What would Bobby Kennedy do the first day he is president?

He has narrowed down a possible 8-10 causes for the chronic disease affecting our children and our citizens, and that is really what he is willing to GO TO WAR for. This live podcast is a deeply personal look into an honest leader who transcends narrow self-interest, party loyalty, and who believes there is no way forward that leaves our brothers and sisters behind.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is without a doubt, the most disruptive candidate for the next President of the United States, and that’s certainly why the establishment is terrified about his inevitable victory. But the truth is that he is the medicine that even the politicians need to help break free from the two-party duopoly that has been driving this country apart. In this live audience podcast episode we hosted in Austin, we discuss Bobby’s commitment to ending forever wars, cleaning up the government, restoring the middle class, and telling Americans the truth.

I also ask him his thoughts on psychedelics, and what he would do if he discovers evidence about UAP/UFO secrets. You’re gonna want to hear what he says about all of that!

Learn more about Bobby’s 2024 campaign for President at https://www.kennedy24.com/.

AUBREY: I'm actually going to open this conversation with a poem. And I'm going to insincerely apologize for being emotional today. Because this really means a lot to me. I don't care about anything more than this, in this world about making a more beautiful world. So insincere apology delivered, and onward we go. I'm going to start this with a poem. “Wake up, world. You've had a nightmare. The ambulance chasing somnambulism, sleep walking through minefields of propagandized fear, of pharmaceutical days in a pornographic, algorithmic, polarizing haze, heralding the blasphemy, the end is near, there is no God, love doesn't work, I'm ashamed of my fuck, the game is rigged and I'm stuck. Blink open. A new dawn is rising, the truth is returning, the god flame is burning, culture is churning, tides of Empire turning and the Kingdom is here. This is your moment, own it. Disown the bad dreams of fomenting puppets on big money strings, parroting the things of who pay them to sing. This is it. Claim your birthright to spark Christic light in the chalice of Eros, a Rosicrucian crucifixion on a cross made of love, arousing feminine waters to douse the dictators, digital and criminal and lead all of our planet through the long dark night. Wake up, world. You're asleep in mother's bed and the house is on fire. Sound the alarm, ring Revere's bell, gather the warriors, large and the small, dare to have hope, elope with the possibility that the proclivity to habituated hate is not our natural state, but has been manipulated and culturated by forces who forgot what source is. Let it start with a vote, a promissory note, shifting gear out of park to spark the revolution in the cosmo-erotic engine of Noah's orbiting Ark. Hark the Return of the King. The bane of wars ring, the stinger of truth in the mendacious flesh of big brothers technocratic nests, a glyphosate in great, intransigent independent, protesting the colonizing of our body of state with guns, germs and steel lies fear and needle. Flying his falcons to remind the ego the meaning of liberty. This is not just about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's the sword in the hands of the brave, in the land of the free.” Well, Bobby, here we are. Do you have a microphone or you got a clip mic? I think you need a projection mic to get on the house sound. Oh, it's in your seat. You got a mic here. All right, here we are. So, the last podcast we did was censored and removed from YouTube. That was really a clear sign, because there was nothing on that podcast that we talked about, I didn't even know you were going to run for president then. Sorry for that prophetic slip. But I didn't know that then, and we just talked about things. We talked about your life. And every single thing you said was backed up by a study that you had, and you were very, very just, I would even say conservative, even with the things you were saying because everything was just backed by, no, this is what I believe. I even opened up possibilities for you to overreach what you actually could ground in the facts of what you knew. And still, it didn't matter. They pulled that down. So, this podcast may suffer the same fate. But this problem is what I'm pointing to is that when speech is not free, and when things become censored, we lose our ability to make sense of anything. Censorship erodes our sense making capability. And I think that's something that's really present right now is everybody's trying to censor and ban people from speaking. And that, to me, seems like a big problem.
BOBBY: Yeah, I mean, that I think has been one of the most extraordinary things that I've watched over the past, particularly the past three years, is the government's participation in censorship, which is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. It also has been one of the driving tenets of liberalism. The word liberal means freedom, and it is intended to mean the freedom of speech and debate. Our framers of the Constitution put it into, Hamilton said we put it into the First Amendment because it's the most important, freedom of expression is the most important right. Because a government that can censor its critics has license for any kind of atrocity. And during the pandemic, we saw that they tried out censoring speech at the beginning, and then they went after all of the other rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment. They went after freedom of worship, which is also on the First Amendment. They closed every church in this country for a year with no scientific citation, and no democratic process, no hearings, no notice and comment rulemaking. All the things that you need to do to pass a rule in government, they just ignored. They had one bureaucrat who has been there for 50 years, and never been elected, that said, okay, close all the churches, but we'll keep the liquor stores open. Nothing made any sense that they were doing. And then they went after freedom of assembly, also in the First Amendment, by telling us to social distance from each other, making it actionable if we got too close to each other, if we actually assembled. Then they went after the Fifth Amendment, guarantee of property rights, that says the government can't take your property without due process and just compensation. They closed 3.3 million businesses without due process or just compensation. Then they went after to jury trials. The Seventh Amendment says, very simple, no American shall be denied the right of a trial before a jury of his peers in case or controversies exceeding $25 in value. Yet, they made a rule that you can't sue a corporation that is involved in any countermeasures. So, a pharmaceutical, a hospital association, or a doctor who gives you a product that hasn't been tested or that is experimental and compels you to take it which is illegal. And no matter how negligent their behavior, no matter how reckless they were, no matter how toxic the ingredient or shoddy the manufacturing process or insupportable the testing, and no matter how egregious your injury, you have no right now to sue them. There is no pandemic exemption in the United States Constitution. And by the way, the framers of the Constitution knew all about epidemics. There were two epidemics during the Revolutionary War. It was an epidemic that decimated, a malaria epidemic that decimated the armies of Virginia. In fact, they used hydroxychloroquine, an early version of hydroxychloroquine during that epidemic. And then another epidemic of smallpox that completely disabled the army of New England during a period of time when we conquered Montreal. Benedict Arnold conquered Montreal, we got into the inner city and took it over, but he had to withdraw because his troops had been so decimated by smallpox that they couldn't hold the city. They didn't have enough troops to hold it. Otherwise, Canada today would be part of the United States, and all of the people who wrote the Constitution understood that, they understood what the epidemics. And by the way, between the end of the Revolution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, which is nine years later, there were epidemics in every city in the country, smallpox, cholera, yellow fever that killed tens of thousands of people, including most of the people who wrote the Constitution, and lost family members or friends in these epidemics. So, they knew all about epidemics, and they did not put an exemption to the Constitution into the Constitution. And during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln tried to suspend one provision of the bill of rights, the right of habeas corpus, which means, holding somebody without a judicial hearing. Because the Confederates were sending provocateurs to the northern cities to incite any draft riots, and it was causing terrible morale. There was terrible morale already in the north. And this was exasperating. So, he knew who the people were when they were coming north, and they tried to arrest them, before they could give their speeches. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney said, "You can't do that." In the US Civil War, 659,000 people died. It's the equivalent of 7.2 million today by population. So, it was much worse than the COVID epidemic and our nation was being torn to pieces, and was in danger of actually being destroyed. Roger Taney, the Supreme Court Justice said, it doesn't matter. The constitution is more important than the country. It's more important than 100,000 lives. And he upheld it, and he made Lincoln release all of the confederates. We all read Orwell, when we were growing up. We read Kessler, we read Aldous Huxley, we read Robert Heinlein, all of these authors, who were telling us the worst thing you can do is censor speech. That is the first step. The next step is this slippery slope into totalitarianism. And somehow we forgot it, and particularly people who think of themselves as liberals had this incredible cognitive dissonance where they forgot there's never been a time in human history when we look back and say, it was the good guys who were censoring speech. It's always the bad guys. There's no time that we think, "Oh yeah, those guys were doing the right thing. They were stopping people from talking." But all of that was just forgotten during the pandemic. It shows the capacity of governments to use orchestrated fear to disable the capacity for critical thought in all of us. And, ultimately, if you can't do critical thinking, you can't have democracy for very long.
AUBREY: Knowing history like you know, it's as if the writers of the Constitution, they knew that this moment would come, and they knew that it would be challenged, and they knew that there would be a challenge to this process. And so, that's why they made it in this ironclad constitution. Then they said, if this upholds, we have a chance as a nation. I just wonder if you sometimes muse about those writers of the Constitution just thinking about, oh yeah, this is why we did it. We did it for this, we did it for this moment, because we knew that these forces would try. And we knew that these forces would try so we created this to prevent this thing from happening. And now we're at this choice point, we're at this crossroads where they're trying to erode the constitution so that they can carry forth their totalitarian agenda. But if we can uphold the Constitution, it actually points the way forward, actually through this, but we have to stand by like the bedrock of those principles.
BOBBY: Yeah, I mean, they knew that they were writing the constitution for hard times. They weren't writing it for easy times. Freedom of expression, I guarantee is not for easy speech. It's not for the speech that we all agree on. It's for the speech that nobody wants to hear. That's what it's there to protect, the things that are unpopular, that nobody wants said. That's what that guarantee is for. I remember in 1977, when the American Nazi Party decided to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois, where there were a lot of Holocaust survivors in that particular neighborhood. At the ACLU, everybody was appalled, everybody's horrified by their message. But liberals coalesced around the ACLU and said, we don't like anything they're saying, but we need to be willing to die for their right to say it, for the right to say things that we don't want to hear. That's what the First Amendment was written for, for hard speech.
AUBREY: Sense making is becoming increasingly difficult with the way that information is being distributed. Is there anything that you see when you become the president, or anything that you see even now, that is like, how do we help what you could call the epistemic commons, how people can make sense about things? And we were having a conversation in the greenroom, so to speak. It was about really exposing all of the algorithms, creating transparency in all of these social networks. But it's not just the social networks, it's got to be news and media. How do we create a way where there's an assistance to people to actually start to make sense? I mean, the first thing is, we've got to allow open discourse. Everybody's got to be able to speak. But is there anything else that we can do to help guide people in the sense making process itself? How can people attune to truth?
BOBBY: Well, it's up to individuals to discern the truth. I'm a free speech absolutist. I think we're being orchestrated right now to think that misinformation is this terrible threat to our society. I'm never worried about misinformation. Justice Brandeis said that the remedy for bad information and misinformation is more information. It's not censoring people, it never works. People who tried to censor speech that was critical of the medical processes and the countermeasures during the pandemic were not convincing people that the orthodoxy was correct. They were instead fomenting tremendous anger, and a mistrust of government in general. It's interesting what happened to this country, because when I was a kid, people trusted the government, and they trusted the media. Why did they trust them? Because the government was trustworthy, and the media was trustworthy, too. A couple of things happened. One is that in May of 1960, when I was a kid, the American people could not imagine that their government would lie to them. It was inconceivable to most of us. And then in May of 1960, which is five months before my uncle was elected, the Russians shot down a U-2 which is a high-altitude spy plane over Russia, and then complained internationally about the Americans were spying on them. Allen Dulles who was the head of the CIA told Eisenhower, they can never prove that we did it, and so you should lie about it, and Eisenhower was very reluctant, and he also said, the pilots of those planes, those were CIA planes, they weren't Air Force, they were flying out of Urasoe Air Force Base in Japan. Nobody knew about them. As far as the world was concerned, they didn't exist. Dulles told him to lie about it, and he also told them, the pilots of those planes were highly trained, and that they were trained to kill themselves. They were given an arsenic needle that they would inject themselves with if they were going to be captured. But Gary Francis Powers, the pilot of that plane had not used the needle, he had chickened out, and the Russians had captured him. But they didn't announce that at first. They just announced we shot down your plane. So, Eisenhower publicly denied it. Either way, Eisenhower was on his way to his summit with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. The CIA blunder, if it was a blunder, threw all of that out the window. So, the Russians produced Gary Francis Powers, and all of a sudden, the whole world, and the American people for the first time said, "Oh, the American government lies to our people." And that was the first time that people started saying, oh, we need to watch our government. In 1971, the Pentagon Papers came out. My uncle's assassination took place in '63. And to me, that was when the line really started, when it became de rigueur in the government too, and in the press. The lie about something that was clearly wrong. Then, I think, this is what we're going to do. So, then, in '71, my uncle had commissioned a study of the Vietnam War. That study had been ongoing in the years after he died. And I think it was 26 volumes. They wanted to know exactly how every decision was made, but it was a Top Secret document. It was stored by the RAND Corporation inside the Pentagon. One of the authors of it was this very brilliant Harvard educated marine named Daniel Ellsberg who was running it, and he was struck by conscience in 1961, and he released it to the public. It showed that the entire time during the Vietnam War that the public officials knew we were losing, they knew it could not be won, and they knew it was all fruitless. They were saying one thing in private, and then lying to the American public systematically over those years. That's when Americans really stopped trusting their government. The news media was still trustworthy. What happened with the news media is in 1928, we passed the Radio Act Communication Broadcasters Act. And radio has just been invented and commercialized. Both Republicans and Democrats were very worried about radio because they thought, oh my gosh, these large corporations are going to be able to control the flow of information to the public. And they knew that democracy would collapse if one person could control the information. In fact, at the beginning of our constitutional process, there was a big dispute between Hamilton and Adams on the one hand, and Jefferson and Madison on the other. Jefferson and Madison wanted universal franchise. So, every American can vote. And by that, I mean, every white male. But Adams and Hamilton said, "No, only people who own land should be able to vote." Why? It wasn't because they were undemocratic. They believed that the masses of people who are uneducated would be easily seduced by a demagogue who would then overwhelm all of the constitutional rights that they and their friends had fought and died for, in order to guarantee the American people. So, they said, we can only give the franchise to educated people who will be able to resist the clever and cunning seductions of the tyrant. And so, in 1928, when radio was invented, everybody knew that. What happened in the end is, Jefferson agreed. And he said, “Yeah, an uneducated public will be misled, but our remedy for that is not to deprive the public of its franchise, but rather to forcibly educate them”. And that's why we were the first country in the world that had mandatory public education, and Jefferson on his gravestone doesn't have it that he wrote the Declaration of Independence. He may have had to. But he's a founder of the University of Virginia. They founded agricultural colleges and public schools in every county in Virginia, because that was part of a democracy. You had to have an educated public or you couldn't have democracy. 1928, when they invented radio, and it became ubiquitous, Congress, Republicans, and Democrats said, we can't let this be concentrated in the hands of a few people because it will destroy our country, it will destroy democracy. So, they made rules that are now called the Fairness Doctrine, where they made a few rules that you could not own more than eight radio stations. Why did they choose number eight? Because William Randolph Hearst who owned a lot of newspapers owned eight stations, and they didn't want him getting any more. So, they said, eight is all you get. They said that also, if you're going to use the airwaves belong to the public. The broadcasters can be licensed to use them, but only if they use them to promote the public interest. So, they knew the broadcasters were going to want it, essentially, what we call eyeballs today, they wanted a big audience. And the way that you get a big audience is by entertaining people, not telling them the news that is relevant to policy making, by government. But they said that every day, a certain amount of the day, the broadcaster must tell the news to the American public, to educate them about policies that are important for decision making in a democracy. So, if you remember, those of you who remember broadcast radio and top 40, etc., you'll notice that every 15 minutes, they took a news break, and gave you the latest news. The broadcast news stations were forced to have a news show every evening when most of the public would be home, and that they could all watch at six o'clock. And that was what the FCC made them do in order to comply with the Fairness Doctrine. And on that news, they could not do entertainment, they had to tell you the real news that was affecting issues that were important for democratic decision making. So, they took the people with the greatest integrity in news and they made them, they had like Newton Minow etc. and made them out of those networks. And the rest of the network could not mess with them. If they put something on about Brad and J-Lo or something, or some kind of gossip on the show, anybody in the public could protest and say, they're not telling us the news, pull the license from this station. The networks like NBC and ABC and CBS were terrified of not living up to their public obligations. So they let the news divisions lose lots of money. They were all money losers. They allowed and they hired the most credible people in the country to run them. So when I was a kid, the most credible people, the people who were most trusted in our country were Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Huntley Brinkley, the broadcasters. Everybody trusted them. We all believed what they were telling us. When Reagan came in 1986, Reagan was elected with the help of the big studio heads in California, who'd helped him get elected, and they wanted to consolidate all the media. And with the help of the Christian right. The other thing you had to do under the Fairness Doctrine, you had to tell both sides of the story. If you put an ad up advertising Mustang convertible, which was the biggest gas guzzler, you then also had to put an ad up of The Asthma Society saying that that car is poisoning us, and that's a Supreme Court case that said that against Mustang and NBC. You had to tell both sides of the story. Well, the Christian broadcasters, which were suddenly appearing at that time, they didn't want to tell both sides of the story. They didn't want to give Satan equal time. Which I get it. So, they went to Reagan, they said, "Let's abolish the Fairness Doctrine." And he had the power to do that, because the FCC was enforcing it, so they got rid of it. That prompted this giant consolidation, where now there's five companies that own every television station in this country, every radio station, all the billboards, all the newspapers, and most of the large internet content providers. So, there's five guys who are deciding what you hear is news. And then, the news divisions became profit centers. The directors of the division, the bean counters, the big broadcasters told the news division, you don't get a free ride anymore. Now you have to earn money. And so, they switched to airing entertainment and violence and pharmaceuticals, whatever they needed to do to sell advertising, which is to make themselves pharmaceutical advertising propaganda vessels, and vessels for oil companies, for war, whatever it is. And so, the American public, it gradually dawned on us, they're not telling us the truth anymore. They are propaganda vessels. The internet comes at the same time and people start looking for other sources of information. It's not because we're all crazy. It's because we know the government is lying to us, and the mainstream news is lying to us. People say to me, we've got this big problem with misinformation on the news, we have a big problem with misinformation on broadcast networks. Why isn't anybody looking at that? This is a long answer, much longer than you wanted or expected, about how do we get to the truth. To me, the truth, ultimately, has to be through the furnace of debate. It has to be now reached with some kind of consensus. We need to hear everything. We can't start censoring things. It's not a perfect system, no system is going to be perfect. The worst thing that we can do is make the government or some other powerful entity, the arbiter of what is true and is not true. We have to decide that and we have to decide it through a multiplicity of voices. The First Amendment protects lies, it protects misinformation, it protects malinformation, it protects disinformation, it protects all information whether it's true or not. Something true is equally worthy of First Amendment protection as false. And it's up to us, as citizens in a democracy, to study and discern the world around us, and work on it and research and figure out things for ourselves.
AUBREY: There's a certain trust that can develop when we start trusting our fellow countrymen or our citizens to say, "No, we trust you. We're going to give you all the information possible, and we're going to trust you to find the truth." There's this kind of coddling nature of this whole idea of which these people aren't smart enough to discern anything, so we have to filter it for them. It's like this devouring mother kind of concept, this Big Brother concept of you don't have the capability, you don't have the intelligence to discern the truth. So we have to ban this, we have to censor this. And as he said, that's a very, very dangerous and dangerous policy, because we have to be able to, one, have access to all of the information. And then also, we have to take the responsibility back on ourselves to say, okay, I'm a sovereign citizen, and I have to go find the truth now. It's a different time than we've ever lived, where everybody has to of their own volition actually go and figure out who they trust and what information they trust, and find their own sense of truth within themselves so that they can resonate with that truth when they hear it, and understand that kind of sense making, which seems like it has to go and proliferate all the way through education. Like the new revolution of education has to be, all right, how do you look at a field of information and discern what you believe through that field of information? It seems this needs to be kind of a new educational standard in this new time where there's going to be so much information out there, there's going to be so much available, how do you actually sort through all of that information and just start training people to be able to figure things out?
BOBBY: Yeah, well, here's something that's interesting to me, because the Democratic Party is very worried about Donald Trump. They're completely focused on him, that he is going to dismantle our democracy, he is a threat to democracy. And so we have to censor people who have any information that may redound to people supporting Donald Trump. But what that really says, and there is no other conclusion is that you're not trusting the public anymore. You don't trust the Demos, which is the public, which is democracy. It means you no longer believe in democracy. If you don't trust the capacity of the people, ultimately come to good decision making. And you no longer believe in democracy. I confronted a lot of my Democratic friends about this and said, because they say, well, Trump did, January 6, and it was an insurgency and they tried to take over Congress. I say to them, what do you think is worse, more dangerous to our republic? The yahoos who invaded that building on January 6, which, by the way, what's the worst thing that could happen? I mean, we have an entire military, a pentagon few blocks away. They're not going to hold on to it for very long. We're going to get it back. Put the ones who broke the law in jail, and let's move on. What's more dangerous, that or a president of the United States, who is instructing social media sites to censor his opponents. And telling them that if they don't do that, he's going to destroy them, which is what they said. He said, they're going to take away their Section 230 immunity, which is existential for those companies. For those of you who don't know what section 230 is, it's the section of the Communications Act that regulates the internet. It says, if you own an internet platform that is posting other people's works, like Google or Facebook or whatever, that you're not subject to defamation laws. For example, if I write an op ed for the New York Times that defames somebody, could sue me for that. But he could also sue the New York Times. Well, when Facebook and Google were created, they said we can't handle that. We're aggregating this information all over the world. The New York Times, every time I publish an op ed for them, as lawyers review it to make sure I'm not saying something defamatory, if Facebook had to do that, Facebook would be out of business overnight, because they'd have to have lawyers review every single post. So, they wrote Section 230 that says they're not liable for anything that other people put up on their sites. Well, with the White House, 37 hours after President Biden took office, this is all Judge Doughty's decision. The White House was on the phone, on an email with Twitter, telling Twitter if they didn't take down my account, that the White House was going to pull their Section 230 immunity. Facebook, Zuckerberg, they made the same threat to him. And he said, it's existential for us. We're dead if they do that. We've got to do what they tell us to do. And I say to my liberal friends, what do you think is more dangerous for a republic? January 6, or... By the way, I don't ask him this, because this makes people crazy. What would happen if Trump threatened to pull Section 230 immunity if they didn't silence his political opponents? Then they'd be able to see it. But they can't see it. And I talked to Democrats about this. And a very good democratic friend of mine said, maybe we can't afford to have free speech in this country anymore. People won't talk about it. But that ultimately, I think, is the position that a lot of people, they believe the public is so dangerous to them, that they may elect Trump that it's more... We have to abandon these traditional values. I think we're in a scary time, because so many people have been hypnotized with that thought. We cannot afford that, free speech is no longer a guarantee. It's just a luxury that we can't afford anymore. I think what we need to do, and what I'll do if I make it to the White House is--
AUBREY: When.
BOBBY: When I make it to the White House, is begin reinforcing a lot of these core ideas, reeducating the public about the core ideas that make our country unique, and make it the exemplary nation in the world. And the number one of those ideas is we have to be an exemplar of free speech. What I've been talking to, with Aubrey, I had dinner last week with Jack Dorsey who is founder of Twitter. And I said, "Jack Dorsey, how would you solve this issue about people being manipulated by the algorithms and shadow banned and everything else?" And he said, "The best way to do that is to make the algorithms transparent, and give people a choice of what they want their algorithm to look like." So you can make a choice, that when you do a search choice, that you want to see the top 10 articles that are the most popular, that are the most read, or the you may want to say the ones that are most read by Republicans, or the ones that are most read by Democrats, or the ones that emphasize science or anything else, and you can choose from 100 algorithms. But you know exactly what that algorithm is to do to your account, so that you're not being, you're still being manipulated, but you're self-manipulating. And, you know how it's happening to you. It's not being done by hidden hands through deception. And I said to him, "That's actually a great idea. Have you ever tried to push that?" And he said, I've testified five times before Congress, and every time I told them, that's what needs to be done. That is the only way to solve this problem. And he said, but he heard what he said. So anyway, that's where we are today.
AUBREY: I want to talk about an issue where it's another condescending attitude that people have where we can't trust the people to know this truth. And I think, as far as my understanding, your uncle was actually pointing to this as well before he was assassinated, which was overturning and making public the documents and information about what are now called UAPs. They used to be called UFOs. There's a big movement going on where people are now testifying, and it seems like this is becoming an issue that could actually be present during your presidency. It's one of those things where if there are and if there were, which many of us believe, I think the majority in polls actually believe that these phenomena are real, and there's many people I know who have experienced these phenomena, then, how far does truth extend in those situations? It seems like my proclivity would be, look, we've got to trust the people with the truth. And if these things are happening, these things are real, tell it plainly, tell it honestly. Don't spin it, don't use it for advantage, but just trust the people to be able to hold this information. But that seems to be not what the Pentagon and not what the government is really willing to do, even when they're being pressed by some other aspects of the government to alright, well give us the information. We're in this interesting time. Have you thought about what you would do with that particular situation?
BOBBY: Well, I try not to answer a lot of UFO questions, because I get them all the time. I'm way over my budget on conspiracy theories.
AUBREY: I understand.
BOBBY: I'm going into an obvious trap, which is, but just generally speaking, I think government and democracy, democracy is inconsistent with secrets. Everything should be revealed. There's now a billion or a million documents that are classified, or billion documents that are classified as top secret. How could that possibly be? I mean, beginning with 5000 documents related to my uncle's assassination, which is illegal for them. The JFK Assassination Records Act requires them to release all those documents by 2017. President Trump when he ran promised that he was going to release them all. And then for some reason didn't. President Biden, when he ran, promised that he'd released them all and didn't. I don't know what they're saying to them that is convincing those presidents not to do that. But virtually everybody who was involved in my uncle's murder is dead now. So the only reason that I can imagine for them not releasing those documents is for institutional self-protection. And that is not a good reason in a democracy. We need to know that these are some of the seminal lies that's sent us down this path toward domination by the military industrial complex in our country. If we're going to walk that back and reclaim our idealism in the country, we need to go back and find out what really happened. So, I don't like any secrets, my uncle was against secrets, my father was against secrets. They're toxic for democracy. If we really got velcro from people from other planets, we should know about that.
AUBREY: Yeah, that's the meta principle that I was talking about. It's not, do you believe in UFOs, or whatever. But It’s like the meta principle is, we've got to know, right? We got to know. Whatever's there, we've got to know. That seems like it's essential for us to be able to navigate, and it's this continual condescending attitude of, you can't handle the truth. You can't handle the truth, everything would go crazy if you handled the truth, but what's causing this country to go insane is all the manipulated and calculated truths that some mind is trying to figure everything out. Just trust being honest. That's why I trust you, honestly. That's why after the first time we met, and I said, I'm all in, I give you my word, and I give you my sword, and I would fucking die by that for real. Why? It's because I trust you're honest. I trust you're honest. And that's what matters. It matters that you're honest. You know what I mean? And whatever the issue is, it doesn't even matter. But to have honesty at the center of your being and at the center of the nation, people wildly underestimate how powerful that would be to actually start to heal so many of these problems that we have. Just come from honesty, which includes humility, which includes the admission of things that, I don't know, I don't know. But be honest about this, instead of just trying to get people to believe something or hide something. We've got to get back to old school values, like be honest, trust your people.
BOBBY: Yeah, I mean, my dad, he was in many ways the same position I was. He ran in 1968 against a president of his own party, Lyndon Johnson, and he ran at a time of war. He ran against a war the same as I'm doing. He ran at a time of enormous division and polarization in our country. As bad as we are now, we were almost as bad. He literally had the military killing students, shooting student protesters on campuses. We had 157 cities burn in the summer of 1967-68. We were on the verge of a civil war at that time. And my father ran to try to heal our country. He ran because he didn't think he could win. He was running against not only a popular president of his own party, but he was also running against all of the people who had been with him eight years earlier when he ran my uncle's campaign and his brother's campaign, were all against him. The big city mayors were all against him, including Mayor Daley, who played a critical role in 1960. All the labor unions. The only labor union he got was the UAW. They'd all been with him in 1960. On the campuses, the students were mainly against him. He said McCarthy had all the A students and he hit the B and C students. Because my father would not agree to draft deferments. He didn't think people should be able, by going to college, should be able to get deferment from the draft. And that's why most of that generation was in college. The big city papers, The New York Times, and the liberal media were all against them. And the people who he'd brought to power in '68, with the new frontier, were all working for President Johnson now. So, he had nobody except for the very disenfranchised poor in our country. And it freed him, the idea that, the impossibility of him being elected, freedom to tell the truth, and so he went around the country and he told people things they didn't want to hear. He was at Creighton University in Nebraska, and the students asked him, "Will you support our draft deferment?" He said, “no, because 45% of every paratrooper unit in Vietnam is black. I got 10 kids, and I can get them all into college. I shouldn't be able to buy a deferment from serving your country”. They booed him, and then at the end they gave him a standing ovation. He talked in Nebraska to medical students and told them, they asked him, “who's going to pay for your health care program?”, and he said, "You are." They booed him and in the end, they gave him a standing ovation. In University of Alabama, which he had forcibly integrated five years earlier, was sending 16,000 federal troops to get five black kids into that university. He gave a speech on civil rights, and he was given a standing ovation in watts. Tremendous hostility toward the police. He talked about the importance of being law abiding. And the day he died, he won the most rural state in our country, South Dakota, and the most urban state, California, the same day. He had succeeded in bridging the gap in our country. The last day that I was with him was the day that we buried him. I was with him when he died. We brought him back from California where he was shot to New York, and waked him at St Patrick's, and then brought him in a train from Penn Station, New York to Union Station in Washington DC. It was supposed to be a two-and-a-half-hour flood ride. But it was seven and a half hours because there were two and a half million people on the train tracks. It was a cross section of the entire American experience. In each of the train stations, in Trenton, Newark, Baltimore and Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore, there were 10,000 blacks, and they were singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, which they'd sung when Lincoln had died. We could hear them, we went, crawled through those train stations at one mile an hour, and I could hear their voices. And then in the rural countryside, there were every kind of American whites, people in military uniform, boy scouts standing at attention. We passed the little league field where all of the coaches and all of the players and all the people in the stands were standing at attention. I remember passing, and right outside of Wilmington in Delaware, an open field where there were seven nuns standing in the bed of a pickup truck, waving their rosaries at us. And there were hippies, and tie dyed, people in military uniform, blacks, whites, rabbis, priests, nuns up and down the track. People holding signs that said "Goodbye Bobby" or "Pray for us, Bobby" all the American flags, mothers holding their kids up. And we got to Washington. Martin Luther King had died two months before, my father and him had been working on a final campaign together which was called The Poor People's campaign to bring all the poor people to Washington and keep them there until they ended the war and restarted the war on poverty. There were a thousand men camped in shanties on the mall, and they all came to the sidewalk as we passed. When we got to Union Station, President Johnson met us with a convoy, and we drove up past them all. These men were all standing on the sidewalk, holding their hands at their chests, their hats at their chests with their heads bowed, eight deep. And we drove past them just in dead silence. We drove past them up the hill at Arlington, and buried him next to his brother under a little stone. I saw four years later, I was studying at college. I was 14 years old at that time, I was studying in College in Boston studying American politics. And I saw demographic data that showed that most of the white people had lined those tracks between New Jersey and Baltimore, who had supported my father in '68 and '72, and then stood by that train track. In '72, instead of voting for George McGovern, who was very much aligned with my father, and one of his closest friends, they almost unanimously switched their votes to George Wallace, who was a racist, a bigot, who famously promised segregation now, segregation forever, and who was antithetical to my father in every respect. And it struck me then, and it occurred to me many times since that every nation like every individual has a darker side and a lighter side. The easiest thing for a politician to do is to appeal to our anger, our base, the dark angels of our character, our greed, our jealousy, our fear of immigrants, or other people. My father tried to do something different, which was to appeal to our lighter angels, to try to persuade people that they were part of a community, to get them to transcend the narrow self-interest, and act on behalf of, to find a hero inside of themselves and see ourselves all as part of a great adventure, a noble adventure, and to avoid the seduction of the notion that we can only advance ourselves as a people by leaving our poor brothers and sisters behind. We have to go together as a community and transcend our narrow self-interest. He was able to do that in that election, and he did it by telling the truth. He united our country. He didn't promise people what they wanted. He didn't pander to people, he didn't cater to them. He just told them the truth. That brought people together. I've said about this campaign that this country just went through a two-year mass experiment with medical products that had been basically untested. And we all put up with it. So I'm now going to try a big experiment, mass experiment, which is, telling the truth to people in a presidential campaign. And if there's an appetite for that, then I will be president in 2024.
AUBREY: Let's go. Let's go. So, one of the topics that's near to my heart is the topic of psychedelic medicine. We're in a renaissance where psychedelic medicine is going through all of the testing, and medicalization. This is a huge breakthrough, because of the results that we're seeing with treatment-resistant PTSD, and depression and anxiety. So much is happening on the medical front, which obviously will continue and will come to fruition during the time of your presidency. But there's also another movement, a local movement of decriminalizing nature. Decriminalized Nature is one of the movements and it's about the idea that these consciousness-altering plants in particular, are part of our way to actually know ourselves and find our own sense making, and actually understand ourselves in the world in a really profound way. But that's been made illegal. We've been banned for our own good from actually accessing these different plants. What are your sentiments and thoughts? There's so many people who are locked up in a cage because they wanted to explore their own consciousness, they wanted to be their own psychonaut, to explore their psyche. And there's good laws against taking medicine and endangering people. That's like driving under the influence, we have all of those laws, you can't hurt other people. All those laws exist. But it seems like there's been this idea that again, with this condescending attitude that you as a sovereign individual can't adjust your consciousness with the use of these plants which grow naturally. You've been on many hikes. I'm sure you've walked by a lot of psilocybin cubensis popping out of some cow shit somewhere, and it's all over the place
BOBBY: I've eaten a lot of those mushrooms. I'm not saying I did it on a voyage of enlightenment. It was entertainment.
AUBREY: What's your general sentiment towards this attitude about and the ability for people to explore the depths of their own psyche with these plants?
BOBBY: My experience, which you know, because you know my children. My wife took her own life in 2014, or 2011, and I had, sorry, 2014, I had six kids who were at risk from that, who had different journeys and their own way of processing that tragedy. One of those kids was very self-contained. He was getting in a lot of trouble and fighting a lot and doing that kind of stuff. But, generally speaking, he looked like he was good in his life, but he was very, he never talked about it, and I was worried about how he was processing that, and understood that he was at risk. He ended up going to, he's very big, accomplished in extreme sports, and he ended up going to Chile on a kayaking expedition and doing an ayahuasca ceremony while he was there, and it was not planned. It was just something he ended up doing. And during that ceremony, he felt himself sinking through the earth. And he said that he saw all of the geological strata. He had complete understanding of how they'd been laid out and folded across the eons, and then he came out through the other side of the Earth. He was propelled into space and he spent like hundreds of years in space, and he would focus on a planet, and be transported there. Then he would have an adventure on the planet. And at the end of each adventure, there was a lesson. And the last planet that he went to, he encountered his mother there. She passed through his body again and again. And every time she passed through him, he felt all this love and forgiveness and understanding and comprehension. Now you have to understand if you have a parent who commits suicide, it's very difficult to talk to your kids about that, because what can you say to them? You can't say, well, she's happy now, or she's at peace now. Because it gives them an excuse, or she was in terrible pain, whatever. Because then it gives them an excuse that that is an option for them when they're in pain. There's literally almost nothing you can say to them. You have to listen, you have to love them. There's almost no way of communicating a message that is coherent without opening up some other kind of worms. So, that was always a quandary for me. But he had this extraordinary experience with her and he came back and he was like a different person. He was much more gregarious and outgoing and inquiring about everything, and talking and questioning. Also, his behavior changed, and he is really radical. He started doing the dishes and taking out the garbage, taking out the garbage without being asked. Became super considerate. And he's been ever since then on this extraordinary journey of enlightenment. He's very good at his work. He's accomplished, he was a world class athlete. But he has this extraordinary life today. So I've been in recovery. I was a heroin addict when I was a kid for 14 years, and I've been in recovery for 40 years. This month, 40 years. That's like applauding somebody for running out of a burning house. I'm not somebody who says drugs or the answer. I'm not that guy. You can't be reaching outside of yourself to fix something that's wrong inside of you. You have to find another way to do that. But with his experience, and many, many other people that I've seen since, I've seen these miraculous transformations that have taken place with psychedelic drugs. I think the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want us using them. I've seen people with chronic disease like OCD completely lose that diagnosis after psilocybin treatment, just an extraordinary experience. I cannot say that that's not true. I've seen it. So, I think, we live in a free country, freedom is critical to everything that we do, and people ought to be free to experience their own psyches. And that's one of the ways to do it. I think we shouldn't, I don't know exactly how you do it, but I think it's outrageous that it's not available in therapeutic settings. At very least it should be available in a therapeutic setting.
AUBREY: Yeah. I would have probably been arrested probably 1000 times since I was 18 if the laws were actually, if the person who caught me in that moment, experiencing nature, and exploring my psyche. And it's been a profound way that I've been on my own journey. It's also part of this quandary, because I want to, like I imagine a world, this more beautiful world. And we'll move to questions here in a moment. But I imagine this more beautiful world, and in this more beautiful world, when the police show up, you're like, "Oh, cool. The cops are here, I feel safer." But for that to happen the laws have to be sound, and the laws have to be sane. If you're in your home, and you're doing an ayahuasca ceremony or a mushroom ceremony or you're smoking some cannabis and listening to music. Now, obviously, cannabis laws are changing pretty rapidly. But the idea that this force from your government could take you out of that place, and then put you in a cage when you're not harming anybody at all, it's a scary reality that's just perpetrated. And I think that also does a lot of damage to the psyche, because it puts you at odds with the enforcers of law and order, in this certain way. I imagine this more beautiful world where you're excited when you see the cops, you're like, oh, yeah, great, they're our servants, they're here to protect us, I love that they're here, and they're here to watch out and make sure nobody's hurting each other, great. I'm glad that they're here. That world is definitely a part of the more beautiful world. And I think it has to include reevaluating some of these laws and policies that we've had kind of pushed upon us, that put us at odds with law enforcement and the government.
BOBBY: I agree.
AUBREY: Yeah. Well, this more beautiful world is, we're now at the choice point. This is it, we're here. I don't know how many chances, I don't know how many runs we got at it. It feels to me like this is a really important one. And that's why, I'm just all in. I'm all in because I see the potential, like what I see with AI, and what I see with all of the challenges in Russia, and China, all of these things. So much stuff is going on the tech side, so much stuff is going on in the world that is destabilizing. And we're interested in this. It's like when a tsunami happens, and you're not aware of a tsunami, and the water withdraws. Then you're walking down, you're like, "Wow, look at all the pretty coral. Look at all this, ooh, AI generated art. This is amazing, fantastic." And everybody's exploring the coral, and like, this is great. But they don't know that this tsunami is coming. And there's a tsunami coming from many directions. The way I see us moving through this is yes, all of us, becoming aware, working on ourselves, awakening our own consciousness. But also abiding in a world and a government that has principles, first principles and values, like honesty and truth and the ability to listen, and that fact that you listen to your son and didn't have an idea. Just because you've been sober for 40 years, you didn't say, "Oh, I can't believe you did those drugs out in Chile. I can't believe that." No, you're like, "Oh, wow, I'm listening." That's what we need to be able to navigate through. It's the flexibility, and that's something that I really see in you. No matter what you believe now, I honestly don't even care that much. Because I know that you'll listen. I know that when somebody comes to you with a new challenge and a new piece of information, you will listen to them. And that's what a real king does. I say that as an archetype, right? The king is just an archetype. But a king is the one who listens the best to the people, just listens the best, and cares the most for the people. I see that in you, brother. And so, I'm in, all the way to the end, and we're going to see this more beautiful world come. We're going to turn from the tides of Empire to the golden Kingdom, and the golden kingdom of just, I really believe that that's possible. I see this as a necessary miracle that's going to allow this to happen. I've seen it happen, and I declared it the last time on my last censored podcast, but you're going to be the next president. I just know that in my bones, and I believe it, and it requires all of us, every one of us to do everything we can. And that's the only way, it's the paradox. It's going to happen. And we all have to do everything that we can, because it matters now. It fucking matters now. It matters now more than it's ever mattered. I promise you, we've got to do this. We've got to do this. And it's not just it's not just him, but it's a big part of this. It's a big part of this. Let's come together. We're doing this for everybody too. And there's nobody, there's no other, there's no other. It's our people. It's our people. Whoever they are, they're our people. Don't put a fucking sheep emoji on your post. No, they're not a fucking sheep. They're a person. They're a person. It's our people. Our people. We all have to come through this. We all do. It's the only way. And so, we fight for everybody. Nobody's on the other side, we're fighting for life. And that's why I say, all in for all life. I made my own little Kennedy shirts to say that, all in for all life because that's it. We've got to go all in for all life. Nobody's on the other side, nobody's outside of the circle. We're all in this together. Even if you're fighting against us. That's fine. We're on your team. No matter what you do, we're on your team, and we're going to keep fighting. And it's just an honor to be your friend. And also, I want you guys to know that Bobby's not only is he one of the most good humans I've ever known, he's also impossibly sweet. To see that I'm getting flaming heart emojis from the future President of the United States and a kissy mouth. I'm like, "Yeah, that's the way it should be." Let's fucking love each other the whole way. Come on. Alright, so we have a microphone up there. And we have 13 minutes of potential questions for Bobby. I don't know how to select this. So you guys just come up and trust your audacity.
Q: Hello, beautiful beings. There's been a social taboo and a family taboo about talking about politics and religion. I think that has hindered our movement forward as a people. Bobby, do you have any recommendations? Or Aubrey, you too, about guiding, or encouraging families and communities to go into those subjects and how to broach them? Because it's become a badge of honor. We don't talk about politics or religions at the community gathering. And I think that has allowed us to be more in the shadow of the truth. So, I would like to just ask that question, how would you encourage us to move forward as a people to be able to talk about these subjects in any setting that we're in? Thank you.
BOBBY: I don't know how to advise people to talk about religion. I think it's important for us to talk about spiritual growth and about our spiritual lives, and to make it permissible for people to explain their own journeys, and talk about their own cosmologies in ways that are not exclusionary or confrontational or belabored by orthodoxies. So, I think that's a much healthier way to do it. I try to do that, I try to be open toward it to everything, and to all people and to find commonality with people and their own beliefs. And identify with that and empathize with that. I don't know how to advise people. But that's what I try to do. Thanks.

Q: Mr. President, and I'm addressing you that way, because we're calling that into being, and it is so, you are the president. I have two policy suggestions related to speech I'd like to put before you. The first one is that we have some sort of law, or even a constitutional amendment banning government lying. The last time I checked the First Amendment, it protected the people's right to say whatever they want, including spreading disinformation. No law shall be made abridging the press, but it didn't protect the government and their ability to lie. I think we need to ban that formally throughout this country. The second one is with the one billion documents that are classified. Would you consider declassifying all of them? And I know, the usual objection to that is, well, we can't declassify this and that because we have all these agents, clandestine agents overseas, and we don't want to put them at physical risk by having their cover blown. Let's call them all home. Let's bring home everyone who's overseas, bring the Empire home, bring all the agents home, and then declassify everything, and we can have a truth and reconciliation process.
BOBBY: I think it's important to have a truth and reconciliation process. I'm not going to say I'm going to declassify all of those because, I wouldn't declassify documents that reveal methods and sources from the intelligence agencies that should be kept secret, or national security, or other important, to protect personal safety of people who have tried to help our country. But most of those, I've seen many, many classified documents, and most of those documents should not be classified. As an attorney, a lot of times, I'll put a stamp on a document that I don't want somebody else to get that says privileged and confidential, but it's not really... It shouldn't really be protected by attorney client privilege. There's just a natural tendency to over classify things, it's a bad thing for our country, we shouldn't have secrets. And, I'm going to try to end that as much as possible. Thank you.
Q: And how about banning government lying? Just banning it. Government can't lie--
BOBBY: I see a lot of problems with that. I see a lot of problems with that. I don't know how you enforce that, whether you open up... I think about it like a lawyer. Do you allow a personal right to litigate against somebody in government who lies? There are too many things I'd have to think about. So, I can't tell you immediately that… Let me tell you this. It sounds aspirationally a good idea. Procedurally, I do not understand in any way how you would do that.
AUBREY: And that's how an honest answer looks, actually. That just models an honest answer from somebody. That's proving the point. It's honesty that leads, and it's evaluation, and then thinking, okay, what does this mean? How does this look? How do we implement this? That's why I trust him so much. He's thinking about all these things. He's not just going to go, "Yeah, let's ban it all." He's like, "Well, no, I've got to fucking think about this. This is complicated." That's the point. That's really the point.
Q: Hey, Bobby, I've been watching a lot of the judiciary committee meetings. And I'm just really appalled at how they treated you and how they treat each other and the bickering. I'm wondering, do we have a buddy system? Is there some idea you have where they can start sending each other flaming heart emojis, and we can actually get work done in Congress?
BOBBY: What was the last thing you said?
Q: Well, I'm wondering if you have any ideas how to bring Congress together, how to heal the divide in Congress. Because they're like children fighting every time I see them on TV.
BOBBY: Yeah, I do not know how to fix Congress. I do not know how to do that. What I'm doing with my campaign is trying to bring Americans together, and really identify the values that we have in common, that we share in common rather than focusing on these little issues that divide us. What I see happening in this country is that we're being given all these culture war issues. Like they're jangling keys, with trans issues, and let's go to war in Mexico, and issues on guns and abortion and all that, issues that are inflammatory. Should Hunter Biden go to jail or Donald Trump go to jail? Or should Joe Biden go to jail, or whatever. Those are the keys that are being dangled over here while they're robbing the bank over here. All of us are getting screwed, all of us are getting robbed. When the king and queen look over the walls of the castle and all of their subjects are fighting with each other, they go back to the dinner table and pop champagne and drink because they know they're not coming over the wall for them. What I want to do is get everybody over the wall, and take our country back.
AUBREY: If we start having a world where the people are voting for people who are honest and voting for people who believe these tenets of coming together as one people, then Congress is going to start to change, the elections are going to start to elect people who are no longer abiding by an old system, which is, it's outdated. It needs a new update of the source code. And I think this is a powerful move to start that new update of who is actually representing us, but the people have to change and the people have to demand that something different is brought down. And that will go all the way from the presidency, to the Senate, to the Congress, to across the board. And I really see that happening. This is a place where we can start and we can show that we as a people, we care about these principles, and these values, and then it will start to affect every different body of state. I really see that happening. Ben?
Q: I'd rather use seashells than CBDCs. I want to know what your thoughts are on the way the Fed now is proposing CBDCs, what the future landscape of money seems to look like in your eyes. Maybe year one or just long term for you.
BOBBY: I think the totalitarian elements within our society, and the central bankers, and the AI intelligence agencies all want us to go to Central Bank digital currencies. Digitized currencies give them a level of control over everything we do, every transaction we have will be taxable, it will be trackable. Everything that you do, they will know about. Also it means that they can have programmable currencies, which is what they do in China. Where if you don't hit a certain social credit score, if you're seen on a mask day and your mask is below your nose, they deduct credit points from you. Or if you get too close to your girlfriend on a social distancing day, or if you don't ascribe to the right views, you lose social credit points. And once you get below a certain social credit level, your credit card is programmed so that it will only work in grocery stores that are within a certain radius of your home. You can't buy gas for your car, you can't buy a ticket, you can't do anything. That way they can completely control us.During the trucker's strike in Canada, we saw, I actually gave a speech about digital currency in Milan about a month before the truckers strike, and said this is what's coming. I never conceived it would come so quickly. But what they did in the trucker strike in Toronto, or in Ottawa, is that the truckers came peacefully from all parts of Canada. The truckers in Canada are very, very diverse. A lot of them are from African, Asian origin. But they're every kind of person, and they were angry about the mandates. So they all came to Ottawa to protest, but it was a very peaceful, dignified, respectful protest. Exactly what you would want, it was like Woodstock there. They had trash collecting details. They had details that made sure that people who were hungry were getting fed, including the homeless in Ottawa, who had nothing to do with the protests. It was one of the kindest hearted protests I've ever seen. And the Ottawa government treated them like they were vandals at the gate. They used AI and facial recognition systems, and other kinds of surveillance technology to record the license plates that determined people who are participating in the protests. And then they froze all their bank accounts. They did it without charging them with a crime, clearly without convicting them of a crime. The only thing they were doing was exercising their right of assembly and protest. I talked to truckers, who, you know, one of them who is facing a prison sentence because he couldn't pay his alimony. They couldn't buy gas for their trucks to leave down, they couldn't feed their children, they couldn't pay their mortgages. And I realized at that time, that freedom of transaction is as important as freedom of speech. That if the government can control, we got digital currencies and let's say you want to buy pornography or cigarettes or alcohol or things that you don't want the whole world to know about, it’s going to know about. And you're subject to all kinds of blackmail by the government. You get a hotel room, whatever, anything that may be that you want to spend money on that you shouldn't be doing, they're going to know about it. That gives them power over you, over every, because most people are doing something that they don't want the world to know about. But any transaction you make, they will have, and it's just, it's bad. We got to fight it, we got to make sure to keep the paper currency, and stop them from doing digitalized currencies. Make sure that Bitcoin is kept separate and free and it's not captured by Blackrock and the ETFs.
AUBREY: All right. I would love to continue with the questions, but we are on a tight schedule. So, I'm so sorry about that. Is it quick?
Q: Yes, it is.
AUBREY: Okay. We'll try to be quick.
RITI: I do have to say thank you for coming to Austin, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Aubrey, for organizing this. And thank you for saying when I believe thoughts become things. This is a perfect representation of a Mushin-mind, a mind-heart collation of a talk. So I really appreciate it. And thank you for coming to Bastrop tomorrow. I'm part of the League of Independent Voters organizing the event. So we'll see you tomorrow. My question is going to be really quick. My name is Riti Chikkerur. I'm the executive director of Our Children Matter Most. We gave your wife a little memento, handmade memento for her birthday. Hope she likes it and her security team.
BOBBY: For her birthday?
RITI: Yes, sir. Yes, yes.
BOBBY: You're giving it to me for her birthday?
RITI: Sorry to make you the messenger.
BOBBY: Okay, that was great. I love that.
RITI: I hope your security team passes it on to you. Nelson Mandela said that there is no keener revelation of a society's soul than in how it treats its children. So how do you believe that America is faring in how it's treating its children? What are you going to do about it? And the second half of my question is, as a representative of India and Indians in Texas, and nationwide, due to my pageantry and business, I'd like to say we garner a lot of power. We are intellectuals, we're doctors, motel owners, but we don't know about you. We haven't heard about you. And I've asked a lot of people and trade associations here in Texas. So, what can we do to help you advance your path to the imminent presidency? Thank you.
BOBBY: Thank you. America's children are the sickest children in the world, and the sickest children in history, this generation. When I was a kid, and when my uncle was President, 6% of Americans had chronic disease. In 1986, 12.8, so it'd doubled. By 2006, it was 54%. More than a half. And today we don't know, because NIH refuses to release the data. Oh, it's probably around 60%. We know one out of every seven kids has autoimmune disease. But we saw this explosion in chronic disease begin in 1989. We saw neurological diseases, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette Syndrome, narcolepsy, ASD, autism. Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation to one in every 34 of my kids' generation, extraordinary. These kids, many of them, the ones with severe autism are nonverbal, non-toilet trained. They'll never pay taxes, they'll never serve in the military, they'll never throw a baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never hold the hand of a girl and go out on a date. And their parents' lives, careers are derailed, the impacts on the community. James Lyons Wyler has just published a study. He is a scientist showing that the cause of autism in this country of caring for these kids will be a trillion dollars by 2030. It's going to debilitate our country. And that same year, we saw an explosion in allergic diseases, peanut allergies suddenly appeared, and pandemic, food allergies, eczema. I've never heard of anybody with these diseases when I was a kid, and now they're in every classroom. Asthma, my brother had asthma. I had 11 siblings, 70 cousins. My brother had asthma. And he was told by his doctor, there'll never be a cure because it's so rare. Nobody will ever study it. Well, now one out of every eight black kids in our cities has it, and it is everywhere. Every classroom has albuterol inhalers. And then all of the autoimmune diseases suddenly appeared. I never knew anybody with diabetes. Juvenile diabetes became ubiquitous. Rheumatoid arthritis, all of these diseases nobody ever heard of in my generation. Crohn's disease, lupus, suddenly, they're all over us. We have the highest chronic disease burden of any country in the world. And, it's clearly caused by an environmental culprit. Because genes don't cause epidemics. They can provide the vulnerability, but you need an environmental toxin. Why don't we know what that toxin is? It can only be a few things. There's only a few things that happened in 1989 that you can point to that became ubiquitous, that affected every demographic from Cubans in Key Biscayne to Inuit, and Almer, Alaska. There's only about 10 or 11 things it could be. We don't know the answer to that because NIH won't allow anybody to study it. Because at the end of that breadcrumbs drain is somebody very powerful.
RITI: Our children are our future, aren't they? So how is you--
AUBREY: Well, we are going to have to wrap this up pretty soon. So, thank you so much for your question, and thank you for answering that. Clearly, what you're saying here is we need to look honestly, look beyond the lenses and the locusts of power and figure out what the real truth is here, and then really show up to serve--
BOBBY: I can tell you that, my first day as president, I'm going down to NIH. We're going to give infectious diseases, we've studied a lot, and we're making a lot of these little bugs with gain of function, and we're going to give it a break for about eight years. And we're going to start focusing on chronic disease. NIH has a $42 billion annual budget, has 56,000 scientists, universities and research centers all over the country. And it's funding them to do things, and unfortunately, what it's funding them to do mainly is to develop pharmaceutical drugs for the industry. It's the biggest incubator of new pharmaceutical products. For what purpose? Mainly to treat chronic disease, which they have caused.
AUBREY: Let's go.
BOBBY: We're going to start identifying the toxins that are causing this. We know what they have to be. It has to be glyphosate neonicotinoid pesticides, PFOAs, PFAAs, cell phone, EMF radiation. There's only a few things. The exploding vaccine schedule. In 1989, we went from three to 72 vaccines mandated for our kids in a very short period, and the big change here was '89. It's probably all of these things. Our kids are swimming around in a toxic soup today, and every insult impacts their immune systems, and they all operate on the same kind of biological pathways. So, it's probably, Oh, high fructose corn syrup, clearly associated with the obesity epidemic. Oh, I'm going to end this. I'm going to end the chronic disease epidemic in this country, and that is going to be the big war that I declare. Anyway, thanks.
AUBREY: Let's go.