Connect with us

International

RFK Jr’s powerful speech to America explaining his dramatic political journey

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

RFK Jr. is throwing his support behind Donald Trump over agreement on ‘existential issues,’ including free speech, and over his concern about the Democratic Party ‘dismantling’ democracy and rejecting its previous ideals.

Democratic environmental activist turned independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has withdrawn from the race and endorsed the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, following Democrats’ replacement of incumbent President Joe Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris as their presumptive nominee.

Kennedy made the announcement in a speech live-streamed across social media, opening by recalling that he considered the Democratic Party of his youth a party of workers, free speech, transparency, and democracy, but left when it became clear to him that was no longer the case. He then thanked his team for their strenuous work to collect the signatures necessary to get on the ballot.

“I will leverage your tremendous accomplishments” to advance his and his supporters’ shared values, he went on, claiming he believed he would have won the election in a fair system and independent media, and without social media censorship.

But “in the name of saving democracy, the Democratic Party set itself to dismantling it,” he said, describing the Democratic National Committee’s legal challenges to his own bid, “rigging” of the Democratic primary on behalf of Biden, and eventual replacement of him with Harris, as well as the government’s various prosecutions of Trump.

At the same time, he took solace in his ideas “flourishing” over the past year, particularly among young people, thanks in large part to alternative media.

In keeping with his desire not to become a “spoiler” with no path to the White House himself, and considering his internal polling showing that remaining in the race would have thrown the outcome to Harris, Kennedy announced that he is suspending his campaign and endorsing Trump over the issues of “free speech, war in Ukraine, and war on our children,” including chronic disease.

Notably, he stressed that while he is having his name removed from the ballots of 10 battleground states where he could impact a close race, it will remain in solid red and solid blue states, where he gave his blessing for supporters to vote for him on the outside chance nobody else won enough support for an outright victory.

Kennedy added that over the past two months, he and Trump have had a series of productive discussions about working together on “existential” issues on which they are aligned, while continuing to disagree on issues where they differ. By contrast, he says he tried to initiate similar discussions with Harris, but was rebuked.

Video Note: RFK Jr speaks at 41:10 of this video.  Skip ahead to 41:10

 

As a longtime Democrat, Kennedy held and continues to hold left-wing views on most issues, but enjoyed support along non-traditional lines and even among some conservatives for his strong criticism of COVID-19 lockdowns, mandates, and shots, to the point that there is some overlap between fans of Kennedy and fans of Trump, whose administration initially backed the lockdowns before changing course and who embraces the shots to this day while criticizing mandates.

Few expected Kennedy to actually become president, but he generated significant speculation as to whether he would draw more votes from Trump or Biden (who has since stepped aside in favor of nominating Harris) and was embraced as a symbolic protest vote for many dissatisfied with the major parties.

However, Kennedy blunted much of the enthusiasm for himself in March when he announced as his running mate tech industry insider Nicole Shanahan, whose background as a Democratic donor disappointed many who had expected a more outside-the-box pick.

Rumors first surfaced last month that Kennedy was planning to drop out and endorse Trump, which he called “FAKE NEWS” at the time. The same rumor returned this week, but instead of denying it Kennedy announced only that he would “address the nation live on Friday about the present historical moment and his path forward.”

Further adding credibility to the speculation was Shanahan expressing unusual candor in a Tuesday interview about the campaign contemplating whether to “stay in the race and run the risk of a Kamala Harris and [Tim] Walz presidency because we draw votes from Trump” or “walk away right now and join forces with Donald Trump.”

It remains to be seen whether Kennedy’s support will impact the trajectory of the race. National polling aggregations by RealClearPolitics and RaceToTheWH currently show a close but persisting lead for Harris in both popular vote and Electoral College projections.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 4 hours ago

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Crime / 5 hours ago

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Trump DOJ seeks to quash Pfizer whistleblower’s lawsuit over COVID shots

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on December 10, 2025

By

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Crime

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

Published on December 10, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.

Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.

Continue Reading

Trending

X