Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2023 - Truth Podcast - Vivek Ramaswamy

54:15

Disrupting the Mainstream Media | The TRUTH Podcast #43

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you're watching this, we finish.
	He's on a call.
	We're jumping on a call.
	Now we're doing this.
	It tells you why you're getting the kind of eyeballs you're getting.
	Can I succeed?
	I don't participate in the upside anyway.
	If I lose, I end up getting penalized and blamed for it.
	You're going to have a lot of powerful people coming after you.
	I know what that feels like already.
	He was pro-DeSantis at first.
	By hiring congressmen as their rent-a-rent-a-politician.
	There you go.
	So, hanging out with my friend today, Patrick Bed-David.
	We just had a long conversation with his crew at the other place, and now we're here in South Florida.
	And this is a conversation that we were just beginning to discuss as going to be a regular fixture when I'm in the White House.
	Presidents used to do fireside chats with the nation, and I actually think that was a good thing when a U.S. president would take the time to say, okay, out of the hustle and bustle of the day, I'm going to talk directly to the American people.
	Called a fireside chat because there's a fireplace in the background.
	That model has now disappeared.
	I think that age is behind us, and it would be a little fake if Joe Biden or Donald Trump did that every week.
	But that leaves missing the room for actual open conversations where you are able to level with the American people and tell them the truth about what's going on and rebuild trust.
	And so that's why we launched this podcast on the campaign trail.
	It's called Truth.
	I tell the truth and I'm going to continue it once a week when I'm in the White House.
	We'll probably release it on weekends and do a fireside chat.
	Be honest with the American people.
	Honest with them where my head space is and pick great Americans across this country to invite and tell their stories along with it.
	And so we're already practicing what we preach on the campaign trail and today I am glad to be joined by my good friend now Patrick Beddavid and We actually spent a lot of time, Patrick.
	You've always been asking me the questions, and you know my story, I think, better than I realize I know yours, and you have an interesting one.
	And, you know, I thought it would be interesting to kick off with...
	We'll get into issues and everything in a little bit, but...
	What led you to be doing what you're doing now versus the business background that you have in your day job in the insurance world and otherwise?
	What do you think it was about...
	Maybe talk about that insurance company in the background and what led you to have the insight you have as an entrepreneur that led you now to doing what you're doing in the world of new media?
	It's a pretty interesting story, and as a guy who's doing something totally different than where I began my career as an entrepreneur as well, I'm kind of interested to hear your version of it.
	Yeah, so thank you for having me on your show.
	We literally, if you're watching this, we finish.
	He's on a call.
	We're jumping on a call now.
	We're doing this.
	It tells you why you're getting the kind of eyeballs you're getting.
	I was born and raised in Iran, lived there 10 years.
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	Yeah, I was born already in Iran.
	I thought your parents were there.
	No, I lived there 10 years.
	I'm a 78 baby, October 18th in Tehran, Iran.
	I went to school in Iran, Gulbengian.
	I went to an Assyrian school, Armenian school.
	And then six weeks after Khomeini died, he died around June 2nd of 89 or 3rd.
	We escaped July 15th and went to Germany.
	I lived at a refugee camp in Germany for a year and a half.
	And then we finally got our green cards.
	This is 89, 90. We came to the States November 28, 1990. So I was in Germany when Germany won the World Cup.
	That's when I lived in Germany.
	And then came to the States.
	You know, I went to Glendale High School.
	I got out of high school.
	I went to the Army, went to the 101st Airborne Air Assault.
	I did that for two and a half years.
	I was going to re-enlist.
	Last minute I get out, I decide I'm going to be the next, you know, bodybuilder, Mr. Olympia, Arnold, you know, win a couple Mr. Olympias, be an actor, marry Kennedy, and then one day run for governor.
	It's kind of what the plan was back in the days.
	And I'm like, nah, change of plans.
	But did you actually go with the weightlifting thing?
	No, because I went to Mr. Olympia, one event, and I hung out with the guys that were competing, and I just told them, I said, guys, tell me what I need to take to compete.
	And they told me, I said, I'm not going to do that.
	I'm too tall, and I'm going to be off-season, 400 pounds.
	I'm not doing this.
	One day, I just made a decision on the way back from Vegas.
	Bodybuilding's not for me.
	I'm going to go into finance.
	I love money.
	I love numbers.
	Numbers is something that learning about how numbers and money works is very interesting to me, especially coming from a guy that we didn't have that.
	So, start working.
	I'm working in Stanley Dean Witter, day before 9-11.
	I get my Series 7, 66, 31, 26, Life and Health.
	And I'm doing that for minutes.
	And then 9-11 happens.
	I'm seeing what's going on with stockbrokers.
	I choose to go specific.
	My niche became insurance.
	I go to Transamerica for 7.5 World Financial Group.
	I'm there for 7.5 years.
	October of 2009, I notice what's going on with the marketplace.
	I leave, start my own company with 66 insurance agents.
	We grow to 45,000 agents.
	We sold it last year to Integrity and Silver Lake, where the money came from.
	It was a beautiful thing that happened over the last however many years.
	Now, you're asking a question about getting into media.
	Back in 2009, 2008, I'm trying to find out a cause that's going to move me.
	I learned how to make money.
	I've learned the magical words from my mom and dad.
	I'm proud of you.
	And I go to an event.
	A man named Bill Vogel invites me to an event with Larry Arnn at Claremont Institute and George Willis speaking.
	And he's speaking and he's talking about lawyers, how lawyers are ruining America and all this stuff.
	And I'm like, well, very interesting.
	By the way, at this point, I have nothing to do with politics.
	I'm just a capitalist.
	I'm a business guy.
	And afterwards, George comes up and he says, hey, you know, What should Patrick be doing?
	He says, why don't you study why immigrants come to America?
	Why is capitalism so attractive?
	What makes America so attractive?
	I do.
	Three months after that event, I put an event together in JW Marriott Palm Springs in 09, July 15, called Saving America, Doing the Impossible.
	I'm dressed as George Washington.
	My wife is dressed as Lady Liberty.
	I've got a 40-foot American flag on the stage.
	I had Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan's son come and talk about his father.
	I had Larry Greenfield talk about capitalism, and I had Dudley Rutherford talk about Star Spangled Banner.
	And then boom, from there it takes off.
	I don't create content for a few years.
	And while I'm doing the insurance thing, I'm seeing what's going on with media, the manipulation, the gamification, all this stuff that's going on.
	When is this now?
	This is in 2012, 2013. So I started a YouTube channel, a video I would do once a week called Two Minutes with Pat.
	And it was just two minutes?
	None of them were two minutes, but I would call it two minutes with Pat.
	It were eight minutes, seven minutes, six minutes.
	The only one that was two minutes was the 100th episode.
	That was a minute 59. And then I started to create content, you know, specifically around entrepreneurship.
	Then a couple things took off and went viral.
	And then, you know, we did business, politics, all this stuff.
	And then eventually I said, here's Valuetainment.
	Valuetainment's got a few million subscribers.
	I'm going to start a podcast separately called PBD Podcast.
	And we're going to talk about current events and then turn it into a media company, consulting firm, product development company.
	And, you know, now we moved from Texas to South Florida, Fort Lauderdale, two and a half years ago.
	And this is what we're running out.
	Awesome, man.
	Yeah.
	I mean, what do you think that What were your motivations when you started, got in the insurance business versus your motivations now when you're getting into new media?
	Motivation for insurance business, I noticed, I read Blue Ocean Strategy in 2008, 2009. What is that again?
	Blue Ocean Strategy, WC Chen.
	The whole concept is Most companies are in the red ocean.
	It's shark-infested ocean where they're biting each other, so it's all bloody.
	The idea is go and compete in a completely different market.
	Their main case study they did is Yellowtail.
	Yellowtail was getting their assets handed to them when they're competing with wine.
	They said, let's go compete with beer.
	Boom, they take off.
	That whole concept about blue ocean.
	So I read the book, and it says decrease a part of the business, increase Create, eliminate.
	Okay, what are we going to increase?
	What are we going to decrease?
	I saw the average age of an insurance agent at the time was a 56-year-old white male.
	And at the same time, I'm seeing social media taking off.
	I'm seeing Ron Paul raising $6 million on MySpace in 24 hours.
	And I'm seeing Obama, a one-term senator, raising $5, $10, $15, $20 on Facebook.
	And the Hispanic vote, and that's the market I was in.
	So we started a company.
	Target audience was women and Hispanic.
	Today, 54% of our agents are Hispanic.
	51% are women.
	And when that took place, the market couldn't find somebody like us.
	So purpose was more.
	I saw a great opportunity.
	Loved the industry.
	Life-changing.
	Pure financial freedom, that was the motive.
	The motive now is, I think the market...
	And I get that, actually.
	I mean, I'll tell you a little bit about this, but that was how I looked at it early in my career as an entrepreneur, too.
	And it worked.
	Financial freedom.
	Absolutely.
	And then, what are you going to do with the money?
	This time around, it's something else.
	As a sports guy, you know how you notice there's free agents or a certain position, there's too many of them retiring?
	In the media space right now, who is Ted Turner?
	Who is the current Ted Turner?
	Who is Rupert Murdoch?
	Who is the next big media mogul that's building and competing and loud and Able to impose and challenge and recruit and make people think and create opportunities for others to sit there and say, okay, I never thought about that.
	That's a good point.
	Good debates, good conversations, good exchange.
	I think right now the modern day media mogul at the top is probably Elon Musk.
	He's at the number one spot.
	But I think the market is wide open right now for having others.
	The old way of doing business is not working.
	Fox is a little bit confusing right now with their brand.
	What direction do they want to go?
	CNN is for sale.
	They're trying to sell CNN. No one's buying CNN. They try to sell it for $10 billion, $6 billion.
	How do we get somebody to pay $1.5 billion, $3 billion for it?
	Zucker's out.
	You know, you can't find a lot of power players today.
	You know, DW is trying to do what they're doing.
	A lot of independent guys are trying to do what they're doing.
	But yeah, I think the marketplace is wide open and we want to disrupt it in our own way.
	Yeah, I mean, I think it's funny because my first company I started, first major company, I started a small company in college, but the first real company I started was a business in the biopharma industry where you look at It's a monopoly profit industry.
	It's regulated.
	Some parallels with insurance, actually, in a certain sense, but big behemoths.
	They're highly regulated.
	Those regulations create monopoly profits.
	But they start behaving like governments, actually.
	When you're government regulated, when you've been running as monopolies like big pharmas do, they behave with the bureaucracy of a government.
	And so I've actually talked about this that much in the campaign trail, but more of maybe a business conversation.
	There's something that interesting that happens is they leave certain areas behind at the exact same time.
	So let's say there's different therapeutic categories, like you've got dermatology or cancer or women's health or bone health, etc.
	There's multiple different areas.
	The way it works in big pharma, it's kind of interesting the way opportunities come up, is If you fail in one of those areas and you're the only one doing it, then you look bad.
	But if everybody else in the industry is failing in the same area and you're the head of R&D and you fail there, it's okay because you're failing with the pack.
	Well, where's the opportunity?
	And the problem is those people aren't participating in the upside.
	So even if they take the risk and they succeed and you're the head of R&D at one of those industries, you don't participate in the upside of inventing Lipitor or whatever, right?
	But if you take the downside risk and you fail, you might get your budget cut, you might get fired, and you look like a fool if you're the only one who took that risk.
	And then it's a regulated industry.
	People coming back and forth from the FDA.
	They start to think and behave like government bureaucrats.
	So that ends up being big pharma in a nutshell.
	They behave like giant bureaucracies.
	Have you been paid much attention to sort of the public market investing universe or is it more of like a private company building?
	Just like even your career as an investor?
	We looked at investments or ourselves, like if we wanted to go public.
	We thought about going as a SPAC. You thought about going public, yeah.
	We thought about going as a SPAC and $10.50 a share of that whole game.
	And then last minute we were like, you know, we watched Shamat was doing a bunch of guys.
	I'm like, you know what?
	Now we're going to pump the brakes.
	We're not going to do it.
	You know, it's interesting because when you then become a public company, there's this other further inefficiency for pharma companies where they have a lot of cash on their balance sheet.
	But the way public markets work is they want you to deliver consistent earnings year over year, which means that even if in one given year you have to take an extra R&D expense, but that makes you less profitable, even if that makes sense from a value perspective, these companies weren't doing it.
	So there was all of these reasons why there were these drugs that a lot of pharma companies decided they weren't going to develop because it either hit their P&L too much, even though it had inherent value.
	The people who worked there didn't have any incentive to do it because as an individual, if I take that risk and I succeed, I don't participate in the upside anyway.
	If I lose, I end up getting penalized and blamed for it.
	And so all of them pursue the same areas that are popular or hot at the same time.
	So back when I started my career as a biotech investor in 2007, cancer wasn't hot.
	It got hot later.
	So everybody shifts to cancer, but they leave women's health or whatever.
	Different other areas, dermatology behind.
	So I said, what if there's an interesting opportunity to start a business that does the exact mirror image in the opposite of what they're doing?
	Which is to say, we'll give somebody's skin in the game.
	A scientist can make millions of dollars, upside, uncapped upside, in their own project if they actually succeed at it.
	We'll pick the areas that the other pharma companies are dropping.
	To say, I don't care if one year the profit and loss statement is high and low versus the next year.
	It doesn't matter.
	We're going to focus on what creates the most value.
	That's why I always paid attention to your company, Valuetainment.
	It has value in the name.
	You know, Royvent was the company I founded.
	Return on Investment was in the name.
	And you end up being able to, you know, one case is after I left the company, I mean, I founded the company and got it off the ground for seven years as CEO, but even after I've left, they're doing the same thing.
	You know, case of being able to develop a drug for $15 million, you pick it up, you sell it for $7 billion because another pharma company needs to fill that hole.
	It's sort of an opportunity that was founded on a kind of value disconnect, a sort of arbitrage in the market.
	And that was sort of my motivation for my first company.
	But when I got to my second one, or endeavor with Strive, which was the first time we met and talked about taking on the ESG space, it was a slightly different, it was a different motivation, right?
	And, you know, kid of immigrants, you were an immigrant, kid of immigrants as well.
	Talk to me a little bit about that.
	For me, it was a different life journey after we hit that first milestone about what comes next.
	Do you ever have that kind of insecurity growing up from like the perspective of not knowing that you or your family had financial freedom and how much of a motivator was that for you for that first company?
	Yeah, of course.
	I mean, absolutely.
	No, I mean, listen, talk about insecurity.
	My parents, my mother was on welfare.
	My dad worked at a cashier, worked as a cashier at a 99 cent store in Inglewood next to Great Western Forum.
	So that's my parents.
	They got divorced twice to each other, by the way.
	They got married.
	My sister's born.
	They get divorced.
	Then they get remarried.
	I'm born.
	Then they get divorced.
	Really?
	Twice to each other, by the way.
	And they've never been remarried to anybody else or nothing.
	So that's what happened with them.
	That's an interesting relationship.
	Very interesting relationship.
	Are they divorced now?
	They are fully divorced.
	Are they in touch now?
	My dad lives with me.
	My mom will come and visit.
	But when they're together in the same room, it's very awkward.
	It's not like a...
	Comfortable situation where they're at.
	No, but we grew up, you know, we grew up with nothing.
	I mean, we didn't have anything.
	I've never lived in an apartment, let alone a house with a swimming pool in it.
	Anybody in our family and friends that had a swimming pool in their apartment, to us, you were a millionaire.
	Oh, yeah.
	First time I was a kid, I went to...
	We know that feeling.
	Yeah, so when I went to Sizzlers the first time, I came back, I was in high school, I came back, I said, hey guys, you know, we went to a high-end restaurant yesterday.
	I'm like, really?
	Where'd you go?
	We went to Sizzlers.
	You know, should the rich people go to Sizzlers?
	Scissor's not a high-end restaurant, guy.
	What are you talking about?
	To us, a $9 steak or whatever it was, you know?
	Sounds familiar to me.
	So, first time I had lobster, I was in South Carolina.
	My dad, after boot camp, took me to Red Lobster and said, this is what Red Lobster tastes like.
	So, you go through that, right?
	The first time you have ananas, pineapple, you're like, this is the fruit of the rich when you're in Iran.
	Everybody doesn't eat ananas.
	What's the point here?
	Capitalism works.
	A guy like me, you went a different route.
	You made it to the top.
	You won.
	You've succeeded.
	You and your wife, classy couple.
	Your wife's also somebody that's a surgeon doing what she does.
	When you were here last time, you're like, my wife's actually doing a surgery right now.
	She's not here with us.
	But this is the great thing about America.
	Pick and choose what kind of a life you want to build.
	I think you tweeted yesterday or two days ago saying the younger generation wants to know if the American dream is still alive.
	The problem with that is this.
	The problem sometimes is the amount of gaslighting that's taking place where kids are being confused who the hero is.
	Kids are going to simply look on TV. Or look on social media and see who we're turning into a hero and they want to emulate that person.
	So is the hero today being the victim?
	You've written a book on that.
	Is the hero today somebody that complains and whines and blames everybody else for what's going on?
	Or is the hero what we once used to have in America where the son of the founder of Forbes magazine, the guy who actually grew Forbes magazine, Before China bought 95% of it, he had a plane on the corner, on the plane it would say capitalist tool.
	He had a helicopter, on the corner of the helicopter it would say capitalist tool.
	His boat, capitalist tool.
	He looked at everything as a capitalist tool.
	He used a plane as a tool for a capitalist to advance your business, right?
	This is a capitalist tool.
	This is a capitalist tool.
	You're on a flight.
	It's loud.
	You can hear certain things.
	So we've gotten away from seeing the tools that people have accessible to them to use to win at whatever levels they want to do.
	Whether they want to work with a guy like you.
	Interesting concept.
	You're saying scientists could come up with something and make as much money.
	Make millions.
	Hey, I invented this.
	Great.
	Upset, you can make 5, 10 million.
	That's a brilliant concept.
	Because it didn't happen at big pharma companies, you know?
	Yeah.
	I love that.
	Similar mentality.
	Yeah, similar mentality.
	To us, we also gave equity, which got people incentivized to want to treat the company like their own.
	So either go build a company, build a business, be a salesperson, start something that you can get passionate about, a product, or go work with a guy like you, Bring value, own a piece, participate, profit sharing, you know, in a way that you're contributing above and beyond everybody else.
	America's going to allow you to win.
	Ballmer never started a company.
	He was with Bill Gates, one of the employees.
	Ballmer today is, what, a $60 billion guy, and he owns the Clippers he bought for $2.2 billion today.
	It's valued at $4.6 billion.
	There's so many ways to make it.
	In America.
	But I got a question for you.
	The question I got for you is, from the big pharma side, and I'm curious to know what you'll say about this.
	Yeah.
	So out of all the, you know, 195 whatever amount of countries that we have worldwide, only two of them allow big pharma to advertise on TV. It's us in New Zealand, right?
	Yeah.
	As a president, because cable networks right now, a chunk of their money is coming from big pharma.
	They can afford to pay, you know, a certain guy $6 million a year, $10 million a year, some $20 million a year.
	Totally.
	It's not really them paying for it.
	Pfizer's paying for it or some of these other guys are paying for it.
	What do you think about the idea, and could you even do this as a president, what do you think about the idea of saying, moving forward, because I'm asking to see who would have the audacity to do this, and it's not really being brought up.
	What if somebody got elected?
	You're in the pharma space.
	And you say, moving forward, Big Pharma is not going to be able to advertise on TV here for whatever reasons.
	Is that a good idea?
	Is that a bad idea?
	And if somebody were to move with that, how catastrophic would that be to Big Pharma and how catastrophic would that be to media?
	Well, actually, the latter question is actually more interesting.
	I'm not sure it would be catastrophic to Big Pharma.
	Actually, they just do it because it's a habit.
	I personally believe that there are probably, just from a business standpoint, forget American public policy for a second, we'll come back to that.
	Just from a pure business standpoint, I told you the pharmaceutical industry behaves like it's a government, sort of in packs.
	They go roaming in packs.
	They all do the same thing.
	They imitate each other.
	So advertising on TV has become...
	A almost habit, a rote behavior, right?
	And you think about the swamp in government.
	Well, the swamp exists in every sphere of our lives.
	It exists in the private sector and corporate America as well.
	And so people in the swamp, in the bureaucracy, they just do the things that they're trained to do.
	So I believe if you look at the math, and I've been a few years out of the industry, but I'm thinking about my time in there.
	The ROI on TV advertising is actually not that good.
	They just do it because it feels like it's part of the plan that you're supposed to actually do.
	And it's a monopoly profit industry.
	See, that's the thing.
	So normally in an industry, you would never find it would be ridiculous if you're in the consumer product industry or if you're in like a tech, high tech industry for me to say something like, oh, it's not a high ROI motive of internal investment.
	We'd say, well, that's a crazy thing for you to say because that means a competitor would be doing it better and you'd be out of business.
	Not so in the pharma industry because it is a monopoly profit industry where if you get your product to the finish line because of the patent system and because of not just the patent system but the statutes, the laws of this country, literally give you a monopoly to sell it for at least 12 years.
	So when you have a true monopoly profit industry, you don't have an incentive quite as much with the same competitive market pressure to release yourself from old habits.
	And so as old media has sort of died away, the fact that big pharma is advertising as much as they are in television, I don't even think is a good...
	Business decision, actually.
	So is it kind of like, you know, these guys work at these Fortune 500 companies and before they want to pitch an idea to the board, they first go spend $500,000 with McKinsey.
	Then they come back and say, here it is.
	Totally, totally, totally that.
	Just what we typically do.
	Totally that.
	But then it's also even like one step I would double click here, which is...
	in the psychology of like the person who's like the chief commercial officer of a product launch or whatever, as I said, they're incentives.
	They're not like they're making millions of dollars on the upside if their project succeeds or whatever.
	They just want to do things the standard way.
	So if somebody tries launching that product without the TV ads and that ends up being a flop, but you're the only one who did it, then you get second guessed.
	And it's also pretty cool to be a guy who actually your product that you're working on is your ads on TV.
	So the psychology of it is more of a bureaucrat swamp type mentality.
	Oh yeah, I got to advertise at the Superbowl.
	Well, it's not a high ROI.
	It doesn't matter because no one's competing against us anyway.
	And we're printing billions of dollars in bottom line profit off of that drug after it's made it all the way through the process.
	Once you're commercializing it, there's no real market disciplining.
	So that's a business point that's separate from the public policy point you're raising.
	I think the real public policy point on pharma, I think, should be applying to a lot of industries and the corruption of lobbying.
	Okay.
	If you have worked in the government, you should not be able to lobby that government any longer.
	If you've worked in the last commissioner of the FDA, guess what he does now?
	He sits on the board of Pfizer.
	Literally.
	Like, it's the first thing.
	I like what you said today.
	Ten years, right?
	You said ten years.
	Ten years.
	Just give it ten years.
	You can do it later.
	And in those ten years, you can do whatever you want.
	I mean, you could do it to make money for yourself through ingenuity.
	But that's how they make their money.
	Do it the real way, but just for 10 years, don't exploit your government connections to do it.
	I don't think that's too much to ask.
	That's the real problem with pharma, because then they lobby in these special, like with the vaccines, the whole controversy is, and I think it's idiotic and it's wrong, that Normally, if you're a product manufacturer and something hurts you, I don't know, this drink or, you know, I don't know, your furniture breaks and you get hurt or your car breaks down, you get to sue the manufacturer as a tort.
	That's the system as it works.
	You bought something that didn't function as it was supposed to.
	If there's damage that somebody did to you, then that's a tort.
	You get to sue them in court.
	It's product liability, basic feature of just common law and state law.
	But for pharma companies, there's a special federal blanket of immunity that say, if you're a vaccine manufacturer, you can't be sued even if that harms you.
	That's the product of lobbying.
	So I would say get the lobbying for the special privileges out of the way.
	That's the real problem with pharma.
	I'm a pretty liberty oriented guy.
	And so for kids, I have separate sets of rules.
	Kids aren't the same as adults.
	For kids, you have to actually have separate rules that protect children.
	But if you're a freely grown adult, you know, I think I'm a freedom-oriented guy, and so regardless of the industry, I don't want to get in the business of you can tell this person that or that thing, or you can ban her.
	What you say, if you're telling adults truthful things and you're not lying to them, then that's fine.
	Why do you think the other 193 countries don't?
	I mean, forget about the 50%, you know.
	It's an interesting question, right?
	You know, the main ones, BRICS, you can take, you know, Europe.
	Why don't they do it?
	Yeah, but I think they also don't let cigarette companies advertise.
	They also don't allow lots of other categories of companies to...
	I mean, there's a lot of things that other countries do that the United States don't do.
	And the United States, at least historically, has been the bastion for freedom, for liberty, for embracing...
	Capitalism through liberty and economic freedom.
	So it's not that like I think the motivation of it is is spot on.
	The motivation is pharmaceutical industry because of its connectivity in the government is fundamentally corrupt and everyday citizens are left holding the bag as a consequence, higher costs for health care, etc.
	My point is knowing what I know from, you know, at least the time I was in the industry, if this market were more competitive, A, the TV advertising is sort of not really a smart source of expenditure anyway.
	And the real problem is they've erected barriers to competition by lobbying those governments, by hiring congressmen as their rent-a-rent-a-politician to be able to get special protections like the product liability for vaccines.
	Right.
	The product liability immunity for vaccine manufacturers that are just playing by a different set of rules because of the lobbying.
	So that's what gets me worked up, and that's where I'm more focused from a public policy perspective.
	And then from a pharmaceutical industry perspective, most of these companies can be run far more efficiently.
	We were talking on your show just a little bit ago about an analogy that I would bring – about something that I intend to bring to the U.S. government.
	If I'm the chief executive of the U.S. government as the U.S. president, there's millions and millions of federal employees.
	I would literally take somebody the last – We talked about it over there.
	The Social Security number, if it ends in an even number, you stay.
	If it ends in an odd number, you go.
	Boom.
	Day one, 50% the size of the federal government.
	The federal bureaucracy is half as thin.
	And if that still is too big, which I fear it might be, you look at the first number of your Social Security number.
	Okay?
	If it's an odd number, you stay.
	If it's an even number, you go.
	Period.
	Boom.
	That's a 75% cut.
	You go to most big pharma companies today...
	I have no doubt in my mind that the value of those companies and big pharma would go up if a CEO of that company did the same thing.
	That's what we're doing on day one.
	Because otherwise it's too hard to figure out, like, you know, by the time you wrap your arms around it, you think you're actually making the more micro-thoughtful decisions with a chisel.
	And there's a time for a chisel, but there's a time for a chainsaw.
	A lot of these bureaucracies, both in the federal government and even some of the private sector bureaucracies, have become bureaucracies where now is the moment for a chainsaw and not a chisel.
	You bring the chisel later.
	And I think that part of what makes the pharmaceutical industry behave like the government is they share something in common.
	They're both monopolies.
	Yeah, to me, the reason why I bring this up specifically with you is you've been in this space before.
	And you almost think about these big pharma companies that indirectly own these media companies because these media companies need to take the accounts.
	It's almost like a podcast or YouTuber you watch, right?
	Okay.
	If a guy doesn't have money, hasn't made money, he has to take every sponsorship because he has to pay the bills.
	So he'll do manscaped.
	He'll do anything and everything that anybody spends, you know, hey, can you promote this?
	No problem.
	CBD, gambling, no problem, right?
	Because you've got to take it.
	Versus somebody that's like, no, we're not doing that because that's not part of our brand.
	And a part of this concern is from COVID because we were told this is the way to go because the guys were giving the media company money, so they were the mouthpiece.
	So how do you prevent that from happening again when we experienced those two and a half years during COVID? Yeah, I mean, I think that competition is a big part of the answer.
	I mean, because again, if there's one industry that's saying, I'm going to buy and own you, that's the answer, because you're effectively tethered to it, then that's one thing.
	But presumably, if that's a useful mode of advertising, it's going to be a useful mode of advertising for people that have different agendas as well.
	So I think the real root cause of the COVID cultural censorship that we saw in this country, again, comes back to the relationship between big businesses and government.
	So pharmaceutical companies have these special blankets of privileges that the government has granted them through lobbying.
	Big tech is the same thing.
	I mean, this is part of what stifled dissent during COVID. It wasn't just we own you as a cable network.
	It's that we own you as a social media company, too.
	Look at what the advertisers tried to pull on Elon, which is by saying that unless you have certain restrictions on speech, we're not going to advertise with you.
	So this is just a problem as it relates to commerce.
	But the problem here is when the government gets in on it and starts coming down on the side of saying that If you don't take down certain kinds of speech or if you don't promote the kinds of speech that we, the government, want, then there's going to be consequences for you.
	I think that's really where the real problems emerged during sort of the COVID era.
	And the orthodoxies is the invisible hand of government forcing a lot of companies to do what those companies otherwise wouldn't have done.
	But if it weren't for that, then if you're a company and you need to sell ads, sell the ads to anybody.
	But if you don't want to be owned by somebody, then don't sell them all of your ads.
	And if you really have a value proposition for people to be able to sell more products, they should be able to sell more products.
	A lot of people should be able to sell more products by doing it.
	That's kind of the way I see it.
	What do you think?
	Yeah, I'm trying to think, because, okay, so Nikki Haley, whom you guys are best friends with, so Nikki Haley, you know, back in 40, you guys said it's fantastic watching to see what's going to happen there.
	But, so she leaves her job and goes, works at Boeing, and she becomes a millionaire, the whole allied, you know, Department of Defense that you were talking about earlier.
	Let's find out the contract.
	Let's find out that's valid.
	We want to know what the contracts are.
	Okay, but so you said the solution would be lobbyists.
	Okay, Harry, didn't Harry become a chief executive of some kind of a company, a C-suite of a company that they hired him?
	I don't know if it was Visa or MasterCard, one of those companies that hired, I'm talking Harry, Prince Harry, he got hired.
	So if you can't hire him as a lobbyist, they'll find a way around it.
	They'll find a loophole and put him as a high-paid employee and say, we're paying $4 million a year, we're paying $3 million a year.
	And it's really another job as a lobbyist.
	Yeah, I mean, he's not able to, I mean, he should not have, and it should be criminal to have contact with government officials in any capacity.
	Now you say, how are you going to detect that?
	Are you going to have secret dinners, etc.?
	Well, I mean, that's an enforcement issue, and that's that.
	But at least right now, we haven't even drawn the lines.
	Right now, our entire system blesses those people being able to, I mean, let's take the Nikki Haley example.
	She literally was scratching the back of Boeing, did special favors for them, unique favors just for that company while she's governor of South Carolina.
	They kept a nice seat warm for her.
	She joins the board of Boeing when she's done with her time in government.
	So that's perfectly not only within the rules.
	It's standard operating procedure today.
	I think if you actually put a clear ban on your ability to do that, that at least says, okay, if you're going to violate that law, you're going to be a criminal.
	but it at least criminalizes the behavior that's the actual root cause.
	Then there's always a question of execution, right?
	Just because you have implemented a law doesn't mean that it always gets followed.
	That's a question of execution and enforcement.
	But I do still think that that's the right next step, is eliminate the governmental special privileges.
	You got the Section 230 issue in tech, right?
	The equivalent of the pharma liability shield for vaccine manufacturers is a special liability shield that tech companies win through lobbying.
	Which is to say that even if there are state laws, and they exist in this state, in Florida and other states, that say you cannot take down content that is politically a product of discrimination.
	Many states, even California has such a law actually.
	California worried about discrimination against liberals in the post-Bush era.
	That even if those laws exist at the state level, that Big Tech got a special benefit, Section 230C2, specifically that part of it, that says you are not liable under those state laws.
	You have a special blanket of immunity from the federal government if you're an internet company that removes content that is otherwise constitutionally protected.
	There's no reason for that special blanket of liability except for the product.
	Of lobbying.
	So there's other ways to lobby.
	To say, even if you can't leave the government for 10 years, you can't lobby the government.
	Well, that means that at least they can't hire the congressman to go, you know, pick off his old crony friends.
	But what do they do?
	They write big checks to the super PACs.
	That's where I think the problem is.
	You don't know where the big pharma spending problem is?
	Super PACs.
	How big is that?
	What's the number?
	Super PACs are the cancer in American politics.
	I can explain how this works, actually.
	A lot of people probably have heard the word but may not be familiar with how it works.
	So the rules of the road are this, normally.
	We don't want our politicians to be corrupted, so you can only give $3,300 to a presidential campaign for a primary.
	Except that's not how it actually works.
	You can only give that directly to the campaign.
	But the way all of these campaigns are funded is a small group of wealthy people give money to these independent groups called super PACs that are basically affiliated with a candidate.
	Everyone knows that there's an affiliate.
	And they'll say, because we've spoken to them, they'll say, yeah, we don't talk to the candidate.
	This is, you know, we're independent of the candidate.
	Yet, I mean, in Ron DeSantis' case, I mean, let's just get real.
	The literal campaign bus they travel around on.
	Is arranged by the Super PAC. The private jets flights that they take are paid for by the Super PACs, right?
	The Super PAC is the one that sends the cameraman, oh, it's a funny thing, by the way, to my events.
	There's a little, there's like a guy in his 20s.
	He follows me around all my events to see if there's ever a flub with an audience member or whatever so that they can pass it over to the folks over there to distribute and make a competitor look bad.
	And I'm not blaming, the kid's a good kid actually doing his job.
	I'm not blaming dissents.
	It's just the way the game is played.
	So the Super PAC's idea that they're not individually supporting a candidate is ridiculous.
	But here's the dirty little secret people need to know.
	The candidates show up at massive mega fundraising summits, right?
	In fact, sometimes multiple candidates will show up at a summit for the people who are funding the Super PACs.
	That's where the candidates spend more of their time than in small-dollar fundraising.
	They don't care about small-dollar fundraising.
	It doesn't matter to them.
	What matters is the people who are writing the multimillion-dollar checks.
	So if the candidate is literally spending their time with them to raise the money, goes to the Super PAC, and the Super PAC is actually just propping up the candidate, even paying, not in normal cases, but now in this cycle, Ron DeSantis' private jets and buses, tell me that's not having some corrupting influence.
	Yet we tell this farce that it's $3,300 that an individual can donate because we don't want to corrupt the politician.
	Well, the politician's meeting with the people who are writing $10 million checks.
	And knowing that those checks are directly going to help the campaign and having meetings about what their objectives are, that's a joke.
	Okay?
	That's a joke.
	So the fact of the matter is...
	That's where the other source of informal lobbying and corruption occurs.
	So I think we should end that system, right?
	So we think about the impact of paid advertising on TV where anybody in the marketplace can buy a paid ad.
	Finishing super PACs is what you're saying.
	Yeah, I think the super...
	So here's what I would say.
	King Griffin right now, who was pro DeSantis at first, and rumor had it he may give 100 million bucks, and now he's St. Haley.
	Now he doesn't have a way to give that money to a super PAC. His maximum is 3,300 times two whites.
	Here's the way I would do it.
	You're max at $3,300.
	So if there are entities that are specifically supporting individual candidates by name, you're capped at giving $3,300, just like to a campaign.
	Let's say you want to give to a cause, right?
	You're advancing, I don't know, educational freedom, or you're advancing healthcare access.
	Pick your issue.
	We have free speech in this country, and I believe in that.
	You can give an unlimited amount, right, to express yourself and your view.
	But we've already said that the government and the state and our society has a compelling interest in preventing corruption, which is why we have a $3,300 maximum for giving to a campaign.
	Well, if that same corrupting influence exists at a super PAC, it's a joke if the entire system is run without applying that maximum.
	I'm a free speech absolutist.
	But applied the same set of rules we're already applying for the campaign to just write, if you're going to write the check to an entity that is supporting a campaign, make it $3,300 maximum.
	Same thing as for the campaign.
	When did it come up with the Super PAC concept?
	It was post-2010.
	There was a Supreme Court case called Citizens United versus FEC. Actually, an interesting case.
	It was a non-profit group that, anyway, it's a long story relating to a documentary of Hillary Clinton.
	But that was the case after which the left used to complain and say, corporations aren't people.
	Because the core holding of that case is, well, corporations still have free speech rights and these corporate super PAC then became the corporation, an entity.
	And so after that, it became a tortured interpretation of the law.
	But back in 2010, if you told those justices, the basic holding of the case was that The government can restrict you from expressing your opinions through speech in giving specific money to a candidate because the government has a compelling interest in preventing corruption, even though you're allowed to speak your mind freely however you want and give money to whatever cause you want.
	If it's donating to a campaign, we want to put limits on the absolute maximum you can give.
	That was the premise.
	But if there's an independent cause, like you want to make a documentary or, you know, pursue climate change fanaticism or whatever, you're free to do that.
	It's a free country and no one's going to stop you from spending how much money you want to do that.
	What they never imagined was that that independent entity that's advocating for some climate change policy or some, you know, whatever, gun rights policy, that that entity Right.
	And then those entities provide the campaign bus that takes you from place to place, pay for the private jets from take you from place to place, pay for the ads that are on television, pay for 90 percent of the expenditures of your campaign are paid for by most of your employees for the Ron DeSantis effort to become president or employed pay for 90 percent of the expenditures of your campaign are paid for by
	The people who wrote the Supreme Court case in the majority opinion in Citizens United never imagined that would actually be the case today because there's obviously a corrupting influence.
	Have you seen the numbers?
	We did an episode on it.
	Is this live or is this...
	This is not live, it's taped.
	Okay, so do you guys typically add stuff, B-roll?
	Yeah, we can add that.
	If you find the numbers of what happened after 2010, you'll see 430 million and then it goes to 1.4 billion All of a sudden, the amount of money that went into it.
	You're making a very good point here, but let's go back.
	Let me ask you this.
	What industry is illegal to advertise on TV today?
	What industry is it illegal to advertise on TV? I'm not sure I know that question.
	Are cigarettes illegal to advertise?
	Because I've not seen a cigarette commercial for a long time.
	Yeah, I don't see Camel.
	I don't see Winston.
	They used to be on TV all the time.
	They used to be, of course.
	I'm just actually curious.
	Yeah, I'm curious as well.
	I should know the answer.
	I don't know the answer.
	Let's actually take a look at that.
	Kelly, can you check to see what industry is not allowed to advertise on TV? I'm not going to trust the first thing that comes out of here, but I'm just curious what at least the facial answer is.
	Advertise on TV. He says there's additional restrictions or disclosure for tobacco products, for alcohol under 21. Political and controversial matters.
	So tobacco products cannot be advertised on television.
	Okay, so there you go.
	So then the question becomes, because the argument typically when I bring this up, people will say, well, why?
	They used to be able to.
	Right.
	Gun ads are allowed still, I believe.
	Yep.
	Okay, so there's some controversy around that.
	Yeah, but they're not going to pick it up.
	A lot of these companies are not going to let you do it.
	Hey, here's a Smith& Wesson ad.
	Let me tell you how I killed a deer the other day.
	Here's what I used.
	But many times when I bring up this conversation about New Zealand and US, people say, well, you know, that's not fair because, you know, capitalism, you got to let them out.
	I say, okay, good argument.
	And if that's the case, if we make it...
	How about beer companies?
	You know, look how many people die every year from alcohol.
	Okay, but why is tobacco not allowed?
	And why is this not allowed?
	So, I don't know.
	The only thing I think about where it's a clear, indefinite way that stops the gamification and the manipulation is if I go to the doctor, doctor tells me, here's the vaccine, take it, fine, the doctor's telling me.
	If I go to whoever, but if a media company...
	It's getting tens of millions of dollars per year from Big Pharma.
	I almost have to go dance around in a syringe, and my name is Stephen Colbert saying, hey, take the vaccine.
	So, yeah, it's a deeper problem.
	I mean, you could talk about the same thing as BlackRock advertising on television too, right?
	I mean, they're basically the company that controls, as a shareholder, All major publicly traded companies as the top shareholder of those companies that when they advertise on a given network, the influence they're going to have is disproportionate because they not only do they own the company literally as shareholders, but they own it directly as well.
	And so I think it strikes me as a form of where to use the pharmaceutical analogy, like a symptomatic therapy.
	You know what I mean?
	Because there's going to be still so many other ways, as we're saying, legacy TV is dying anyway.
	So that means you can't advertise on digital either.
	And what counts as an Internet advertising or otherwise?
	Maybe we don't want advertisements at all.
	But then now you're then beholden to the expert class.
	I mean, think about like, you know, what the FDA says a doctor can and can't tell you.
	Now you're getting your information through a different source that's captured versus, for me, the right answer is more competition in the marketplace and get the government out of the business of indirectly using these companies as pawns.
	And the way...
	The companies capture the government to keep out competition and to get in bed with government is with these special lobbying-based measures.
	I mean, they lobby the government, hire lobbyists who have left their time in government, and then they...
	Go through the front door of Super Packs.
	Did you ever watch the movie, Insider?
	The Philip Morris lobby?
	Yeah, I did.
	It was actually really good.
	Very good movie.
	Yeah, who was the guy who was the actor?
	He was in Batman as well.
	He was the guy who was the prosecutor in Batman.
	Yes.
	Yeah, in Dark Knight.
	Very good movie.
	That was a really good movie.
	It's the best lobbying movie one can watch.
	And it was so cynical.
	But it was funny.
	It was funny.
	Is that the one where there's like the reporter and he kind of have like a relationship even though she's the one supposedly exposing the whole thing?
	It's a must watch.
	I mean if anybody wants to know about lobbying go watch that movie.
	But you know if the argument we go of the capitalism argument let the market decide And get the government out of the way.
	Okay.
	And if I'm taking that position, perfect.
	Let's take that as a position.
	If I'm Philip Morris, I'm coming, I say, listen, guys, hey, Vivek, hey, President XYZ, if that's the case, you guys should allow us to advertise on TV. What's wrong with that?
	We are more responsible today.
	So there is that.
	So I think the issue there is...
	I'm processing what the logic there is, and so we want to look more into this.
	But I think that cigarettes are banned for any kid under the age of 18. So if kids are using the platform they're advertising on, I think that would be the justification.
	Versus...
	Any other product, let's say, I don't know, a car.
	It's not banned for usage.
	How about alcohol?
	Alcohol is banned for under 21. They're advertising everywhere.
	I see Budweiser everywhere.
	You see, you know...
	Yeah, I'm not saying...
	I mean, Pat, I'm with you.
	Do you think our laws are consistent?
	No, that's what I'm saying.
	No, they're not.
	They're pretty random, actually.
	All I'm thinking about is being a devil's advocate for Philip Moore, saying, if I'm a guy saying you're taking that position, I'm coming in and saying, fine, I agree with you, Vivek.
	You should allow us to advertise.
	We'll put, you know, a billion-dollar year of ads going back to making people realize cigarettes are cool again.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that that would culturally fail, actually.
	I don't think the reason that cigarettes have gone down dramatically in popularity is because they don't advertise on TV anymore.
	You don't think that's a leading factor?
	I think a leading factor of it was massive, massive, massive tort suits that found people got lung cancer and made them culturally unpopular.
	People realized that their kids are actually going to be dying much earlier.
	I think that's one.
	I think the other one is education, right?
	Yeah, totally.
	Money that's out of TV. That's not taking place anymore.
	You make me want to look into this, actually.
	And the reason why I'm talking to you about it is because you're the guy that, if there is a candidate, like let's just say on Alabama debate, okay?
	You take the next 30 days and you're looking, nah, Pat's not, I'm not going to entertain this.
	It's not going to be an idea.
	But if you get convicted about this, like if there's a guy that gets conviction behind what we're talking about, and you go drop this bomb at the Alabama deal, and next thing you know, you know who else is coming after you afterwards.
	Now you got it because people are like, if there's one company or industry you don't want coming after you, it's Big Pharma.
	But I think that's a whole different conversation where you have the moral authority because you've been in the industry to say, here's how it would happen.
	You make me want to, you have given me a motivation.
	First of all, you made me curious on this because you make, you raise some really good points on the entire inconsistency between the regime for tobacco advertising versus alcohol advertising versus farm advertising.
	And so it's a good set of questions, but I think there's a deeper question where we do have, I mean, actually one of the areas where, you know, the issue I do talk about this relates to is why do you think we shuttered psychiatric institutions in the United States?
	Why did we shutter psychiatrists?
	Because in the debate stage we're talking a lot about crime, right?
	So crime has gone up.
	Crime has gone up directly over the period that psychiatric hospitals have closed.
	Yeah.
	So I would say this to you.
	So I got a book coming out called Choose Your Enemies Wisely.
	December 5th it comes out.
	It's business planning for audacious few.
	I think those who win, you know, choose their enemies wisely.
	I'm talking to Brady about this.
	I'm like, Brady, there's three factors of somebody that takes it to a whole different level in their lives.
	One, they have experienced unconditional love from one person.
	It's mandatory.
	You need to have it because you know that exists.
	Number two, unconditional pain From somebody you loved that they betrayed you and let you down.
	I think that's necessary because you have to experience that pain.
	And then the last one is choosing your enemies wisely because that gets something out of you, right?
	Like when I'm watching you, your energy, where's the stem from?
	What are you doing this for?
	Are you doing it just because you want to be famous?
	I don't think so.
	I think you're doing this because there's a real enemy that's moving you and driving you, right?
	Okay.
	So you asked this question about...
	That's interesting.
	I like that thesis.
	Those are three interesting...
	Yeah, so you asked this question, and one of the enemies that I think Nixon did a lot of good, you know, everybody, when you think about Nixon, they think about Watergate, but Nixon also did a lot of good.
	Oh, yeah, he did.
	Yeah, he did.
	One of the things on the case study that backfires on him is the following data, and that's the war on drugs, right?
	1971, when they come out with it, and then the data...
	To follow after that, in 1970, per 100,000 men in America, 200 were incarcerated.
	And we had around 350,000 people in jail, give or take.
	So again, 100,000, 200 men.
	Every decade, that went up.
	From 200 to 400,000.
	To 600, to 800, to almost 1,000 today.
	Per 100,000, 1% of men are incarcerated.
	That's a big number right there.
	Okay.
	We went from 350,000 in jail to 2.3 million in jail.
	Population has increased from there till now 67%, 70% give or take.
	Jail prison population has increased 550-575%, depending on what numbers you're looking at.
	Okay, so did Nixon choose the right enemy?
	Did he do it because he tried to put drug dealers in prison?
	Well, what was the other thing that backfired with that?
	Fatherless homes, you know, back in 1950s or something, 4% of kids were being born to a single father.
	Now it's 25%?
	Now it's up to 40%.
	And so maybe we chose the wrong enemy.
	When you're talking about what you're talking about, I think that's another one of those cases where we chose the wrong enemy, the wrong solution for a problem, and we're paying a price for it today.
	Yeah, I think it's...
	That's an interesting...
	Analysis, I agree with it.
	Now, why did we choose the wrong enemy?
	It comes back to one of the points you were making.
	I think big pharma played a big role in it.
	See, when the psychiatric medications came out, which were some of the biggest blockbuster medicines, they said, wait, these people are stuck in there.
	They could be out in the world actually using these antipsychotics and otherwise.
	And so that was a product in part of Lobbying.
	To say, you know, there's many arguments for it.
	There are psychiatric abuses, and those are real at those psychiatric institutions and otherwise.
	But it's not a coincidence that it's precisely over the period that you see blockbuster antipsychotic drugs coming out, that you also see the shuttering of psychiatric institutions in this country, right?
	And so that gets back to, you know, when you think about picking the enemy from my vantage point, it's all about the merger of of state power and corporate power most bad things in the economy that look like they're failures of businesses or that's something we need to fix through government intervention into a business to fix a problem that exists in the society most i'm not saying all the time but most of the time you can trace and pull that string all the way back up to
	some other form of special government protection That comes from, it never happens automatically.
	It's always the product of some form of corruption.
	Either the influence of money on an election process, indirectly or through lobbying or otherwise.
	So that's where I go to.
	I mean, it's a different Big Pharma problem.
	Big Pharma lobbied for a result that created the shuttering of psychiatric institutions that, in part now, is responsible for a wave of violent crime as psychiatrically ill people were able to be dangerous.
	Strategically, strategically.
	It's deceptive, but strategically, they made the right move economically for themselves.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's a dark move, but it's the right move they made.
	But this is the part that, you know, I'm sure you've read this and I'm sure, you know, Big Pharma book about how heroin used to be sold by these big pharmaceutical companies and how they sold it.
	Even fentanyl today, it's, you know, 50 times more potent, more powerful than heroin, killing 150 people a day.
	Totally.
	But it's FDA approved.
	Fentanyl is FDA approved.
	Most people don't know this.
	If you go right now Google fentanyl FDA approved, it would say fentanyl is FDA. How is it even possible for it to be FDA approved?
	So to me, that enemy, it would be an enemy that I'm sure knowing how you're wired and how you think, you're going to have to be very methodical and meticulous whether this is an enemy.
	Tied to the facts, yeah.
	Yeah, but if you go after that enemy and your background on how you made your money Is this space, and you saw the good, bad, and the ugly, the dark side.
	I mean, I'm sure you saw who Tucker had on his show a couple weeks ago.
	The guy that bought the patents of this pharmaceutical, this drug, and he was selling it for $5,000.
	What's the guy's name?
	Martin Shkreli?
	He was on with Tucker?
	Two weeks ago.
	Oh, really?
	I didn't see that.
	Oh, you've got to watch it.
	Oh, that's funny.
	So all I'm saying, I think if you go that space...
	I really think it's going to trigger a lot of mothers, a lot of family, a lot of people that were forced to do certain things to their kids that are hurt, that were not happy.
	There's a reason why RFK's book on Fauci did so well and got 27,000 reviews on Amazon, a self-pub book.
	It's not a self-pub, but it's not through Simon& Schuster or Penguin.
	I think there is...
	Some buttons there to be pressed where any of the candidates today, take RFK out, environmental lawyer, this is what he's going after with the whole vaccines.
	I think you're the most qualified to hit this hard.
	But just be ready before you do it because you're going to have a lot of powerful people coming after you if you do that.
	I know what that feels like already.
	There you go.
	So I appreciate that, man.
	Well, good, man.
	Well, all I'll say is the next edition of the Truth Podcast, you know, time's going to fly by.
	Hopefully it'll be from the White House, all right?
	I look forward to it.
	You down for that?
	Absolutely.
	That'd be one of our early fireside chats.
	Let's do it.
	That'd be fun.
	Good seeing you, brother.
	Appreciate you.
	Keep up the good work.
	I'm proud of you.

▲