TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @KMGGaryde
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker Carlson says the quiet part out loud! 🔥 https://t.co/X6jMgR16CB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in the country, yet there was no real investigation. Attorney General Barr lied about it. Where are the tapes from Epstein's properties? The fact that we can't see them suggests a massive blackmail operation run by intel agencies to control famous people.
If someone can kill Epstein in a secure lockup and get away with it, that's a powerful, dangerous force. It's important to talk about it though because we need transparency and honesty. Crimes like this make people feel impotent and paranoid, leading to a society where no one believes anything. We need a country where things are what they seem, where people are honest and admit mistakes, not a place of crazy deceptions and murders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bottom line is Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, and not only murdered, but he was murdered in the most secure federal lockup in Midtown Manhattan in the country. Okay, not just in federal lockup, but in the most secure part of federal lockup. So how did that happen? Well, he was clearly murdered by another inmate, you can't get any answers to who the other eight inmates on his block were. There was no investigation into his death, they've never released it, and the attorney general at the time, Attorney General Barr clearly knew that this happened, and I've said that in public and he's attacked me for saying that, but it's just a fact he lied about it.
And so what is that? What is that? Think about that for a minute. I don't know the, I mean, there's a lot I don't know, I don't pretend to understand really anything, I don't understand anything, but I know lying when I see it, and they're lying about Jeffrey Epstein, if they're not, where's the investigation? And there hasn't been one, and so that's pretty heavy duty.
Where are the tapes? Where are the Epstein tapes? You know, it was so funny, they released a tape, a guy I know actually released a tape of Jeffrey Epstein talking about Donald Trump and saying we were friends once and I don't like Trump, and okay, this was like the October surprise was to derail Trump. And everyone's like, how can you do that? I thought, I'm so glad they're doing that.
So let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein. Like where are the videotapes from his home in New Mexico, from his Caribbean island, from his place on Fifth Avenue, there are always videotapes now in federal hands, why can't we see those? And we can't see them of course, because it's like a massive blackmail operation run by various intel agencies designed to put famous people under the control of governments. Of course, that's what it was. Obviously, and everyone knows that, but no one can say anything about it.
And as a friend of mine said, we were talking about this one night, and he goes, you know, kind of if you think about it like if you're able to kill somebody in the secure block in federal lockup in Manhattan and get away with it, probably not someone you wanna dick around with. Like, that's a powerful force, and that's a fair point, but it's still worth saying out loud because it's worth living in a transparent, honest country. It's bad to have rot like that. It's bad to have crimes like that committed in front of our faces. We can't do anything about it.
It makes everyone feel impotent. It makes everyone paranoid. It makes everyone feel like nothing's on the level. We wind up with a society where no one believes anything. And I feel like that's where we are.
The number of people I know who are like, wow, I've become a really deranged conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in the moon landing. I must know 100 people who said that to me in the last two years. This is and trust me, if you don't feel that way, you're just not admitting it because you do feel that way if you're paying attention. And that's a bad way to feel. I don't think I don't you don't want a country like that.
You want a country where things are pretty much what they seem to be, where people are honest, they're straightforward. When they make a terrible mistake, they admit it. You want a country that is like the family that you have or want to have, where people are just direct with each other and kind to each other, and not everything is some crazy multilayered deception designed to you know, screw you or kill Jeffrey Epstein, like that's so dark.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched Russell Brand's first interview since the government collusion against him. It's an incredible discussion that brilliantly explains the modern world. Highly recommend checking it out when you have a moment.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
~ Tucker Carlson ~ Ep. 70 Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. Watch it when you get a minute. It's one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you'll ever hear. It’s an Incredible interview that explains a lot.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a years-long campaign to silence my dissenting views on major geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. My critiques, while not pro-Russia, questioned Western involvement. This led to accusations of being a Chinese propagandist by a US government-linked organization. Subsequently, the UK government, connected to the CIA, pressured social media to censor and demonetize me. This coordinated attack, involving organizations funded by Big Pharma and government, reveals the suppression of independent media and dissenting voices. The open contest of ideas is a sham, with governments actively working to silence opposition, even using taxpayer money against their own citizens. My experience exposes the fragility of free speech and the lengths to which powerful entities will go to maintain control. The fight continues, and the stakes are high.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of twenty twenty two, '2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you, I thought, said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of twenty twenty two, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still at this point struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and
Speaker 0: how I
Speaker 1: would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got a relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for. So, it happened, though. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss. But these in my reading of it is and we haven't, by the way, talked about this off air, but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that. But looking back, so you were accused by a group called Coda Story. It published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter. Now Coda Story is connected to the UK government, but it's also connected to the CIA.
How does it make you feel to know that you were in the crosshairs of two of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content, that true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk, that companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. That Dame Caroline Dionidge, whose husband is a psy ops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in The UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine. All we've essentially done is listen to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in twenty fourteen in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions.
This is information that because of independent media is available. And perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled is being to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful. That no opinions can be allowed into that space, and I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I would be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on.
But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads the independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition. I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine non government organizations and think tanks that take their money from the military industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan, they have a vested interest in destroying those organizations.
In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the war. Those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out.
I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way. And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying. Particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced.
But also revealing, more importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did fifteen years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country Mhmm. Your life.
How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are? And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the West made the best idea win is a sham?
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a Denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle, which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kinds of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or a combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kinda like a place that's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose it's Glenn Greenwald the other day, and he goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it? You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity.
And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, avoided. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory, but while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip. So these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted, the height of these, allegations and attacks on me, contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized. But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations.
They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security.
Speaker 0: Were saying just to be honest. I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared. There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes.
And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: What a betrayal by your own government.
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is, that they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent, somewhat national istically oriented populist movements present. Because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who weren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what
Speaker 1: you think they did to you. During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines, recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that.
People within the FDA took positions at Moderna. We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making a thousand dollars, like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Bourla explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna.
They had like us on a high risk category. This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his substack. Not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing this information or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice.
Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary. The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices. And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance Yes. From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received millions of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in The United States, apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning.
It seems that that that this group received government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period, because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category, in fact, of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda of powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, deamplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
Speaker 0: This seems totalitarian. Yeah. To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: What I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I of course recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and then to use your term, hot, a hot war with Russia. And like that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing spoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting, these think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when
Speaker 0: you look at where they
Speaker 1: get their money, big pharma or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda. So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the twentieth century militarism. Guys in medals with mustaches thumping their fists on a desk, will be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies, that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you, and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you, but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing. This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very, very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time, but when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the, the, the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you. And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome. And it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me like, oh, there are look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events?
I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger. I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I'd have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd.
But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the third rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that. And here you are.
You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward. Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not probably going to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I'm feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know you know what that kind of psychological, baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've in a way lived a pretty amazing life. I've, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually been incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazis, as racist whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different, You know? I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not, out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that. Because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even on those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen that quite a bit. Dynage.
You mentioned a person called Dynage. Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of, like, some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Down and Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psy ops, and now uses those very psy ops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the term Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: I looked her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Let like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024. The there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively.
The COVID inquiries already cost a hundred and 40 5 million pounds. It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between two neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centralist neoliberal party.
The party, nominally of the right is a neoliberal centralist party. They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's been concealed.
The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance. These kind of stories are never told. There are no legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years, they are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not conducting investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Speaker 0: Even the the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London.
Speaker 0: Such garbage. It's a story. So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that?
Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself, forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living, maybe in the police force or the fire service or as a nurse or as a teacher, something that gives real value to your nation.
The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war. You know, like like Do you know, like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like, with the hoofies and stuff. Like and like, I'm being deliberately glib.
But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies.
Speaker 0: Oh, the
Speaker 1: hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now. And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 were spent on Afghanistan.
And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was And now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right. Two corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted.
Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition?
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply, sea water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly, ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these sort of with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love That's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism. But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and the condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional metro metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist.
Look at them in their MAGA hats. Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist.
For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right. These things are happening organically and naturally anyway. And what I think is happening is I perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening.
And I think that we're at this crux point. Which way is it gonna go? Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with, or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think, is over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada.
And two of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God. You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land.
Our connection to our lands has been broken. Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands.
We are divorced from one another, and we and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies. And I you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have six acres each.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And I felt like, oh, the crowd responding to that. People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world. For surely, those farmer protests are happening in Sri Lanka, they're happening in India, they're not just happening in Europe or anglophonic countries, they're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere. And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to.
Sovereignty of the individual. Sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones. Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I
Speaker 0: ask you a question that you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: I'll give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful to your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. Get rid of your farmers, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of the country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have, which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Ideas, When it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them twenty, thirty years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks and the WHO, like this is extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public to create people that just are weary and broken, and is if not enslaved, then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent. It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are, that there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you, that you are allowed to be who you are.
And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now. It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for twenty six years in New Jersey, thirty five years in the security first services. But these people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation. And it's difficult actually sometimes.
The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather coroning answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theorists, but then aren't we all these days? Is integrate the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion. But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The Earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically almost at this point divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if no one has a relationship with it? I think like 90% of in my country, 90% of the land is inaccessible to most people.
90% of the land is privately owned. Like, land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned. There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible So you're
Speaker 0: getting back to feudalism
Speaker 1: Yeah. Is what you're saying. Let's get back to good old feudal what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no?
Speaker 1: You know, like, I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for twenty one years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God is the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is, is descent into self centeredness. When you are when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular.
What I've observed, like in this period from a personal perspective is that, like I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with. Like, oh my god.
And another thing that's been amazing is like for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I've got in public and people are like, Russell, hey, we support you, we support you. And like, like one time I was wearing like sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between like sort of 15 and 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids.
And, like, people aren't. People aren't buying it. People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up.
People start to think, well, well, Jesus, is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president? The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore.
It I was speaking from the perspective look. This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background.
But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation. A catastrophe is an invitation, and it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we're what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what have we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty. What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in a perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it, rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. Total blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
~ Tucker Carlson ~ Ep. 84 Tulsi Gabbard could be the next vice president. Here’s what she believes. Do you think she would be a great VP? https://t.co/8zXk7pMayD
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2013, Tulsi Gabbard was a celebrated freshman congresswoman and vice chair of the DNC. By 2024, she headlined CPAC, expressing concerns about democracy being undermined by political elites. Gabbard reflected on her journey, noting how the Democratic Party has shifted from its roots of civil liberties and support for working people to a party of the elite. She described her opposition to military intervention in Syria and the backlash she faced for challenging party leadership. Gabbard emphasized the importance of individual rights coming from God, warning against the dangers of a government that disregards these principles. She remains committed to advocating for freedom and security, urging others to take action against the current political climate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So try to think back to 2013. It wasn't that long ago we had air travel and electricity and air conditioning. It was part of the modern era. 2013, Tulsi Gabbard, who was in her early thirties, had just been elected from Hawaii. She was a member of congress for Strummer, a Democrat.
And not just a Democrat, she was the single most famous freshman that year, and she was feted by her party. The Democratic party made her vice chair of the DNC as a freshman that year. And she was on the cover of magazine. She was the future of the Democratic Party. It was 2013.
Fast forward 11 years to the beginning of 2020 4, that very same person was a headliner at CPAC, the conservative political action committee. And not only did she speak there, she was arguably the most popular person who spoke there this year, 11 years later. Here's part of what she said.
Speaker 1: Our democracy is under attack. The perpetrators of this attack are those who, in the name of saving our democracy, are destroying it. I don't use these words lightly. Every one of us who loves this country and who cherishes peace and freedom should be very alarmed by those who driven by their insatiable hunger for power are actively undermining all that we stand for. And almost every single day, if you're paying attention to the news and the headlines, there is some new assault and some new attack.
Now it's the democrat elite and the swamp creatures in Washington who are doing all that they possibly can to keep us, the American people, from a very simple thing, having the freedom to choose who we want to be our next president. And it is clear through their actions they have no respect for us, and they have no respect for our fundamental rights as citizens of this democratic republic. They are so terrified that We The People may make what they think is the wrong choice. That in the name of protecting democracy and saving us from ourselves, they're actually destroying our democracy and taking away our freedom.
Speaker 0: Wow. You can see why she was the most popular speaker at CPAC this year. But, again, 11 years from vice chair of the DNC to headlining CPAC. Some people have asked, well, wait a second. That's awfully fast.
This must be an op. She must be a secret lefty or a CIA agent. Well, of course, we can't know. But if she was, she'd probably be getting something out of it. She'd be really rich.
But, no, Tulsi Gabbard is probably the least rich famous person in the United States. She is not cashed in just the opposite. She's actually really suffered for her change of heart. So what was the process that led her from freshman in congress 11 years ago to headliner at CPAC this year? It's a very interesting story, and she's written it in a book that's just come out.
For love of country, leave the Democratic party behind, and she's joining us today to explain what exactly happened in her life. Chelsea Gabbard joins us now.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Chelsea Gabbard, thank you so much, and congrats on the book. And I have to say the first thing that jumped out. Chelsea is one of the most rock solid honorable people I've ever met, says Joe Rogan, and, I can attest to that. That is true. You.
I feel the same way. Thank you. So how but I can also see why people are like, what is this? Yeah. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, probably the most reliably democratic liberal state argument there maybe, but subjective, but pretty close, if not the most.
And now this, like, what happened? It's it's, you know,
Speaker 2: a lot has happened in that 11 year. Oh, yeah. As you're talking, I'm just thinking through, like, gosh. Has it only been
Speaker 0: I know. Has it
Speaker 2: only been a 10, 11 years? But, it to me, it just shows how insane today's Democratic Party has become Yes. Really, truly. You know, I joined the Democratic Party, in 2002. I was 21 years old when I ran for the state house in Hawaii.
And as you know, I come from you know, my parents have are very independent minded people. They raised all of us. 5 kids to be critical thinkers and independent minded. Make make your own decision, but do your research and figure out why you are coming to this conclusion or why you are coming to this decision. And so when I had decided to run for office in Hawaii, there wasn't just like, well, of course, I'm gonna be a part of this party or that party because, you know, somebody told me to or because it was like a family generational thing.
None of that was there. And so I really started to look at, you know, Hawaii's history in politics. Why was Hawaii such a strong democratic state? As it still is now, it's it's a little bit less so, but, at that time, what I saw was a party that welcomed free thinkers. It was truly a big tent party even in their own words.
It was a party that stood up for civil liberties. It's a party that stood up for freedom of speech and was willing to fight for it. That is true. It was a party that in Hawaii's history fought for working people. It fought for average everyday Americans against the the corporate industrial complex, which in Hawaii was the big four plantation owners back in the day.
And so it was because of those reasons and looking at leaders like JFK
Speaker 0: So can I just ask you a question? Yeah. For people who aren't familiar with the history of state, which is actually very interesting It is. Completely different from the history of any other of the 49 states.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: It was almost like a feudal system Yeah. In Hawaii. Is that fair?
Speaker 2: It was. It it was. And and going back, and this is where there was a big shift, and and people in the political world ask all the time is, like, why why did Hawaii become such a strong Democrat state? It was because there were 4 major landowners that came in and essentially took the land, from the local people, through the queen in jail and decided, okay. Well, here's what we're gonna do.
We're gonna start growing sugarcane. We're gonna start growing pineapples, and they essentially installed themselves as the government of what was then the territory of Hawaii. And, local people really didn't have a whole lot of say in it. But through that process, there were immigrants coming from Japan and from the Philippines, from Portugal, from places all over the world seeking opportunity, getting work visas and work contracts to go and work in the fields. And these massive plantation owners essentially treated them like crap.
Subhuman living conditions, abysmal pay, and and essentially what what we would call complete abuse in in in this day and age, but they got away with it because they the people had no voice. When one group started to rise up and say, hey. We gotta stick together and demand better living conditions and better pay. Let's say it was the Filipinos who did it. And they said, okay.
Well, fine. We're just gonna have the Japanese workers come in and take over your fields and leave you with nothing. And so pitting one group against the other. So in Hawaii, it was, it was the ILWU union primarily that came in and actually started to organize workers. And there was a a couple of democrat political leaders who had failed, at the polls previously because they didn't have the votes, they came in and said, hey.
Look. We're gonna fight for you, and they did. And that was when Hawaii shifted from Republican to Democrat control because the Democrat party at that time was the party of the people. Didn't matter where you're from, didn't matter your background, how much money you made or didn't made to your education or anything else. They were the party of the people, battling against the the the elite.
And so so I this the reason why this story is important is because you look at that legacy in my home state of Hawaii, and then you look at what's happening in our politics today, where, unfortunately, the Democrat party, and those in charge of it are now the party of the elite who are way out of touch with the experience of everyday working people across this country. And and it it is unfortunate, it is unfortunate that that party has gotten so far away from its roots, its roots of being a party that celebrated freedom, its roots of being a party that fought for for civil liberties to one now where with the Biden Harris administration, and the Democrat elite across Washington are intentionally politicizing and weaponizing the tools of our own government and their friends in big tech and social media and their friends in the mainstream media to take away our freedoms, to take away our right to free speech, to violate our privacy and our civil liberties. They have become the party of war, in in every respect. Unfortunately, the Democrat party has become a party that is is undermining the very fabric of our country, of our freedom, of our constitution and the rule of law, which is why ultimately I I left the Democratic party.
And then why it's why I am sounding the alarm bells as we head into this very critical election year about really what's at stake.
Speaker 0: The reason that I know you're sincere is because you left the Democratic Party at exactly the moment that it solidified its position as the party of the rich. Yeah. And there's so many rewards that you can receive if you sign up. So I I know a 1000000 people who moved in the other direction. You know, Joe Scarborough or Stuart Stevens or Steve Schmidt or all the guys from the Lincoln Project, Bill Kristol.
Right. And they've all been rewarded for it a lot because there's a lot of money to pass around if you do that. Mhmm. And but you left at exactly the moment when you could've gotten kinda rich by staying and reading the talking points.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It it you when I first got elected in 2012, it was it was it was a race that I was not supposed to win if you listen to anybody who knew anything about politics. And I I won that election 0 support from any, you know, local or national Democratic party individuals or the party as a whole. Oh. It it was imagine this, the people's voices were heard through their votes, and they were sick and tired of of the pay to play corrupt politics and, wanted a new direction and a fresh direction of leadership.
And so it was it was a hard fought, election, but I I had no idea what was in store when I actually went to Washington.
Speaker 0: So what did you notice? I mean, we actually of all The obvious is very far away. It's just so far
Speaker 2: It is. Physically from DC. It is. And and you would think in the age of technology that distance wouldn't matter so much, but it kinda does Yeah.
Speaker 0: It does.
Speaker 2: In some ways. But shortly after my primary election, I got a call from Nancy Pelosi saying, hey. Do you wanna, speak during prime time at the Democratic convention coming up? And I was like, yes. How old were you?
I was 31.
Speaker 0: What a trip. That must have
Speaker 2: been And I said I would like to speak about veterans. I was serving in the Hawaii National Guard at the time. I'm still serving the US Army Reserve now. But to me, hey. Here's an opportunity to speak to millions of people across the country about the people who are nearest and dearest to my heart, my brothers and sisters.
And so the whole thing was it was quite surreal because I didn't I didn't seek it out. I didn't know I didn't know how that machine worked, but I found myself getting these phone calls, from people within the Democratic Party, like, hey. Go and speak at this, like, premier event that, like, most people don't get invitations to. And a couple of weeks after I was in office, I got a call saying, hey. What would you say if you were asked to serve as vice chair of the DNC?
And I was just literally, my response was like, what does the vice chair of the DNC do? I don't know nothing about this. What what do you really want from me? What are you asking of me? Ultimately said yes because this is an opportunity to be in a position to make some positive change.
But these kinds of things kept on happening, over over the yeah. It was kind of my 1st year, 1st couple of years in office. But and and you'll appreciate this. One of the major turning points, that started to slow down the the the fanfare and and like the the headlines of like I remember there was one at the Democratic convention. I don't know if it was CNN or MSNBC.
Someone was like, oh, I wonder who's gonna play Tulsi Gabbard in a movie. And, like, all this stuff, I'm like, this is so weird. But that summer of 2013, my 1st year in congress, as you know, one of the main reasons that I ran for congress was because of the experiences that I'd had on both of my Middle East deployments, where I experienced the cost of war firsthand serving in a medical unit, and I wanted to be in a position where I could help influence and impact those foreign policy decisions that were directly impacting, my brothers and sisters in uniform. I didn't realize that my opportunity to be able to do that would happen so quickly. But it was August of 2013 that president Obama announced then president Obama announced that he was going to seek authorization to use military force from Congress to go and drop some bombs on Syria in what would be kind of the first volley of regime change war there.
And, I was on the foreign affairs committee at the time, August. Most members of congress are at home during recess, and I was home in my district. And I remember, like it was yesterday, pumping gas at the gas station, and this woman came up to me, and I've never met her before. Local local lady came. She grabbed my arm and looked at me with this intensity in her eyes telling me that her son had just come home from Iraq, and she had been terrified that he wouldn't come home.
He was finally home with her, and now they wanted to they wanted to send him back to another war in another country and begged me, please, Tulsi, don't let them take my son from me. Jeez. And as the next couple of days went on, I would bump into more people like that in the supermarket or just around town who were absolutely terrified. I went back to Washington. We held all the committee hearings, open hearings, classified briefings, and I went in with an open mind saying give me all of the information.
I wanna make sure that I do my due diligence before I take a position or or make a decision on this. And, ultimately, secretary Kerry came in and briefed us. The answers to very direct questions that I had, such as what is our objective? What what is your objective in wanting to go and start another war in another country? What do you how do you think they will respond?
What will you do next? What is that second, 3rd, 4th order of effects and consequences that will always happen? And the question, you know, when I said, what is your objective? I believe it was secretary Kerry or someone from the state department who said, well, you know, we don't wanna deliver a a decapitation. We don't want it to be a pinprick.
We want this to be a punch in the gut and send a message. And my question was, okay. So a punch in the gut, like, what will you do when they respond? And they said, well, we don't think they'll we don't think there'll be a response. Response.
That's your plan. You don't think there will be a response?
Speaker 0: Gary said
Speaker 2: that somebody came up and punched you in the gut. Would you, like, just not respond if they don't respond? They've got some pretty, you know, weaponized, powerful friends. You don't think they'll respond? And what if they don't respond to us, but they respond by attacking some of our friends who may be in the region?
All of these different kinds of questions, there's like, well, we just don't think they'll do that. Well, what happens next? Well, you know, we think this will send a strong message. And and it's the same kind of, like, political BS talk that means nothing and is so disconnected from the reality of the people on the ground who have to live with those consequences. And it really surprised me.
And maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, but it surprised me that after so many years of looking back at the massive mistakes of Iraq, that they could be so glib in just saying, oh, we'll just go drop some bombs and send a message and and that'll be it.
Speaker 0: They learned nothing.
Speaker 2: They learned nothing. And so I I penned an op ed and published it. And I was I was certainly the 1st Democrat, maybe the 1st member of Congress to to come out in opposition to president Obama's request. And, within hours of publishing that op ed, I got a call from the White House, and essentially what they said was, how dare you? How dare you go against your president?
How dare you go against the president who came from your home state? Not a moment of the conversation. It wasn't much of a conversation, first of all, but they were not interested at all in the reason for my opposition, which I stated pretty clearly in the op ed how how well, thought out this decision was. It was not made haphazardly. They weren't interested in my experience that I brought that helped inform my decision of having deployed twice to the Middle East before.
And it it told me a lot about them that they were more, concerned with and they cared more about, like, being a good member of the team and go team Obama and go team Democrats than they were concerned about, the actual consequences of the very serious request that he was saying he would come to congress with. It sent a strong message to them as well that I wasn't the person that they thought I was going to be. And and someone who could be puppeteered, who could be bullied into just, going along with the boss or whatever they had in mind, that was kind of the beginning of of their realization that, okay. This one thinks for herself, and she's not afraid to take a stand.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, at that point, you know, they have 2 options. They can either try and crush you, your freshman, so it's a little early for that. And they've also ginned up the publicity machine on your behalf. You probably weren't even aware of this, but most people come most congressmen come to Washington. No one ever hears no one knows they're there.
Yeah. Everyone knew you were there.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So they can try and crush you, or they can try and suborn you, bribe you, give you stuff to win you over. Yeah. What did they try?
Speaker 2: You know, it it's it is kind of the public things. Like, I I remember, and and I think you'll get a kick out of this, being invited to the White House Correspondents' Dinner my 1st year in congress. Yeah. I had guys who were who've been in congress. They're coming up to me saying, gosh, Tulsi, how come you got invited?
I've been here for 4 terms, 8 years, and I still haven't gotten invited to that. And I was, you know, I was like, do you wanna go? I really don't like going to these kind of things. I hate these big kind of parties and social things. Like, you can have my seat.
But but it was that kind of thing where, oh, go to this embassy for this fancy party. Like, all this stuff that, unfortunately, too many members of congress, find very, very appealing and
Speaker 0: We do.
Speaker 2: Get some kind of I don't know. I I don't wanna use the word fulfillment because it's not fulfilling, but but I guess it it, it's what they want. And I I didn't want any of that. So so the things that they were putting before me, were not attractive to me at all. And, it all it all, kind of definitely came crashing down in 2016 when I, when I took a step that, to go after Hillary Clinton when she was running for president in the Democratic primary.
I was vice chair of the DNC, and, I saw that the mainstream media, they were all saying she was the most qualified person ever to run for president and listing out all of the titles that she has held, but not a single one of them was questioning or holding to her account holding her to account for her record on foreign policy or or challenging her on what kind of commander in chief
Speaker 0: she had. The job that she had done in any of those jobs.
Speaker 2: Like, that
Speaker 0: was irrelevant.
Speaker 2: And then right. The the the actual record of what happened. What tell us what happened in Libya, actually, for for you, you know, for her pushing, for the the regime change in Libya and what happened as a consequence. There are so many different examples.
Speaker 0: For sure. So so you said that out loud. What happened then?
Speaker 2: I resigned as vice chair of the DNC. Why? Because the rules said that as officers of the DNC, you can't take sides in a partisan primary. The DNC itself under Debbie Wasserman actually clearly was In every way, tilting the scales for Hillary Clinton. But I resigned as vice chair of the DNC and endorsed Bernie Sanders around this single issue of foreign policy Yes.
Specifically because, while I disagreed with Bernie on on a bunch of things, he was certainly more of a non interventionist, than the warmonger that Hillary Clinton is. And I knew that would provide me with a platform to have a voice and actually speak the truth to the American people about her record and how dangerous she would be if she were ever our president and how how personal, this was for me because the cost is real.
Speaker 0: So what happened when you did that?
Speaker 2: I did I announced it on Meet the Press on a Sunday morning. Didn't tell anybody I was doing it, no one, before I went and and, made that announcement on that show. Monday morning, came back to work, and a lot of a lot of my Democrat colleagues were basically reading, you know, drafting their political eulogies for me. Just like you're done. You're done, Tulsi.
Hillary will be president. You will not get a single dime for your district. Anything that your community needs
Speaker 0: For your district.
Speaker 2: For my district.
Speaker 0: Not for your campaign.
Speaker 2: Not for me. For my district. They've never given me anything for any of my campaigns, and and I'm totally fine with that. But that my district and my constituency in Hawaii would be punished for for doing what I did. I also learned that there is an actual list of people who are, you know, blacklisted, I suppose.
And I was told that it would take years years years to ever work my way off that list. I I was chuckling at all.
Speaker 0: Said they said this out loud? They thought this or they said it out loud?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. No. No. No. These were these were many conversations walking to and from votes with different people who are pulling me aside, and offering their condolences, their political condolences to me, because that I had I had made a decision that they said would be, equal to my the death of my political future.
Speaker 0: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. MSNBC. I remember doing an interview. I think it was one of the first debates that that, Bernie and Hillary had, in Florida, I think it was. And, an MSNBC anchor said, like, aren't you afraid of the Clintons and what they'll do?
And I said, no. I'm not afraid. But I thought it was quite curious that he felt compelled to ask that question with concern in his voice.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, people who've been around them knew. Yeah. So you still, though, were in the party. When did it become clear, like, I can't I can't represent this party anymore?
Speaker 2: It it was, in the fall of of 2022. There were a lot of critical midterm elections, happening that year increasingly over time, and it wasn't one specific thing that that caused me to make this decision, but it was increasingly over time a couple of things. Obviously, the the radical change that the Democratic Party leadership went through, in in really truly become a woke warmongering party of the elite. But also it was it was a recognition that I had done all I could to to try to change the party from within. I I tried as vice chair of the DNC.
I tried as a candidate running for president in 2020 in the Democratic primary. And, the things that I was talking about, about bringing the party back to its roots, bringing the party back to being the party of the people and the party of freedom, the party of of peace and security. It it not only fell on deaf ears, I was booed by, you know, the the the party elite for having the audacity to push for these
Speaker 0: sorts of things. Yeah. You're this is a very restrained version of what I saw. They didn't just boo you. They accused you of being an agent for a foreign power and a disloyal American and an evil person.
Yeah. I mean, I saw that.
Speaker 2: It's true. And and it, you know, it's it's such a crazy, crazy accusation to make, obviously, completely baseless, and the media never asked Hillary Clinton for evidence of this traitorous treasonous act that she's accusing me of as a sitting member of Congress and as a soldier wearing our country's uniform.
Speaker 0: Yeah. An officer. Right?
Speaker 2: Yes. And and here's the problem is, is that it works. And that's why they continue even now. How many years later? They continue to fall back on the Russia Russia playbook.
It's a Russian asset. They've used this against you. They've used this against Donald Trump, and they continue to come back to this. But I'm not an officer in
Speaker 0: the United States Army, and you are. So it's a little weird to say I mean, Hillary Clinton, I will never forget it, accused you of being a disloyal Yeah. Person. That's a crime under the military code, I think.
Speaker 2: It is. Yeah. It is. And one that would not only be grounds for them to remove my security clearance, but it would be grounds for discharge, and it would be grounds for, you know, enforcement under the uniform code of military justice.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If you're actually working for a foreign power as a military officer, you can be executed for it. Yeah. So, like, it's not a small thing to say. So rather than just saying, you know, Tulsi Gabbard's an idiot or I agree with her or whatever, they went right to that, the heaviest thing you could ever say about somebody, about an American.
That was all foreign policy related. Right? Yes. That's the way it felt
Speaker 2: to me. I I it was foreign policy related, and it was related to the fact that I I I had the, I had the audacity to go against them, to challenge the elite of the Democratic Party, which is Hillary Clinton, and it's Barack Obama. And it's it's the people who surround them, in the military industrial complex, in the media industrial complex, those who are pushing. And it's not limited to the Democratic Party, of course. Mitt Romney also called me a treasonous person who is a Russian asset or something along those lines.
So, you know, they they are all part of this permanent Washington elite who cannot allow for, those who challenge them to go unscathed, because their their whole existence is based around that. It's a base it's based around power and where they get their power from.
Speaker 0: And the main source of power, obviously, is the exercise of military force.
Speaker 2: Yes. It's the most powerful it's the most powerful thing. We are the most powerful military Right. In the world. And that's what's so offensive about them and what they're advocating for is is they they treat our military.
It's like and actually, I don't want to say they forget, because they're not stupid. They really don't care about the men and women who make up our military and who live and die by the consequences of their actions, whether they're holding office or not. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not in office right now, but they still continue to wield immense power in influencing the decisions that are being made.
Speaker 0: So can I just it's sort of sidebar, but I think relevant interesting? Are you answering the question that everyone watching has, which is who is running the government at this point? It's obviously not Joe Biden. Yeah. You you think Hillary could
Speaker 2: I I there it's not a a leap of of imagination to know that that's true when you look at the people who are in Joe Biden's administration. They are the the the people who were the right hands for the Obama administration, for president Obama and for for Hillary Clinton. When Hillary Clinton said herself the other day, she said, oh, yeah. I talk to the White House every day. So it's not it is no shock or surprise, who the influences are behind the policies that are coming out of this White House that many people say is the most radical and woke White House that our country has ever seen.
Speaker 0: Oh, well, there's there's no question about it. So but as this was happening to you, I mean, I'm sure you don't wanna go to the White House Correspondents Dinner. Good for you. Tiresome. But on the other hand, it is a lot easier and much more pleasant to be loved than it is to be hated.
I think it's just true. And so as you became, like, really hated by the leadership of the Democratic Party, and they weren't hiding it at all
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 0: Did you ever think, like, maybe it's just easier to kinda pretend bombing Syria is a good idea? Did you ever question your decision to say no?
Speaker 2: No. I I knew what that that would be true. I knew that there was certainly an easier path to take.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think.
Speaker 2: It was kind of laid out for me when I first got there, but I I never second guessed my decision, my decisions about these different positions that I took. I never regretted them. Never. Not to this day, and I never will because I didn't go to Washington to be loved by the people who live and exist and thrive in that bubble. Well, sure.
I get it. And their their love is not worth having.
Speaker 0: I totally agree, but their money's good. Yeah. And I think you're the only famous person I've ever met who flies coach. Yeah. And you're certainly the only very, very well known member of congress and former presidential candidate I've ever met in my entire life who didn't cash in personally, and I know that is factually true.
Yeah. So, like, do you ever think, like, maybe I don't know. It's easier to fly 1st class. Maybe I should've
Speaker 2: just It's not worth it. Okay. It's not worth it.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's weird that we never talk about the money involved? Like, I just know that from living there Yeah. And from knowing a lot of well known people who've, you know, become famous in politics. Yeah. And there's not one of them.
Not one. Not literally not one on either side who's not in the top 1% for income, but you're not. No. Why doesn't anyone ever say that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Because because it is the assumed norm. It's not the exception. What they're doing is the norm. So why would they talk about it?
There's nothing to talk about because they assume that every member of congress, whether they're a Democrat or Republican, the day you walk out, you get your payday.
Speaker 0: What did you get when you walked out?
Speaker 2: Nothing. Nothing. I had to come up with a plan of, you know, like, alright. We gotta figure out how we're gonna pay the bills.
Speaker 0: How much how much money had you amassed in during your
Speaker 2: trial of congress? You know, every financial adviser would probably, be very disappointed because, you know, my my husband and I were, you know I had, like, okay. We got we got a couple of months. We got a couple of months that we can make it through. We gotta come up with we gotta come up with a plan, otherwise.
Speaker 0: Before you'd have to sell your weekend house? Or
Speaker 2: Sure. The imaginary weekend house. Yeah. No. It's Were you able to buy
Speaker 0: a big house when you're in congress?
Speaker 2: Of no. No. No. We had we we bought a house. I don't think you ever came to our house there.
But but here here's, I'll give you a little hint where, and we shared it with my sister and her husband. But we did buy a house in a in a neighborhood that was affordable in DC, and we found out the 1st week that we were there that, we or tried to order takeout from someone.
Speaker 0: Oh, oh, in DC? Oh, you lived in the hood. I knew that.
Speaker 2: And and as soon they're like, okay. Put the order in and everything else. And as soon as I I gave them the address, they're like, oh, no. We don't deliver to that neighborhood. We won't cross that bridge.
We won't cross the Anacostia Bridge to get to your house.
Speaker 0: You live on what we what we call the other side of the river. Literally.
Speaker 2: Anyway, it it's you know, there there was a question that a reporter asked me a couple of years, I forget, 2 or 3 years after I'd been in congress. They're like, okay. You've been here a while now. You know, do you feel like you fit in? And it was a surprising question to me, and I said, no.
I don't ever wanna fit in here. This is not, like, this is not my home. I'm grateful to get out of here as quickly as possible, as soon as votes are done, as often as possible, get back to my community in Hawaii or get get out and visit other communities in the country and and remain very closely connected to the people who I am I am, you know, I'm there to serve. And as you know, we've talked about this before. There's just there there are far too many politicians from both parties who spend their time, at social hours and happy hours with lobbyists, than they do actually spend time
Speaker 0: at home. Does anyone ever oh, that's certainly true. And they have sad, sad personal lives, almost not all, but most as you know. But I'm always amazed by the financial disclosures. And again, since this is the last question, but since no one else talks about it, I will.
And you see these members of congress who are you know, in some cases they're clever, maybe even smart. In some cases they're just pretty ordinary actually. And they're so rich relative to the mean. Oh, yeah. Does anyone and I have no idea how they made all that money.
I mean, no clue at all how Nancy Pelosi is just so rich or how she her stock picks are, like, way better than Warren Buffett's. Like, how does that happen? Yeah. But does anyone ever talk about that internally, like, on the hill?
Speaker 2: No. Because most of them benefit from it. I love these these, like, accounts on x and on Instagram that pop up now that are actually tracking.
Speaker 0: I don't
Speaker 2: know how they do it. I really don't know how they figure it out, but they are tracking what she's buying and what other members of congress are buying.
Speaker 0: Nancy Pelosi's stock tracker?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. That's definitely one of them. It's incredible. Everybody pay it. It is.
It's incredible to see. And and when you watch that and I'm so glad for the transparency that they're providing to people, in real time almost, but but it's no wonder why she and others, democrats and republicans, who could very easily pass the legislation that says no member of congress or the senate or their spouse or their senior staff should be allowed to trade in stocks, period. Full stop. It's such an obvious way to stop even the perception. If you wanna claim, like, innocence or whatever, there should be no perception that our elected leaders are profiting off of the knowledge that they have as policymakers that directly impact industry and businesses.
That's a no brainer to me. I introduced legislation when I was in congress to do that. Many people have since then. There's been a lot of talk and conversation. Why hasn't it gone anywhere?
That's why. Because they profit off it, so they don't, of course, they don't, wanna talk about it.
Speaker 0: That's just an easy one.
Speaker 2: It is. And, frankly, like, why why do they need to be forced? When I you know, I'm not gonna I'm I'm not some kind of stock trader, but, you know, when I was, like, 23 and 24, I had, like, $5,000 in my savings account. I was like, okay. Cool.
Let me learn a little bit about stocks. I put some money in some stocks, and I don't remember how they did, but I knew I I knew immediately, like, going into congress, perception is reality.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: And so it doesn't matter, like, well, I've had this stock for 15 years or whatever. It doesn't even matter what it is. I got rid of, I I did not participate in anything related to stocks or stock trading or buying or selling or anything for the entire time that I was in congress. And it's not some like, oh, look at me. I'm so great.
It's just common sense that we have people in great positions of power. Why should they be forced to do something with the passage of a law? Why don't they just do the right thing and say, you know what? We get that even an innocent thing could be perceived as insider trading. We're just not gonna go there.
Speaker 0: Because it's too lucrative to give up?
Speaker 2: And they know they can get away with it.
Speaker 0: So it's it's interesting. So you have explained, and thank you, the history of Hawaii, which I think is directly relevant to the choices that you've made. And and as far as I know, it's everything says true. And so the party has changed a lot in just the brief time that you've you were that you were a member of it a lot, dramatically, unrecognizable. But, also, in the process of going through all these experiences and being attacked by people who thought who said they were your allies, you've gotta change.
Yeah. I mean, I've changed dramatically in 20 years just through you know, we all do Yeah. If we're honest. So how have you changed? Like, what perceptions of yours are different from what they were 5 years ago?
Speaker 2: You know, it is it is that that the like, the last 5 years, that it became more and more clear to me how many people, especially the Democratic Party, in Washington, specifically, how little they think of the constitution. And, you know, I think the last 5 years especially are pretty pivotal because you look at what happened with COVID, for example, as a starting point of how people, both at the federal level, at the state level, county level, and a lot of places when given just a little bit of power, man, they they took advantage of that and continued to abuse that power in a way that just didn't make sense. It didn't make sense. You know, when they're they're like, oh, okay. Well, for public safety, everybody's gotta stay in indoors and you can't go to church and you can't even worship, you know, out, like, in Hawaii on the beach.
You can't you can't have, like, an outdoor service. But if you're gonna go and do a Black Lives Matter march, that that actually rises above any public health and safety concerns that we talked about. And so that's okay. The the the politically motivated decisions that were being made in the midst of what they were calling this, you know, the greatest health epidemic of our time, I think exposed pretty deeply to a lot of people, that it was really all just about power and how little they were concerned about things like freedom and civil liberties and the ability for us to make our own choices for ourselves. And then it just continued to escalate more and more with the Biden Harris administration, in in how they were undermining the rule of law continuing to this day, and how willing they were to both directly and indirectly, censor, blacklist, and smear, everyday Americans, across the country if you happen to challenge them, whether it be on COVID or be on, things like it.
And this this was, I think this was the thing that that caused Mitt Romney to to call me a treasonous liar was saying, hey. There are US funded, DOD funded bio labs in Ukraine that should be secured because there's a war going on over there, and the last thing we or the world needs is anything going on in those bio labs being unleashed in a way that could pose a threat to people. That that was seen as, But
Speaker 0: I should just say you weren't guessing. No. You got that. Or it was confirmed in any case in a public exchange in the senate between Marco Rubio of Florida, the sitting Republican senator, and Victoria Newland, the undersecretary of state, who volunteered it on camera.
Speaker 2: Yes. So And it was on the DOD website talking about their long history
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 2: Of funding these biolabs, not only in Ukraine, but in many other countries
Speaker 0: Of course. Because they around the world. Outside US law. Right? So they can and it's it's bioweapons research, obviously.
But you you were just you I don't even think you said that. You just said basically what the undersecretary of state said Right. In the senate. Right. And then you have a a creature like Mitt Romney calling you, a traitor to your country.
So what do you think of him? Like, what is that? Why would he be so committed to a lie that he'd be willing to try to destroy your character?
Speaker 2: He is part of that neo con, neo lib establishment in Washington that poses a direct threat to our republic, to our democracy, and to our freedom. And that that really is at the heart of why I chose to leave the Democratic Party. Seeing people and and, yep, got it. He's a Republican, but he took the same position as Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats, who don't care about our country. That's what it comes down to.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 2: They don't care about our country. I challenged Mitt Romney. I sent him a legal letter challenging him on his accusation for the very reason that we talked about as a uniformed officer serving in United States Army. His accusation as a US senator is is is a crime punishable by death. So if you're gonna make that accusation as he did on what was then known as Twitter, you better freaking back it up.
Speaker 0: Is it a little if you take 3 steps back, it's like, obviously, Mitt Romney is emotionally a child. He's very much a subgenius. He's, like, not a genius. Let's just put it that way. And he's made 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars in our economy.
Like, what does that tell you about our like, how could a guy like that get so unbelievably rich? Like, there's something systemically wrong. Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there there's a whole I think there's a huge and and I I think this will be the topic of the next book that I'll write is as we talk about the military industrial complex, there is a corporate industrial complex For sure. That exists as well. I'm all about capitalism.
But when you look at the monopolies of
Speaker 0: That's not capitalism.
Speaker 2: Capitalism at all. You look at how many small businesses are suffering in this country because of overregulation by government and because they can't afford to pay 1,000,000, tens of 1,000,000 of dollars to have lobbyists going and scratching the back of politicians so that they can create the loopholes that allow their business to thrive at the cost of the the mass majority of the small businesses in our country and the elimination of competitiveness. True true competition. That's what capitalism is all about. True competition, in our country.
And and that's how when you look at people like Mitt Romney and you see how they have done, so well, that that's that's the reason why. He's just so disgraceful. It's hard to believe he's real, but he
Speaker 0: he is. So how did he respond when you said
Speaker 2: He didn't. His silence was He didn't respond at all? He did not respond at all. Not to my lawyer and not on Twitter and and not in any way, shape, or form, which it it didn't it didn't surprise me. It's so dishonorable.
It is. It is. It is. I I am so grateful and really, truly feel like it is a privilege to be able to serve our country in uniform. April makes 21 years for me.
I'm grateful to serve as a battalion commander currently where I have the opportunity to work with incredible Americans, who come from all over the country and who deeply love our country. It's not a it's not a small sacrifice to make both for those who are serving as active duty service members as well as those who serve in the reserve component. There's a reason why we do it, and it stems from a deep love for our country. And to have a guy like that, make such an accusation, yeah, it hits it hits close to home, not only for me, but the the real issue with that and why I challenged him on it is because when people like Mitt Romney, make that kind of accusation, people like Hillary Clinton, call me a traitor and a a Russian asset or a puppet of Putin, I This is not about me. It's about the message that they're sending to every serviceman and woman in this country and every American that if you dare to challenge us, we will come we will come at you.
Speaker 0: It's always the least American people who make the claim that you're not American enough. Yeah. So but I do you ever think so? Again, this is demonstrable if anyone who's made it to this point in the conversation can decide, you know, do I agree or disagree with a Chelsea Gabbard? That's fine.
But I don't think any fair person could say you're in this for the money Yeah. Or the accolades. Just the opposite. You're continuing to get deployed, and you're not making any money doing that. You're doing it anyway.
It's quite a time commitment. Do you ever think, like, maybe politics is not the business for me because I'm just I believe what I believe, and I'm and I'm kind of never gonna sell it out. Maybe you're not transactional enough for that. I'm serious.
Speaker 2: I I I have never thought of of, quote, unquote, politics as a career
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: At all, ever. And so the different times in my life where I have held public office, it's never been, well, this is what I'm gonna do for the next few decades, and then I'll retire. And it's why I have left at different times. I did not run for reelection when I was serving in the state house because I decided to volunteer and deploy to Iraq with my brothers and sisters in the Hawaii National Guard at the time. I did not run for congress, again in reelection in 2020 because I felt like I could, the the climate of the House of Representatives, I've had gotten to that point where I felt like I had maximized the impact that I could make there, and I could I could be of more influence, at that time on the outside, kind of holding their feet to the fire, and being able to share exactly what I am now with the American people, the truth about what's going on in Washington and the truth about these politicians who claim to care for you, but show through their actions that they don't more and more brazenly.
And this is this is really you know, you'd ask the question about what happened over the last 5 years and, the change the change really, where there has been a change, it has come from a much deeper appreciation, frankly, of of of our constitution and the role that our leaders must have in truly upholding the constitution. It's obviously something I've I've sworn oath to twice in my life and I care very deeply for, to see how those in power were so brazenly and continue to so brazenly abuse their power and, weaponize, you know, our law enforcement, the national security state, all of these different tools that are at their disposal increasingly pushing us toward towards a place where our country is being led by a tyrannical government.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: The problem that comes very real. It's a very real danger.
Speaker 0: Oh, I agree.
Speaker 2: But I I frankly couldn't, you know, I don't know, 10 years ago, maybe even maybe even, you know, less than that. I I I don't think I would've I don't think I would've said that.
Speaker 0: Oh, I don't think most people would've said it at all. Because it seemed like just the the normal disagreements between people with the same goal, which is to help the country. That's not the case. The obviously, the problem of the constitution, though, is that the whole document basically is just, like, limits on the power and authority of politicians. That's the whole purpose of it.
Here's what you can't do to the population, but it's in the hands of politicians to uphold. Yeah. So you I mean, maybe that's, like, the core problem with our government. Our system of government is they have to restrain their own power. Like, what if they're like, well, we don't care for
Speaker 2: the constitution. Like, all white guys wrote it, and they were racist and, like, it's now invalid. And that's exactly where the leaders of today's Democratic Party are. That is their mindset.
Speaker 0: What do you do about that?
Speaker 2: That's that's where going and and actually looking again at our founding documents, looking at the declaration of independence, looking at the federalist papers Yes. Where we are reminded over and over and over again about how our nation's founders continued to say it's We The People, that our government does not exist without the consent of the governed. And this is the message I'm carrying everywhere across the country is that if you are not happy with the direction that our country is headed, And I think that most people are not happy with it. This changes only when we take action. Only when we take action.
There's no knight in shining armor that's coming to save the country. Our founder specifically built our country on the foundation of We The People taking ownership and responsibility for the kind of leadership that we want and the kind of future that we want. And right now, I am sounding the alarm and encouraging everyone to sound the alarm. The name of my book is For Love of Country, Leave the Democrat Party Behind, specifically and very directly pointing to those who pose the greatest threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our security and our ability to live in peace right now. And my concern, my my grave concern is that in this next election, if President Biden or Harris or whoever they may put up, if it's not President Biden, if they are allowed to remain in power, then we will get to a place where the country that I love, that you love, that so many of us love and appreciate will become unrecognizable and to a place where the freedoms that we are already starting to lose, that that we won't be able to get them back?
Speaker 0: I know I know a lot of people who've been to jail in the last three and a half years, a lot. I've interviewed a lot. I just interviewed 1 today. And they've gone to jail for their political views and for their willingness to challenge the people in power. If Biden or, you know, if Clinton, Obama get reelected using Biden as a cutout and Kamala Harris, Are you worried that I mean, we're talking about, like, actual Americans, American citizens going to jail.
We're gonna see a lot more of that, it feels like to me.
Speaker 2: We are already seeing more of that, and I have no doubt that that will only escalate dramatically because every time, you know, they could win the election by theoretically one vote and they will run around the country and say, oh, the American people have given us a mandate to continue the great work we are doing for this country. Well, the great work that they see they are doing for this country is actually for themselves. And they are completely undermining, the fabric that that makes this country what it is.
Speaker 0: That's for sure. But are you worried? I mean, you're in this interesting position because, you know, they've always they've disliked Trump for a long time, disliked me for a long time. They thought they could use you. They thought they loved you, and so they hate you with a very intense and very specific kind of hate, and you've given them the finger at every turn.
Yeah. Like and you won't stop. So, like, do you ever think to yourself I wouldn't be surprised. No. I wouldn't Why wouldn't they indite you for being a Russian agent or whatever?
Speaker 2: There there's, as we are seeing now, they are completely willing to use the Department of Justice and law enforcement to serve their own political means. So so, no, it wouldn't surprise me at all. They are they are showing that even without evidence, without basis, without anything to back up their claims, they are, you know, they they and and this is what they've been doing against Trump since he first ran for office in 2016, launching years long investigations into him, this whole Russia collusion thing, things that were, you know, proven through those investigations. Like, no, there there was nothing here, and there there's been no accountability for them whatsoever, which goes back to just emphasizing how critical it is. If if you are a person who cares about freedom, who cares about our country, who cares about, you know, being able to make your own decisions as parents about what kind of education you want for your child, if you care about having a safe community for your child to live in, if you care about having a secure country with borders, the Democratic Party is is not the answer.
It is not the answer. They are in fact the problem.
Speaker 0: So you've been in a lot of different news stories talked about as a potential VP choice for Trump. I have no idea if that's gonna happen or not. Probably unknowable. Are you open to that? If you don't do that, what else are you open to?
What's your plan?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I would I would be honored. I'd be honored to to serve our country, in that way or in other ways, and to be in a position to to help president Trump if he is if he is reelected, to actually address these challenges, to help execute those policies that will bring back a secure border, that will breathe new life into, our economy and start to get this radical inflation, out of control, which on that note, I I was in a conversation the other day with, like, 2 different groups of people. One one was with, a very, very wealthy couple, and they were saying, well, gosh. You know?
And they're not fans of president Biden either. They're like, you know, the economy is not actually that bad. Stock market's doing alright. And, you know, it's it's not really as bad as a lot of people are saying it is. And then the next conversation was with, people who were not part of that that wealthy class, who were talking about, you know, a loaf of bread is 3 times more expensive today than it was 6 months ago or a year ago.
Basic necessities, electricity, food, medicine, all of the things that that people need just to live and and to try to live in a healthy way, are far more expensive, but they're not making a whole lot more. The dollar is going, you know, not not going nearly as far as it needs to in order to be able to afford this inflation. And so I I just mentioned that because this disconnect still continues between the elite in Washington, and the reality that they live in versus the reality that the rest of us live in in this country. And president Trump recognizes that. I'd love to be in a position to help to help secure our country and to get us off this path towards World War 3 and nuclear war that, the Democrat elite and president Biden's policies have us on right now.
Speaker 0: So my last question, a lot, has been written about you, and, a lot has been written about your spiritual life. I don't know if any of it's accurate or not. Most politicians don't have a spiritual life, so I think it spooks our media that you clearly do. You can feel it. But I want to ask you a specific question.
So there was a fairly famous exchange on MSNBC a week or 2 ago with a reporter from Politico who was attacking Christians, and that reporter said, you know, the crazy thing about Christians is they think their rights come from God. When, of course, the implication is they really are granted by Joe Biden. Like, what? Where do you think our rights come from?
Speaker 2: Our rights come from god. It's and it's it's I I I saw that clip, and I laughed when I saw it. And then I was concerned because I saw the people sitting around the table in one of those panels, and they all had serious looks on their faces as they were nodding along with this woman saying this as though, like, first of all, whatever her spiritual beliefs are or the lack thereof, that's her business. Yeah. But have you read the Declaration of Independence ever?
Certainly not recently because, again, whatever your own personal thoughts may be, the declaration of independence is not they they don't mince words.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: That that our god given rights are inalienable, and they do come from our creator. And and, again, recognizing that as the basis for our founding documents, is a very powerful message to every person in politics or in power that you don't get to try to take away those rights. God gives us those rights. Only God can take them away. And this God complex that so many of our politicians have is at the heart of the problem is they're so eager to put themselves in a position of power where they've they believe that they have the power to say what is true and what is not true.
That something as undeniable as the fact that I am a woman and you're a man is something that they have now declared to be, a fungible, label, I suppose, that you can just say, oh, you know, I I I believe I'm a man, so I'm a man. And and and let it be so. The this is this is it would be laughable if the consequences weren't so dangerous, to have people in power who don't recognize that our our rights and freedoms come from God and you follow that track, and where does it lead is is they really do believe that they are god or should be god and that they are self appointing themselves to be in that position of authority and have a lot of tools at their disposal to try to enforce that. And that is what is at the heart of the danger that we face as a country right now. This is something that transcends party affiliation.
It transcends how you may like or dislike certain candidates. This is the fact, and it's the reality that we have to confront ourselves with. If we care about peace, if we care about freedom, if we care about security, if we care about our country and our future, the choice is very clear in this election and what we must do in leaving the Democrat party behind. Chelsea Gabbard.
Speaker 0: I don't know what's next for you. I don't know what's next for any of us, actually, but I hope you will keep talking. I will.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. Thank you. It's so good to see you.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
~ Tucker Carlson ~ Ep. 99 “Aleksandr Dugin is the most famous political philosopher in Russia…” https://t.co/QDEMOls27F
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alexander Dugin, a prominent Russian philosopher, discusses the decline of traditional values in the West, attributing it to the rise of individualism and liberalism. He argues that this shift began with the Protestant Reformation and has evolved into a new form of liberalism that prioritizes minority rule and prescriptive ideologies over classical liberal values. Dugin warns that this trajectory could lead to a future where human identity is optional, influenced by transhumanism and artificial intelligence. He also reflects on the West's changing perception of Russia, noting that Putin's defense of traditional values has positioned him as an adversary to progressive agendas, resulting in a deep-seated animosity towards him. Dugin emphasizes the importance of open discourse on these ideas, highlighting the philosophical implications of current societal trends.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alexander Dugin is a 62 year old Russian academic philosopher. He spent his life in Moscow. He was an anti Soviet dissident as a young man, and now he is famous the world over in the English language press anyway as, quote, Putin's brain. But he is not a political figure here in Russia. He is once again a philosopher, and his ideas are deeply offensive to some people.
In August of 2022, his only daughter was murdered in Moscow when a car bomb killed her. US intelligence says she was murdered by the Ukrainian government, and we take that at face value. But what's interesting is that once again, Alexander Dugan is not a military leader. He's not a close daily adviser to Vladimir Putin. He is a writer who writes about big ideas.
And for this, his books have been banned by the Biden administration in the United States. You cannot buy them on Amazon. Banning books in the United States because the ideas inside are too dangerous. He's often described, again, in the English language press as far right. We'll let you assess.
But we wanted to talk to him about some of his ideas, these ideas that are so dangerous that his only daughter was murdered over them and his books been banned in the United States. And so we're happy to have him join us now. Mister Dugan, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for, inviting me, and and welcome to Moscow.
Speaker 0: Of course. Thank you. So we were talking off camera. Actually, we're having a conversation that we were not going to film. Just interested to meet you.
But what you said was so interesting, that we got a couple of cameras and put this together. And my question to you was, what do you think is happening in the English language countries? And I said, all of them. United States, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, all at once decided to turn seemed to turn against themselves. You know, it's great turmoil, and some of the behaviors seem very self destructive.
And where do you think, as an observer, that comes from?
Speaker 1: So in my I could just suggest, express my reading of of of that. It demands a little patience. So, I think that's when everything started with individualism, so individualism, that was wrong understanding of the human nature, of the nature of man. When you identify individualism with the man, with the human nature, you cut all the relations to everything else. So, you have very special idea of the subject, philosophical subject as individual.
And everything started in the Anglo Saxon world with protestant reform and with nominalism. Before that nominalist attitude that there are no ideas, only things, only individual things. So individual, it was the key and is still key concept that was put in the center of liberal ideology. And liberalism, as in my reading, it is a kind of historical, and cultural, and political, and philosophical process of liberation of individual of any kind of collective identity. Collective or that transcend, transcends individual.
And that started with refuse of Catholic church as collective identity, of empire, western empire as collective identity. After that, it was revolt against a national state as collective identity in favor of purely civil society. After that, that war there was a big fight of the 20th century between liberalism, communism, and fascism, and liberalism has won once more.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So and after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was only liberalism, and Francis Fukuyama has pointed out correctly that there are no more any ideologies except of liberalism. And liberalism that was liberation of this individual from any kind of collective identity. There were only 2 collective identities to liberate from. Gender identity because it is collective identity. You are men or women collectively, so you could behave alone.
So, liberation from gender and that has led to transgenders, to LGBT and new form of sexual individualism. So, sex is something optional, and that was not just deviation of liberalism. That was necessary elements of implementation and the victor of this liberal ideology. And the last step that is not yet totally totally made is liberation from human identity. Humanity optional.
And when now we are choosing of you in the west. You are choosing the sex you want as you want. And, the last step in this process of, liberalism, implementation. Liberalism will mean precisely the human and optional. So you can choose your individual identity to be human, not to be human, and that has a name.
Transhumanism, posthumanism, singularity, artificial intelligence, Klaus Schwab, or Kurzweil, or Harare. They openly declare that is inevitable future of humanity. So we arrive to the historical terminal station that we finally 5 centuries ago, we have embarked in this train and now we are arriving at the last station. So that that is my reading and when all the elements, all the phases of that, you cut the tradition with the past. So you are no more protestant, you are secular atheist materialist.
You are no more national state that served the liberal to liberate from empire, and now, national state becomes at its turn obstacle. You are liberating from national state. Finally family is destroyed in favor of this individualism, and the last things the sex that is already almost overcome, sex optional and in gender politics, there is only one step to arrive to the end of this process of liberation, of liberalism. That is the abandoned human identity as something prescribed. So to be free from to be human, to have the possibility to choose, to be or not to be human.
And that is the agenda, political, ideological agenda of the tomorrow. That is why to how I see anglo saxon world that you have asked of. I think that it's just avant garde, one word, of this process because that started with Anglo Saxons' imperial, imperialism, nominalism, protestantism. And now you are ahead as, an Anglo Saxon more devoted to liberalism than any other European.
Speaker 0: So so you I mean, what you're describing is is clearly happening, and it's horrifying. But it's not the definition of liberalism I have in mind when I describe myself as what we say in the United States is a classical liberal. Right? So you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice from slavery. Right?
So the the options as we conceived them as I was growing up were the individual who can follow his conscience, say what he thinks, defend himself against the state versus the statism, the totalitarianism embodied in the government that you fought against, the Soviet government. And I think most Americans think of it that way.
Speaker 1: What's the difference? Very interesting question. I think that is the problem is in two definitions of liberalism. There is old liberalism, classical liberalism Yes. And new liberalism.
So So classical liberalism was in favor of democracy. Democracy understood as the power of majority, of consensus, of individual freedom that should be combined somehow with the freedom of other. And now, we have totally, the next station already, next phase, new liberalism. Now it is not about the rule of majority, but it is about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom, but it is about wokism.
So you should be so individualistic that you should criticize not only the state but individual, the old understanding of individuals. So you need now you you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality, to go further in that direction. So, I have spoken with once with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama on TV, and he has said before democracy, has meant the rule of majority and now it is about rule of minorities against majority. Because majority could choose Hitler or Putin, so we need to be very careful with majority and majority should be taken under control, and minorities should rule over majority. Majority it is not democracy, it's already totalitarianism, and now we are not about defense of the individual freedom but about prescription to be woke, to be modern, to be progressive.
It is not your right to be or not to be progressive. It is your duty to be progressive, to follow this agenda. So you are free to be a left liberal. You are no more is free enough to be a right liberal. You should be a left liberal and that is a kind of duties, it is prescription.
So liberalism fought during its history against any kind of prescription and now it at its turn became totalitarian, prescriptive, not not free as it was in some in some And do
Speaker 0: you believe that was inevitable that process? That was always going to happen?
Speaker 1: I think that is I perceive here a kind of logic. So a kind of logic that is not just perversion or deviation. You start with one thing, you want to liberate individual. When you arrive at the point when it is possible, it is realized. So, you need to go further.
So, and you start to liberate yourselves from this time from old understanding of individual in favor of more progressive concepts. So, you could not stop here. That is my vision. So, if you say, oh, I prefer old liberalism. They would say, the progressives, they would say it is not about old liberalism, it is about fascism.
You are defender of traditionalism, conservatism, fascism, so stop here. Either be progressive liberal or or you are done or we will cancel you. That is what we we, observe. I would Well,
Speaker 0: it's certainly what we're living and to see self described liberals ban your book, which is not a manual for bomb making or invading Ukraine. It's a you know, these are philosophical works. Tells you that this not of course, it's not liberal, in any sense. I I wonder, though, when you reach the point when the individual can no longer liberate himself from anything, when he's just not even human, what's the next step after that?
Speaker 1: That is described in the pictures, American pictures, films in many ways. So I think that, you know that all the all the science fictions, almost all of the 19th century were realized upon the reality in the twenties. So there there is nothing more realistic than science fiction, and if you consider, Matrix or Terminator, you have so many so many, more or less coinciding version of the future. The future with the post human or human optional, situation or artificial intelligence. Hollywood has made many many, many films.
I think they portray correctly reality of their close future. So, for example, if we consider the man, the human nature as a kind of rational animals, so you could now with our technology, you could produce them. So, you could create rational animals or combine them or construct them. And artificial intelligence, strong artificial intelligence, neural network, plus huge database, it is a kind of of or kink of the world, I would say, that that could not only only manipulate but create realities because the realities are just images, just just sensations, just feelings. So I think that posthumanist futurism is a kind of not only a realistic description of a very possible and probable future but as well a kind of political manifest.
So, it is not that is kind of visual thinking, and the fact that you have no bright traditional future described in the films. I don't know any any movie any movie of the future in the west made about return to traditional life, the prosperity, the families with many children. Everything is quite quite in shadow, quite quite black. So, if you if you if you, if you're used to to paint everything black and the future, especially, so this black future once arrives. And I think that is the fact, the same fact that we have no other option, either matrix or artificial intelligence or something or a Terminator.
So, the choice is already outside of the of the limits of humanity and that is not not just fantasy, I think. That is a kind of political project and it is easily imagined because we we have seen the films. They they follow more or less close this, this progressive, I would say, agenda.
Speaker 0: So I I've asked you no questions about Russia or Russian politics, and I'm not going to because I think it's so interesting to see your perspective on countries that you don't live in because, you know, we do gain insight, I think, from the view of outsiders. My last question to you is, how do you explain this phenomenon I have noticed where, for over 70 years, a group of people in the West and the United States, liberals, effectively defended the Soviet system and Stalinism, and many participated personally participated in Stalinism, spied for Stalin, supported him in our media. At in the year 2000, and they loved Boris Yeltsin because he was drunk. But in the year 2000, leadership of this country changed, and Russia became their main enemy. So after 80 odd years of defending Russia, they hated Russia.
What how what was that? Why the change?
Speaker 1: I think, I think that, first of all, Putin is traditional leader. So, Putin, when he came to power, from the very beginning, he started to extract our country, Russia, from the global influence. So, he started to contradict to global progressist agenda, and these people who supported Soviet Union, there were progressists and there are now progressists. So they have felt that now they are dealing they were dealing with someone who doesn't share this progressive agenda and who tried and with success to restore traditional values, sovereignty of the state, Christianity, traditional family, that wasn't evident from the beginning, from outside. But when Putin insisted more and more on this traditional agenda, I would say, on the particularity and speciality of the Russian civilization as some special type of world vision that had and has now very little similarities with the progressives Idels.
So I think that they have discovered, they have identified in Putin precisely what Putin is. So he is a kind of leader, political leader defending traditional values. So only recently, 1 years ago, Putin has made decree of the political defense, of traditional values. That was starting point, I would say. But observers from the progressive camp in the west, I think they have, they have understood that from the beginning of his rule correctly.
Correctly. So, this hatred is not just casual, something casual or some mood. It is not. Well, it's not casual.
Speaker 0: It's very serious.
Speaker 1: So it's metaphysical. So if you if your if your main task and main goal is to destroy traditional value, traditional family, traditional states, traditional relations, traditional, beliefs, and someone on the with the nuclear weapon, that is not smallest, the least, but the last but not least, arguments. Someone with nuclear weapon to stand strong defending traditional value, you you are going to abolish. I I think they have some some basis for this, russafoda and the hatred for Putin. So, it is not just by the chance.
It's not some irrational irrational, change from Soviet affiliate to, to Russia for that. It's something deeper, I would say. It's my guess.
Speaker 0: It's clearly something. It's clearly something deeper. We felt it was important for your ideas to get an airing in English in the United States simply because we believe in the open airing of ideas. I guess we're liberals that way. So we're grateful that you took the time.
Mister Dugan, thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. Total blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
~ Tucker Carlson ~ Ep. 78 The Biden administration helped install a pro-Chinese government in Brazil, which immediately shut down opposition media and began arresting dissidents. Here are two of its victims. https://t.co/xvZIXrDCYg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two years ago, during Brazil's presidential election, concerns arose about democracy under Lula, a former president with ties to China. Since Lula's victory, many journalists have faced censorship and exile, with some living in the U.S. due to threats of imprisonment. The Brazilian Supreme Court, particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has targeted conservatives, leading to a chilling effect on free speech. Protests against the government have resulted in severe punishments, including lengthy prison sentences for dissenters. The U.S. government's support for Lula raises questions about its commitment to democracy, as Brazil's political landscape increasingly resembles a dictatorship. The situation reflects a broader trend where judicial power undermines democratic processes, posing risks not only for Brazil but also for the U.S. and the Western world.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Little less than 2 years ago, we went to Brazil to cover the presidential election then in progress. The incumbent president Gervais de Saar, was running against a former president convicted felon, very close to the government of China called Lula. And as you wandered around the country, went to its biggest cities, you really got the feeling, if this election goes to Lula, this place is going to, in very short, become a police state. People are gonna go to jail. Democracy is going to end.
The media will no longer be able to report honestly and openly, and the Chinese government will have undue influence over Brazil. And that's a big deal, not just for Brazilians, but for the United States because Brazil is the most significant country in the Americas after this one. It's huge. It's got enormous natural resources. It's got a well educated population.
There's a lot in Brazil, and so if it descends into darkness, that's a problem not just for Brazil, but for every country in this hemisphere. So the question is, two and a half years later a year and a half later rather, what happened in Brazil? Lula won in an election that was very obviously rigged. And what happened to the country? So we thought we would get an update now with Eduardo Bolsonaro.
He's the son of the former president. He's a very well known legislator in Brazil, and he joins us on set now. Eduardo, thanks so much for coming on.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: So looking down from here, from, you know, a vantage of thousands of miles, but, at Brazil, it looks like it's no longer a free country.
Speaker 1: Sure. Not anymore. We have people get a censored not only in social media. You have people exiled living here in United States. For example, I'll tell you the names.
You have no doubt about what I'm talking about. Rodrigo Constantino, Paulo Figueiredo, Alan Dusan are 3 journalists that are living here in United States. And as this Wait. But they're Brazilian journalists who cover Brazilian politics, but they're living here. Why are they here?
Because they cannot work anymore in Brazil and also because you always have the risk of be arrested by the Supreme Court. And to be honest with not the whole Supreme Court but one justice called Alejandro de Moraes. He had opened an investigation for more than 5 years presecuring usually conservatives. So these gentlemen, Alan dos Santos, Rodrigo Figueres, Paulo Figueres, do Rodrigo Constantino, they are leaving here because they are shut down in Brazil. Alexandre de Moraes, this justice, he cannot even let this person has a Twitter or Facebook account in Brazil.
If you are in Brazil and you want to see what they are posting, you need to turn on your VPN or be outside of the Wait
Speaker 0: wait a second. How can okay. So the Biden administration is a great protector of democracy and human rights around the world. They tell us that every day. And yet their close ally, the Lula government, is shutting down press freedom and forcing journalists into exile.
Have they said anything about this? Has the state department complained about any of this?
Speaker 1: I never listened to something about that, but what we are doing, we are receiving some support from, our other congressmen from the Republican Party. For example, Marjorie Greiner, Chris Smith, among others. We had some conversations last year and we're expecting to this year come back to the Congress in a bigger delegation of Brazilian congressmen to have a hearing in a commission inside of the Congress to at least tell all around the world what is going on in Brazil. Because in Brazil, it's not worth anymore. You appeal.
You don't have for who appeal? Is the supreme court suing people? They are they say that they are the victims. They accuse and they judge everybody. This is not a democracy anymore.
I cannot say that, unfortunately. And you don't have where to appeal or who ask for help.
Speaker 0: So, just to get specific about what's happened and when. So it was the very last day. I think your father's term ended on New Year's Eve 2022. I think that's right. Janu December 31st.
January 8th, you had your own January 6th.
Speaker 1: Yes. This is their excuse that they use to go after every conservative that
Speaker 0: So, almost a year to the day later, the United States government was involved in it as well, the Biden administration. You had a supposed attempted coup on the democratically elected government of Brazil, the Lula government, and conveniently, a bunch of Lula's political opponents went up in jail. Mhmm. Is that a fair summary? Yes.
Speaker 1: Is that
Speaker 0: what happened?
Speaker 1: Yes. And the funny thing, Tucker, is that they say that it was attempt to off a cube, but in January, in a Sunday, no weapons were arrested. There was no support from police or armed forces. So in fact, it was a protest that went far away. I I do not agree to people breaking the doors of the Congress or the Supreme Court, whatever.
But these people now is getting punishments of 17 years in jail.
Speaker 0: If you commit 17 years from protesting. And and can I just say, it's it's pretty clear that your election was stolen by the Lula government? I think that's fair to say. From the outside, it looked stolen.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. I have my opinion. This is a very sensitive issue.
Speaker 0: No. I know it is.
Speaker 1: I have to take care about my words, but what I can tell you is
Speaker 0: Why would you have to take care of of of your words?
Speaker 1: You have a congressman that is in jail now because he made a video, Tucker. He made a video talking bad words for the Supreme Court. This man, a congressman, is in jail for 9 years. His name is Daniel Silvera.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. He's in jail for criticizing the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: Yes. Not only criticize. He said bad words. That's true. I would never do a video like that, but imagine I don't know.
Speaker 0: Bad words. Did he threaten violence? Some
Speaker 1: how can I say that? Talking shit things to the to the ministers.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Your mother is this and that. You know? You're allowed to
Speaker 0: talk shit to people in power in a free country, aren't you?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Where you have the first amendment respected. Yes. But in Brazil, we have some articles inside of the constitution that guarantee for senators and congressmen like me that you'll not receive any kind of punishment about what we speak.
It's even it's like, we have a freedom of speech in Brazil, at least in the Constitution. And the congressman is one step ahead because we cannot receive punishment about our words, votes, or whatever we say. But as this congressman is in jail now and the things are getting worse.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm sorry. And I keep talking over your story. I'm just amazed that someone I know that's in jail for criticizing the government. It's obviously not a free country just on the basis of that.
But I said it was very obvious from our perspective, from the US perspective that your election was rigged with the help of the CIA. That was my conclusion.
Speaker 1: There is a very good article in Financial Times talking about to the help of US to guarantee the democracy in Brazil.
Speaker 0: And by guaranteeing democracy, that would be guaranteeing the election of the left wing candidate.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. And the thing is, there is so much power that the establishment did, for example, to avoid the printed vote amendment that we tried to approve in 2021? Why someone from the electoral court the electoral court, they organize and they judge everything about the elections in Brazil? Why someone from the electoral court, the superior electoral court, as the president, Justice Barroso, came to the Congress and talked with 11 presidents of political parties telling them to do not approve the printed vote amendment?
Why someone works till we do not have more transparency in the election? It's strange. But as Tucker, in my position, I can tell you, I cannot accuse that the elections was frauded, but they cannot prove that it wasn't.
Speaker 0: Okay. But but just to be totally clear, in a free country, you can have any opinion you want about an election because you're a citizen. Right?
Speaker 1: Now in Brazil, they consider it's a crime.
Speaker 0: So it would be a crime for you to say, yes. I think the election was stolen.
Speaker 1: Yes. I could suffer a lot down there in Brazil if I come back.
Speaker 0: Even though we know for a fact the CIA was tampering in the democratic process in Brazil, was playing a role in the election.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. You know, and, one of the things why my father got, ineligible in a record time right after Lula take office
Speaker 0: is because he had the He was told he could never run again.
Speaker 1: Yes. He is ineligible until 2,026. We are trying to overturn it inside of the courts, but, as you can imagine, it will be very hard to do that. I still have a hope. But, anyway, he was turned ineligible because he had a meeting with ambassadors and talked with them about the electoral system in Brazil, how it works, and criticized some points.
Normal thing. But before of this meeting of Bolsonaro and the ambassadors, the president of the superior electoral court, he had the same meetings with these ambassadors.
Speaker 0: Wait. So you're saying that your father, who's often been compared to Trump, has been declared ineligible to run again in the next election on the basis of complaints about the electoral system, And that you had a protest against a rigged election that was backed by the US government and that as a result of that, Lula's political opponents wind up in jail. I mean, this sounds like exactly what's happening in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Is
Speaker 0: it safe to say that?
Speaker 1: I yes. I usually say that it's the same virus, but in Brazil, it has unless antibodies. Actually, there's a phrase of the journalist Paulo Figueired. It's a semi virus here, but imagine that in Brazil, the left wing or at least establishment, they fully control the Supreme Court. And who could do the check and balances and stop the Supreme Court to do that is the senate.
But the senate, they don't take any kind of action against that. They have exactly the same speech of the supreme court justices. So in the end of the day, Brazilians are losing the hope to get back democracy. Because if you use machines to vote and you don't have a way to at least recount the votes, you have to trust the system 100%. And then they don't let more transparency in the elections.
How can we elect someone Bolsonaro, a conservative, a right wing, or someone outside of the establishment? This is the feeling that a lot of Brazilians have
Speaker 0: nowadays, unfortunately, in Brazil. I mean, once you have electronic voting machines, you can't be certain that the system is real. Yes. Why do you have electronic voting machines?
Speaker 1: I tried to to avoid that. Once again, we approved in 2017, this printed vote bill. What what is that? We use machines to vote. Alright?
This bill says that it was necessary to have a printer aside aside of the machine. So at least you could recount the vote when you have any kind of suspicion in the election. It was approved in 2017, a federal law. Alright? On the next year, the Supreme Court said that this is unconstitutional.
That's why in 2019, we started to do not only a bill to change the federal law, but amendment to change the constitution. And we would have the votes because this was never a issue of a right wing or a left wing, a politician. It was something that was used to court to get together all of the congress. But then, as I said, the president of the electoral court came to the congress, talked with 11 president, presidents of parties, and changed their minds. And so didn't go If
Speaker 0: you have electronic voting machines with no way to recount and no way to prove what the votes actually were, if you're in favor of that, clearly, you're committing fraud. I mean, what would be the other reason to be in favor of that?
Speaker 1: They say that it would be a anti democratic comment of you, and they will shut it down in Brazil.
Speaker 0: So if I if I was a Brazilian citizen and I was in your media and I said what I just said,
Speaker 1: electronic They they would shut down your social media? It's exactly what happened with Paulo Figueroa. Paulo Figueroa is someone like you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Wait a second. I would not be allowed to say that in Brazil.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. If you say it would be only once. Only once? Only once. Then they're going to shut you down.
And if you keep doing this, send the FBI to your house. And if you keep doing this, they freeze they freeze your accounts. Just what happened with Paulo Figueired. That's why he's living here together with Alan Dus Santos and Rodrigo Constantino. Paulo Figueired was used to have daily millions and millions of Brazilians watching him.
Imagine you took her having, like, the best moment of your career in Fox News and the supreme court justice says, okay, you cannot say that Lula is convicted. You cannot say that he has connection with Maduro and Daniel Ortega. You cannot say that he has ties with the PCC, the largest organized crime in Brazil. It happened. You can Google it.
You're going to say see that.
Speaker 0: Yes. I can imagine that if if that's the question. That's the question. But I can't imagine living in a society where you're just not allowed to say it anywhere. I mean, anywhere.
So you're saying if I write that on x, if I broadcast it in a on a television channel, if I say it in a podcast, if I say it enough, I'll be shut down.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Or even more than that. For example, when when you've been in Brazil, you met Felipe Martinez. Right?
Yes. It's the Jared Kushner of Jerry Bolsonaro.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know him well. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Special about this guy now is in in jail.
Speaker 0: Why is he in jail? It's a good question.
Speaker 1: It's the same question that we do. And see, he's in jail because at least what we see
Speaker 0: Like literally in jail.
Speaker 1: He, accomplishing, preventive jail is what we say before the before the judgment. You are in prevent jail to guarantee that he's not, making him fuse with the investigations or to guarantee that the law will be applied against him so he can't run away. I don't know, in fact, what moved Alexandre Dumurais to send him to jail, but as is very usual in dictatorships, they go around the leader of the opposition movement, arresting people, you know, sending the federal police or their we say s s guards, arresting and sending to the house of the other people. My brother, Carlos
Speaker 0: Yes?
Speaker 1: He received the visit of the federal police. Everybody that surrounded Jair Bolsonaro are going are are being arrested or receiving the federal police in their houses to just to do some, research, orders, warranties from Alexandre de Morales.
Speaker 0: Has it has it happened to you?
Speaker 1: Not yet. But I think, naturally, one day it will happen.
Speaker 0: Do you think you can stay in Brazil?
Speaker 1: I don't feel that I can say everything that I want. Even if I'm now a congressman and the most voted congressman in the history of Brazil, former chair of the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee, and son of the former president. Because if they sent a congressman to jail because he recorded a video, they can do anything they want. That's why I'm telling you, I have to make sure about my words before especially talk about election? And in the past, how's about the pandemic?
Vaccine isn't all of that? Because You're not
Speaker 0: allowed you're not allowed to complain about vaccines?
Speaker 1: They are say that they're they're going to say that you are anti vaccine and you are committing a genocide. This is what they were using to talk about.
Speaker 0: You're committing the genocide
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: By questioning
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: The vaccines that killed all those people. You're the genocidal maniac.
Speaker 1: My father, he bought with the federal government a budget. He bought more than 600,000,000 vaccines. In the Brazil, you could even choose what brand of vaccine would you like to receive. But, Jair Bolsonaro, he said, you take it if you want. It's up to you.
And be careful because, for example, Pfizer, if you read everything that Pfizer advised you, about about the vaccines, I don't think you would take that. Because all of the Brazilians what we are in a poor country. What Brazilians go to a doctor before receive a shot? No one. And maybe if you have problems with your immune system and some other, pre sickness, maybe you're going to die.
And when you die, you never have an investigation to check if it was a consequence of the vaccine that you took. It's crazy. It's crazy. But this this issue, you know a lot because I see that it happens a lot here in United States
Speaker 0: too. What's amazing is how similar what's happened in Brazil is to what's happening here. It feels like you're a couple years ahead of us, and it's even more amazing that the Biden administration and the government of China have played such a big role in it. Ted, and let's end on this. China was a big issue in your father's campaign, I remember.
Mhmm. China wants Brazil's natural resources. China already owns a lot of your infrastructure, your power grid, etcetera. Food, soya. Food.
Exactly. What role has China played, do you think, in what's happening now?
Speaker 1: Now now they are free to do whatever they want because Lula consider them an ally and they consider US the imperialist of the world. You know, Lula is a old fashioned communist. That's not a coincidence that during his second mandate in around 2008 or 2009, China became for the first time after, I don't know, maybe 1 century, the number one trade partner of Brazil. Because in the whole history of Brazil, it was used to be United States.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: But not anymore. This is also very weird how US can do a campaign to guarantee the democracy as the Financial Times told. Supporting Lula. When we were always open, even during the Biden administration, to be together with them. It's not a problem for us.
I want you to do trades and business with US way more than with China because China, you know, do business with the US or any other country here in Western Hemisphere is not the same thing to do business with China. Yes. But, unfortunately, the current president, he doesn't thinks like that. He thinks that we have to be close off China because
Speaker 0: But why would the Biden administration be so supportive of Lula when he's anti American?
Speaker 1: I think because they're both left wings, ideology. This is the connection. It's it's a craziness connection, I guess. Because if you think really think the Americans, you should never do that. I will tell you, it's here in United States sometimes I see debates talking about a possible 3rd world war or a conflict with China.
Right? Brazil is the number 2 in the world when you talk about, exports of iron, The 4th largest food producers of the world with more than 200,000,000 people in our population. And we have a lot of oil, more than even some of our other countries. Yes. Way more.
In a war, what would you like to have? Energy? Oil? Iron to the the war machines? Food Yes.
To feed your soldiers? And everything now if you start the war now, I will tell you. The Brazil administration would be together with China against United States.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So this, I think, it was a wrong policy or at least you you didn't as administration. You you didn't pay attention about Brazil. And China is doing with South America the same that they did with Africa. So, if you keep not looking carefully about what is going on in South America, maybe you are going to have more and more problems, more and more people going to the US borders. If you look to Venezuela, about 10,000,000 people from Venezuela run away from the country.
Some of them, they come from Mexico trying to come here by your brothers. Brazil is like 8 times more bigger than Venezuela. I'm telling you that if you do not if Brazil turns itself a Venezuela, you will serve a way more problems here in United States. And for sure, not only in the borders, drug dealers, supporting terrorism, it will be a risk for you. Sure.
Speaker 0: Eduardo Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: No. Thank you, Tucker, to the opportunity to talk to the all of the world about what is going on in Brazil. You have such more, other other things happening. Only to finish, Please search for the judge, Ludemila Linz Grillo, who is living a third judge living here in United States too. And Alicia de Remora has freeze her account in Brazil, so not even her salary is receiving anymore.
And more and more Brazilians are going to ask for asylum here, unfortunately. But we think that the change can come from United States in this very important year.
Speaker 0: I hope so. Thank you. Thank you. So we thought it'd be interesting to learn more about the descending darkness in Brazil from someone who has tried to cover it and now no longer can. Paulo Figueredo was a very well known, one of the best known television journalists in the nation of Brazil.
He now lives in South Florida. His Brazilian passport has been stripped from him. This is all since the election of Lula, and he joins us now in studio to explain how exactly that happened. Tal, thanks so much
Speaker 2: for coming. It's an honor to be here. I don't know how how it happened, so I can't give you details.
Speaker 0: So so just to be clear, you're you're fully Brazilian.
Speaker 2: Yes. I was born in Brazil.
Speaker 0: Grandfather was president of Brazil.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 0: You're fully vested in the country. Yeah. You're not just like somebody who showed up in Brazil to cover things.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying. If I was in the US, I would say my family came in the Mayflower.
Speaker 0: Exactly. Okay. Exactly. So how but now you're living in exile in the United States without a Brazilian passport. What is that?
Speaker 2: Well, I didn't even know that was possible because until, I believe, 2020, the only people the Brazilian government seized the passport was a international drug dealer. Yes. People were looking for him, and they had to seize his passport. But then I was working normally on a regular, TV station in Brazil, like mainstream media doing Yes. Conservative show.
On prime time, we had millions of people watching it. It was the most watched political show in the country. And, on December 30, 2022, I received a call from someone that worked on a big social media company saying, well, we received a court order from the superior court superior federal court, the Supreme Court of Brazil, saying that we have 2 hours to take down your social media platform. And I had like, I don't know, 1,500,000 followers there on that specific one. And then I was like, wow.
I'm not I'm not gonna say the name because I don't wanna expose the person that informed me. And I was like, wow. So I went live streaming, and I said, look. Apparently, I'm gonna disappear. And but later, I found out because I got a call from a federal police officer saying, look.
We your the war against you is broader. Apparently, they ordered to freeze all your assets in the country. They also ordered that we we're gonna seize your passport, and you can't get in the country. And I was like, wow. What was the crime?
So I never I was never formally notified. So there's nothing anywhere that I committed any crime or that I'm being accused or charged of anything. But, apparently, they just decided that was best for the Brazilian people not to hear from me. Well, that's totalitarian. It is.
But Brazil is now an well, we would call it a relative democracy, but the fact is we're in well, the things that are happening in Brazil only happen in dictatorship countries.
Speaker 0: Well, that's just an incredible story.
Speaker 2: So But it was not only to me, I have to say that. So there's colleague of mine on. So 10 days later or 12 days later, well, after the January 8 happened in Brazil.
Speaker 0: And just for context, I should say. So you said that that you were stripped of your platform and told that you're having your passport taken.
Speaker 2: But I was still on TV.
Speaker 0: You were still on TV? Yeah. And that was, well, that was, like, on the second to last day of Bolsonaro's presidency. He had been declared the loser in the election. Right.
But nothing even happened. It's
Speaker 2: Nothing. Correct? Nothing happened, and I I stayed on air. But on January 8th, the revolt happened in Brazil, the protests, the demonstrations. And on January 9th, the Department of Justice opened an investigation against the TV station that I worked for.
And when they did that, the the the owners panicked, and they they had to fire all the conservative commentators from and only the conservative commentators from the station. And they used to have they used to be number 1 in terms of viewership, and of course, now they're not doing well because they lost you know what happens with the
Speaker 0: I do. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Where they get rid of their stars. Right? So and that's that's what, that's what happened in Brazil. And then I was let go and I opened new social media platform, profiles that were shut down as well.
And I've been co I've been opening new ones all the time. It's like my new YouTube channel already has, I don't know, 200,000, subscribers, and people, they block it. And then people I open a new one, and people resubscribe. This is a But you've never just
Speaker 0: to be clear, you don't you've never been charged with a crime?
Speaker 2: Oh, no. I I haven't even been, called to depose or anything. I haven't I've never received any communication from the Brazilian government.
Speaker 0: How can the US state department not say anything about this?
Speaker 2: Oh, because they they sponsored it. Right? The the US state department sponsored what's happening in Brazil. So they're they're co responsible. The United States is let me put it bluntly.
The United States is co responsible to what's happening in Brazil right now.
Speaker 0: It's it's such a shocking story.
Speaker 2: It is, and it's not covered by the mainstream media in the United States at all because they're accomplishes of what's happening. The New York Times, they pretend nothing is happening. They wrote a couple of pieces against, Demaraes, but very mild, and they're not reporting what's happening.
Speaker 0: But if they take one of the most famous journalists in a huge country, I'm not sure Americans understand how big Brazil is. It was like the United States.
Speaker 2: 120,000,000.
Speaker 0: Yeah. 220,000,000 with massive area
Speaker 2: and As big as territorial, the continent of the United States.
Speaker 0: Exactly. So it's not an insignificant place. No. I mean, it's not Suriname. I don't understand how they can the new government can shut down a journalist because they don't like his opinions.
Speaker 2: No. 1.
Speaker 0: Of his passport, and the US state department doesn't say anything.
Speaker 2: Well, no. One journalist. We have at least 3 journalists. Actually, there's there's a case of a podcaster. It was kinda like Joe Rogan in Brazil.
He's very liberal guy. Yeah. That was taken down as well, and he's living in the US under asylum. We have we have I I would say we have dozens of Brazilians living on political asylum in the United States right now. Wasn't my case because it was it was already here, but many others.
Yes. You have the Alan DeSantis is unbelievable his story. He was was kinda like how were Alex Jones in Brazil, more more, vocal. Yes. But still he has the right of his opinions.
I didn't agree with him all the time. And they shut down his channel. It was a big company by then, had a studio, everything. The federal police raided his house with his wife pregnant, pointing guns at him. It was a nightmare.
And we're talking about a guy who was, like, a family man, and he has been living here in the United States. And there's, there's an open arrest warrant. He was on Interpol red notice list right now. For what? For a crime of opinion.
For, the terms the terms they use are misinformation and, attacking the institutions. But when I like when I say, well, attacking means criticizing. Right? You're a public officials. It's my duty as a journalist to criticize you.
Yes. You work for for us. I don't work for you. So but but that's what happened to him. And there's Rodrigo Constantino, who was my colleague, same station, also very lots of viewers and
Speaker 0: And, I mean, what American journalists, these defenders of press freedom, have said anything about this.
Speaker 2: No. Except for Glenn Greenwald,
Speaker 0: who Yes. Who lives there.
Speaker 2: Who lives there in Brazil. And, except for him, I don't which is he's on the left. You know him very well. He was always on your show. But he was the one the only one that
Speaker 0: that spoke anything about it. Do you worry about him?
Speaker 2: Well, I think he should, and and he should be worried. Although, I think the government of Brazil would would be more cautious Yeah. Meddling with, a United States citizen. And and Glenn
Speaker 0: But Glenn won't pull back.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think he's very well, he exposes the NSA and CIA.
Speaker 0: Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2: So he's very brave.
Speaker 0: And last question, how did you wind up in the United States? So this happened to you.
Speaker 2: So I actually left Brazil when Dilma Rousseff, the lady that succeeded Lula on his first time when he when he she got reelected, and I was I'm out of here. My my my wife was pregnant. I didn't wanna stay there and raise my kids in Brazil anymore because I knew what was gonna happen. And then we were lucky because we had Jerry Bolsonaro winning, and the country started going in a good direction. But we kind of knew the establishment wouldn't let that happen for a long time.
Right?
Speaker 0: So having lived through this, what do you think of the US presidential election now in progress? You cover American politics, I should say, also.
Speaker 2: Well, it's it's a it's a moment of decision for the whole western world because I don't think there's a way Joe Biden can win a fair square. He can can be president if 80% of the country think you're too old and you're a large percentage of the country thinks he's mentally ill, maybe? Unsee Senile. Senile. Like Yeah.
Whatever the Department of Justice says. Yeah. And you can't you can't win a presidential race unless you cheat. Unless you cheat. Unless you it's not a fear and square election.
So what I think it's going on right now for the whole world is the whole world's watching. If people still matters in any way, Trump will be elected. If the establishment has all the power and democracy is dead in the Western world and it was a good run, we had a good run for like a little over 200 years. That's very rare in the history. You study history.
You know how rare that is. Then democracy is dead. And I can tell that because this is exactly what happened in Brazil. And what's going on more and more and more, and you see that is that the powers are shifting from the people to the courts. What people call juristocracy, not a democracy anymore, which is a great thing for globalists if you think about it.
Well, let's say you wanna change something. In a democratic country, you have to pass a bill in congress, and then senate needs to approve it, and the president needs to sanction it. And so if you're a billionaire, a progressive billionaire, and you have many here in the United States, and you want to change something in the society, let let's say make the society more open. You have 2 options. Either you go through the very, very difficult democratic process.
Speaker 0: Tedious.
Speaker 2: Tedious. Yeah. It's very hard to control all that. And I think the founding fathers knew that. And that's is why they made it this way.
You can do that or you can. Well, let's say you get 6 Supreme Court, just 5. And then you can, I don't know, make abortion legal all over the country? Has been done. It has been done before.
So if you're a globalist powerful elite, you can circumvent democracy and go straight to the judiciary. And that's exactly what happened in Brazil, and it can happen here. That's this most living I've I've been living here for 10 years. I can tell. The reality that we're living in Brazil is not that far away from America as you think.
You guys think, oh my god. We're we've been a democracy for 100 of years, and no. If you what? You think if you had, like, 6 supreme court justices that were progressives appointed by Obama or Michelle Obama or who knows? What?
You think your supreme court would be zealous about the constitution? Really? If you if you told me 5 years ago that Brazil would be in this situation, I would say, get out of here. No. That's too much.
They're not gonna arrest a mainstream media journalist, take his passport. They've they've done it. It was it happened fast, very fast.
Speaker 0: Well, you've wrecked my day. I appreciate your coming. Thank you, and I hope we see you again. Me too. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker Carlson: Ep. 33 Looks like we’re actually going to war with Iran. Are we ready for this? You should stop what you’re doing and listen to this video. https://t.co/oxJkcdpPoF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. appears to be moving toward war with Iran, with little opposition from Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham suggests military action against Iran if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Former Colonel Douglas McGregor warns that such actions could lead to significant consequences, including economic turmoil and military retaliation from Iran, potentially drawing in Russia and Turkey. He emphasizes that sanctions have not weakened Iran's military capabilities, which remain advanced. McGregor expresses concern about the U.S. military's readiness and the potential for domestic terrorism due to open borders. He cautions against the moral implications of collective punishment in Gaza and suggests that the situation could escalate into a regional conflict, urging for careful consideration of the long-term effects of U.S. actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We seem to be heading to war with Iran. Certainly, the Biden administration is pushing us in that direction. What's new and interesting and ominous is that very few Republicans, the opposition party, are pushing back. Instead, some of the party's leaders are encouraging it. Here, for example, is senator Lindsey Graham with South Carolina from last weekend on NBC.
Speaker 1: You said this week that the only way to keep the war from escalating is to hold Iran accountable, part of what you're talking about now, and that it might mean bombing their oil refineries. Yeah. Have you had any discussions with the Biden administration about this?
Speaker 2: A bit. Here's my message. If Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran, launches a massive attack on Israel, I would consider that a threat to the, to to the state of Israel, existential in nature. I will introduce a resolution in the United States Senate to allow military action by the United States in conjunction with Israel to knock Iran out of the oil business. Iran, if you escalate this war, we're coming for you.
Speaker 1: Are you effectively poised to declare war on Iran? That's very strong.
Speaker 2: I I am poised to use military force to destroy the source of funding for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Speaker 0: No. That's Lindsey Graham. Few others in the Republican Party will be that open about their intentions, but very few disagree with him. Certainly not in private. They agree.
So what would war with Iran mean? Well, it's hard to know because virtually no one who's talking about it in public is operating from a deep interest in America's interest. Is this good for us or is it not? Former Colonel Douglas McGregor is the CEO of Our Country, Our Choice, and one of the first people we turn to for analysis of events like this because he is interested in what happens to the United States. He joins us now.
Doug, thank you for coming on. Do you think that we are moving toward war with Iran?
Speaker 3: Yes. I do. And, it looks like the chosen destination is indeed Armageddon. There doesn't seem to be any real appreciation for the implications for us and and frankly for Europe and the world as well as the Middle East of such action. You know, take for an example just on the economic side, about 20% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz every month, probably 25% of liquefied natural gas, and you're talking about shutting down 2 to 3000000 barrels a day of oil from Iran.
You know, this entire region is involved in the war. This is not an Iranian monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. But the point is that when we're looking at 10 year treasury yields up over 5% and people are increasingly convinced that the Fed has lost control, the economic side of the house is catastrophe. Then when you look at the military side, you have to look at the arsenal of missiles that Iran possesses, And they can reach out 1,200 miles with great precision, very, high explosive conventional warheads that would do enormous damage, destroying whole city blocks in places like Haifa, Tel Aviv, even Jerusalem, though I doubt they would attack Jerusalem. The bottom line is that we need to think this through and everyone right now is emoting.
There is no thinking anywhere as far as I could tell. The only possible exception may be amazingly enough, mister Erdogan in Turkey who came out this morning and indicated he was willing to mediate, the dispute between Israel and Hamas. Whether or not anyone in Washington or Israel is interested in talking, I don't know. But if we could sideline Turkey and keep Turkey out of the fight, that would ultimately help Israel enormously.
Speaker 0: So what would happen to the United States if we followed senator Graham's advice and just began bombing critical infrastructure in Iran? What what would happen then?
Speaker 3: Well, all of the bases that we have in Iraq and Syria, unfortunately, where we still have over a 1000 Americans, all of those would be targeted. And this time, they would target them accurately, and this destruction would be wholesale. I would expect trouble here at home and in the United States because of the open border. Hezbollah has a very large operation in Mexico. There are no doubt many, many, many Hezbollah agents inside the United States.
We can only begin to imagine the kind of trouble they could cause. The missile and space program in Iran is very, very advanced as is their cyber warfare capability. All of these things would be brought to bear against us. But what's most important, I think, for Americans to understand is if we attack Iran on the basis of Hezbollah's alleged willingness to attack Israel if Israel invades Gaza, we will end up in a fight with Russia. Russia will not sit by quietly and watch Iran destroyed by the United States air and naval power in the region.
And once Russia enters this, it it becomes much more than just a local conflict, maybe more than just a regional war. We haven't thought this through. We need to do that, and I doubt seriously at that point that the Turks would be able to stay out. The Turks are Sunni Muslims. They are the de facto leaders of the Sunni Muslim world.
They have the largest armed forces in the region. They are in close proximity to Israel. They could move forces south through Syria very rapidly. And I'm sure Bashar al Assad, assuming he even survives the opening of this campaign, would not obstruct them.
Speaker 0: So so many questions, but just to back up one click. You described Iran's missile arsenal, but Iran is a country that's been the subject of very intense sanction regime from the United States increased by the last president Donald Trump. But for a long time, how is Iran still such a powerful country militarily given those sanctions? It sounds like maybe they didn't work.
Speaker 3: Well, no. I think that's that's an important point, Tucker, and you're absolutely right. We place so much value on these sanctions and assume that they have this profound impact. Normally, sanctions harm the population in terms of lowering its standard of living, making life more difficult for the everyday citizen, but it doesn't fundamentally alter the policy or the goals and objectives of the government. And this is something that I don't think we understand.
The same thing is true for for Hamas and Gaza. You know, you you want to go after Hamas. You want to destroy it. I think everyone with a sound mind is interested in the destruction of Hamas. But do you want to kill 100 of thousands of people in order to get at Hamas?
That's the question. We have the same problem in Iran. Our sanctions have not harmed the regime's ability to develop and build very, very complex and sophisticated missiles. These missiles are very accurate now. There are 100, if not 1,000.
And the long range missiles, the 1200 mile range theater ballistic missiles are very serious threat to us in the region and to Israel. And the sanctions have had no impact there. If anything, the Iranians have pulled together the best human capital in their country, the best engineers, the best thinkers, and put them to work primarily on missile technology and on cyber warfare. And that's where we stand right now. We have to expect the worst as a result if we strike Iran.
Speaker 0: How is the US military do you think, having spent your life in it, leading troops in combat and at the Pentagon, positioned to respond to war with with Iran right now? Are we in
Speaker 1: a strong position or not in your view?
Speaker 3: No. I don't think we're in a strong position. I think we're probably at the weakest point in, our recent history. I think you've got to look at the realities of new weapon systems, new capabilities. The United States Navy, if it's going to preserve its capability at sea, is probably going to be compelled to operate somewheres north and west of Sicily.
If it comes within closer range, then it falls into this envelope where the Iranians can strike it. And as I said before, we have to assume the Russians will come into this. Once you move into the Eastern Mediterranean, you are vulnerable to the Kinshah missiles and other missiles, cruise missiles, and hypersonic missiles that the Russians have. This makes it very difficult to fly strikes in support of the Israeli Defense Force against Hezbollah Because now you're flying a very long distance, you deliver your ordinance, you have to land in Israel in order to refuel. Israel is going to operate under a hail, if not a rainstorm of missiles and rockets, making it very, very dangerous to do so.
So our naval power, while substantial, may not have the desired impact on the ground that we would like. And then finally, we have no real army anymore. The army is down to perhaps, what, 450,000. How much of that is ready to fight is open to debate. Much of it is sitting in Eastern Europe right now.
We we don't have the means to rapidly ship a large force of 80 to a 100000 troops on the ground into the region, which means that we're reliant on special forces and right now 2,000 marines and perhaps 2,000 special forces and special operations forces. That's not gonna make much of a dent. And as we've seen quite recently within the last 24 hours or so, some of our special ops forces and Israeli special ops forces went into Gaza to reconnoiter, to plan for where they might want to go to free hostages and and make an impact, and they were shot to pieces and took heavy losses as I understand it. I think that's where we're headed. And I don't see that as a win for Israel in any way, shape, or form, and I certainly think it's very dangerous for us.
You know, as I've tried to point out to a number of people, until Britain end entered World War 1, it was just a another European war. Once Britain entered it, it became a global war. Well, once we are a cobelligerent, we enter this thing, it's gonna be very difficult for Russia and Turkey not to also come into this fight against us because they will not tolerate the sort of collective punishment that Israel plans for Gaza.
Speaker 0: The US military does have an awful lot of generals, however, as you pointed out, multiples of the number we had the absolute number we had during World War 2. And they're paid to think about this stuff. It dawned on no one apparently who's spoken publicly anyway that this this could this could really harm our country gravely? Why is no one saying that?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm sure there are people in the US military who are aware, but let's be frank. Most of the people at the top of the military have never operated under artillery fire or rocket fire. They haven't seen direct fire combat. They haven't seen real war per se. Remember, we've had the luxury of sitting around forward operating bases and striking opponents that were armed with AK 40 sevens and command detonated mines, an occasional mortar or rocket.
Very, very low intensity combat. This is a high end conventional war that we're looking at with the potential to go nuclear, which obviously I don't think we or the Russians want to happen, but we have the wild card card in Israel. They do have a nuclear capability. We don't know what the trip wire is for them to employ such a weapon. At that point, of course, all bets are off and and I think most of the world would turn against Israel.
Right now, they just have to worry about the Muslim world against them. It would certainly widen if they went that far. This there are too many unknowns and uncertainties here. And, you know, everyone always assumes at the beginning of such a conflict, well, it'll be contained. We'll only have to fight these people, Hamas, maybe Hezbollah.
It never works out that way. These things always last longer than everyone thinks. The resources required are much more profound than what we anticipated. And remember, we've already used up many of our war stocks in Ukraine, and we've left Ukraine in a state of ruins, places on life support, a half a 1000000 dead. What are we going to do to Israel if we press ahead down this road?
And it seems listening to secretary of state Blinken this morning, who more and more sounds like our commander in chief, that there is no room for negotiation, no room for mediation. Hamas must be destroyed. We must go into Gaza. If so, I think we're on this very dangerous road to Armageddon.
Speaker 0: What is the objective of the IDF and of of Blinken, of the United States and Israel in this short term? Destroy Hamas, but what is what does that mean?
Speaker 3: Well, to destroy Hamas in the minds, I think, of policymakers in Washington as well as in Israel is to systematically root them out and kill them in Gaza. Mhmm. Now let's be frank. When you go into an urban environment, you can't pick or choose your targets very easily. First of all, no matter how well trained you are, you're moving into an area that is rubbled.
They're ruins. It's very difficult to negotiate in that when I say negotiate, I mean negotiate the terrain through the rubble. You don't know where the enemy is going to pop up. Once you destroy all these buildings, he can be anywhere. So you're gonna take losses going in.
But more important, once you start going in there, you're gonna end up killing whatever you find because the soldier, the Israeli soldier, the American soldier, very much the same, they want to live. They wanna survive. When in doubt, pull the trigger. They're not going to stop and say, now wait a minute. Before I shoot, I really need to think about this because that may be a civilian or there may be a family there.
That's not gonna happen. You can't expect that. So the notion that this is a a a kind of warfare that is so precise that it can void avoid so called collateral damage is just nonsense. We can't expect miracles from the IDF or our own troops, which means that you're gonna annihilate everything in Gaza. And remember, the Israelis would like to push the population out.
The problem is when you push the population out, if you did into Egypt, you're gonna run into trouble with the Egyptians. But even if you manage to get them there, you're only moving the problem that confronts you 20 miles, 30 miles away. In other words, killing people isn't going to solve the problem, but it's very attractive at the moment, and it's very difficult to talk people out of it.
Speaker 0: Do do you believe American troops will be engaged, physically present in the invasion of Gaza?
Speaker 3: I'm sure they will because we have American citizens who are hostages, and we've already made it clear that we will assist and support the Israelis in freeing those hostages. Again, the problem is how do you get the hostages out when you're fighting in this extraordinarily dirty and complex environment? What's to prevent the hostages from simply being executed as soon as you move in force into Gaza? I think the Israelis know that. I think our leadership in Washington knows it.
They may have even decided that if that happens, that's tragic, but the ultimate goal of destroying Hamas demands this. Again, it's the issue of collective punishment. I would encourage Americans everywhere to listen to King Abdullah of Jordan's speech in Cairo just a couple of days ago, where he made it clear that he agreed with the, you know, the abhorrence of what had happened in Israel and and loaves Hamas for its barbarity and savagery. But he also goes on to point out that collective punishment meted out to 2,000,000 people is unacceptable both under international law and for humanitarian reasons. That's the problem.
And as Americans see more destruction and more and more film footage and photographs come out of Gaza showing children, women, old men dying, being killed, the support for Israel is going to erode. And at the same time, the anger and hatred inside the region, which already dislikes Israel, is going to be phenomenal. So Israel is doing something that I think no one has ever accomplished, at least not in my lifetime, and that is uniting Sunni and Shia against itself. That's why I think we have an obligation to save Israel from itself, but that's not a popular position. Right now, it's bombs away, and everyone is cheering.
Speaker 0: What about the argument often articulated including by leading presidential candidates recently, that considerations like the ones you just raised like the long term effects of decisions or global public opinion, downstream terror attacks, thinking about any of that is a violation of principle and you're basically giving into the terrorists by weighing any of it.
Speaker 1: How would you respond to that?
Speaker 3: Most politicians, follow public opinion. Right now, public opinion supports violence against Hamas. And if that includes the destruction of Gaza, so be it. We support it. Very few people look beyond that and understand the larger consequences.
In the last century or I I guess I should say in the early 20th century, the great powers intervened on more than one occasion to prevent Turkey from being destroyed. Not because they loved the Ottoman Turks, but because they saw the alternative being chaos. Turkey had a role to play. Therefore, we want to preserve it. We have to think about Egypt.
Egypt has been a good strategic partner for Israel. They've kept the peace there for decades. The Egyptians are now in a very difficult position. At least a 100000 Egyptian troops have been moved towards the border with Gaza involving several divisions. Under great pressure from public opinion in the Arab world, in the Muslim world, they may have to engage the Israelis because no one will protect the population in Gaza.
That that's a terrible, terrible possibility, one that we don't want. Because if that happens to Egypt and Hezbollah attacks from the north, that will bring in everyone else. And we're suddenly confronting a war on a regional level that is going to harm us economically, physically in many ways, but could threaten the very existence of Israel, which I think is the root problem here. We don't want Israel's existence threatened. We want to save Israel.
We want to keep it intact, but we may not be able to do that if this war runs out of control. And let's be frank, historically, wars run out of control. They move in directions you never anticipated. So if you think you can plot this this route forward as Lindsey Graham thinks, you're crazy. Once this is unleashed, it's not manageable anymore.
Speaker 0: You you, said a couple of you made reference a couple of times to the American citizens being held by Hamas. What do we know about them?
Speaker 3: Well, I think most of them, are American citizens who happen to be Jewish, who are there to celebrate, during the holiday period or participate in this music festival we've heard so much about. You know, I I don't think they ever anticipated anything like this happening. Yeah. The problem is, as we've said before, extracting them from this haystack is is nigh on to impossible.
Speaker 0: What about the concerns of about terrorism in the United States in the wake of all of this?
Speaker 3: Well, I think they're very valid. Yeah. I I think these concerns are very, very valid. We've had open borders now for the last two and a half years, but we've had an illegal, migration problem for the last 3 plus decades. But we don't know who's in the country.
We really don't. No one at homeland homeland security can tell you who is here. The Europeans face something quite similar. They were bullied into admitting millions of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa. We've been bullied by our government to open the borders and let in effectively anybody who wants to come.
So we don't know who's here, but we do know that Hamas as well as Hezbollah have positions in Mexico. Of the 2, Hezbollah is much stronger, much larger, and much better equipped and financed. So we have to expect that once Hezbollah is in the war and we are against them and Iran, that much of our infrastructure will be at risk. Something is bad or potentially even worse than 911 could happen here. This brings us back to the whole issue of immigration and border security.
We've essentially ignored it. The same politicians who are pushing for war against virtually everyone in the Middle East, which is what it boils down to in the final analysis, don't seem to have thought carefully about protecting us or our borders from all of the terrible things that we've seen in Israel. How much damage could these same people do to us in a shopping mall in the space of 15 minutes. It doesn't take much imagination to understand how dangerous this is.
Speaker 0: Do you think that this war, if it comes, and it as as you said, it seems like it is, how will that affect American domestic politics? Work traditionally has been used by the people in power to shut down dissent. Can you imagine that happening in this case?
Speaker 3: Well, I think they'll try. Fortunately, thanks to people like Elon Musk who bought Twitter and ended the censorship or suspended it, the truth does get through and reach Americans. But Americans will figure out pretty quickly if two things tend to happen at once. You have the the war overseas and the war here, but remember the economy and the and the financial condition right now. If you turn on any of the business channels for the first time in my memory, lots and lots of analysts are coming on and talking about the Fed having lost control, the rising interest rates, you know, the inability, to manage and cope with the sovereign national debt of 33,000,000,000,000.
And that's the tip of a proverbial iceberg. We already have Americans who are struggling with inflation anyway. Now we're looking at potentially scarcity. We've drained our strategic oil reserve for all intents and purposes. If the Strait of Hormuz is shut down, if the Suez Canal is closed, we're in a lot of trouble in the short run.
That's for sure. How rapidly can we recover from all of this? How many refineries can we put back into operation? How much drilling can we do quickly? The answer is not very much.
So draining that strategic oil reserve was a very serious mistake.
Speaker 0: But we'll be as we become impoverished and chaotic and subject to these terror attacks, we'll be winning important moral victories. Don't you think?
Speaker 3: Well, in our effort to stand at Israel's side and help protect Israel, we have taken a different route and cast moral turpitude to the side. In other words, how do you help one without committing a war crime against the other? This is the problem with collective punishment. This is the problem with annihilating Gaza and trying to sweep out its population. That's unacceptable to us as Americans.
I don't think if you sat down any of Israel's most ardent supporters in the United States and said, are you willing to trade the lives of several 100000 people in Gaza, for the lives taken in Israel by Hamas. After all, Hamas and Palestinian Jihad were the fighters. They lost 1500. There were 3,000 involved in the several waves of the attack. They're dead.
Now we're looking at perhaps 5,000 civilians dead. How many more will we witness? Is that somehow another justified morally? And I think a lot of Americans will struggle with that. That's why I say it would be best if we had a cooling off period.
I'm glad that the Israelis are waiting for additional naval power to arrive on station in the Mediterranean and also for additional equipment, theater, ballistic missile, defense, and so forth. But we need to use this time to think carefully about how far we want to go because right now, it's a one way street to regional war. And I don't think anybody really wants that if they think about it carefully. Therefore, you know, looking at someone like Erdogan, however slippery we may consider him to be, his willingness to mediate is a bright light in an otherwise very dark sky. And we should look to that because we don't want the regional war.
It will destroy us economically. We're already in bad shape. We've already suffered because of the foolish intervention in Ukraine to try to destroy Russia. Now we have Russia more powerful militarily than it's been since the eighties, and it's poised to enter on the side of Iran. We should all give that some serious thought.
Speaker 0: Last question. Do you know of any leaders in the United States, political leaders at the Pentagon, within the Biden administration who are thinking clearly about this, which is to say who are framing their thoughts on it around what's best for
Speaker 1: the United States long term? Is anybody thinking that
Speaker 3: way? Yes. Yeah. Yes. There are.
The problem is none of them hold high positions in government, and none of their voices or their analyses or their viewpoints are going to reach anybody in power. I think you have to listen carefully to what secretary of state Blinken said. He was absolutely unambiguous. We are going to destroy Hamas, whatever that takes. That means regional war, frankly.
And anybody who thinks that people are going to say, oh, no. We're afraid of America. We're not going to risk that. They're wrong. They are not afraid to risk attacking Israel for fear of coming into confrontation with us.
We are not the power we were in 1991 and they know that. And economically, our position is very fragile. Let's face it. So the bottom line is, yes, there are people out there, but they're not being heard, and they're not going to be heard in the current environment.
Speaker 0: Doug McGregor, thank you so much for that. Appreciate it.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Alina Habba responded to Biden remaining in the race: “If you want to make China great again, then I think this is your guy …” https://t.co/oMvy0BB9Er
Video Transcript AI Summary
Legal advisor for the 2024 campaign expresses support for Trump, criticizing Biden's policies and alleged corruption. Believes Trump is unfairly targeted and innocent. Poll shows split opinions on whether Trump should go to prison. Defends Trump and criticizes Hunter Biden's actions. Calls trial a waste of taxpayer money and political persecution. Sentencing postponed until after conventions. Plans to address issues further in September.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Spokesperson, a legal spokesperson, and now you are an advisor for the 2024 campaign. Elena, good to see you. Welcome. Good to have you here. Good to see you.
What's your reaction to what appears to be pretty strong evidence today that Joe Biden is not going anywhere?
Speaker 1: I think it's, it's great. I'll I'll echo my client and and president Trump's sentiments. If America wants more open borders, more fentanyl pouring through terrorists and the such, and they wanna make them China great again, then I think this is your guy. He's obviously doubling down. We've heard that his son is sitting in on oval office meetings, Martha, which is concerning in itself, the person who has no role in the White House and has no business being there.
But I think it says it all. President Biden is doubling down. Why? Because he's got an agenda and the agenda is not the American people. It's very, very obvious to everybody.
He is clearly on the take for all of these items, electric cars, China, whatever it is and whoever it is that he may be in bed with and have deals with, and they gotta pay the big guy. So the big guy can't step down. So we're in the situation as Americans where we have to make a choice and we have to vote in November loud and clear so they can't steal it. We can't have cheating, and we need a fair and free election. And hopefully in November, everybody will come out, do their part, and we'll get president Trump back in.
Speaker 0: Well, there there'll be a number of opportunities, between these 2 candidates, including the debate I just mentioned in September to address some of the issues that that you have just raised. With regard to an event that was supposed to happen this week, which was the sentencing of the former president in the New York case in the so called Stormy Daniels hush money case. Let's put this polling up. Should Trump serve time in prison for his felony conviction? It looks like Americans are very split on this, having watched that story play out, Elena.
Should serve time in prison, 48%. Should not serve time in prison, 50%. And the numbers are somewhat similar when they ask the same question about Hunter Biden. So what's your reaction to that as someone who supports him and as someone who was involved in his defense?
Speaker 1: The fact that we even went through this trial is wrong. So I think people that have the public perspective or the media's perspective from those sitting in the courtroom is very different than my perspective. And unfortunately, given privilege, I can't discuss the details, but I can say this. President Trump never did anything wrong. This is the regime's attack for election interference.
It's very simple. So, yes, criminals, real criminals who have done crimes, who have fair and free, trials, those are the people such as Hunter Biden who need to face repercussions for their actions. Now people that are the subject and victims of political persecution and prosecution, they have no business doing this. They have wasted taxpayer dollars for 3 years, Martha. I have been in and out of courts as everybody knows.
And the fact that president Trump's lawyer has become well known says it all. This is not something that has ever happened. President Trump had never had anything like this against him before, but when they knew they were losing, this is what they did. So now, of course, the people you asked that wanna jail him because they've seen Biden's performance in the debate, They they they, of course, wanna jail him because they can't win without doing so. But the real Americans, the ones that see through this nonsense, they won't have it.
Speaker 0: We'll see what happens in September. And obviously, we'll talk about it between now and then, but that sentencing is now off the table until after, both conventions and we'll see what happens when September rolls around. Alina, good to have you here. We'll see you soon. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Good Morning X-World. 🇺🇸 New York to President Trump Number 47…we love you! https://t.co/ttHkEQUxkl
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two people discuss watching the eclipse and express gratitude towards each other. One person thanks the other, referring to them as "mister President."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Somebody can watch the eclipse. Yeah. That one there's one you could watch with. Did you wear it for the eclipse? Yeah.
Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 1: It's okay. It's nice. It's nice. It's nice.
Speaker 0: How are you doing, man? Thank you.
Speaker 1: I hope you like to share it. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you, mister President.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
New pole finds only 25% of voters view. Biden‘s presidency is mostly good for America. Kellyanne Conway opines on Biden and Trump. https://t.co/PxnYXdv9q1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Poll numbers show Joe Biden's presidency is viewed more negatively than Donald Trump's. 46% of voters say Biden's presidency has been mostly bad, while only 25% say it has been mostly good. This trend is reflected in swing state polls as well. Voters seem nostalgic for Trump's presidency and are leaning towards supporting him in the upcoming election. Kellyanne Conway, a Fox News contributor and former White House chief of staff, believes voters are feeling less prosperous, safe, and fair under Biden's leadership compared to Trump's.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Poll numbers continue plummeting. Even The New York Times, they can't hide how bad things are looking for Joe ahead of 24, and that means November 5th, a new poll by Times and Siena College asked voters if they generally remember the time that Donald Trump and Joe Biden were each president as mostly good or mostly bad years for America. 42% of voters say they remember the Trump presidency is mostly good. Look at this part. Only 25% can say the same thing about Joe Biden.
46%, almost half of voters say the Biden presidency has been mostly bad for America. Here with reaction, Fox News contributor, Kellyanne Conway, former White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Kellyanne, you're the pollster. Add that to the the demographic shift and the loss of the base that Joe is experiencing of his coalition, not good for
Speaker 1: him. It's terrible news. Poll after poll by any outlet basically says the same thing. What's important about the question you just showed, Sean, is the way that polling question is framed is precisely the way the question is framed by the voter as he or she goes into November. They're basically saying it's a binary choice.
I can judge both Biden and Trump as presidents who have had a record on inflation, on the border, on crime, on Ukraine, on the Middle East, on anything they want to examine. They're going to compare that. That's a 30 point differential. Joe Biden is negative 21, 25 mostly good, 20, 42 mostly bad, 46 mostly bad. Donald Trump is plus 9.
It's a 30 point differential, and it's also reflected in the swing state polls. What this says to me as a pollster is, voters are mostly nostalgic about, hungry for, and poised to vote and support the Donald Trump presidency again this fall. I think Trump 2024 is the best of 2016. Reins and I were there. The hunger, the swagger, the underdog underestimated Donald Trump with that 4 year record as president.
And people, you know, the democrats are gonna overplay it on abortion on January 6, 2021. We've had January 26 we've had January 6, 2022, 23, 24 since then, and voters are saying every single January 6th since then, I've been less prosperous, less safe, more nervous, and things just seem more chaotic, more crisis ridden, and less fair to me and my family.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Good Morning X-Word. 🇺🇸 Who thinks President Trump can get a non biased juror in Manhattan New York? https://t.co/LEpJHaCxPQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 complains about being subpoenaed in a Democrat state, calling it a case of law manipulation. They discuss jury selection in Manhattan, where Trump got 12% of the vote in 2020. Speaker 1 comments that it's not surprising due to New York City's nature. They express a need for change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am the case.
Speaker 1: Now all of a sudden, if I fly over a Democrat state, they call it a blue state, I get subpoenaed before a grand jury. It's horrible. Honestly, it's horrible what they're doing. They're ruining this country. They're destroying the country in every way.
There's not a thing he's done that's been good, but this is a case of blatant manipulation of the law.
Speaker 0: Well, here's the 42 page of jury selection with the questions. Question number 32, do you have any feelings or opinions about how mister Trump is being treated in this
Speaker 1: case? Well, one way
Speaker 0: perhaps to find this out is if you look at the electoral results here in Manhattan, the jurors are only from the borough of Manhattan, not the other parts of New York City. Back in 2020, mister Trump got a total of 12% of the vote. But, hey, that was better than 2016. That's when he got 10% of the vote. So that'll be the jury poll as they started less than 2 hours from now.
That should be fair. Alright. Eric, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: It's not surprising, though. It's New York City.
Speaker 0: Not surprising at all. You know what we need right now? We need to turn
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Alina Habba says: “You know when we will are going to win? “When we get this all reversed.” https://t.co/toLwUbeUIr
Video Transcript AI Summary
We did not win yet, but we will when the case is reversed. Leticia had to delete all her tweets due to the court's decision. The appellate division upheld due process, allowing assets to be kept. The courtroom situation was a travesty, but the appellate division restored faith in the justice system. Tish James and Judge Yirguaran may not feel shame, lacking a moral compass. They may have overreached, but humility was served. More humility will come in the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We won. You know, no. We didn't win. You know when we'll win? When we get this all reversed, which is what's gonna happen.
So what happened today was that Leticia had to eat every single tweet she has posted since the day the twisted order from Judge and Goran came out with the ridiculous number, with the disgusting injustice on the American people not just Donald Trump. And I would love to see what she tweeted today because she was having fun posting the interest on a man who has done nothing wrong and a family who has done nothing wrong every single day. And then the appellate division came in and said, sorry. Due process still exists in America. You still get a right to keep your assets until we get to review what all these lawyers are saying was wrong.
11 weeks, I have never seen something, Jesse, like I saw in that courtroom. It was a travesty on the justice system, and I am so proud of the appellate division for giving us the opportunity. They didn't reverse the case, but they will when they see what we saw. It was a disgrace. And today, there was a little bit of faith in the American system, that that I've lost over the past few years.
I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: Do you think Tish James and Judge Yirguaran, do they do they feel ashamed, a little embarrassed? Have they felt I don't know. Maybe did they overreached a little bit after this decision?
Speaker 0: Well, that would mean that they have a moral compass or a conscience, and I don't feel that that exists. People that go on TV censor Donald Trump, shut him off when he's speaking, want to act like he's about to go broke, wanna act like he's poor and that's why he couldn't get a a bond that no private company has ever been asked to get with no cash equivalents other than cash marketable securities. People that get excited for that, they don't have a conscience, Jesse. But, you know, I hope she took a little piece of humble pie today because that's what was served to her. Just a little, but we'll be we'll be serving a lot more of that in the next couple years.
Speaker 1: And, she'll be eating humble pie. You'll be having birth
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Why didn’t the border patrol agents just close the hole and stop them? 🤔 https://t.co/CZDucIGGJj
Video Transcript AI Summary
A group of migrants managed to cross the US-Mexico border by going through a gap in the fence and under razor wire. Surprisingly, among them were people from China, who had traveled around 7,000 miles. Even with an armed border patrol agent nearby, they were undeterred. One 20-year-old college graduate from China said he was hoping to find work in Los Angeles after a 40-day journey through countries like Thailand, Morocco, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and South America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Rise, we saw the first group of migrants make their way from Mexico through a gap between the 30 foot steel border fence and rocks Woo hoo. Ducking under a bit of razor wire and into the United States. We were surprised to see the number of people coming through from China, nearly 7,000 miles away. Careful. Watch.
Our cameras, and at one point, this Armed border patrol agents standing 25 feet away did not deter them. So how old are you? I'm 20 years old. This man, a college graduate, told us he hoped to find work in Los Angeles. He said his trip from China took 40 days.
What countries did you go through? Thailand, Morocco, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, South America, Jeez.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Vivek just kneecapped Nicki again. 😂😂 https://t.co/YCd0iCIaTD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joe Biden is being praised for his strong America, while the speaker criticizes Nikki Haley and Joe Biden for supporting a war in Ukraine without knowing the names of the provinces they want to send troops to. The speaker believes that foreign policy experience does not necessarily mean wisdom, and that it takes an outsider to truly understand the situation. The video ends with a mention of a puppet, although the context is unclear.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Connected. But what wins all of that? It's a strong America, not a weak America, and that's what Joe Biden's given us.
Speaker 1: I wanna say one thing about the tie to Ukraine. Is that right, man? So foreign policy experience is not the same as foreign policy wisdom. Want everybody at home to note that I was the 1st person to say we need a reasonable peace deal in Ukraine. Now a lot of the neocons are quietly coming along to that position with the exceptions Of Nikki Haley and Joe Biden who still support this, what I believe is, pointless war in Ukraine.
And I think those with foreign policy experience, one thing that Joe Biden and Nikki Haley have in common is that neither of them could even state for you 3 provinces in Eastern Ukraine that they want to send our troops to fight for. Look at that. This is what I want people to understand. These people have I mean, she has no idea what the hell the names of those provinces are, but she wants to send Our sons and daughters and our troops and our military equipment to go fight it. So reject this myth that they've been selling you, that somebody had a cup of coffee stint at the UN and then makes $8,000,000 after Has real foreign policy experience.
It takes an outsider to see this through. Look at the blank expression. She doesn't know the names of the provinces that she wants to actually fight for. And there's a puppet
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Watch 👀 Texas DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez: "As long as the federal government continues to incentivize illegal immigration, we're gonna continue seeing this flow of illegal immigration" https://t.co/9d5JVly5dE
Video Transcript AI Summary
A train carrying migrants is expected to arrive in Eagle Pass soon. Typically, caravans use trains as their mode of transportation, and once they reach northern Mexico, they break up into smaller groups and cross between ports of entry. However, there has been a constant flow of illegal immigrants crossing between ports of entry in Eagle Pass. The burden of this falls on the taxpayers and communities in the area. It is the responsibility of the state to prevent these illegal crossings, but as long as the federal government incentivizes illegal immigration, the flow of illegal immigrants will continue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This compared to the group that you're seeing here as a steady stream of migrants continue to head to Eagle Pass. This train was seen leaving central Mexico yesterday and is expected to arrive in the city across from me this week. I wanna bring in lieutenant Chris Oliveras. You brought us along last night. We saw that video of the train there.
Do we know when that train's expected to arrive? And what happens when it does arrive to the city just across from us?
Speaker 1: Well, typically is what we see when we see these Caravans. The method of transportation is usually trained. So once they make it to the northern part of Mexico, they'll get broken up into smaller groups, and then we'll see them cross between the ports of entry. Now we do expect the train to arrive very soon, but, of course, we've been seeing a constant flow here in Eagle Pass with illegal immigrants crossing between ports of entry. And we talk about the Godaways.
We talk about the sheer number of people that are crossing. Well, the the the taxpayer, the communities here in in Eagle Pass are having to shoulder that burden, and leave And it's our responsibility to have the state to try to prevent some of these legal crossings, but as long as the federal government continues to incentivize illegal immigration, we're gonna see continue seeing this flow of illegal immigration between ports of entry and also trains and curve ends making their way to the border.
Speaker 0: Thank you so
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
“BLM leader endorses President Trump“ https://t.co/dXQGJX7OrF
Video Transcript AI Summary
A BLM leader endorses Donald Trump as the best candidate, stating that everyone else is terrible. They express personal liking for Trump and disappointment in the current president. They believe many black people are starting to move away from the Democratic Party, which they view as racist and not valuing their vote. They see Trump as the opposite, someone who speaks honestly and doesn't betray like the Democrats.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You, a BLM leader, and you're now endorsing Donald Trump, saying he's the best candidate we have. Why do you think he is the best candidate that we have?
Speaker 1: Because everybody else sucks.
Speaker 0: So is he just the best of a bad group? I mean, is he still, Is he not that great either, but he's just, like, better than the rest?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I like Trump, You know, personally. And I think right now, who we have sitting in the oval office is just a Deep disappointment. You know? I deeply have disdain for him, and and and I I really Just like the vice president as well.
Speaker 0: What what is it that why how why do you not like them versus, like, Donald Trump? I would imagine you're you're alone in this. Do you feel alone in this viewpoint in the world that you're in being in the BLM movement?
Speaker 1: No. I feel like the tide is starting to turn. I feel like a lot of black people are starting to pivot off of that democratic plantation for so long. We've been slaves to that Party. You know?
Actually, we've been mental slaves afraid to get off of that plantation because, You know, we've been used and abused for so long at that party. They don't value our vote. Their policies are basically, Racist policies, and I believe it's a racist party that strikes at the heart of the the black family and the nuclear family In general. And I believe Donald Trump is he's the opposite. He's he's gonna tell you how how it is.
He's gonna give it to you straight. He's not gonna, You know, you're a hypocrite and and, you know, stab you in the back like the Democratic Party loves to do.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
@RepMikeLawler is spot on. Israel didn’t bomb a hospital. "Those members should resign in disgrace." https://t.co/bsp75fQisz
Video Transcript AI Summary
Children slaughtered, worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Israel has the right to exist and defend itself. Some members in this body refuse to acknowledge this and lack the courage to condemn the killing of babies. They even spread a false claim that Israel bombed a hospital. These individuals are unworthy of serving in this body. The fact that some didn't sign on to this resolution speaks volumes. If you can't support Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, a symbol of democracy and freedom, you shouldn't be here. Those members should resign in disgrace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Children, babies slaughtered. The worst massacre of Jews since the holocaust. Israel has a right to exist, a right to defend itself. We have members in this body that do not believe that. Members in this body that cannot muster the courage or the Strength to condemn the slaughtering of babies, but have the audacity to repeat a vile and disgusting lie That Israel bombed a hospital.
They are not worthy of serving in this body. And the fact that we have people that didn't even sign on to this resolution tells you everything you need to know. If you cannot stand with Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, a beacon of democracy and hope and freedom, You do not belong in this body. Those members should resign in disgrace.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Biden DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says his comments on an "immediate need" for a border wall are "being taken out of context" Then why did the administration announce they were building 20 miles of border wall in Texas?
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is no new administration policy regarding the border wall. The current administration has consistently stated that a border wall is not the solution. The language in the Federal Register notice is being misinterpreted and does not indicate any policy change.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I want to address today's reporting relating to a border wall and be absolutely clear. There is no new administration policy with respect to the border wall. Allow me to repeat that. There is no new administration policy with respect to the border wall. From day 1, this administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer.
That remains our position, and our position has never wavered. The language in the Federal Register notice is being taken out of context, and it does not signify any change in policy whatsoever.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
It has been 219 days since the toxic train disaster in East Palestine, Ohio, and 192 days since Biden promised he'd visit "at some point." Nothing yet. Where is the empathetic Joe Biden we were promised or did he just lie?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if there are plans for President Biden to visit Ohio and the East Coast. Speaker 1 responds that there are no specific plans to share at the moment, but the President takes these matters seriously and has visited Ohio before. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 reiterates that there is no trip to announce yet. Speaker 2 mentions a previous statement by President Biden about visiting Ohio, and Speaker 1 confirms that the President keeps his word, but still cannot provide a preview of any upcoming travel plans. In conclusion, Speaker 1 states that the President will go to East Palestine, but no specific time or date can be announced currently.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is it in discussion that the present may go there in the near future?
Speaker 1: I just don't have anything to share. I know there's a lot of interest on that.
Speaker 0: And this has been something that's even under consideration?
Speaker 1: I mean, I think what folks should understand and what folks should I think feel at ease is that the President has taken this very seriously.
Speaker 0: Does it simply not meet the bar for presidential visits?
Speaker 1: Look, I don't I want to be very clear here. There's no reason to struggle.
Speaker 0: I've spoken with every official in Ohio and I will be able to answer that. Is there a plan for him to go.
Speaker 1: I don't have any trips to preview for you at this time. He's been to Ohio many times before during his administration, so it's not an it's not unusual for him to go there.
Speaker 0: Are there any plans for President Biden to visit East Coast?
Speaker 1: I don't have anything to share on a planned visit for the president to, to Ohio. The Democrats are saying it's time for him to get down. And he said when he was asked the question that he will be there. When is he going to be visiting East So the plans are underway, discussions are underway, just don't have anything locked in.
Speaker 0: About 5 weeks ago, President Biden said that you would
Speaker 2: be going to East Palestine, Ohio At some point, does
Speaker 0: the president still feel the need to visit Ohio?
Speaker 1: Well, the president I mean, once the president said it, so I will, keep keep that, he keeps to his word.
Speaker 0: So we should expect him there at some point.
Speaker 1: If he says the President said he's expecting to at some time, the President means what he says. I just don't have a trip to preview at this time. As the President said, he will go to East Palestine. I don't have any travel plans at this time to to announce. So I'm just going to repeat what the President said.
He will travel, to the area to East Palestine. Just don't have anything to share on travel or upcoming dates the President intends to go, don't have a time or a date to preview at this time.
Speaker 0: Well, I said in March that you would go to East Palestine, higher, you came here. How come you never go to East Palestine yet? Well, I haven't had the occasion to go to East Palestine. There's a lot going on.
Speaker 1: The President is going to go to East Palestine. I don't have a time or a date to announce at this time, but he will go.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker Carlson truth teller. Video: Karli Bonnie
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are certain topics that people avoid discussing or push back on fiercely, such as the war in Ukraine, COVID, and January 6th. This is not a coincidence, as there is a reason behind it. In the Biden White House, someone supposedly left an 8 ball of Cocaine, but it seems like a setup. This story is intriguing and explains the behavior of certain individuals. The speaker has experience in the media business and understands how this behavior can be both crazed and grandiose. They have a plan to rearrange everything, believing it will work because the current way of doing things has been effective.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doing that on purpose. And you should probably look around and ask yourself, what are the topics that no one's even pushing back on? What are the topics that their response is so ferocious that people are like, I don't wanna deal with it? One of them is the war in Ukraine, another's COVID, And, of course, the 3rd is January 6th. And you have to ask, why is that?
Well, it's not by accident. Trust me. There is a reason. So The hope in the White House. What'd you say?
The poke in the white house. I don't know what you know what? The thing about that story, it's just a mystery to me? No one was more shocked than I was. Are you serious?
In the Biden White House, somebody left an 8 ball of Cocaine. In a public I was like, I send it my wife. That just doesn't it's just not in character. You know? I just don't believe it.
It's clearly a setup. I went right back to Mary and Barry and I was like, somebody set you up. I'm serious. It was you know what I mean? It was like it was, can I just I'll stop with it?
That was my favorite story of all time because it just explains all the behavior. It really does. I mean, I worked in the media business for my whole life, so I I know what the behavior looks like. But it's, like, crazed and grandiose? I've got a plan.
You're not gonna believe it. It's unbelievable. It's gonna totally work. What we're gonna do is we're gonna totally rearrange everything. Okay?
We've been doing things a certain way for a long time. Okay? And it's worked.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Young Trump did ultimately dedicate his life to ‘Make America Great Again’
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 doesn't aspire to be the president but believes capable individuals should hold the position. They see a career in public service as challenging and unpopular for someone with strong but potentially right views. They think someone without great intelligence but a charming smile would have a better chance of getting elected.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Some people, the ultimate goal in life, has been becoming the president of the United States. Would you like to be the president of the United States?
Speaker 1: I really don't believe I would, Ronan. But I would like to see somebody as the president who could do the job, and there are very capable people in this country.
Speaker 0: Why wouldn't you dedicate yourself to public service?
Speaker 1: Because I think it's a very mean life. I would love and I would dedicate my life to this country, but I see it as being a mean life. And I also So see it as somebody with strong views and somebody with the kind of views that are maybe a little bit unpopular, which may be right but may be unpopular, of the Wouldn't necessarily have a chance of getting elected against somebody with no great brain but a big smile.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
Tucker lays it out why the Democrats want open borders. It all about “Permanent electoral majority in perpetuity”! Now you know why they want him silenced!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Yale University released a study suggesting that the number of illegal aliens in the US is not 11 million, but rather 22 million. The Democratic Party supports legalizing all illegal immigrants, granting them citizenship and voting rights. It is believed that the majority of first-time immigrant voters tend to vote Democrat. By adding 22 million new voters to the rolls, Democrats could potentially secure a permanent electoral majority. This is seen as a strategy to maintain power rather than improving the country or addressing labor needs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yale University released a study last week by 3 researchers, all of them liberal, I believe, who concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in this country is not 11,000,000. Of all illegals in this country. Citizenship voting rights. 22,000,000. Fact 2.
The Democratic Party is now, as a matter of policy, calling for the legalization but of all illegals in this country, citizenship, voting rights, 22,000,000 new voters. Fact 3: The overwhelming majority of first time immigrant voters vote Democrat. Fact 4: The largest margin in American presidential history was 17,000,000 votes, rather, the 1984 election between Mondale and Reagan. 17,000,000, you would add to our voter rolls 22,000,000, at least permanent electoral majority in perpetuity. That's what this is about.
It's not about making the country better, serving our labor needs, helping the population. It's about putting democrats in power forever.