstances, or do they tell Trump, you want to shut down an agency, you have to ask Congress. Generally, that's true, but there are laws on the books that say under certain limited

circumstances, if it's going to stimulate the economy, or if it eliminates redundant agencies, then you absolutely as the president already have the authority as the chief executive, just like a board of directors gives it to a CEO, Congress has already given the CEO of the authority, in this case the US president, to shut down those divisions. What agencies in particular would you

shut down other than the FBI? Department of Education CDC IRS ATF nuclear regulatory commission Talked about the FBI extensively and that's just the start I think that we're going to continue to go down that list would you replace them with other agencies? In certain cases. Yes, in certain cases. No, so if you want to talk about the FBI Maybe we can since let's talk about the FBI, maybe we can, since...

Let's talk about the FBI. ...shared interest there. It's topical right now when we're having this conversation. So in the FBI's case, I would shut it down. I wouldn't build something else to take its place, but I would make good judgments on how we still carry out the functions that we need to have carried out without a corrupt bureaucracy in the middle. So at the local level, let's just start there.

You have local police and local prosecutors. You don't have a separate investigative bureaucracy sitting in between. Well, the federal level, you've got U.S. prosecutors and you've got the U.S. marshals. We have this separate bureaucracy built in the legacy of J. Edgar Hoover sitting in between. That's part of the problem, excuse me.

So I wanna go deep on this. There's 35,000 some odd employees at the FBI. 15,000 of them are doing good honest work. They're generally the investigators on the front line, the agents on the front line. Well, we need them, but actually one of the things that's happened in the FBI is they've lost all specialization. Right, so this is part of a cultural shift.

This is what happens in a bureaucracy, even in a company, same thing happens in the federal government, is they all just end up being a bunch of generalists. But they're worse than it, busting up child sex trafficking rings, or worse at investigating drug crimes. See, the influx of fentanyl by mules and coyotes

coming through the tunnels, cartel-financed tunnels underneath our southern border, even financial crimes don't have the sophistication to go after true white collar theft today. And so a bunch of journalists who are ineffective at their jobs, because the FBI is this generalist institution, when what I would say is those 15,000

after we shut down the FBI, still have a job in the federal government, we're just gonna move them to either the US marshals or the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, or the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Well, they will, by the way, have greater specialization at agencies. Those three agencies have not been politically corrupted in the same way the FBI has and carry out their work. That's 15,000 of the 35,000.

The other 20,000, they're really the true bureaucrats. And that's the source of the politicization. That's the source of the rot. It's almost not even their fault because if you have, it's just a lot of human nature. This happens at the US Federal Reserve too, which I can talk about in a second. When you have a bunch of people who are showing up to work, who should have never had that job in the first place, the biggest problem isn't just their head count costs, that's a problem too.

But it's the fact that when they're supposed to show up to work, when they're not supposed to, they find things to do, right? That's actually more damaging. So those 20,000 people are gonna be sent home and they have to find honest work in the private sector. Truth is, we have more private sector jobs today than we do have people in this country.

So this could be good for our economy, good for lifeblood, it might even be good for them. To get back into the real world, understand what honest work looks like. But when I say shut down the FBI, and since I've been saying this, I'm grateful that other candidates have now taken this on, and that's great,

but we live in a moment where it takes a president who isn't a parrot for somebody else's slogans, be it another candidate or be it a political consultant class or a mega donor. We live in complicated times. And I think it requires an outsider, but a president who has a first personal understanding of how to get the job done. And that's what called me into this. I didn't think I was going to be running for president right now. A year ago, if you told me, this is what I'd be doing right now,

I'd say you were nuts and that sounds like a sharp poke in the eye. But the reality is, I don't think we have 20 years to work with as a country. I don't think we're done yet. I think we still have an opportunity to say, we are on our way up. Okay, maybe we have some bumps along the way, but that we're still just a little young, going through our own version of adolescence, our teenage years, figuring out who we're gonna be.

That's the optimistic way I'd like to see it, and I think it can be so. But if we wait another 20 years, I think that's the ball game, and I think right now we live in a moment where it's gonna take a unique combination of traits But if we wait another 20 years, I think that's the ball game. And I think right now, we live in a moment where it's going to take a unique combination of traits to see this through and get that job done. And a standard professional politician is just not going to be able to do it. They're wired in the way they are for a reason.

It's going to take someone coming in from the outside. How are you going to find the right people to surround yourself with when you get in there? I mean, yeah. We know Trump had a hell of a time with that. Yeah, so look, I mean, first of all, I want to say, I think Trump was an excellent president. I think that the fact that there's a bunch of people that would rather see me bashing the guy who I think was probably the best president of the 21st century, definitely the best president of the 21st century, and whose election over Hillary Clinton in 2016 was probably the single most important political event of my lifetime.

No, I'm not going to sit here and bash him. I respect him and his legacy and I think we got to carry that forward. But I will also learn from the areas where he fell short. That's what I'll say is maybe if I was in his position in back in 2016, I would have done the same thing. But this isn't about me or him. It's about the country, right? And so building on that foundation,

one of the things we have to learn is that, it's not a one-man job in the end. You're gonna need people who you trust around you. And some of this is just a question of time, right? I mean, we're worried about winning an election. You're just not gonna have the time to get started on the job. And the first year is where most of the work actually gets done.

And I think this is one of the big disappointments in the momentum stoppers of Trump. I mean, the top one was the fact that his presidency was beset by a false basis impeachment witch hunt that they went on on a made up Russia pollution hoax. But the second thing that was was a little bit of an own goal was the air we took out of the balloon when President Trump failed to secure the number one legislative victory he promised on the campaign trail, which was to repeal and replace Obamacare because Congress refused to do it, a Republican-controlled Congress in Senate. And so that took a little bit of the wind out of the sales.

And I think he just didn't have the right people around him driving that through. I think it was a failure of execution of the people who reported into him. So that's a long way of saying we're already starting. You're already done abiding people. Absolutely. So I spent the first three months. There's a big team that worked on this for us. I didn't find, first of all, the federal judges, because those, when we get into office, we can't waste time on that. We got to get those judicial appointments right all the way through, especially coming off the heels of a Biden administration that rolled back some of the good that happened, much of the good that happened on the appeals courts and the district courts under Trump.

So we're already ready to go with that. I've published my list of appellate court nominees, of prospective Supreme Court nominees. And so we're already rolling. That train has already left the station. That's out there. Now we're moving to other positions in the federal government. And one of the temptations, Sean, is to focus on the cabinet level positions, because that's

what we'll get headlines during a campaign. And let's be honest, we have a campaign yet to win, right? But if we're really also focusing on the actual substance, the more important positions are positions like the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, the HR department of the Executive Branch, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, it's like the CFO of the Executive Branch, the CFO of the government. These are positions that don't grab headlines, but if you're talking about ultimately dismantling

the administrative state, that's what I'm going in to do. The plumbing is what matters. And the people in those positions, Sean, and those positions too, for me, are gonna have to be bulldogs that are unidirectionally implementing my vision for reducing the federal employee headcount

by over 75 percent, rescinding most federal regulations, which I believe are unconstitutional because they didn't go through Congress. And I think this is also one of the areas where I can learn from the Trump experience where he put people in those roles who ended up being ambassadors for the deep state back to the president explaining all the reasons why you couldn't do things. In the OPM and OMB roles, no. I want bulldogs, people who are my ambassador to the administrative state and will see this through and stop at nothing and break walls and break glass until they get the thing done.

And so a lot of those people, I think, will be in those kind of positions will be fiercely anti-government, even libertarian oriented in their orientation, not really coming from the traditional Republican party ranks. And then when it comes to the cabinet position, sure, we're going to need people, you know, the Secretary of State, who are a realist when it comes to foreign policy rather than a neocon and people whose policy objectives align with mine. But what I'm focused first is on the plumbing positions. The other thing we're doing right now, actually, this is the first time I'm sharing this in public, but might as well.

I mean, I think the public deserves to know is we have a sort of a clause that exercise in our own campaign where we are setting up a plan to cut 75% of those federal employees. I want 50% of them cut by the end of year one. That is a monumental undertaking to get this right. And so we're not going to be able to interview each of those people, let alone make the good judgments about who's on which side. So I'm working with a team of people from the business world, from the world of from the investment world, from the venture capital world, from the world of psychology, from the world of organizational behavior, and also with

experience in government to put together large-scale screening tests. So on multiple attributes, not just competence, but even more importantly, psychological attributes, work ethic attributes, perspectives on the Constitution, restraint of someone who believes whether or not they should be more restrained, or whether or not they should be more expansive in the roles that they carry out in the federal government. By about February of next year, I think we will be in a position to put out our screening filter. And then by March 1 next year, we're already going to have that team in motion ready to hit the ground running when I take over by the following January, January 20, 2025.

That's not the start line. We have a running start to that start line. And I think that that's what it's going to take to be able to see this through and get that job done. Well, that was actually my next question is if you have an estimation on how long it would take to complete this. Sounds like the majority of it would be done in year one. Yes.

And I think the reality is, I mean, history teaches this to us. By year two, you're bogged down and you're legislative priorities. And so this is one of the things that I'm doing a little bit differently than pretty much every president in modern history, maybe Reagan, you could actually point to as the last president who got this right. Presidents make this mistake all the time

and it's an understandable one. And the way they campaign, you know if they're gonna make that mistake based on you seeing how they campaign. Do they campaign on legislative promises? Democrat Republican, this isn't a partisan thing. Say here are the laws I will pass. Here's the only little fuffle in that. You're working with a 500 plus person body on Capitol Hill to see that through.

That is designed to be cumbersome. That is designed to be slow.ome. That is designed to be slow. And I'm not complaining about that. Our founding fathers wanted it to work that way, but that is designed to be a laborious process. I'm looking at it a little bit differently. I do have a legislative agenda and that's what I want to get to by the end of year one.

But year one for me, the focus is actually getting the things done that I don't need either the commissioner forgiveness of congress for. Running the executive branch of the government, that is where the deep state resides. That is where we can actually, the commander and chiefs powers rest. Why are our US military troops stationed in God knows where 1.3 million serving today? 700,000 more plus more than that in reserve Station in places where many of them shouldn't be all of whom would be proud to actually solve the problem of American deaths on American soil resulting from Fentanyl crossing the southern border for example

So I've said that as commander-in-chief in month one I will station the US military along our southern border, for example. So I've said that as Commander-in-Chief in month one, I will station the US military along our southern border, building the wall, was not enough. There are cartel-financed tunnels as we talked about underneath that wall. And so one of the things that I've said is we'd station the US military there. I've said that I would end the Department of Education, for example, or these other departments that the US President can do on existing legal authority that we talked about earlier. I would end a lot of the executive orders that we have inherited as a burden, as an albatross from prior presidents. I actually pushed Trump's people on this. Why didn't you rescind executive order 1-1-246? That was the one that Lyndon Johnson signed that requires any government contractor. That's over 20% of the US workforce

working for a government contractor, anybody who does business with the federal government, to adopt race-based quota systems in their hiring. All it takes a president with a pen, draw a line through that old executive order. That isn't ruling by fiat. That is fixing the rule by fiat that came in the past. Many of these from Biden, from Obama,

some from Bill Clinton as well. Take a line, cross it straight through. Jimmy Carter had some awful ones. Lyndon Johnson had the worst ones of all. That's something that I'm focused on early on in the presidency. Replacement for J. Powell, federal of the the chairman of the federal reserve. I get that appointment power in January 2026 have that lined up with plans of reform of the US federal reserve. So that's what will give us the momentum boost see see the way

I'm thinking about this is the pinprick in the balloon in Trump's case was he went all in for repeal and replace Obamacare, Congress did not want to come along. I didn't think he had the right bulldogs in there to drive that process through, but then that deflated the momentum behind what else he could get done. The way I'm looking at it is in reverse. We're gonna win this election in a landslide.

It has to be a landslide. This cannot be, for so many reasons, this cannot be a 50.1 electoral margin. This has to be a Ronald Reagan 1980 style moral mandate. And then use that momentum to fix the executive branch of the government. Fix your own house, right? And then by year two, we use that momentum to be in a strong position to say, okay, here's the legislative agenda.

And we'll work with Congress over that cycle. And that works in our favor because the congressional elections will be coming up the next year. And most of what I'm going to do are going to be policies that will work in favor of those congressmen and senators getting reelected because I think we're doing the right thing for this country. So that's kind of how I learned from my predecessors to be able to say, you know, I'm not some know at all that says I was born with this knowledge and I would have done a better job

than them. No. I just believe in studying the experiences of others, learning what we can from it so that we can aspire to be better. And that's the way I look at leading as president. Well, it sounds like you got a great plan. One more thing I want to talk about with breaking this stuff up. And that we hear a lot of talk about term limits. You get the career politicians, you get the geriatrics in there, they don't know what's going on. Everybody says term limits. Here's my fear. And I'm not as spun up on all of this as you are obviously. So forgive

my ignorance. But I know you're also a in an avid to a guy. Correct. And so, if we amend this and we make a term limits, doesn't that open it up to amend everything, including 2A? So, it depends. It's a great question. So, it depends on the method of amendment. So, there's two ways to amend the Constitution. One is what's called the legislative method, where Congress or the president can propose it through Congress that it comes from the federal government.

You get a supermajority in Congress, then it goes to the states for ratification. That'd be my preferred method. It was Reagan's preferred method. The other method is still, it's constitutional. It exists, and I recognize the authority to do it. And I celebrate the people across the country who have enough civic spirit to try to create one of these as an article five convention, a convention of the states, where it comes bottom up from the states,

where they propose that. And in that convention, you're right. You know, you gotta be prepared of what comes out. My view is constitutional amendments are slow and cumbersome. So if there's three categories for where I'm driving my change, I just care about effectiveness. I'm going in there for eight years. I think about what do I want to do and what do I want to say when I leave office in January 2033.

My older son won't even be in high school by then. We're doing this for their generation. I want them to live in the country that is not the same country, a better one than even the one I grew up in which is the greatest country still known to mankind and human history if you ask me. Few things I want to say is we have three branches of government again, not four, the administrative states gone, we're not dependent on our enemy for our modern way of life that's coming to China. Our economy is again growing once again

at the fastest pace in the developed world as it has for most of our history. It can be again, and that we are once again proud. Most of us certainly proud to be citizens of this nation. That much I know I can deliver. And in order for me to think about the most effective path to get there between now and January 2033, that's my real destination, not November 2024. I have to go in order of effectiveness. First, what

can the president do without lawmaking using existing legal authority? Next, how do you go through Congress to pass the laws under the Constitution as it exists? And then third, look at what amendments we might want to make to the Constitution itself. And the legislative method of doing it doesn't open up the can of warms that you talked about, but you're right. Term limits would require, which I do favor. Term limits would require an amendment to the Constitution. I favor hard citizenship requirements, like passing that same civics test that an immigrant has to pass or else, at the very least, serving this country in some capacity for six months, that would require a constitutional amendment.

So we're not going first with that. You got to go in the right order. That comes later in the presidency. Now I do want to say one thing about terminates because it does get talked about a lot. I'm in favor of it. I think other candidates are too and it's important. But it goes back to the first point. I made the, the real fact is that the people we might even be term limiting are today aren't even the ones who are relevant. Right? They're just

puppets and they're just puppets. And they enjoy being puppets, right? Showing up on cable television at night and then going home and get a, you know, adaboy on your back from your wife and your kids or your people in your community and whatever. That's a fine job for the people who select that, but they're just frontmen, right, for the real agenda.

And so what I actually favor and can implement without amending the Constitution, without even requiring a law from Congress, is turn limits for the bureaucrats, the people who are running the show. That's where we need fresh lifeblood. So what I've said is I, as the leader of the executive branch,

if I'm elected, if I as the leader of the executive branch, if I'm elected, if I as the leader of the executive branch cannot work for the taxpayer and collect a paycheck for more than eight years, which I think is a good thing, then neither should any of those federal bureaucrats reporting into me either. Forget the civil service protections, it's an eight-year norm for most positions. Are there gonna be some exceptions fine? But the norm, our HR policy, the norm, is that it's eight years, no more than eight consecutive years

working in that position. That is how you suck the lifeblood out of the deep state. Send people back to find honest work in the private sector. How you create a culture of service for people actually serve in that role too. Now, I think we only need 25% of the employees that we actually have there. So that's a lot of a smaller number of roles to fill anyway. People say, how will you fill all those roles? Well, here's the answer. We're only going to have a quarter of those roles left in the first place. But that is how you drive generational change. So what's the legal authority? Well, there's a little used US statue, five USC 3302. It gives the US president sole authority to set the regulations

governing the office of personnel management, the HR department. So getting corporate America today, and it's funny how these parallels exist in the private sector, you might think if you're an employee working at a giant corporation, that the CEO has no say, and it's the head of HR that actually determines what your hiring policies are. But the way it's really supposed to work

and the way it works on the books is that the head of HR still reports into the CEO. Well, our executive branch actually works the same way, if you read the law, right? OPM still reports into to the US president. Yes, OPM has its own regulations, the Office of Personnel Management, but 5USC 3302 gives the US president sole authority to set those regulations. And so Sean, I think that's why it takes a unique combination, takes an outsider, somebody

who has been a CEO, who has not grown up within the government, but also someone who has a constitutional scholar level understanding of the US Constitution and laws of this country. And those two things don't usually go together, right? One type tends to be academic, they don't get things done, the other type, you know, and it put in a complimentary fashion, a guy like Trump in this category versus professional politicians, break glass, get things done, but may not have a native understanding of the laws in the Constitution first,

personally, after relying on advisors, we have a moment where you cannot depend on relying on the advisor class. Because the advisor class will tell me no for the same reason They told Trump know Here's one difference though, and I give Trump a lot of credit for this Is that the current Supreme Court which he constituted and gave us Agrees six to three with my understanding of everything. I've just told you

So will we get sued? You're done right we will but That actually takes it to the Supreme Court, which then codifies everything that we're talking about here, into judicial precedent, okay, which means the next president who comes after me won't have his hands tied in the same ways that my hands were tied and even more so, the ways that Trump's hands were tied. That is how we drive change on the time scale of history.

So you have a real plan here. That was the best plan I've heard. Actually, I don't, everybody else just says they're going to do it. But I've not heard a real plan by anybody. So I'm grateful for forms like this rather than a three minute hit on cable television because in that or a 30 second ad on television that you pay for and plant across the country because in that forum, you know, it's a two-dimensional TV screen and that's all we have. And the truth is, there's only two things that allow an outsider like me to make this

possible right now. If this was a traditional media landscape where everybody in the country voted in the primary on the same day, forget about it, I wouldn't even bother. There's no chance an outsider like me can come in. It's about who has the most superpec money that can put up ads in 30 second and 60 second formats on television to raise name ID and then by the way networks reward the people who buy ads from them and that's exactly how the ballgame would be played. But the two things that are different is I win New Hampshire.

These states go first. I've been there more than any other candidate. People in those states are able to meet you. Get a three dimensional feel of who's real and who's not by being in the room. But the other big change is frankly, people like you doing what you are, right? This is direct to voter, direct to viewer conversations of a form that you don't have in traditional linear cable media. And those two things are what make it possible.

And I believe likely that we'll succeed in only winning the nomination in the presidency, but hopefully, hopefully succeed in leading the national revival of those 1776 principles that we have long forgotten. Well, I'd like to commend you for doing it. I was going to wait till the end to do that, but I've had another candidate on who was supposed to fly up here, turned into a 15-minute Zoom call, which was just a bunch of sound bites. And it's going to take somebody like you that's going to get out amongst the people, and not do the traditional five-minute news-hid scripted answers.

And it shows you're not too good to be amongst the people. And I really appreciate that, and I the people. And I really appreciate that. And I think a lot of people really appreciate that. Thank you, man. I don't wanna let you get. One thing I'm trying to do in this process, I'll just lift the curtain, how the sausage is made. You don't know funny reason,

cum laude Harris was in some sort of situation too, is a lot of times when candidates don't wanna come in person and do a sit down, and it's the same political consultants, right? They're like the equivalent of the permanent deep state, but in the campaign world. Right. I mean, the candidates come and go, but those guys are here for good. The little trick they play is, I'm not making this up, is when someone's doing an interview,

virtually, they're doing it usually facing a camera where there's a teleprompter in front of them and they have people who are putting up the themes to hit as they're talkers, as they call them, talkers, talking points, to be able to actually flash them such that it looks like they're looking at you on the screen. They're literally looking at words that remind them. And so it's just it's just a tactic again in modern politics where everything you can to hide from the truth. That's the way the game is designed to be played. And

my view is that if you're not willing to sit across the table from a podcaster NBC News, a 22-year-old in a college campus, you're probably unfit to sit across the table from Xi Jinping, and so I'm trying to practice what we preach, but I'm grateful for folks like you as well because the traditional media landscape has not been this country any great service in the last 10 years. I don't know if I've ever been this excited to represent a brand. I'm talking about first form. I just align so well with what they've got. First form is a supplement company. They have just about every supplement you can possibly imagine.

All grade A stuff. Let's go through some of the stuff that some of my favorites. All right, here we go. One, Enduro Performance. This is a non-stimulant pre-workout mix. Guess what? Made in the USA. Protein sticks and the protein bar. Look, I'm an entrepreneur, I'm super busy. I don't have time to go to lunch. In fact, I don't even know what a lunch break is. This is my lunch for the most part. Then we got Opta Red's 50. Guess what?

Also made in the USA. So is the protein bar and the beef sticks actually. But Opta Red's 50, guess what guys? Beats, super healthy for you. Guess what? They taste like shit. This doesn't. Two scoops throw it in there.

You get all the benefits of having beats with OptiReds 50. Then we've got protein. Everybody needs protein. If you're not taking protein, you should be, especially if you work out my favorite chocolate banana. Guys, let me tell you something else about first form. The owner CEO, Andy Frizella guy has made a phenomenal company. True American Dream story started from absolutely nothing sleeping on a mattress in the back room of a very small shop. Now He's built an empire. Check it out. Go to firstform.com slash SRS. He's also

put a culture into his company that this entire country could use right now. Gave me a ton of inspiration. I used to listen to his podcast, real as fuck, when I was building my first studio in the attic of my house three and a half years ago, right when the show started. Can you believe that? Now I'm repping the brand. And if you haven't checked out their podcast, you might want to, like I said,

real as fuck, check it out. I'm actually on there. I do a pretty decent job, but let me know what you think. Anyways, once again, go to firstform.com slash SRS. And when you get there, if you order $75 or more worth of product, guess what? You're getting free shipping, but you're only getting that. If you go to firstform.com slash SRS, that's one STPH, oh, RM slash SRS, ladies and gentlemen,

this is a real American company that aligns with all the values that America stands for. Check them out. I wanna tell you about a product that personally resonates with me as a former longtime dipper in the military, and that's Black Buffalo. You see, when I was in the SEAL teams,

almost everybody in my platoon dipped tobacco, including myself, but I'm the leader of my own pack and I wanted to quit, and that's what I did do. And that is why Black Buffalo chewing tobacco alternative really resonates with me. Black Buffalo is a tobacco alternative that does not contain tobacco leaf or stem. It's everything you love about dip, nothing you don't.

No compromise. It's made here in the USA with only the finest ingredients like specific varieties of edible, green leaves, food grade ingredients, and comes in classic flavors like winter green mint, straight peach, and even blood orange. Black Buffalo delivers the same experience as traditional smokeless products. The Black Buffalo herd never compromises taste, value, or quality. Being part of the Black Buffalo herd is not about following. It's about charging ahead on a path to keep and honor the ritual.

If you're a smokeless tobacco user, get Black Buffalo a try. I'm very confident I'll see you on the trail. Black Buffalo is available for sale online and in thousands of stores across the country like racetrack here in Tennessee. Head to blackbuffalo.com to buy or check the store locator to find a retailer near you. Use code SRS at blackbuffalo.com right now and say 15% off your first order. Black buffalo, no compromise, different leaf, same ritual. Warning, this product contains nicotine. nicotine is an addictive chemical. Black buffalo products are strictly intended for use by current adult

21 plus consumers of nicotine or tobacco products. If you can't trust yourself to think on your feet in a long form conversation, you got no business being in the White House. Yeah. I agree with that. That's just the way it is. But let's, you know, I haven't heard much about your background. Sure. And so I'd like to cover that on this channel. And so let's just start with your childhood. Where'd you grow up? Born and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. First generation American. Yes. My parents are both immigrants. They came to this country with almost no money a little over 40 years ago,

and they came with a work ethic and they came with a desire to get an education. And my mom was a geriatric psychiatrist. She had to care of patients with Alzheimer's disease in nursing homes in Southwest Ohio. My dad worked at the GE plant in even Dale Ohio under Jack Welch's tenure at GE, which was interesting as a time to go through cycles of job security when we were growing up. But

but anyway, they they lived their version of the American dream and they most importantly gave my brother and I the foundation for us to live hours and so each of us went on to found successful companies that helped a lot of people in this country. And now I've got two sons of my own. And I hope we can create that same American dream for them. Me too. What did you like to do when you were growing up?

Where were you, hobbies? I actually, I like sports a lot, but I ended up focusing on being a tennis player, because so, anyway, those layoffs at GE, they came hard when I was in middle school, so it was about fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth grade. My dad ended up keeping his job by being able to go to night school in law school because GE needed patent attorneys, people who were lawyers, but also had some training as engineers. And so he went to night school for those four years.

And we were doing all the sports, my brother and I, a soccer basketball, you know, tennis, et cetera. But my mom needed one place where we could both be in the same place at the same time when she had both kids on her hands. And so that got us both into tennis because that was the place where you wouldn't have two different soccer games and two different locations. And that actually worked out really well where I ended up focusing on something that I became pretty passionate about. It worked out even better for my brother

because he's younger than me. And so he got better than I did by practicing against his older brother and playing with older kids along the way because my mom needed us in one spot. And so he ended up being one of the top players in the country. I was never quite that good, but I got competitive enough

and still keep it up to this day. I was a pianist as well. We had a piano teacher who came home. She's probably one of the bigger influences on even some of my thinking really. As it, it was early, but she planted some seeds as it related to probably what became my political perspectives today actually.

What was one of those suits? Well, she gave me actually, so it was actually a funny story that led up to it. So she was pretty strict, right? Like, we would fear her coming if we had not practiced that week, which was many weeks, it turned out. And so the one thing that would somehow, we discovered would throw her off her tilt is, this is Bill Clinton's impeachment and all of that, you know, back in the 1990s. And so this was like all the talk everywhere. So if we brought something up relating to Bill Clinton or let alone Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, we know that like of the 30 minutes we would buy ourselves

some time where her anger at us for not practicing could be channeled a little bit towards an even bigger bad guy. And so we would do, we would, like on a bad week, we would know that, oh did you watch, you know, see what Ken started the other day or, you know, and so that would send her at least on track. I would listen to her, she had interesting thoughts on this stuff, but most importantly, it was to avoid the wrath of our not having actually practiced, which we feared deeply. And you know, it turned out though, we thought we were tricking her, but she's like, I know

what you're, later, she came back one day with a book and she says, I know what you're doing. I know exactly what you're doing. You did practice as we can. I brought something for you. And so she brought a book. It was Ronald Reagan's biography. And she's like, here's what you get, read it.

And now we're gonna talk about the piano, but you wanna talk about politics, read this. And that actually had an impact on me. It, you know, I mean, you're reading it as a young person in middle school, maybe early high school. And the seeds get planted somewhere in there. And you know, later, you know, in my college days, I was certainly was libertarian before I became conservative.

I still have pretty deeply rooted libertarian instincts, but I'm definitely conservative today. But yeah, I think a lot about her actually. And what, what, I mean, your parents from wherever are, they lean left. My mom doesn't. she's, she leans in a pretty similar direction to me. My dad has, he wouldn't call himself left,

but he has definitely the other side of me on many issues, which is great, because we have open debates about it at the dinner table. Even when he was going to law school, actually, so some of those nights, so my mom would take us for the tennis, but sometimes we'd have to divide, they'd have to divide and conquer a little bit. And so my mom would take us for the tennis, but sometimes we'd have to divide, they'd have to divide and conquer a little bit. And so my mom would have my brother,

I actually would often go with my dad to those law classes at night, and I would sit in the back of the class. And then when we'd be coming back, he'd be railing against Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, which actually part of what probably informed my views too, is I would take the other side of my dad and we would, you know, have debates.

And it's probably good for me. In sixth or seventh grade, most of the other kids probably didn't know who, Garnes Thomas or Antensculeo was, and I was sitting in the back of law class with my dad, so we would have 45 minutes on a drive back to talk about it. And so, anyway, yes, the fact of he and I having different views goes back, I think, a long time.

And in some ways, I might have even gotten my different views from actually wanting to be contrary and against my dad growing up. Interesting. It's interesting. Yeah. What was it that turned you from libertarian and to conservative? I realized that I cared more about issues, I, what should I say?

I cared about more issues than the narrow set of issues that libertarians care about, right? So there's more to me than the first step for me was there's more to me than the libertarian in me. I was a libertarian rapper in college. I was, I enjoyed exercising ideas through we'd go to like free styles and open my books. You were a rapper. I was a mediocre rapper.

Yeah, a libertarian with a libertarian orientation. But I realized that okay, libertarians is all about the relationship between the state and the individual. Okay, and that's really important. Get the state the heck out of my hair. That's the way I feel about it. I continue to feel about it to this day.

Mm-hmm. But there's still the deeper questions of, what do we do in that now free world, that world that's free of state intervention, what then? And I think those are really important questions that relate to discovering who am I? Who is my family? What does that mean to me? What is true? What is God? Am I part of something bigger than myself? How does that relate to the culture that I create both as a father and individual and yes, even as a citizen. And I think those are important questions for a well-flourishing society that go beyond

just the relationship between the government and the individual. And I care deeply about those questions. And so that's what led me to say, okay, I'm more than just a libertarian. And then I started to shed the label a little bit even more when, frankly, I became disappointed, disillusioned a little bit. When I see other self-professed libertarians not really even standing up for the hard positions that they're committed to with their views, I could give you one example that's relevant to some of the books I've written.

So in Woking, the first book that I wrote, one of the ideas that I threw out there was to say that if we're going to have protected classes on the basis of race and gender and sexual orientation and religion and national origin to say you can't fire people for these criteria, well then I think we should, if we're going to have them at all, we should add political expression to that list to say that if you can't fire somebody for being black or gay or Muslim or white or Jewish or Christian or Hindu or whatever, that you should not be able to fire them for being an outspoken conservative or an outspoken liberal for that matter either.

We should apply that standard even handedly. And the critiques I got were from libertarians who say that self-professed libertarians at least. It's an inner of that intervention in the free market. The market should sort this out. That if these businesses are firing these great conservatives over here, then that's a business opportunity for these other businesses over there to hire them instead. And that we should not want to burden businesses with regulations deciding who they can and cannot fire or associate themselves with. At my core, I'm actually sympathetic to that, but the thing that's disappointing to me is

that you can't have it both ways, actually. And in fact, it was the intervention in the market by creating the protected classes, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on. Those protected classes are actually what created the viewpoint discrimination we see in the private sector. People say, what do you mean? Well, here's how it worked. Those civil rights laws were passed. And then the equal employment opportunity commission, which is none other than the alphabet soup of the deep state, interprets those statutes to then say, and they tell companies, and I've been a CEO, right? And you see, you know, who goes through HR training understands this, that you cannot create. Now, you cannot only not only not discriminate

based on those attributes, which is what the civil rights law is saying. But now per the deep state's interpretation of it and application of those regulations now to companies, it also means that you cannot create what they call a hostile work environment for those protected classes. Well, how does one create a hostile work environment? Let's talk about it. Real case of a grandmother who wore a red sweater every Friday to work to celebrate veterans and to celebrate our troops. And she had a little group that got together on Fridays for lunch at the office to do it.

A member of a protected class complained to HR claiming that that was a microaggression, that that created a hostile work environment. So they talked to the lady and they say, hey, we don't want you doing this in the workplace anymore. She didn't like it, but she's okay fine. She still wears a red sweater to work on Fridays, and then she hangs it on the back of her chair at work. Well, that's still, apparently, a vestige of the microaggression, at which point they

had her remove that. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stands on the side of this being an actual hostile work environment case. Okay? So now you're a company that could be liable under the civil rights laws for creating a hostile work environment which creates the very conditions for viewpoint discrimination in the private sector. So now where my libertarian friends on this, they should be saying we want to repeal the protected classes. Get rid of the protected classes.

Let the free market work. If people want to fire these silly businesses, want to fire good conservatives or good black people or good white people or good Hindu people or good women, that, or good Hindu people, or good women. That's an opportunity for a different business to hire them, and I think that's true, actually. And I don't think we would see that type of systematic discrimination in the workforce,

because the market would, I think, most the correct for it. But none of the libertarians I know had the spine to stand up and say that. They only had the jelly spine to stand up to me to say if I think say then, okay, then protect political expression. They said that's a violation of libertarian principles. There's a long answer to your question,

but it's actually a pretty important question. No, it makes a lot of sense. I actually have true libertarian instincts, but I care as well about culture and family, and I believe that the revival of faith, not by the government, but maybe by the government getting out of the way, the revival of faith, not by the government, but maybe by the government getting out of the way, the revival of faith and family in our country, these are good things. Libertarians don't have views one way or another on that, I do.

That's why I'm a conservative. But I'm also disappointed in the libertarians who will say that adding political expression as a protective class is some libertarian violation when they don't say a peep, and they become the lapdogs of the reigning establishment when they don't touch the civil rights statutes, which I absolutely do think, did have some bad unintended consequences for this country. And the fact that I'm willing to say that but the libertarians aren't, says that I'm done with that label, and I'm going to stand for, I don't even use the word conservative even that much, the pro-American label. I like that.

That's what I'm leading as a pro-American movement. Let's talk about your school. You got through high school. You went to Harvard, correct? Yeah, so I went to Public Schools 3rd grade, went to St. X High School in Cincinnati, St. Xavier, I'm still on the board of St. X. And then I went to Harvard for college,

studied biology, I graduated 2007, with a degree in biology. I thought I was going to be a scientist. That was the track that I was on. I ended up actually getting into the world of biotech investing instead. There was a hedge fund that recruited on Harvard's campus, and these guys were smart. A lot of them were physicists. I tried a summer internship in the world of hedge funds at a different hedge fund.

I actually was applying more of my scientific acumen, even the molecular biology and everything else, in evaluating potential investments, then I was, you know, pipetting things in the lab. And so I was more passionate about that and actually had a knack that I discovered and interest certainly in investing and finding undervalued opportunities. If the crowd's running in that direction, maybe I gotta go in that direction and find opportunity. And to be honest, at the age of 22,

I was also hungry to make money, actually. My parents weren't rich. There was some guy named Jack Welch that had all this dominion and power over my dad and his company. Well, my parents wanted me to pursue some steady career track as a doctor that we had financial security that we didn't have to face layoffs. My question was, what about who's that other guy, right?

I think that's interesting to me. I went to school with kids at Harvard whose parents came from corridors that were totally unknown and unfamiliar to me that I say, okay, well, if they're able to do it, maybe I should focus on that instead. To tell you the truth, if I was to go back and do it again, I would advise the younger version of myself and also begin to think about maybe civic service a little earlier in my life, but just to be totally honest about it, I was ready to win in the system of free market capitalism and use and put to use my knowledge, base while doing it and being a scientist.

I mean, that's a 20 year career track to make, you know, at best one drug or one medicine. That's too long of a time horizon. I mean, my middle ages by then, I'm ready to get started now. It was intellectually stimulating, and yeah, I was ready to make some money. And so I joined a hedge fund in New York

and did so as a biotech investor. And it turned out I was actually, by, you know, some good fortune in my way, but I think I had some skill set for it too, tended to be pretty good at it. So I did start making a good amount of money at a young age, but for me more than the money was the learning curve. I was learning a lot.

And then when my learning curve, I felt like it started to flatten a little bit, even though I was making good money, I said, okay, I am interested in some of these other questions relating to law and justice and political philosophy that I hadn't really fully scratched while I was in college. I was reading stuff in my spare time in the evenings that, you know, are the kinds of things that I might have benefited from being a setting that was actually focused on this passion I discovered.

So I told my bosses at the hedge fund that I was going to leave and take a few years off and go to law school. I had a seat in law school at that point in time. So I said, hey guys, it's been good. I appreciate it. I probably want to come back and work here too when I'm done, but I'll see in a few years, at which point they said, no, no, no, don't leave.

I said, no, I think I really want to do this. I'm not going to do this any later than now. And they said, you can actually keep your job if you want to. Manage portfolio from us on your own time from New Haven. If you want to do that, go for it. Would you be up for that? I said, absolutely.

That sounded like a good gig. And so I kept my job, ended up going to law school at the same time for those three years. Glad I did it. There were three fun years, but perhaps most importantly, I saw I met my wife.

She was my next door neighbor, actually literally. She was diagonally across from me. And that was probably the most tangible thing that came out of those three years and it also Talked me a lesson. How long have you guys married? We've been married since 2015 so coming up on eight years But we've been together since 2011 congratulations. Yeah, thank you, man two kids in as well. You're welcome. You have kids I do I have a two-year-old Year two-year-old one on the way a little bit one on the way

year old. Yeah, two year old. One on the way. A little more. One on the way. Yeah. Yep. Yep. When are you expecting if you don't want me to answer? November. November. Mm hmm. Exciting, man. We had our second son last year and so mine are three and a half and one. Are they alike? They're not alike. Oh boy. They're not alike. I'm in trouble. And I don't think we did anything different. Okay. You got a good one. I got a good one. Yeah. Yeah. They're both good. They're both good. There's different ways of good. But, well, let's talk about the company that you started in, R-O-I-V-A-N-T. How do you say that?

Reuvent. Reuvent. Let's talk about that. What prompted that? Yeah, so it's actually, so I got out of law school. I had the dual job and full-time law school experience. When I'm done with law school, I had a lot of time on my hands because I had gotten used to getting my job done in a very efficient use of time with the team surrounding me

and otherwise. And so I ended up messing around a little bit with my extra time. I took a stand-up comedy course in New York City and it started to do some shows on the side. I was really wasting my time, actually. I was having fun. You were, hold on, you were a rapper and then you became a stand up comic. Yeah, I did about 10 shows in New York City, after I got out of the law school. Well, I was at my age of, but, and there were, and the best part of it was meeting some of

the other people who were there, because they were serious, right? People who were, who came to New York City to pursue that as they're calling. Many of whom were more naturally talented than me, though, it's amazing what that class did, actually. There's some basic tricks you could use to get to be half decent, even if you're not natively gifted, which I'm not, in this department. But that was one of the things I learned, actually, is you carry around a notebook everywhere you go. And if something irritates the heck out of you, you write it down in that notebook.

And usually there's something good there. It irritates you for a reason. Irritation, annoyance is a valuable, a useful emotion. And so, you know, I think that's one formula for developing good content for stand-up comedy, but it actually, for me, it ended up being a good formula for developing an idea to start a company. So all of those biotech companies that I'm meeting with as an investor, there are a lot of things that annoyed the heck out of me about the way those companies ran their businesses.

I mean, big pharma and biotech, it's like a bureaucracy. Actually, it's a regulated industry by a corrupt agency, the FDA, that makes for a 10-year multi-billion dollar process of developing a new medicine far more inefficient and bureaucratic than it needs to be. It's also a government-created monopoly system through the patent system that it just creates an industry that behaves like a government and that's pretty irritating when it happens. But I also spotted an opportunity as a consequence of that. And so it turns out that these people in big pharma, these scientists, they don't make really any serious money

if they're the ones who develop a successful drug. It's the executive ranks and the shareholders have benefit from it. But if they take a risk and they fail, then they're punished for it. Unless it's the same risk that every other pharma company takes and everybody else fails, then you're with the pack.

But if you take a risk that other people aren't willing to take and you fail, then you're a pariah and you might lose your job as a consequence. And you don't bear the financial upside of it anyway. So you have a bunch of people who have an incentive to go slowly. They don't care about getting to the answers quickly. And by the way, even if they did get there quickly, they're not benefiting if they succeed, but they do face the downside if they fail. So that creates a couple of opportunities. One opportunity is there's a range of drugs

and they move like herds. It's like a pack, mentality, and big pharma. Okay. And so they decide, okay, this is the hot area, but then they all decide, okay, something else in the hot area, they all move as a pack. It's almost softly coordinated, and the FDA aids in this too,

because the FDA decides what areas they're gonna make easier versus harder from a regulatory perspective. It's corrupt. But that leaves, or at least it did when I started the company, I think it still does today, opportunities to develop medicines that they then leave behind as the battleships really change course.

There's really a lot of opportunities still hanging in the wake of that battleship. If you're a business owner and you're hiring right now, you're also dealing with economic uncertainty. Now is the time more than any other time that you need to hire the right people faster and more efficiently than ever before to keep your costs down. Thankfully, there's a site like Zippercrooter.

From pricing to technology, everything that Zippercrooter does is for you, and what works best for you. And right now, you can try them for free at zippercrooter.com slash SRS. Here is how zippercrooter prioritizes your needs. Reach more qualified people. Zippercrooter sends your job post to 100 plus job sites. Beat out the competition for talent. Zipper Cruder lets you invite candidates you really want to apply to your job before other businesses can snag them. Hire the best with the help of a partner who's all about you. Zipper Cruder.

Four out of five employers who post on Zipper Cruder get a quality candidate within the first day. Just go to this exclusive web address to try Zipper Cruder for free, zippercruder.com slash SRS. Again, that zippercruder.com slash SRS, Zipper Cruder, the smartest way to hire. So what I said is, okay, we can develop some of those drugs

that they just dropped in the earlier mid stages of the process. Pick up the ones that are valuable. You don't know which ones are going to work for sure, but you can use a data-driven lens to figure out which ones have a good shot. Build a portfolio of those, some of them are going to work, some of them are going to fail. But if enough of them work, that's the basis for building a billion-dollar company. So when I present that, plenty plan to people, people after that.

They say, well, why would these pharma companies leave these things behind if they have real promise? Well, a few years in, it was a multi-billion dollar company. And it was a company that now has developed drugs, five of which that I personally worked on are FDA-approved products today. One is a life-saving therapy in kids. Twenty of them are born a year, die of a genetic disease, where a hundred percent of them die by the age of three. Oh, wow. We worked on a therapy. It's now

FDA-approved. A majority of those kids live lives in normal duration. Another one's for prostate cancer. Another for women's health conditions that Pharma abandoned. They talk a lot about diversity in their hiring ranks. Well, you know, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, a lot of women's health conditions that were ignored. We developed medicines that are FDA approved today. So that was my career. Oh, and by the way, the unique feature of doing this was a business model where we said,

if those scientists then come or drug developers from those pharma companies come to us and they're working on the project, if that project succeeds, they get uncapped upside in it. So many of the people who came and worked in units of my company, they're now doing way, they did extraordinarily life-changing wealth creation for them that they would have never had in Big Pharma

and that was the business model for Reutven, which I led as CEO for seven years. Wow, that's amazing. Pharma hated me for it. All my big, big Pharma, they still do this day, actually. Let's talk about big Farma. Yeah. I've heard that big Farma is the world's biggest

lobbying organization. I think that's accurate. How much of the government do they control? They only control the portion of the government they need to control, which is the FDA, which is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and they're pretty effective at controlling it, actually. So a lot of the regulatory hurdle for developing a new medicine, that actually helps big pharma because it makes it harder for a competitor to scale that same cost of capital.

Simple story. So just think about the hypocrisy underlying this. You see what happened with the COVID vaccines, right? The same FDA that says, you have to take 10 years to develop a new medicine or a vaccine and spend billions of dollars. So much so that not only are we gonna not say it's safe, we won't even give an individual the opportunity to in their own free spirit with full information, try it. You don't even have

the right to try it if it hasn't been through 10 years of testing. We, the government will not give you that choice. Is the same government that then says, oh, but here's a vaccine that makes it through in less than one year. And you don't have the choice not to take it, your only choice is to take it. You can't believe those things at the same time, that here's a medicine that's been through five years of testing. And you don't have the choice to take it even if you want to. Is the same government that says that here's something that sailed through in less than one year, and you have no choice but not to take it. You can't believe those two things at the same time.

That's the product of hypocritical lobby. That's the answer. There you have it right there. Is big pharma wins on both sides of that trade? On one hand, they win from it having to take that much longer, because at least keeps the competition out for the normal process, but under circumstances where they're going to stand to benefit from it having to take that much longer because at least keeps the competition out for the normal process but under circumstances where they're gonna stand to benefit from it will get a fast track process to say not only do you get to develop it at the public taxpayers expense by the way funding

the entire process but mandates to have to take what they developed that's corrupt that's broken to my favor a dramatic drastic gutting of the FDA. It's something that even my time in industry, here's what they would say. I had views that were critical of the FDA, but I had to keep them to myself because

the thing they told me, and I was running a company, right? My job was not being a public figure or a spokesman. It was to be the CEO of a successful company that I was leading, thousands of people. Jobs created behind actually the medicines were developing. I can't just leave them hanging out to drive because I say something bad about the FDA. There's an old industry adage in Pharma, quiet. Everybody in Pharma knows this adage to be true. They say FDA never forgets. So if you say something about the FDA, they will make it hell for you. You will have hell to pay for it.

And it was funny, even when I went to law school, I mean, this is after years of being a biotech investor, it was like an eye-opening experience for me to say that wait, the FDA is actually bound by law. That was a revelation to me. If somebody's working in the industry, people in the farm industry aren't taught to think that way, the FDA is taught to be God. But the fact that they're bound by law,

that's like a novel notion for most people who work in the interstices of this industry. And so that's the way it works. What you think of as some mid-level government bureaucrat, whose name you'll never know and never care to know. This guy's like a king when it comes to the farm industry and what he wants, he gets the job on the way out, a lucrative job on the other side. So that's the way this works. It is a corrupt game. And you know what, now I'm not seeing you over that company.

I'm a free citizen, speaking freely. I'm not holding back. But I understand this deeply and in's always it's personal to me. It is a personal sense of mission to make sure that that administrative state that I've stared at eye to eye. Now it's time to expose to the rest of the public how that game is actually played. And it isn't pretty, is the answer.

Since we're on the topic of privatized companies controlling the government, I'd like to get into BlackRock. You have some great insight on that. We're seeing this woke LGBTQ plus, I mean, it's just being crammed down everyone's throat. Every company. Even, I mean, even the gay community, a lot of the gay communities, they're angry. They don't like this.

They don't want this push. Why, so it sounds like it's all coming from BlackRock because they own what, 80% of the companies or the majority shares, 80% of the companies on the S&P. Why are they pushing this? So it's BlackRock State Street, Vanguard, Invesco, you go down the list, but it's like an ESG cartel in this country. Okay, so go down the list, but it's like an ESG cartel in this country.

Okay, so here's the way this works. So I've gone deep on this issue. So if I'm going into too much depth or detail that's boring, just cut me off and we can move on. But this is a, this is my mission for the last three years before running for president. This is what I did, Okay, I just fight this stuff. Two of my books are about this and the most recent company I found it's strive was about fighting against this by offering an alternative.

So what happens is the largest asset managers in the world. Just take the three biggest ones, BlackRock, State, Street, and Vanguard. They're using 20 plus trillion dollars of our money. And when I say our money, trillion dollars of our money. And when I say our money, it literally means our money. Most people's money without them knowing it. It's happened to me. It's happened to probably most retirees. Their own money is invested in funds managed by these passive fund managers, BlackRock State-state and vanguard, that are using that capital to vote for policies and advocate for policies in corporate America's

boardrooms that most Americans, including the owners of capital, do not agree with, and which do not advance their best financial interests. I'll give you examples. Voting for racial equity audits at companies like Apple and Home Depot. Scope three emissions caps and climate plans at companies like Chevron and Exxon. These are not policies that advance the success of those companies. These are policies that advance a one-sided progressive agenda. And the dirty little secret is they're not using somebody else's or their money to do it.

They're using our money to do it. It is happening every day in this country. It is the largest aggregation of capital in private hands in human history. And they're using it to advance one-sided political agendas that Congress could not pass through the front door. This is a large-scale violation of fiduciary duty, in my opinion. It is a large-scale antitrust, anti-competitive violation, because these three firms are the largest really relevant shareholders that vote shares

at Microsoft and Apple, at Disney and Paramount Pictures, at Pepsi and Coca-Cola. You go down the list, you're taught that you have a free market economy, well, when both sides of the competition are effectively controlled by the same set of actors, that's not competition. That's an oligopoly, especially when it comes to it. It's not oligopoly on products. They're still competing on products. But it's a monopoly on ideas, environmental and social agendas.

So now back to your question, why are they doing it? Answer. Their business model is to charge fees on how many assets they manage. Okay. And the biggest people directing assets dollars to BlackRock and State Street in Vanguard are institutions like CalPERS, pension funds, the California State Pension Fund, or the New York State Pension Fund. And what those government actors have said, these are government actors now, is to say that we won't let you manage the money of this pension fund. Now the individual pensioners in California's pension system, I bet don't know this, but

that you don't get to manage our money as BlackRock unless you adopt these racial and gender ideologies and that you vote shares accordingly. Oh, and that's not just with California's money unless you do it with all of the money that you manage. That's the dirty little secret. So my most recent book, Capitalist Punishment is all about this woking. My first book touches on it more lightly. And this is a scam. I mean, this is the largest scale breach of trust.

I would call it, goes so far, it's called a form of financial fraud in the 21st century. In the 21st century. Let me dumb it down for me. So this is the, this is our elective. I mean, there's nothing really quickly. It is hard to dumb it down.

Okay. And the reason it's hard to dumb it down is it is hard to dumb it down. Okay. And the reason is hard to dumb it down is it is designed to be complicated for a reason. It is designed to be complicated to hide it from you. It is designed to sound boring to hide it from you. So the complexity is on purpose, but I will try to be simpler on it. Let me, let me try to be able to understand it.

Is you have elected officials in California who are telling BlackRock that they will not allow them to manage the pension funds from the state of California unless they adopt this woke agenda. As they vote their shares through all of the states. Yes. So they have to manage all of the pension funds in the same manner. They have to vote the shares. They have to vote the shares and speak as a shareholder in the boardrooms in the same manner. They have to vote the shares. They have to vote the shares and speak as a shareholder

in the boardrooms in the same manner. That's right. Because when BlackRock is buying shares in Pepsi or in Disney or in Target or in Nike, they speak with one voice, right? They don't speak with California's voice and then Ohio's voice and then Iowa's voice, no. They're speaking with one voice.

So they're speaking on behalf of the voice that the biggest dog in their client base, CalPERS is pushing them around to do. And it's not just CalPERS, it's a state in New York. It's European pension funds. It's Canadian pension funds. Right. That's exactly what's driving the invisible hand of the market. No, it is the invisible hand of left-wing government.

So that's the dirty little secret. So many Republicans who talk about this issue, again, they say sloppy things, right? They're investing in woke companies. That's not the problem. The problem is they're investing in all companies, but causing all companies to have to adopt these policies. Right, that's the real problem.

And so I told you about how I challenged and stood up to Big Pharma, I stood up to this ESG Industrial Complex again as an entrepreneur. I founded a company called STRIVE. People say, are you then going to just invest in the good companies and not in the woke ones? No, guys, that's not the way it works. These are index funds. And so the BlackRock and States are in Vanguard launch. So STRIVE launched index funds whose purpose was to offer the same kinds of index funds that the BlackRock and Vanguard's of the world do, but with a key difference to vote shares and to speak as a shareholder with a different

voice in those boardrooms, to give those CEOs air cover to say that not all shareholders are demanding this, to say that here's the message to you guys, corporate America, as a shareholder, focus exclusively on your products and services for profit to maximize value for your shareholders. Period. That's it. And that's a different voice. So the one one strive came out of the scene, then black rock and state student man guards started to have to get on their back foot.

Right. That's what that's how you drive change in this country. It's not just through government. It's through competition. That was my career. Driving change, calling big farmers bluff, driving behavioral change there, capturing opportunities. Same thing with strive, bringing alternative to BlackRock. I believe in the same thing in tech.

I was one of the first private investors in Rumble, which is challenging YouTube. I believe in driving change through the market as an entrepreneur, but we're not gonna be able to really do this until we fix the head of the snake, which is the deep state in the federal government itself, which is what sends me on this mission I'm on now. And the fact of the matter is, I'd rather be doing this as an entrepreneur, but I

can't get that job done, that job done through the private sector, which is why I'm doing what I'm doing today. When did you start strife? I started strife, feels like an eternity ago, but it was last year. Last year? How much money under May? Last January. The first fund only launched in August. It's approaching a billion dollars. It's north of 800, maybe I've tracked recently, maybe 800 plus million dollars, rapidly approaching a billion.

It isn't even a year since launching the first fund. The first fund launched late August or so last year. JP Morgan, when it got into the ETF business, took two years to cross a billion dollars. And so I don't believe in failing at the things I do. Congratulations. I think the region. Success. That's amazing. Thank you, man. Let's talk about some of the other way. And by the way, I have, it's actually very important. I think it relates to, I think it's

very hard, for example, to run for president as a governor, to wear two hats or as a senator, right? Because then you have multiple objectives. I don't believe in that. So I step down from the boards in my positions at Reuvent, at Strive, at Chapter, another company that's doing great, and then I was successful in co-founding and sat in the board on. I don't want to be thinking about that and wearing two hats as I'm running for president. And so that wasn't required of me, but I made the choice to step down for my board positions to focus exclusively on the mission of serving the people of this country as the duly elected president of the United States.

It would be real. And I think it's hard to do that. And I empathize with it, it's hard position for somebody to be and if there's still, you know, in whatever other position there, even in a governor position, right? Are the things you're doing,

the things that help you win the presidency or are they the things that's best for the people you serve in that state? And most of the time, there's going to overlap, but I believe it's, we're all at our best when we have a sole purpose, and that's why this is not my sole purpose. Let's say a strive continues on this trajectory.

How long do you think, how long do you anticipate it would take to start to combat BlackRock Vanguard state-strips? Well, so the good news is I think Strive has already had a dramatic and combined with some of my public commentary and otherwise, a dramatic impact on the behaviors of BlackRock state-strips in Vanguard who have now, yes, he's now even a bad word at BlackRock. Now the reality is they're just making up new words to take its place. Sustainability, conscious capitalism.

But strives success. I think was probably the single greatest factor in the United States of America that turned ESG from the dogma. When I started striving, the reason Pupil told me it wasn't going to succeed is they said, this stuff's already a cake is baked, guys. You're a couple of years late to this. There's no way you're going to change that because that's just the due diligence factors and the questionnaires.

You're going to fill out even to get off the ground to have a client. Well, less than a year in ESG has then become actually a toxic word. And many of even BlackRock is now on their back foot. And so it's already driving change, but in terms of to compete at that skill, that'll take a long time. You know, I, I believe going faster than both. As I said, JP Morgan, when they got into the ETF business, took two years to cross a billion, strives on a faster trajectory, you know, almost reach in that mark. I'm, I'm not up to speed in following day to day anymore, but, you know, it's, it's called it rapidly approaching

a billion dollars within its first year. But there's a capable CEO now running the company. He actually is a guy who I was honored to recruit. He was one of the top portfolio managers at CalPERS, actually. Interesting. Whose family was a family of public servants and cops who got sick and tired of what he saw over there. He moved his family to Ohio to take the job.

And he's now the CEO of Strive and, you know, I have confidence in his ability to take it to the next level, but he's doing that without, you know, my journey here is a different journey that I'm now on, but there are going to be changing this country is going to require people in the public sector, in the private sector, as parents, as coaches. It's not going to be someone coming from public sector in the private sector as parents as coaches It's not going to be someone coming from on high in the white house to do it And I think that companies from strive to rumble to otherwise are going to have to be part of that revival in the economy as well Are there any other companies combating this along with strive? Not in the ESG domain that I'm familiar with not at at the scale that strives. There's actually, I should say that there's a guy

called Andy Puzzer, who's actually a good friend of mine who had started a different type of firm called Second Vote that was, you know, taking a different approach. I think what they were doing was, yeah, I think they were divesting from some of the companies that were behaving more woke from funds that they're offering. So it's a different method as my understanding, and I haven't been tracking this in a while,

but Andy's a great guy, really love Andy. And so, I think they haven't reached the scale that Strive has, but I applaud what he's doing, actually, and it's important. And so I predict there will be others that pop up. That's what happens usually when you have early successes, but second vote was one of those other efforts, which I applaud as well.

Actually, some of the folks are based here in Tennessee. And I think it's gonna take more successful actors doing this in the private sector. And I respect Andy Puzzer as a friend for doing what he's doing David Black, one of the people who was behind that. It's gonna take other good patriots driving change not just through government, but through the private sector as well. And I applaud the people who have the courage to actually step up and make that sacrifice

as entrepreneurs. Yeah. I know Andy as well, I'm hoping to get him. You should talk about blood. You should talk to him. You should talk to him. He's very knowledgeable about it. He and our good friends, and even though, you know, I started strive and he was involved in second vote.

I, we respect what each other are doing. And, you know, I think I wish nothing but success on folks like Andy who wanna do this at scale. That's what it's gonna take in order to really drive real change for the better in our economy. And I don't think I'm exaggerating when I'm saying this, right? People ask about, well, do you care about what capitalism

or do you care about economic revival? These things are deeply linked, actually. You look at the last 50 years, Europe adopted, right, for the latter half of the 20th century, the multi stakeholder model, the idea that businesses should focus on social agendas other than products and profit, whereas the US, in the latter half of the 20th century, adopted the alternative vision.

That is a fundamental reason why total stock market returns in the US are way better than that of Europe. We won. They lost. That's the answer. And yet the bizarre thing is the winning side is now adopting the losing side's philosophy to now give us the next 50 years where we will have stagnation. And so I think there is a deep relationship between the economic stagnation we've

seen in this country and the abandonment of the philosophy of unbridled, unapologetic excellence in our system of free market capitalism that got us this far, that's part of what I think is going to put us on a lower growth trajectory unless we change it. And so these issues I think are deeply linked, actually. Let's move on to southern border stuff. Sure. How... I've heard that you're going to consider a military assault on Mexican drug cartels.

Is that true? I don't think we're going to have to get there. You don't. What I've said is that we will use don't think we're gonna have to get there. You don't. What I've said is that we will use the military to secure our own southern border. Okay. I believe the top job of the US military, give it to you. Part of what's happening in our military,

I mean, I know with your experience, you may have unique perspectives on this yourself. And so I don't mean to be talking at you on this, but I'm sharing with my, my perspectives on why I think the military's lost its way, is that it's lost its sense of purpose, actually, especially at the top, especially starting with the commander in chief, but also the managerial class in the Pentagon, when an institution loses its way, that leaves a void, that's when poison fills the void. Wokeness in the military, that's a symptom of a deeper

loss of purpose. Fighting wars that I think have not advanced the national interest of the United States. And so the top job of the US military under my watch is to protect Americans, here on American soil, protect the homeland. Number two, deter war. Number three, win wars when necessary. So I go in that order. So I don't want to start some war that's not going to be necessary, but I'm not also going

to be on the one-sided receiving end of a war that we refuse to wake up and see. And we are on the receiving end of a one-sided opium war in this country. The China's quietly waging on us. China is actually, I'm not making this up, from all places, Wuhan, China come the synthetic precursors to make synthetic fentanyl in the hands of Mexican drug cartels south of our own southern border And if you have any doubt about the intentionality of that ask yourself why there's hundreds of Chinese chemists South of our own southern border working with those drug cartels pumping up fentanyl across our southern border Not marketed even as fentanyl, but lacing it in percuss it and other drugs that people don't know fentanyl's in.

That's what's happening in this country. By the way, this is just an aside, but if China can do that to use fentanyl as an intentional tool as an opium war in the United States now, I don't think it's a far fetched at least to ask the question, same place that a man-made pandemic originated, of whether the pharmaceutical supply chain could eventually be laced with the same fentanyl as well. I think it's a legitimate question to actually ask if they're lacing per cassette that's coming in illegally through the southern border,

why wouldn't they laced legal per cassette through that, which is the supply chain relies on from China as well? And I say this is somebody who knows a little something about this industry. As we know, what begins as a conspiracy theory originally becomes a prediction of reality tomorrow. I think we have to be asking these questions. What I've said is that no, I do not want to be on the side of a one-sided war that's

being fought where we refuse technology. But I want to be smart about this. Here's how we're going to do it. We will use the military to seize, just to to close the holes in the Swiss cheese of a southern border that we now have down there. That's how we actually solve the problem. The wall has not been enough. We have to use the military to seal the border.

That I think solves the influx of the migrants, the influx of 14,000 people entering this country daily illegally. 50,000 deaths, 50,000 plus deaths, probably more per year, resulting from fentanyl, illegally crossing that southern border, and then also eliminate the incentives. No federal funding for sanctuary cities, that's disastrous. Not a dime, a foreign aid to Mexico or Guatemala or Belize or Nicaragua. I have no patience for it. We're done with it until we have worked with them

effectively to close Mexico's own southern border, actually, which is actually where many of those migrants come from. I mean, do you think that's the border crisis? Do you think that's even a possibility because the cartels are so, and I mean, they're intertwined with government now. Well, here's what I will say. You're right, Mexico needs to regain its own sovereignty. So here's the steps I would take. First seal our own southern border with government now. Well, here's what I will say. You're right, Mexico needs to regain its own sovereignty.

So here's the steps I would take. First seal our own southern border with our military. That I think is solvable. Next is Mexico and these other countries they're not gonna get ate until they actually regain their own sovereignty. Now, it's not as much of a lost cause as it might seem, right? I mean, Oberdoer has been a disaster.

Amlo, he's the president of Mexico now. His hugs not bullets policy. It's been a disaster as you would predict. You actually had a president who came before him who was actually willing to be tougher on this issue, but we have a presidential election coming up in Mexico, actually in 2024. I'm playing closed attention to this. Claudio Shainbaum is the lead candidate. She is from Amlose Party, but she's a different

person. And so here's what I plan to do. We'll seal that southern border. We'll close the tap on any aid. And I'm going to have a conversation with Claudio if she's indeed the duly elected president early on. In my term, and say, listen up. We will help you regain your sovereignty by providing aid for a tiny fraction of what we gave to Ukraine, which by the way, I'm done with that. We'll talk about ending the Ukraine war, but that's what we need to do. This is a war that does not advance American interests. I will end it. I have a clear vision and plan of how to do it.

Okay, we should not be protecting the invasion against somebody else's border somewhere halfway around the world when we have an invasion on our own southern border that we're doing nothing about So for a tiny fraction of that cost I will tell Claudia we will help you We will do it for a tiny fraction of what we spent in Ukraine. We will help you regain your sovereignty We're using our military to seal our own border in the meantime You're not getting a dime of aid from us in the meantime It is not in your interest to continue this hug's not bullet's policy. Solve your own problem.

But if you don't, and if it's still spilling into our yard, then we will come in and solve it for you. That's the answer. If you have a neighbor, just think about it in your neighborhood, okay? You don't want to go into your neighbor's lawn and shoot the dog that comes and keeps biting your family members. That's your neighbor's job to take care of. But if you have a dog that daily comes over, a rabid dog that's biting your own family

members, then you show up when that dog is about to come over and you shoot it and you put, bring it to its end. That's how you solve it. First you build the fence, make sure the dog doesn to come over and you shoot it and you put bring it to its end. That's how you solve it. First you build the fence, make sure the dog doesn't come over that. I will take that step even sooner than shooting the dog. But if that dog is still coming through that fence and biting my family members, yes, I will take over and go over in there with whatever gun of a size needed to get the job done and put that dog to its end.

So I refuse to be on the receiving end of a one-sided war, but I don't think we're going to have to use our military over it because we will make sure that Mexico solves its own problem. I have full confidence they will. I think Claudia Shahn-Bombe will have an incentive to regain her sovereignty in a way that Amelo did not have a spine to do, but it it's gonna take a president with a spine to see that through, and that's what I'm bringing to the table. You really think that Mexico can take your own problem?

They can still. If we, I'm with aid, I mean, with a tiny fraction of what we've given, I mean, think about what we've given. You know, this clown in Eastern Europe, really, can't even account for what we've given them. I mean, Abrams tanks, we're talking about how many javelins we've given this, I mean, this is for a fraction of what we've armed, there's a lensky with.

Yes. I do think it is still possible for Mexico to get this job done. If they can't, and we do have to send in military to go down there. How do you, if you thought about how you would do that? Yes, it needs to be lit up with intelligence first. So the problem is the NSA has completely abandoned any intelligence operations out of our own border, wasting intelligence resources in the Middle East

that I think are a far poorer use of our resources. So if Trump was able to do it to ISIS, that was a far harder challenge. I think my challenge in doing it with the Mexican drug cartels would be much easier than what Trump had to do it to ISIS, that was a far harder challenge. I think my challenge in doing it to the Mexican drug cartels would be much easier than what Trump had to do with ISIS. But the Intelligence Foundation is key. And I think we don't have that yet.

And so while I'm working with Cloudishan Bob to reach the right conclusion, we'll have intelligence sharing and otherwise, but we're gonna get a head start on what we are gonna need to do in order to solve that problem. Let's move on to Ukraine. How do we, what is even going on here?

Is this, is this just a, they refuse to tell us the fact that we're voting against even an audit of how much money we've given them tells you how designed this corrupt process is to be corrupt. A lot of American taxpayers don't know this, they should. Our taxpayer money is literally paying the salaries of the Ukrainian government officials right now.

So it's not only paying for our own deep state in this country, it's paying for the deep state in Ukraine. This is madness. And so what I've said is I would end the war. I will end the war by doing a deal on terms that will advance our interests. A deal requires everybody to get something out of the trade. That includes Putin. So here's the deal I would do.

Freeze the current lines of control. A Korean war style armistice agreement. I will further make a hard commitment that NATO will not and will never admit Ukraine to NATO. But in return, we get something greater. What is that? China and Russia have to end their military lines. Russia has to pull out of its military partnership with China.

That is the single greatest threat we face in this country from a military perspective. Russia has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, has hypersonic missile capabilities ahead of that of the US and China. China has naval capacity, especially in the South China Sea ahead of the US, and an economy that we depend on for the shoes on our feet or the phones in our pockets,

our modern way of life. That is the single greatest threat we face. So in return for that deal, Putin has to exit his military alliance with China. I'll make him remove the nuclear weapons from Kulin and Grad, the little strip boarding Poland, and remove any Russian military presence from the Western hemisphere.

Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, yes, there are Russian troops on the ground, get them out of the Western hemisphere. In return, we'll also open up economic relations with Russia. I do believe we're the ones that foolishly bombed the Nord Stream one and two. We will rebuild that. I think we want economic integration of Russia back into Western Europe and even with the West. Then Putin has no reason to be in bed with China. That's how we drive generational change

and peace, not just in Ukraine, not just to save the money. But now Russia's not in China's camp. Xi Jinping will have to think twice before going after Taiwan because Xi Jinping's bet right now is that the US won't want to mess with two different allied nuclear superpowers at the same time. That's what gives him the confidence to go after Taiwan. But if Russia is no longer in his camp, and then we'll talk about, if you want, about how we get India on side as well, but mostly Russia, if we get Russia no longer in his camp, Xi Jinping definitely has to think twice before going after that.

Ilandation, that's actually increasingly armed. She's in pain, definitely has to think twice before going after that. Illination, that's actually increasingly armed. That is how we at once end the war in Ukraine, but also deter China from going after Taiwan without going to war over it. That's the kind of leadership we need, as opposed to a Neocon establishment now in both parties. And basically every other candidate in this race on the Republican side, other than Trump is Neocon.

And basically every Democrat who's running other than Bernie Sanders or who's run in recent history, other than Bernie Sanders is also a Neocon. It's a Neocon consensus that is marching us closer to World War III, which I think is a great risk we face. The risk of World War III and nuclear war involving Russia, it's going up every day and nobody's talking about it. I am deeply worried about this, but I think as US President,

I will be in a position to end the madness, to be transparent, to speak the truth, to stop pretending that Ukraine is some bastion of democracy. It's not. And to actually stand in even if it were, it's not our job to protect it. It's their job to protect themselves. That's the answer.

I love what you're saying. I really do. I don't see, I mean, you did a live with Elon Musk on Twitter the other day, and I was on that fast. And Elon said, I can't remember if it was during that live or at some other point, but he was talking about how the US has weaponized its currency. Now we see bricks coming about, it's gaining a lot of momentum. You know, they want to start their own currency backed by gold, apparently.

So with that gaining so much momentum, you know, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Argentina is getting involved. I ran Saudi Arabia, there's a lot of countries that are moving towards this because we put sanctions on countries. We've weaponized our dollar and it's hurt a lot of countries. You know, whether they deserve it or not, I see their point in the making it headway. And the funniest part, and you know this well, Sean, those sanctions don't even work anymore then, right?

Sanctions only work if the nation doesn't have an alternative. Now we're just driving everybody into China's hands. Yes. So, with all the momentum that they're making with bricks and the new currency, why would they stop? I don't understand what would be the incentive to stop. So, it's still relatively early, is the good news. And this is why domestic policy and foreign policy go together.

I've said that actually the sole job of the US Federal Reserve should be to stabilize the US dollar. I would peg the US dollar to a basket of commodities, gold, silver, nickel, and agricultural and farm commodities. That will ground stability in the US dollar again, which then for many nations will make the appeal of the dollar higher relative to switching over to bricks. I think that also reopening economic relations with Russia will be a giant leap forward, and Russia still would love economic relations with the West if they could actually trust

us. We've given Putin no reason to trust us, we don't trust Putin, but we can trust each other to follow our self-interest. And I think that that's something that makes this far more salvageable than it might seem, but it's going to take a dramatic change in leadership and direction. And just putting another neocon in charge from the Republican Party instead of Biden claiming the Republicans won, that's not going to do the job. It's going to have to take, like I said, the question in the beginning, do you want reform

or do you want revolution? I think this is a moment for revolution, and we need nothing short of one in order to actually salvage what this country was founded on. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Let's talk about the digital dollar. There's a lot of talk about moving into this digital currency, the central bank currency. How is that going to affect us?

Do you think that this is going to happen? I do not think it's going to happen if I'm president, and I expect to be president, so it's not going to happen. They're moving, taking steps in that direction, the Fed now program, taking steps towards the central bank digital currency. That will take years, five plus years, to really roll out and implement. I'll put the Kabash on it in January of 2025. And the good news is this is something the next president can and it absolutely is able to do. The real threat with the central bank digital currency

is that China's doing it for a different reason, right? The argument here is that China's doing it, so we have to keep up with the Joneses or keep up with the Jin Pings as the case may be, and keep a strong dollar. No, it's the opposite. China is doing it because they want to penalize citizens. They want to weaponize the currency to say

that if you're out of step with what the CCP wants you to do, well, you're gonna have the money in your bank account wiped out and we've seen a move taken from that page, from the play from that playbook, taken from Trudeau, and how he dealt with the Canadian truckers. So that's actually something we should be frightened of here at home. And I don't think it makes the dollar more valuable to be digital.

I think it makes the dollar more valuable to say that we're the one currency where you can't do that, even as the UK and Canada and other countries turn to a central bank digital currency. And so that's where I'm at on it. Is I'm a hard liner against it. I was talking about this issue long before. It was a popular issue. People told me it was boring and you're putting people to sleep.

No, I said I'm boring and it's fun to mental, right? And so now I'm glad that it's become a little bit more part of the conversation at least in this Republican primary. But you're going to need a president who, again, who understands this deeply rather than as a native and talk tongue because here's what happens. It's like a, it's like a water balloon. It's like a hydraulic pump system. You squeeze it in one place.

It's going to pop up somewhere else, right? And so this is what frustrates me about many Republican professional politicians, is that they know the slogans, or at least they can learn them like a parrot. But the other side is actually two steps ahead. By the time they've learned the slogan, it's already a new thing. It's not ESG anymore, it's a sustainability, it's not CBDC, it's going to be the next thing. And so we got to understand the why in order to be alert to how that threat is going to represent itself. Okay, We got about 10 minutes left. I want to talk about, I want to end this with the world economic forum. So you sued them. I did. There is a growing concern about globalization

and the world economic forum. They put, they just, the floor is yours. What's going on here with the world economic form? I mean, this is the old world rearing its ugly head again. That vision that said that the people, the citizens of nations cannot be trusted to sort out their differences in a democratic process or in a constitutional republic. That is, small group of elites have to make that decision for the rest of society at large from the mountaintops of Davos. This is the old worldview. It's what we fought in American Revolution to avoid.

And so I've been probably the single greatest advocate against that agenda here in the United States. Starting with Woking, starting with a lot of my scholarship, exposing exactly what they're doing, starting with then my next book, Capitalist Punishment, and that's why I started strive to stand up to the economic agenda. I think I am probably clouds swabs and Larry thinks worse nightmare, certainly have been over the last several years. One of the things they thought they could do

was perhaps defang me. So a few years ago, they name a bunch of young people from Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg to others over the years, who they've named on their list of young people from Elon Musk, to Mark Zuckerberg, to others over the years, who they've named on their list of young global leaders. And it's interesting because they'll name people in these awards who are somewhat, they perceive as threats. Glenn Beck has been named. Glenn Beck is one of the greatest patriots in this country who has stood up against this agenda. Elon Musk is on that list. Tulsi Gabbard. So they'll have this bad habit, and so they did it to me. I don't take that lightly.

So I believe in civility. I said, take my name down. They didn't take it down. I had rejected the award when it was first offered. I was still named on their list. And so I said, you know what? I'm actually gonna take the step of delivering accountability. I sued them.

And most importantly, what we got out of that was the number one thing I asked for going and not just a public acknowledgement of exactly what happened. And an apology to go with it. It's not about me. It's about the future. A hard commitment, not to ever do this to anybody again without their permission. They did it to Elon, they did it to others.

It's not going to happen again, thanks to the lawsuit that I brought. But that's just one small step. Okay. This is a broader battle between the great reset, this vision that we have to dissolve the boundaries between the public and the private sector, between nations to work together towards the global common good. That's the vision of the great reset versus what we need on the other side. That is what I am trying to lead here. The great uprising. That says absolutely no to that vision. That we, the people, we, the citizens of nations of this nation, we decide through our self-governance exactly how we live our lives. You will not tell us from abroad.

And I think that that's one of the questions that's on the table today in the United States of America, self-governance and sovereignty itself. As US President, I've said that I will not use a dime of taxpayer resources to fund institutions that are yes hostile to our sovereignty. The WHO, absolutely on the list, we're not gonna fund it anymore, we're done with it. I think there are deep questions

about even the continued purpose of our involvement in the UN. I think that we ought to be able to ask that question and ask how are we advancing American interests? When I can do a deal, bilaterally between a nation and ally, I will do that sooner than entering any multilateral arrangements. We have to regain our sovereignty as a nation, and as citizens, we have to regain our power of self-governance over aristocracy. That is why I say this is a 1775 moment in this country. And I think 2024 can be a 1776 style election of reviving those ideals of the American Revolution.

Do I mean some kind of physical sense? No, I mean it in the sense of reviving those ideals that our country was founded on. And that's frankly what I'm in this race to deliver. And my whole point in this is I'm not gonna try to say something to everybody to please them, say one thing to the donor class and other to, you know, patriots who show up at a rally. No, I don't play that game. I'll say the same thing to everybody. This is who I am. This is what I stand for. And if everybody in this country, at the end

of this process, knows exactly who I am and what I stand for. And that's not what they want. I'm at peace with that. Deeply at peace with that. That is fine by me. But we have a machine that's designed to distort that reality, and it's gonna be my job to cut through it. If we do have done my job, I believe that is what the people of this country

will demand that we have in the White House. I don't relish the job of being president. I'm gonna be very honest with you. I really don't. But I'm doing it because it is what I believe God put me here to do and in this moment in our history. It's not the most important job,

but God put us each of us here for a purpose. And we have to follow that purpose. And what God's plan is will be revealed. And if the voters of this country don't want that, that's great. I'm at peace with that. But I think it's going to take somebody coming from the outside who has a deep understanding of the law and constitutions of this country, and even more importantly, a deep understanding of how to reach the next generation.

I'm the youngest person ever running for president as a serious candidate. I'd be the youngest president ever elected if elected. It is going to take bringing that next generation along with us. This can't be that 50.1 election. It has to be a landslide in order to deliver on the kinds of things I'm talking about here, we need a moral mandate to do it. This is our moment. And frankly, that's what motivates me every day to go from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. as we are seven days a week.

And I've put 15 plus million dollars into this campaign to avoid having to ask some mega donor for permission to run, taking a hat and hand, ringing a tin can. It's a broken system. It's corrupt, it's ugly. It's a super PAC primary already. But I'm gonna do my part.

We're gonna make those sacrifices financially and otherwise we'll stop at nothing. But you know, I say if the people of this country do their part and they call me to serve, I will do mine. Well, I like a lot of what I'm hearing. And once again, I just want to commend you for getting out amongst the people and doing non-traditional media, long form interviews,

your grade on your feet. Got great ideas. I'm really proud that I got you here and for the long form interview, and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you, man. I appreciate it being here. And you should keep doing what you're

doing too. I think it's important, not just with me, but for everyone in this country to know every one of those candidates. They're good people. We have different visions, but they're good people earnest in it for the right reasons too. And as long as the people of this country know the truth without it being filtered through an artificial media echo chamber, I think good things are going to happen in this country. I'm really glad we came down here to do this. Me too. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you, man. Make a little sports analysis, pop culture, and great interviews, and you've got the

Rich Eyes and Show Podcasts. The jets are bracing themselves into doing hard knocks this year. Pracing themselves. Look, the coaches want to control the controllables. They don't want to have a camera crew in the building. You know, I know that they want to lie low. This is what happens when you go and swing for the fences and get out of Rogers. Are you kidding me?

The Rich Eyes and Show Podcast. Wherever you listen. you