Live with Jim Carlin - America First Running for U.S. Senate for the State of Iowa!
Jim Carlin, Iowa’s America First Senate candidate, slams corporate immunity for Pfizer and Bayer while blocking a $4.5B CO2 pipeline bill, accusing Governor Kim Reynolds of donor-driven vetoes. Skeptical of Iran strikes—citing oil risks and nuclear fallout—he contrasts Trump’s $0 Ukraine spending with Biden’s $180B, framing it as military-industrial exploitation. Targeting incumbent Ashley Henson’s establishment ties (Trump endorsements despite past betrayals), Carlin pushes populist policies: abolishing the filibuster, ending vaccine mandates, and deregulating farms for direct sales. His campaign pivots on housing, healthcare, and election integrity, positioning Iowa as a battleground for breaking monopolies and overturning Citizens United. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen, we're using StreamYard today, and I wanted to give everyone a volume check warning before I play the intro video.
it's hilarious got a question or pets marks are you saying they're smart
okay now i'll tell you what my only reluctance to starting with this video is i saw this on twitter and i presume it's not from this man's account This is not a criticism.
I don't like sharing things without being able to give the requisite credit to the creative geniuses behind that.
And so I had to go find it on Instagram.
Is this the and I found the Instagram handle and it's called, I have it here.
Is this it?
Yes, this looks like it right here.
It is called Ben Lapidus Music.
And see, I don't know why I don't get audio on this thing anyhow, but everyone should go check this out.
Let me see here.
We'll get the link to this because it's the perhaps the most glorious thing on earth.
A good laugh and a good distraction from, oh, lordy, what the hell is going on in the world today?
Here's the link.
Go check it out.
I'll give it over on vivabarnslaw.locals.com as well.
And before we get into today's show, we've got Jim Carlin on.
He's running for the Senate in the state of Iowa.
I've been looking into the state of Iowa.
This will be his second time on the channel.
The main produce that comes out of the state of Iowa, a population of 3.24 million, corn, soybeans, pork, and eggs.
We're going to have an amazing discussion today about policy, about his run for the Senate, about the America First policies that he espouses.
And you'll understand why, you know, a smaller state like Iowa is of significant importance nationally.
But before we even get into any of that, and as many of you might have been watching that clip and you're saying, is that clip AI?
No, that clip is actual bona fide genius creativity, but the sponsor of today's show is in fact Venice.ai.
And why?
Because Sam Altman said ChatGPT will get to know you over your own life.
Chat GPT has the former director of the NSA.
You might remember him from such scandals as the NSA spying scandal.
Sitting on the board, Ed Snowden, the man who called it out, said it's a willful calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on earth.
Alexa listens to us and recommends products based on our conversations.
Meta retargets us based on browsing and engagement history.
Why would we assume AI is going to be any different?
The reality is it's probably not, unless you use the right one.
That is Venice.ai.
Venice uses leading open source AI models to deliver text, code, image generation to your web browser.
No downloads, no installation of anything.
They don't spy on you and they don't censor.
Messages are encrypted and your conversation history is stored on your browser.
AI can be extremely valuable, but you shouldn't need to give up your privacy in order to use it.
They have their pro plan, which unlocks the full platform, including PDF uploads, summaries, insights.
You can turn off safe mode.
You can program it to answer questions the way you want.
And let's just ask a question about, I love doing this every now and again.
Is Viva Fry trustworthy?
Let's just see in AI.
I hope it doesn't give me an answer that I don't like.
Going through all of the answers, calculating his history.
Yes, he has been.
Viva Fry is a former Montreal litigator, turned Canadian, turned Florida Rumbler.
Let's see what it says.
Legitimate Canadian lawyer who received his law degree from the Université Le Laval is what it was.
He worked at Borden Ladder for six years before starting his own law firm.
His analysis is described as rooted in real training and courtroom experience.
And he's recognized for breaking down court filings and legal controversies in real time.
Credibility issues?
A Reddit discussion.
Oh, Reddit needs to be burnt to the ground.
Metaphorically speaking, discussion from legal provides bad analysis.
I had a joke.
I won't make it there.
The same source notes he's incredibly biased in favor of the Trump administration and that no one makes their points, makes them as badly, or as bad.
Who's this?
I need to see who that source is.
His content features controversial right-wing speakers, including conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
He is described as leaning libertarian with a polarizing tone.
Political Alignment and Iran Conflict00:15:33
Well, you know, that's what it is.
Look, when you go aggregate from the internet, the wonderful thing is you get the good and the bad and the dumb.
And Reddit is one hell of a place for the bad, the dumb, the radicalized, and the awful.
All right, with that said, people, I'm not reading a chat.
So I'm using StreamYard and I only get the live chat from X. Although, no, we're on, we're on actually, I think we did it on all platforms today because I want Jim Carlin to get, I don't want to have to republish this on Commitube afterwards.
We'll get it in real time.
And if anybody's got any questions over on Commitube, ask Grock.
Now, we don't publicize.
No, Grock is actually, you know, Grock is pretty, is pretty decent.
You can go ask Grock what it thinks about me now.
We are live across all platforms.
And if you don't know who Jim Carlin is, that means you missed the first time he was on.
He's awesome.
Barnes is going to be joining us in a bit.
I'm going to bring him in right now and we're going to have a discussion.
And for those of you who want to talk about the war in Iran, before Jim comes in, we're going to have to touch on it a bit.
I have long said that, you know, it was not, was it Elie Wiesel?
I think it might be Elie Weizel who said the opposite of love is not hate.
It's indifference.
And I've often said, When I stop providing what I think is constructive criticism, that's the time to ask whether or not, you know, not that I've been blackpilled, but, you know, despaired pilled.
And looking at the, I'm not saying vitriol, looking at the garbage that is the discourse on the interwebs these days is enough to make you say, all right, I've said what I have to say and now I'm going to go walk my dog, which I've been doing a lot because those dogs, well, at least the new one seems to be pissing in the house.
So I don't know, sufficiently blackpilled and discouraged by the intellectual rigor of some of the discourse on the internet.
But we're going to have to talk about some stuff.
We're going to talk about some good stuff.
If you don't know who Jim is, he's awesome.
Jim, I'm going to bring you in right now.
Sir, how goes the battle?
It goes well.
How are you, brother?
Well, you know, trying not to go crazy.
I say, when we schedule these interviews, and I always, you know, give the caveat, if things happen in the news and then you don't talk about like the big items in the news, people might get irritated.
But tough nooggies, we're going to do it anyhow.
But Jim, for those who don't know who we're meeting you for the first time, tell everybody who you are.
My name is Jim Carlin, and I'm a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the state of Iowa.
And like you, I've been actually, you got into civil litigation on the business side, right?
That's your background.
Everything except for family, criminal, and tax.
I've done family, I've done criminal, and I've done a lot of, done some med mail and some PI stuff.
That's kind of my lawyer background.
But I've served in the state legislature for six years and talked about some of the things we worked on there.
And now we're in this race.
So, I mean, tell everybody you're born and raised in Iowa.
You have political experience.
Give everyone the rundown.
Actually, I was born in Western Massachusetts, Dava.
I should have remembered that.
No, that's okay.
I came out here, I want to say 35 years ago.
I actually spent most of my childhood, high school years in New Jersey, but was born in Western Mass.
My dad was like a town doctor in Western Mass and came out here.
And I would not trade the quality of life for this place for anything.
It was a great experience.
And what has been your experience in government prior to this senatorial run?
Serving in the Iowa legislature as a House rep and as a senator.
And, you know, that actually gives you a pretty good take on how politics works and something we're both deeply embedded in.
And we both, I think, have a pretty accurate take on how the game is played and what the real construct is.
And we have to deal with it.
We have to look for ways to overcome it.
Okay, now you're running for Senate.
Now, there is a primary process, and then there's the general and the primary is coming up in June of June 2nd.
So it's coming up.
We are March, April, May 2, right around the corner.
Barnes is in the House.
I'll bring him.
We're going to have to go like this.
Here he is.
Here, Robert.
Let's go like this.
So the primaries comes in June.
Who are the candidates for the primary or who are you running against?
So I'm running, I'm in the primary against Ashley Henson.
I don't know if the other, I think there's one other Republican.
I don't think they're anywhere near getting their signatures on the petition.
You have to get quite a few signatures to get on the ballot.
I don't think Ashley has them yet.
If she has, she hasn't filed.
I filed the other day, so I'm officially on.
All right.
Barnes, how goes it?
Good, good.
What led to you wanting to run for the Senate from Iowa to begin with?
Well, I mean, I guess my frame is I'm a populist kind of a person.
I, you know, being a trial lawyer for as long as I have, most of my major wars and battles as a lawyer involve standing up for, you know, regular, everyday kind of people.
And when I look at the frame of government right now, I don't think it's serving the people of the country.
I think it's got us on a path to debt slavery of a sorts and a lot of other bad things.
And the only thing I know to do is to get into the game because I really believe, and I know you guys believe this, that our children's future and our grandchildren's future is our responsibility.
And I think it's our responsibility to change the course if we don't like the direction the ship's going in.
So that's why I'm in this deal.
Jim, we're going to breach the tough question here, which is you're America first.
And without question, anybody should go watch our first interview.
And the question is this, as a preamble, in your view and in current American politics, what does America first mean right now?
Because there seems to be some debate, some disagreement over what America first means.
Some people say it doesn't mean America only.
What's your perspective on America First?
Well, you know, it's funny.
That's kind of how a lawyer might say it.
America First means America first.
To me, that means the interests of the American people.
That should come first and foremost.
And that's as it should be.
And, you know, I think a lot of people have some very real questions about, and certainly the frame of politics today.
What's the real construct of the power brokers, the billionaires, the insiders, the elites, and what's really controlling our politicians?
Because we think we're electing politicians when in reality, we're electing donors.
And that's something we have to deal with because the government is more or less being used to shake down the American people.
And that is not America first, in my view.
So I just want to get some clarity on that.
It means putting people in America, putting their real economic interests back at the forefront of policy.
And I think we've drifted from that, obviously, and we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Speaking of sort of America first, what are your thoughts about, you know, should Congress be involved as the Constitution requires before we go to war?
That we've kind of abandoned that over large parts of the last 50 years, both parties, both presidents of both parties, Congresses of both parties.
But is it time for Congress to step up and take responsibility and make the decisions about whether or not we go to war?
Or is that something they could just abandon and delegate to the executive branch?
Well, you know, if this is like, you know, if we're going to get it, obviously we're going to get into the Iran conversation.
I do think it's probably, you know, giving the president maybe a little bit more power than was intended by our founders.
The timeframe, I mean, we dealt with emergency powers in Iowa with our governor just basically having unrestrained power for an indeterminate amount of time.
That's not what we have here.
But yeah, I think looking at limitations is a legitimate conversation.
I think I'm going to surprise you guys a little bit on my take on the Iran war, you know, as far as what I think about it, the legitimacy of it.
And I do want to say first and foremost that what defines me are three things, basically, truth, justice, and liberty.
And I think in that respect, the three of us are very well aligned, but we might have a difference of opinion on the conflict that we have right now.
Do you think that the Congress should exercise, that the Congress should declare war with Iran, that that debate should occur before the war continues at some point?
In other words, the emergency war powers.
No, I would agree with that because I, like you, I don't want another never-ending war.
But here's what gives me a little bit of optimism about Trump.
He has spent, I think, $4 to $5 billion on Ukraine in contrast to Joe Biden's $180 billion.
So if it was, you know, the uniparty, neocon, never-ending war, let's make money for the military-industrial complex at the expense of our blood and treasure, I don't think this is that.
The other thing that I like that he's done is, you know, he goes right for the head of the snake, which I think could have some real, very real preemptive effects on uh, keeping us out of never ending wars like, if you know the guy, the guy's got your address and knows that you're in your living room uh, and he has a smart bomb.
You might want to rethink some of your decisions.
And uh, the precision of this attack um, it was extending shockwaves for the thing, you know I, I would be curious what you guys think about that.
Honestly, like, you know, these decapitation strikes, it worked with Soleimani, Soleimani, it worked with Maduro.
And now we're here.
And I think it's way too soon to think of the outcome here.
I saw there was a funny meme, and I think it's actually disinformation or a joke that people took seriously, that Mossad had infiltrated Iran and they were implanting chips in people's teeth.
in in military teeth, because they got service from dentists um, you know, on a priority basis.
I think that's false but uh, you know, most people are going to celebrate or at least you know uh, be impressed by the strategic or accurate strikes.
The question is this, and and set aside how I personally feel about this, I thought I think the issue that you're going to face Jim, is one of Um Trump's prior statements to this, and whether or not it's consistent with what he ran on, what he got elected on.
And i'm more interested not necessarily, I mean your perspective is one thing.
I probably, you know, might not disagree on a lot, but are you feeling a bit of the divide at the, at the ground level, like among your constituents or the people you're, you're hoping to, you know, get to vote for you?
Has this now sort of torn a fissure in you know America first base, where some people are saying this is not America first and others are taking the it is America first by preemption or making the world a safer place, which is better for Americans?
Does it?
Has it divided the people who you are calling on to vote for you?
Now, you know it's.
I think it's too soon to make that call, or 48 hours into it but uh, I guess we're going to find out very soon.
Uh, you know, one of the concerns I have, and I know you guys have this concern the never-ending wars, the trillions spent and you look what that's done and what that money could have been used to do, the inflation that it caused on the middle class, the working people of this country.
I think it's escalated a massive wealth transfer from the middle to the billionaire class.
We saw that in COVID.
I've seen that in a lot in what are, in my view, a lot of engineered stock market crashes to where you have these assets get bought up.
So like I'm not looking at this through rosy colored glasses by any means.
I do think Iran is the leading world's leading sponsor of terror.
I think there's some legitimate concerns about what a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would look like.
One of my things, one of my doomsday scenarios is a dirty bomb in a container in one of our port cities, because I don't think we have any meaningful security in that regard.
And potentialities like that, I think, have to be considered.
Like if you do get a nuclear weapon, and I'm not some nuclear engineer expert, but would that give you the capability to be able to produce dirty bombs where you could plant them around the world?
And, you know, I think that, you know, I don't know.
It's a consideration.
I do know this, that when they've been, they have been involved in some pretty significant acts of terror against the United States with the Marine Barracks attack in the 80s, the Kobar Towers, what happened in Nairobi, the coal, the Iranian hostage crisis.
So, yeah, not to mention the proxies that they've used.
So I think in that regard, it has to be given some weight.
It was the same argument we heard about Iraq, weapons of mass destruction.
It looks eerily similar to that.
And I understand that concern.
But I think Iraq and Iran are different conversations.
And what do you guys think about that?
Well, I think it's going to be a shit show on steroids.
But in terms of geopolitics, and then I think the domestic politics, I think it's going to be very damaging and damaging.
Though I think people running in your position are in a little bit trickier position in terms of challenging in the primary status.
But that's just my general take.
We'll see how it develops and how it unfurls and unfolds.
And if I understand you right, you have more of a wait-and-see approach.
Hope it works out.
Hope we get out quickly.
But the Congress should assert its constitutional role and not abdicate it and run for cover.
I personally think presidents benefit from that kind of public debate and congressional authorization and approval because it gives them a lot of political cover domestically and credibility globally.
And I understand presidents don't like the inconvenience of it, the annoyance of it, you know, of going through that whole debate process.
But I think our founders, you know, understood the benefit of it.
And I think if they looked at it more tactically and strategically, they would see that.
I mean, the Democrats were not willing to vote against this at this point.
Iranian Regime's Calculated Risk00:10:35
Now, they might change their mind now, but the problem when presidents go to war without congressional authorization is Congress gets to eat it cake and have it too.
Congress can say, if it goes well, oh, we were always for it.
We never voted against it.
If it goes bad, oh, we were always against it.
Why did you do that stupid thing?
You know, make them go on the record, do their constitutional job, don't sit on their lazy ass and just sit around for donations and the rest.
Does that make sense?
It makes sense because they, it's, I think it's to deter things they object to, and that's that's part of the job description for them, right?
My issue is you hear, I hear people saying it's not Iraq.
I mean, of course, you know, you never step in the same river twice.
The question is, uh, you know, and history doesn't repeat, but it tends to rhyme.
And so now you have people, what drives me nuts is it's not the action per se, it's the about, you know, it's the 180 reversal from not that long ago, where you have a lot of these viral clips going now, including Pete Hegseth in November 2024, talking about how they're not going to do this.
And now it's because they need to rationalize it, you can find the excuse to do it.
And I appreciate, you know, it's a terrorist regime.
It's been funding terrorist proxies throughout the world.
That's been the case for a sufficiently long time that, on the one hand, it undermines the urgent necessity.
But when people say it's not Iraq, I'm not sure if they mean, I'm not sure if they appreciate that it might be exponentially worse than Iraq.
It's a bigger country.
It's got bigger population, more factions that were equally as terroristic as in Iraq.
And it never starts off as a 20-year war.
It always starts off with the same justification.
We don't have the intel that Trump has.
They said the same thing with the WMDs.
And then the question is: it's also been the case that government just makes mistakes that they have contradicting intel or they have mutually opposing intel, specifically so they can come to the conclusion that they want to to justify whatever foregone conclusion for intervention that they've already made.
Um, so like, I don't know when it's ever worked out well, and then we'll just you know cross fingers and hope that's totally fair.
But no, I'm concerned about the vacuum.
It's got uh, I'm concerned about, you know, and I don't know how educated the Iranian people are.
I don't know if they're armed.
I mean, what are they supposed to do on the other side of this?
Um, with the IRGC that has killed tens of thousands of them, I don't know, it depends on who you brutalized for decades.
And uh, part of me has, you know, I know it's not our job to be the world's cop.
What do you think about the viability of them in control?
You know, particularly with a backdrop of this people that, you know, maybe stepping in.
Jimmy, if you're in the plate for them, you know, your internet's glitching just a little bit, but sorry, Robert, go ahead.
Oh, yeah, I think I got it.
I mean, I mean, I'll give you my snapshot, then we can transition to a lot of other issues.
The political freedom, medical freedom, food freedom, financial freedom, some popular issues.
And the 1776 Law Center just did a nationwide survey, good subsample of Iowa.
We can talk about where you stand because your opponent in the primaries has not embraced a lot of these populist positions, and we'll get to those.
My own view is Iran's got a shit show on steroids.
I believe the president has been misled.
He was led to believe that a weekend attack, taking out the Ayatollah, would have the same effect as taking out Assad in Syria, taking out Hussein in Iraq, and taking out Gaddafi in Libya.
And he was led to believe that there was 80%.
These were fake polls done by USAID cutouts in Toronto.
Canada is always a problem to say.
But in the Netherlands and some other places.
And basically, it said that 80% of the country is ready to overthrow.
They're really not.
I mean, it's a Shia Muslim country.
It's a very proud Persian culture.
They see what happened in Libya.
They see what happened in Syria.
They see what happened in Iraq.
So not only is it not the cult of personality that some in the West have perceived it as, it's not Ayatollah-driven, really.
It hasn't been for probably a decade and a half or so.
They want their country to be a lot more prosperous.
They want more religious freedom than they're given.
No question about that.
But they're not willing to take the trade-off of looking anything like Libya, Syria, or Iraq.
So that's in the Mideastern mind, in the Iranian mind, that's what regime change looks like.
That's why the regime change is tamped down.
They did the revolts in January, but that was mostly with outside groups, the Kurds, the MEK, some other groups that they've been funding for a long time there.
Groups that if you look underneath the hood, let's just say they're not the kind of people we actually want in power.
So my own view is that the Iranian regime will hold, that the Ayatollah deliberately martyred himself, that he said he knew he was going to get hit and he decided to stay in the same location where he could get hit.
He was 86 years old with prostate cancer.
So he was on his way out within a year anyway.
And he had previously repeatedly spoken about his worst nightmare is dying by natural causes or in an accident.
That he wanted, and now you have the leading Shia Muslim religious leader, the equal to the Pope that we just took out.
And, you know, we've already had terror attacks in Austin.
Who knows how many other terror attacks are going to happen?
You don't have to have a terror cell here for that to happen.
You just have somebody that's ideologically aligned and willing to be violent.
And we've, you know, we've brought in a lot of Islamic immigrants over the past decade, nothing like the UK or Europe, but enough that it's anybody that's Shia Muslim that is outraged that their religious leader got killed.
We now have that risk.
So I think they understated the risk to President Trump.
Now, Vice President Vance did not.
He said, Don't go in.
Tulsi Gabber, Director of National Intelligence, said, Don't go in.
Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Joe Kent, said, Don't go in.
And mostly because we just can't control the outcome and that it can get out of control very quickly.
Like we could have the regime collapse, but then we've got a huge civil war with all kinds of crazy groups all over the Middle East and then the refugee crisis.
Or the regime doesn't collapse and now looks more powerful than ever before, both internally and externally.
Internally, because they can tell to their people, we just stood up to the whole world, to the great United States of America, to Israel, and we won.
We held.
All they got to do to win is just not lose, just not get crushed, not have a civil war break out.
And then what happens if they prove to the whole Arab world, by the way, you think those U.S. military bases protect you?
Well, when the shit hits the fan, America goes to protect Israel and abandons Oman, abandons Bahrain, abandons the UAE, abandons Qatar, abandons Saudi Arabia.
What message does that send?
How much is that?
Are you going to go buy a $2 million condo in Dubai now?
And you can see some of those places are on fire as we speak, especially if Iran is able to keep and sustain power.
The last holding back of the actual nuclear weapon in Iran was the Ayatollah.
He had issued a fatwa in 2003, said no nuclear weapons, said that's against the Shia religion, etc.
With his death, that fatwa is no longer in effect.
My belief, Professor John Mearsheimer has voiced this.
Colonel McGregor, former national security advisor to President Trump in his first term, has also voiced this.
They believe that Iran now will develop nuclear weapons in the next two to three years because the main restraint has been removed by us.
So I think that that's why I think I see the reward, the probability of a peaceful, freedom, democratically oriented, Western-aligned, Israel-sympathetic, U.S. directed Iranian government, stable government emerging as less than 5%.
Whereas I see all the risks, either a destabilized, chaotic civil war regime or a much the younger generation is harder line.
Some of the people, as Trump has unfortunately now admitted, that they anticipated replacing them, we killed.
Somehow that didn't get through.
We didn't know where they were at or whatever.
It's not clear.
Some of the inside people, head of the Quds group, who apparently was really a Mossad asset all this time, has now been imprisoned in Iran.
So they've figured out the last of their internal dissident issues.
To your point, you know, it's the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that has all the arms.
I mean, Trump apparently was led to believe they would just lay down their arms and give it to the people that he himself has said killed 30,000 protesters.
This is the kind of bad intel and advice Trump chose to take.
There were people giving him counter advice, but he chose to take this.
And he didn't think the Straits of Hormuz would close.
They're effectively closed as we speak.
That's 20% of the world's global oil supply.
Another 10% is likely now to get cut off by the Houdies out of the Red Sea.
They're also now hitting oil and natural gas facilities throughout the Arab world of all the Arab royals we've sort of been enmeshed with.
And that's going to take LNG offline, take other oil and gas offline.
They expect prices to go up to $100, $150 a barrel.
Same with natural gas prices in Europe, up 50% just today.
So I just think the risks, you know, the economic risk, the geopolitical risk, the local risk, the domestic political risk, where to your point, right on point, the American people are desperate just to have a focus on them.
And they see any distraction overseas, even if it's for the most noble reason on the planet, if it consumes much time or energy of the administration, they see it as a betrayal of them.
It's like, you know, it's like Trump keeps looking over at Sidney Sweeney, you know, the and she's foreign foreign policy.
And, you know, the, and, and, and Milani is not appreciating it.
So the MAGA vote doesn't matter how pretty, how nice that other girl is, that's the one you definitely got to not look at for more than two seconds flat.
Jim, do you see any of it translating into, forget the Iranian or the Iran war because there's been other issues where people have expressed some dismay of Trump's maybe reversal of stuff, the executive order granting immunity to glyphosate manufacturers.
Do you feel any translation to friction at your base or when you're in your run?
Well, I listen, I don't agree with President Trump on everything.
So don't think that because I would not have been in favor of a $1.5 trillion defense budget when 60% of our assets are unaccounted for.
The defense spends are enormous.
And the glyphophate executive order, I would love to know what the inside baseball for that was.
That's with RFK serving in your cabinet.
Immunity Bills and Filibusters00:15:04
I don't know how that happened.
I don't know how he got there.
Well, it's the thing, you know, the internet is forever, and you have to know that people are going to pull up clips from five years ago when RFK was on a podcast talking about the ills of Monsanto and glyphosate.
But it's good, actually, if these international broader issues or national issues don't impact you at the state level.
So I guess we get down to the state level.
Now you're going to be, you're running for state senator.
And what are the issues for Iowans?
You know, one of the big issues we have is the eminent domain private sector taking of Iowa farm ground, the CO2 pipeline with the $4.5 billion tax credit to incentivize something that doesn't need to be done at the expense of Iowa farmers.
That's something that I worked on with 12 of my Senate friends.
I started my own PAC.
After I lost to Grassley, I was like, what do I do with this political capital?
And I started my own pack to basically, we have a candidate school and we do fundraise and we help constitutional conservative Christians get elected.
And yeah, that's it right there.
That's actually a beautiful beautiful capital.
Oh, it is.
It's the most beautiful capital probably in the country.
The inside of it is amazing.
But we had 12 senators stand up to the establishment and say, And they enlisted the support of Democrats to get it done.
And they effectively stopped it, only to have Governor Reynolds veto it.
And it came back, you know, it always comes down to, you know, think you're electing candidates, you're electing donors.
And there's 160,000 reasons to believe that Governor Reynolds' veto came from a donor named Bruce Rathstetter, who also happened to donate Ashley Henson $27,000 in a single day to keep the 45Q tax credit as part of the big, beautiful bill because it was originally taken out.
So that's a big issue.
She also drafted a bill called the EATS Act.
I don't know if you guys are familiar with that.
Well, I mean, she's been, you know, someone that's actually been never Trump in the past.
You know, that's who she is.
And Trump chose to endorse her.
Yeah, because, you know, Swampy Susie Wiles had to make sure the lobbyists get their fat cash.
Speaking of some popular issues, like when we polled the 1776 Law Center nationwide survey, we looked at different forms of immunity.
And what was fascinating is how off the charts, broad and deep, across the Republican primary electorate, but across the nation and across parties, across ages, across races, across ethnicities, across religions, you name it, certain issues were.
People want no immunity for big drug companies when their vaccines cause injury.
They want no immunity when their big chemical companies like Bayer and Monsanto cause cancer to the American people.
They want no immunity when big banks discriminate against people financially for political reasons.
They want no immunity for big monopolies that are using their monopoly power to illicitly increase prices and fix prices and fix lower wages.
They want no more immunity when government officers, including judges, violate the civil rights and civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
On that no immunity platform, what's your sentiments?
I think I agree with everything you just said.
Pretty, yeah.
No, my support for all of those things is unequivocal, actually.
What I thought was interesting along the lines of the immunity for glycophate was actually a bill at our state house.
And Bayer, as you guys know, bought Monsanto after they lost these multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
But what's interesting is Bayer manufactures the chemo that the glycophate causes the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
So they want immunity liability from causing the very cancer that they profit from treating.
That's about as disgusting as it gets.
You have to be Pfizer-level evil to support things like that.
You really do.
You really do.
Jim, I mean, here's the million-dollar question.
How do you fight those?
It's basically government-induced monopolies because of the, I would call it lobbying, donations, whatever.
How do you break up that effectively government-sanctioned monopoly?
You have to have enough votes to have leverage.
And the only way that changes is you have to get different people in the seats.
One thing I would suggest to people like your brand, start your own pack.
You have the audience and the following to do it, to help federal and state candidates get elected.
Because the only way the game changes, you have to put different players on the field.
They have to have a spine.
They have to know who they are.
They have to know what defines them.
They can't cave to all the, and they put me through the ringer on the whole, you know, where they go along to get along club.
If you want something, you're going to go along.
And if you don't do that, you're not in the club.
Well, okay, fine.
I'm not in the club.
But they put a lot of pressure on you to conform.
And you have to go out there and vet good people to run.
And that's how you change the game.
And you have to do a decent job vetting them.
You had a good launch.
Yeah.
No, we didn't know what we've done.
Yeah.
Sorry.
Sorry.
No, you said big government, big business got married, and the happy couple has given us the credit card bill, which is quite good.
That's a very good way to put it.
Two other things that were popular in the 1776 Law Center nationwide survey was the right to buy, and this is big in Iowa, farm state, the right to buy food directly from the farmer without government regulation, inspection, intervention, or permission.
And that's massively popular, two-to-one support, no matter how you frame it and phrase it.
How do you feel about that right of food freedom?
Promote the farmer to be able to have direct access to the customer, but also the customer to have direct access to the farmer.
They get to pick what food they want to drink, what food they want to eat, what things they put in their body, not the government.
How do you feel about that proposal?
No, so what I was going to say about the EADS Act that Ashley Henson wanted was it gave all regulatory authority over ag to the federal government.
And we know who ends up in those regulatory chairs.
The former executives with green traders, meatpackers, and the input markets, that former CEOs and executives fill those seats.
So you're not going to get a fair shake.
I think the only way is to deregulate the heck out of it because to keep out new entrant market from happening.
They're designed to make the burden of getting into those market spaces so onerous you can't do it.
And a good example of that in Iowa are meatlockers.
Right now, if you're a mom and pop operation meatlocker, you have to have your own USDA inspector that you have to pay for on site 24-7.
So that's they make it hard.
And that's by design.
They've weaponized regulations against new market participation.
It's not just agriculture.
It's everything.
And you guys know that.
Absolutely.
Now, another proposal that was popular with voters across the country was as we see election fraud continue to become a broader and bigger concern in the American electorate.
And we see the incapacity of the United States Senate to even pass something as popular as the SAVE Act.
How do you feel about, like we tested how Americans feel about giving people the right to bring legal action in any election that they voted in where they have evidence that there was anything irregular about the election that could have changed the outcome of that election?
And Americans, again, both parties, young, old, all racial, all religious groups, two to one, three to one, four to one in some cases, support.
How do you feel about making that a federal law, including that in the civil rights protection?
The right to bring a challenge if you think your local election, city election, county election, state election, or federal election was done in a manner that violated their rights and interest in having their vote meaningfully counted due to things like election fornication.
I think I agree with that position a thousand percent.
Like if you're telling me that I have no cause of action when you're diminishing my vote in this process, no, that's untenable with what I believe.
So, no, it's just how I guess the construct of what that process would look like and how you get in front of, how you get into a courtroom and how that's defined.
And like one of the things I did was I had people that had moved out of state or were dead taken off the rolls.
That was my little foray into that space.
And I think we need to get rid of mail-in ballots.
And unless, you know, unless there's some extreme verifiable circumstance where you're too sick to get there and they make provision for that.
But in the broader context, I don't think we really have election integrity until we get rid of super PACs by having some constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Jim, I'm going to ask you, and I know you want to end the filibuster, and I might need-I don't know who's going to clarify this for me.
I always thought I understood the filibuster, but I realized I didn't until preparing for this show.
Okay, so the filibuster means it requires a two-thirds three-fifths, so 60 votes to end the debate, where to pass the final bill, it only would require 51 plus.
And so, you could, in theory, have a bill that is going to get passed if it gets past the debate portion, but they never close the debate because it requires 60 to close the debate.
It's not in the Constitution.
What the heck?
Either two of you got to elucidate this for me.
What was the rationale for this in the first place?
You know what?
I think I'll defer to Robert on that one.
I know the rules, but I'm sure he knows the history of 12 Ways to Saturday because I listened to your show yesterday, by the way, and I was kind of terrified to be here today.
Well, speaking of the, so I would you be in favor of getting rid of the filibuster, uh, given how it's been used by corporate lobbyists' interests to shut down.
It was supposed to be to help the little guy, you know, against the crushing power system stand up, the Rand Paul libertarian times.
Instead, it's been hijacked by corporate donors to kill popular bills and legislation.
How do you feel about it?
And then, the second thing, increasingly, I've been, you know, as I see Mitch McConnell, as I saw Dianne Feinstein, as I see Nancy Pelosi, as I saw Joe Biden, the, I think, you know, we have a minimum age required to qualify for any for the members of House, for the members of the Senate, for the presidency.
Is it time we consider what is broadly used in the private sector, which is mandatory retirement ages?
I mean, we're getting people that, you know, Mitch McConnell is stumbling and bumbling his way in there.
Diane Feinstein couldn't even speak.
It wasn't clear who was voting for her anymore.
Joe Biden was dementia Joe, and we still don't know who signed his pardons at the end, other than one for his brothers and family.
He made sure to sign that one himself.
But yeah, what do you think about the idea of a mandatory about getting rid of the filibuster and about a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress?
I think the filibuster issue has been so one, one of the realities of the process is politicians love to have things to fundraise on, and that just feeds that perfectly.
They don't, you know, we always think they want the issues that they send us the email.
He froze again.
I tell Robert, I think.
Oh, there we go.
He's back.
Sorry, Jim, you froze up for a second.
Okay.
No, I was just saying, yeah, they fundraise on a lot of issues that they don't want to see resolved.
And so you'll see fundraisers, we've got to get this SAVE Act done, or we've got to stop this SAVE Act from happening.
And both sides of the fence, and they know it, and it's a game, you know.
And uh, um, I do think that one of the ways to get power back in the hands of the people is to get rid of the filibuster because then you're really putting the people in the driver's seat of the issue.
And I agree with that.
And I don't know who's going to be able to feel this one because I'm just trying to contemplate what are the risks of ending the filibuster?
How can it be abused if you successfully end it?
Well, I think the concern there is just the turnover on policy and issues could be, you know, it could, I guess, the speed of it could happen a lot quicker.
Um, I don't know.
That also is a good question, but I'm trying to think so.
So you can pass more legislation.
It might make government more effective.
I mean, I don't see how it could be abused to do things like stack courts or whatever.
I had to double-check something while we were live.
Uh, hold on, in Grok here, when I did this in Twitter, Diane Feinstein died 14 to 15 hours after her final vote on the floor.
That at the age of 90, that's interesting.
What did I just do here?
Yeah, there we go.
Yeah, sorry.
That was a little too intimate.
I heard she wheeled in on a stretcher.
I did hear that.
Yeah, I heard that as well.
And whoever voted, nobody knows who voted for her, but said yay or I for the last vote.
Yeah, what do you think about the mandatory retirement age?
I don't, I don't.
What's the objection there?
Like, if you're 75, go catch fish, go do something.
I don't know.
I, of course, Trump is what he's amazing.
79.
No, he's still super size frying it all the way, which is amazing.
And scratch, I mean, I think he might be better than scratch golfer.
No, I say term limits.
I that I can appreciate the arguments.
If the people want a politician in, then there should be no term limits.
Age limits, if you're functional and you're coherent and you're actually all there, you know, some people can be sharper at 90 than some at 60.
So maybe some tests.
I don't know what the tests would be.
Vaccination Mandates and Age Risks00:02:24
The dimensions.
Well, we have this constitution.
We recognize that you have to get to a certain age typically.
And if you look at when our founders put that in, those were much, you know, by comparison today, those would be higher up age requirements.
But the assumption implicitly is that there's a certain cognitive capacity that just declines at a certain age.
That's why we have mandatory retirement throughout the private sector.
Does it mean everybody over the age of 75 is not up to stuff?
No, there's plenty of people that are, but there's just a much higher risk of it.
And should we keep bearing that risk when we see people like McConnell?
You know, I mean, he looks like a dead turtle walking around in there.
I mean, this is just embarrassing.
I mean, we look like old Rome.
When Rome began to decay, we had all these old, you know, sort of gerry, corrupt clowns running the Roman Senate.
That was the beginning of the, you know, it was an indication of the decline of the Roman Republic and its empire.
To me, I think we see the same thing.
Now, one other thing that is also was very popular is increasingly passing laws that prohibit any form of vaccine mandate.
That going beyond just religious, conscientious objections or the rest, the state of Tennessee passed it.
Some other states have passed it.
How do you feel about a federal law that says no vaccine mandates, period?
I agree with it.
I actually, in Iowa, I fought vaccination mandates to healthcare workers during COVID.
You know, you guys know this, the under-reporting of the VARES database.
What is it?
Is it 1%?
I don't know, but I have two, you know, not like close friends, two people that I know personally fairly well.
You know, the brain blood clot within two weeks of being vaccinated.
Come on.
And they were both very healthy people.
I think everybody probably knows somebody who, you know, suffered an injury or a death, somebody they knew.
And we're not getting good data issue.
And we need to because apparently, even look at that issue shows that the COVID vaccination was far more toxic than any other vaccination in history.
There's zero question about that.
Faith and Hope Trajectory00:03:48
A lot of us are just waiting for that tide to turn, but maybe it'll take a little bit longer.
And at the risk of advertising your competitors or your adversaries in this race, what is required?
Like, what's the budget?
What do you need to run an effective campaign for states for the Senate of Iowa?
Oh, I think, you know, in Iowa, Iowa's a little bit different, but you're probably going to spend a million or more pretty easily.
And our grassroots have to get more in on this because I think one of the big issues we have to work on is funding our candidates.
And I think when you have a big media reach, you guys and the people, your brand, have the capacity to change that game.
And actually, I think you guys are the hope of changing that game because if you talk to individual candidates that are running, that are in that situation, they all need help because you're up against the machine.
And one of our big issues is, you kind of talked about this a little bit, is how do we overcome the machine that's eating us?
And it's in place and, you know, it looks like a filibuster or It looks like a super PAC, or you know, it looks like the Federal Reserve, or, you know, it looks like the monopolization of our markets.
Like, there's so many things that are hurting the average person.
Yeah, no doubt about it.
I mean, what has been your sort of as you campaign, what's been the most optimistic thing that you didn't expect?
And what's been the more negative thing that you didn't expect in terms of your experience so far as a candidate?
Sure.
People have to overcome like the negative attitude because they, you know, like if you, if you're on a steady diet of negativity all the time, you're not going to have the faith that you need to start moving.
My honestly, my faith is my life.
And I look at any battle from the frame of I firmly believe God can change anything.
And I've had some pretty crazy miracles when I served in the state house where it was obvious that there was a divinity, there was a divine orchestration to getting the heartbeat bill passed, an active shooter bill passed, catching veterans being abused in the Iowa veterans home.
So like the thing is, I think we put our faith in God, and I think we start standing up for each other in a real way.
One of our biggest weaknesses is our own lack of committed humanity to one another.
And that has to be shored up.
But the negativity side, you know, people say, you know, things can't change.
But then on the positivity side, and here's my take on the positivity.
I'm having a conversation today on the internet with two guys with a big audience.
Truth is a path to freedom, and you guys are getting people on that path.
And I think the trajectory of truth is ultimately what's going to take us there with the help of God, where we do see this thing turn around.
Because we didn't have this.
I mean, before 20, I don't know how long you guys have been on the air, but since the advent of Trump, and I'm not saying Trump is completely responsible for it, we know that there's been so much systemic institutionalized corruption.
And now these things are being brought to light.
And that my, I guess that's where I put my faith in.
And a lot of people know that we're finally getting the real truth on a lot of things we didn't know.
I was just checking the odds.
Truth Unveiled00:10:15
It looks like Iowa is looking like it goes Republican in the midterms.
Are you personally having any concerns about the trajectory of the way things are going come midterms?
We've seen it go from it's going to be a great showing to, oh, the party in power never wins the midterms anyhow.
You're definitely much more in the weeds, and maybe Iowa is not as much a toss-up.
But what are you seeing on the ground in terms of what it looks like potentially for 2026?
And what should the party as a whole do in order to either minimize the losses or turn things around before 2026?
You know, I think the grassroots populist people are the difference makers in Iowa.
And I think there's a lot of them, particularly in a non-presidential primary, because the turnout for it is far lower.
So you have a window.
You have a window that you're not going to have in a presidential year.
And I think the like you have to win the primary.
It's not just winning the general.
Like our people have to win the primaries against the establishment people.
And like in a non-presidential year, people like me have a legit shot.
Like I just won a state straw poll.
It was only 19 counties reporting, but it was like a thousand voter sample size.
We beat her 5446.
And the only reason she had that many votes was because her own home county had an inordinately large voter participation in that poll.
So it's doable.
Yeah, in fact, I think if you prevail, I think you can hold the seat for the Republicans.
I think if she prevails, she will lose the seat to the Democrats in Iowa.
Iowa is a state that swings very heavy, very populous state.
And if you nominate an establishment hack like she is, the Republicans will lose that Senate seat.
So if you're one of those voters out there, all you care about is Republicans keeping the majority, anything else, then you should be backing Jim, not her.
She's going to be a walking, talking candidate disaster in November.
Are we not saying is it Ashley Henson?
It is.
It's Ashley Hensins.
She's a complete idiot, complete loser, complete failure.
She runs.
If she wins the nomination, she will lose that Senate seat to a Democrat for six years.
I think he's right.
I don't think she's that well liked in the state.
I think there's a lot of trust issues there with her.
So I think that's a fair characterization.
They're also concerned about that in the governor's race right now as well.
But we have our campaign, the message of our campaign is stop the squeeze.
And we're talking about some issues that have very real economic implications for the average Iowan.
We're talking about things you guys talk about, the Federal Reserve and the monopolization of markets.
And people are understanding that their health insurance is crazy expensive right now because of the government.
The price of a house is very expensive right now because of the government.
The price of student loans right now.
And collectively, you add all those pieces together and who's talking about it.
And our campaign is.
So I'm using Venice AI, Jim, while we're lucky, because I don't know about scandal.
I know that everybody has a scandal.
So she had a pipe.
I don't have any scandals.
Let me ask you.
It says there was a plagiarism scandal according to Venice.ai stock divestment announcement.
Well, not exactly a scandal.
Hinson announced that both she and her husband would sell all their publicly traded stocks to ensure public trust, investing only in widely held-well, that's not a scandal, constituent backlash.
Hinson faced public criticism when she was booed at a town hall in her Iowa district for praising Donald Trump's tax and spending plan and speaking approvally of the Department of Government's efficiency's efforts to downsize.
Why would she get huh?
Well, the plagiarism, if that's the worst of it, okay, so there's nothing big to hang your hat on, like, I don't know, potentially marrying your brother to commit immigration fraud.
But I'll look into that.
So, what are the next steps now?
Because so you've got the vote comes on the primaries come on June 2nd.
How many people do you anticipate being on the ticket?
Hinson and just you or others as well?
Hinson, and there's I think there's a little glitched up.
I'll wait for a second here.
Get the petitions.
Oh, sorry, say that again, Jim.
It glitched up again.
Yeah, the libertarian guy.
Okay, well, hold on.
Um, yeah, it's glitching again.
We're gonna, we're gonna work on.
I don't know if this, I was gonna make a fiber optics joke, but no, it glitched up again.
Okay, it does matter.
So, the next steps for you then in all of this, or what we got to get our message out, and uh, you know, we have a lot of events planned around the state.
We have county convention coming up this weekend on the messaging side of what we're doing.
We're obviously in the last three-month window because you know, the media sphere changes so rapidly that you kind of have to be very strategic about when you start dropping the big ones.
And uh, like there's a lot of issues related to Ashley that the average Republican doesn't know that she caucused for Nikki Haley in 2024, which most grassroots Republicans hate that, or that she supported Liz Cheney in leadership after she voted to impeach Trump, Voted against marriage, which isn't going to sit well with most constitutional Christians in the state.
So, so there's definitely a lane to defeat her.
And I think we're on that track.
Yeah, indeed.
As we wrap up, that if you're in Iowa or you simply want more pop, you want people who support food freedom, the right of a farmer to buy, sell food directly to the customer, and you, the customer, to buy food directly from the farmer without these big ag monopolies dictating it with all their pesticides and chemicals, all the crap they add to it, and the way they dilute it, usually with foreign cattle and foreign food products on top of it.
If you care about medical freedom, the right to get recovery for injury from vaccines caused by big pharma lying to you.
If you care about financial freedom, the right to sue a bank when the bank discriminates against you politically and making that illegal political discrimination by big financial institutions and credit card issuers and the like.
If you care about political freedom, holding everybody in the government accountable when they violate your civil rights or civil liberties, if you want a one-tier justice system, not a two-tier justice system, if you want less risk of war rather than more risk of war, if you care about any of those issues, Jim Carlin is your man.
In Iowa, Ashley Hinton is the exact opposite of that.
If you just simply want Republicans to win or hold the Senate, you should be backing Jim because Ashley's done for.
So that's my personal feedback and advice.
And I think we lost Jim, but that gives you what I think, you know, Jim Carlin is a good populist candidate running from the grassroots.
So if you're in Iowa or you're outside Iowa, provide what donation support you can, what volunteer support you can, what public activism support you can, because you sir, he's on board every single one of those popular populist policies that are popular throughout the country that are the future platform of American reform and revolution and resurrection of our republic.
So that's the reason to back Jim.
Good candidate, good guy.
You know, presents in a simple, straightforward Iowa way, nothing fancy or flashy, but is the kind, which is exactly the kind of person we need in the Senate, someone who's honorable and honest, not some of these geriatric corporate whores that tend to dominate both parties.
Robert, you got 15, 20 minutes?
You want to go do a little locals after exclusive?
Sure, that sounds good.
Yeah.
Okay.
So what we're going to do, we're going to raid redacted now.
And then we're going to, and everybody, there's no paywall today at locals.
So come on over to viva barnslaw.locals.com and we're going to talk.
I'm going to vent a little bit because I'm getting fed up with.
I don't want to use the word slop.
It's a very trendy word.
And I think people are, it's like now it's apropos.
You know what I mean?
It's really slop.
You know, it's like bad oatmeal.
It's all come together and garbage.
And people like, but I mean, really, it's horse manure.
That's what they're really like, horse manure tastes yummy, Barnes.
You got to get yourself some of this.
This is our locals link.
Come on over and I'm going to end the stream.
And I believe we've raided Redacted.
Let me just go say we're in the house here.
Okay, good.
Viva Raid, Viva Raid Booyah.
Okay, it's on stream.
I have to remember how to do this.
So, Twitter, see you tomorrow.
Jim?
Oh, Jim is back.
Oh, we'll get Jim back on.
Jimmy for a second.
Sorry.
Jim, where can people find your information?
Where can they contribute or volunteer to the campaign?
Where can they get insights and information?
Give us all that information.
You bet.
So we are at carlinforussenate.com.
I wish I had a better picture of myself than that one.
It's fine.
That's yeah.
We got to work on the picture side of that.
But that's where you can reach us.
And we are in Carlin in the number four U.S. Senate on Twitter.
Of course, we're on Facebook as well.
But if you want to volunteer and you can donate to the campaign, we would love to have your support.
It will make a difference.
We're very judicious about how we spend our money.
And we fully expect to win the primary.
So we would love to get you on the team.
Amazing.
You want to stick around for a few minutes on our local side?
We'll get some QA in.
Absolutely.
Okay, let's do this here.
So I'm going to do this.
I got to get back on the bottom here.
I don't like this.
And I got to get you back where you were before.
Now, that's my okay.
Symmetry is perfect.
We're going to end on Twitter.
So bye-bye, everybody.
We remove like this and we remove.
We're going to end on CommiTube, which is how we do that.
Can I do this all the way?
Yeah, I can just go like that.
Okay, remove.
And we're going to end on Rumble.
If you're not coming to Redacted, you have no reason not to come to locals today.
No paywall, and you can see if you like what you see.