'See Ya!!' Tulsi Dumps 'Woke, Warmongering' Democratic Party
Tulsi has left the chat. In a dramatic announcement this morning, former US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced she was leaving the Democrat Party which she said "stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite." What's next for Tulsi and how will it shake up US politics? Also today, Russia's missile barrage continues as NATO chief Stoltenberg claims a win for Russia is a loss for...NATO! Finally, did the Brits plot to blow up the Kerch Bridge?
Watch the Liberty Report LIVE Every weekday at 12pm EST on Rumble!
https://rumble.com/RonPaulLibertyReport
Join us on Locals:
https://ronpaul.locals.com
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel Mike Adams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Very well.
Thank you.
Good, good.
Interesting day.
Yeah, it is.
You know, we talk a lot about the war, but we're going to talk about a domestic war going on now in the Democratic Party.
But it's a political war, but it's not like they have a monopoly on that.
The whole system is at war with themselves.
But it was interesting because, you know, we have worked with, identified with, and talked with Tulsi Gabbert, and she made a big announcement.
She got big headlines, and she'll be talked about today and maybe next week, too.
Tulsi, who was a Democratic Congresswoman and was there a couple terms, but then I think she might have had enough.
But she was obviously very different.
Everybody knew that on her philosophy, that she didn't sound like the typical Democrat.
She sounded like somebody that was just telling the truth as she knew it in the best manner possible.
So we all suspected that how long is this going to last?
But she's been out of Congress for a bit now, and she is talented and very capable.
So her next step is a big step.
And she decided to chuck the Democratic Party and leave the Democratic Party.
And I imagine they're pretty unhappy because she does have, for not having been a famous vice president or somebody that is into regular politics, she was well known and respected.
So her leaving the party, that's one thing.
A lot of people get disgusted.
It's, I'm quitting this, I'm leaving, I'm not going to be in the party any longer, and they walk away.
But she left with a message.
She left the party with a message.
And that, of course, is important.
And that's what people will read.
Why would they do it?
You know, I sort of did something like this at one time.
I got disgusted with the way the Republicans were going to still do get disgusted with it.
But at least I made that effort and worked with another party, the Libertarian Party.
But she did a good statement.
She has a video, and she also has put a written statement out, and it gives us some pretty good information.
And I was fascinated with that, but I went in there in the first paragraph or two.
All of a sudden, wow, she has a lot of interest.
And we knew that because we've had discussions with her on foreign policy.
She has so many views that are similar to ours.
And she's sick of it all.
And she believed the Democratic Party has lost their way.
And their policies could lead in the direction of chaos and nuclear war and the whole works.
But she was unhappy with other things too.
And so it's a good statement.
And she certainly stood on principle.
She is not doing this and say, well, what is it for me to go next?
I have to sort of lay out a new platform and this sort of thing.
She just talked about her old platform, what she believed in.
I'm sure she was a believer in these ideas when she went to Congress.
And so she's been talking this way.
But it is interesting, and it tells you something about if she is absolutely right in most of her complaints about the Democrat, they are right.
And it's a frustration that a lot of Republicans feel with Republican parties.
There's the fake Republicans and the real Republicans and conservative Republicans.
It's ongoing.
But to me, this is a pretty neat thing that she's doing.
It's going to call attention to the foreign policy.
It is going to be calling attention to the Democrats and what's going to happen here.
But the big thing is the foreign policy because one thing that we have to realize, let's say that her ideas on foreign policy prevails, then guess where the opposition will come from?
It'll be more than the Democratic Party.
It's going to be the War Party.
That's a great point.
I was thinking about who suffers most.
First of all, Tulsi Gabbard is an absolute powerhouse.
She's a great speaker.
She's very magnetic.
She has a magnetic personality.
She has a broad, broad group of support from across ideological spectrum.
She has, I think, able to bring people together in a way that we haven't seen since your campaigns for president.
People will say things about, well, I don't love, you know, libertarians will say, well, she's maybe a little wrong on economics, but gosh, she's awfully good over here on civil liberties.
And so, you know, you see this kind of broad appeal.
So when she stands up and says something like this, everyone pays attention.
And I was thinking on the first, you know, the obvious conclusion is, wow, this is going to really hurt the Democratic Party because she absolutely blasted them.
And we're going to listen to a little segment of what she said in a second.
She absolutely blasted them out of the water.
But literally everything that she said about the Democratic Party could also be said for the old line mainstream of the Republican Party.
So rethinking the whole thing, I think she's equally damaging to the Republicans.
In short, I think what she says exposes the whole system for its corrupt, rotten, rotten underpinnings, its rotten peers that it sits on.
And I think that's very, very powerful.
And that's why I think we're talking about it today, because I think it is a big shift.
But let's go ahead and listen to what she has today.
Let's play those.
The first 44 seconds is her bill of particulars against the Democrat Party, that first video clip, if we can cue that up and get that going.
Here we go.
I can no longer remain in today's Democratic Party that's under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers who are driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue and stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution, who are hostile to people of faith and spirituality,
who demonize the police but protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, who believe in open borders, who weaponize the national security state to go after their political opponents, and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.
Now, an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness.
That is a machine gun.
Boy, I'll tell you.
And that's the big issue going on.
You know, it's people who would like to seek the truth, but all they get is the garbage.
And all they can do, recognize that people recognize their enemies and they can say, well, the Republicans say, well, it's the Democrats.
They do this and this and this.
And they may be right on one issue.
But they don't look at the bigger picture.
And of course, how often have I brought up the subject about the too much bipartisanship?
They're endorsing same basic principles, although there's a lot of fighting going on.
But the fighting isn't on the principles.
The fighting is on political power.
Who's going to make the money?
Right now, you know, who can you believe?
And who's making the most money?
And when they talk about corruption in the Democratic Party, they compare it to corruption in the Republican Party and emphasizing this whole thing about the criminality, how they dispense justice, which is totally unfair and their weapons.
And yet this partisanship is a big deal because it is the divvying up of the loot and the power that they steal from the people.
But it is really superficial that when they start talking about, you know, there are some people, Tulsi mentioned so positively about the importance of the Constitution.
And, you know, you've heard me say that.
Doesn't it make me sick that people that I know they don't give one hoot about the Constitution, get up and they're so sincere.
And, you know, and one thing I learned about campaigning on the trail when you ask questions, especially young people, they recognize better than some others who's telling the truth.
Some people want to believe what the Republicans are, or want to believe what the Democrats say, and therefore, you know, they don't want to take it on.
And I know how they feel about that, but who wants to take on, you know, the group that you are part of?
But that doesn't mean you should go along with it without criticizing it.
Yeah, and she has not been afraid of criticizing her own party in the past.
And I just wrote down a couple of things that we should remember that she's done.
Now, remember when Russia went into Syria and started blasting ISIS and Al-Qaeda, who had been supported by the U.S., Tulsi praised that.
She said, pretty good idea getting rid of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
They're bad guys.
Everyone kind of knows that or should.
And Hillary called her a Russian asset for daring to say that Russia actually did a good thing in Syria.
They did us all a favor by getting rid of terrorists.
But Tulsi sued Hillary for saying that, which is great.
She wasn't afraid.
She spoke at CPAC, the conservative group, and she talked about unity.
She went on, I think she went to Syria with Dennis Kucinich.
I remember that.
They went together to Syria a while ago.
And then she went on Tucker Carlson to blast the FBI raid of Trump's house.
And I think, in fact, she was one of the first Democrats that met Trump in the White House.
Do you remember back then?
So she's shown a history of not being afraid to jump across party lines to do what she considers to be the right thing.
So I think this might be the rational next step for her.
The question is, how does it shake up American politics?
And that's what we were kind of thinking about off camera.
What might this mean?
She obviously is saying this because she has some interest in a future political career.
Otherwise, she wouldn't bother.
She'd be back surfing, right?
Probably what she enjoys doing most.
But she obviously has some sights on the future as a politician.
So the question is, what does it mean now that she's done this?
Yes, you know, we've had great sympathy and respect for her.
And she was on the program, our program here when she was running as a presidential candidate.
But I always would seek out when I was an elected official, would be the people in the progressive realm where you could work with them and trying to come together.
And the truth is, I've always thought, you know, because we still are, you know, close friends with Tulsi, and we visit on each other's programs, and for building a coalition is what we need.
If you say, we want a new party, that's a bigger hurdle.
But if you build a coalition, you know, people understand that better.
And I think she can talk to progressive Democrats and coming together.
And it's, like I said in my opening statement, she may end up with the greatest resistance if this policy prevails because I wasn't exactly cheered on when I was campaigning by conservative, conservative Republicans.
Matter of fact, that antagonized them the most.
I had a lot of people come up, Ron, I like this and I like, you don't want to spend all this money.
But they never said, quit spending money in Ukraine or someplace like that.
But I hope that comes and somebody like Tulsi will certainly contribute, I think, in a very positive way.
And my first thoughts were that, okay, well, this is great.
This does not make her a good fit in the Republican Party for the most part, even though there are some young Republicans, Blake Masters, I think, and a few others, who are embracing less of a confrontational foreign policy.
So let's hope the next generation is coming up.
But it's not an obvious for the Republican Party because even the Republicans who are against this whole Russia-Ukraine business, we shouldn't be focusing on that because we have to take on China.
You know, there's a lot of that.
So there is an obvious nexus with the Libertarian Party.
I don't know if that's where she wants to go.
But if you look at some of her positions and even her past progressivism, it's not incompatible.
In fact, I would suggest if it weren't for these stupid labels, it's actually very compatible with something like what the Mises Institute, what Ron Paul has been saying and would have said in the campaigns, that if you are concerned about poor people, well, who continues to keep people poor?
Well, it's the Fed.
Who facilitates the wars?
Well, it's the Fed.
So if she focuses like you were able to do after the 08 campaign when you brought all the so-called minor parties together and agreed that this whole thing is brought together by debt, by spending, by the Federal Reserve.
If you care about poor people, you have to care about how the Fed stomps on poor people's necks constantly.
You say that so well.
I've been around the best.
I learned from the best.
I can't add to that.
But she should be able to see that too, I think.
I mean, I could see, you know, maybe in a year speaking at a Mises conference.
Who knows?
Yeah, that's right.
Very good.
No, this is interesting news and important news because it comes out of a frustration when people end up doing this because what they're saying is the current situation, the current political climate isn't getting anywhere.
The more you support these major parties, the bigger hole we dig.
But I've said we'd have too much bipartisanship on the very issue you just talked about is spending money.
I mean, did the Republicans ever really cut a budget?
I think in recent years, Clinton had better budget results.
I don't know whether it was his fault or what, but he had better results than when the Republicans had the House Senate and the presidency.
That didn't mean that all of a sudden they were going to cut spending.
It was always an argument, you know, how much more money they can get for the military industrial state.
Nato's Unexpected Turn00:10:55
And they've always been very successful there.
But unfortunately, as the Democrats, you know, started to change, they changed for the worse.
They became more like Republicans, and they became more hawkish.
But at least what it's done is stirred up a little Republican resistance to the Democrats, and there's more people standing up against some of this foreign policy in the Republican Party.
The Democrats would do it maybe for a political stunt, but they don't have any real convictions on that.
Yeah.
Well, let's move on and kind of continue on some of the stuff we were talking about yesterday.
We have an article.
Putin's brutal bombing campaigns entered its second day as Russian missiles strike just 40 miles from Poland's border, close to the NATO, so-called NATO borders.
And that's what got my attention on this, because they actually use the word NATO.
They don't, and I think you have some other evidence on this, is they're starting to use this, but we've been using it all along.
This is, you know, this is, well, I always say the war is, it's conventional wisdom, it's a war against Russian aggression.
Yeah.
That's it.
And he's invaded Europe, and the Europeans have to get together.
And some people would suggest, you know, it's a little bit different than that.
And it really, you know, came out of what happened in 2014.
It was the people behind the coup.
And it is very, it's Russia against NATO.
And there was some agreements after World War II and more recently where they would respect Russia to a degree of taking a step back, not a step forward.
And they had projected lines where it would be, but now it got closer and closer and closer.
Russian reaction, and this is what we end up with.
So it's a real mess that this is happening with continued.
But what I think is neat is all of a sudden it's turning up, watch out, they're coming for NATO.
It's NATO.
And it is NATO.
But then really the next step is, oh, if it's NATO, then we have to invade NATO.
Well, what are you talking about?
Well, we have to stop them.
Where does the money come from?
Oh, it comes from Germany.
Or Great Britain.
Great Britain isn't so great, so I don't think they have any money.
But they still conspire in some of the sense where they should be conspiring because it is this whole system.
But it is NATO, and they're recognizing that.
And if people get to understand it's NATO, you have to ask, where does NATO get the money?
And guess what?
They should say, the American taxpayer who least are able to afford it.
Yeah, that's exactly true.
The thing is, people shouldn't be shocked.
You know, in the 60s, as we know very well, the U.S. could not tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba.
And now the Russians today cannot tolerate NATO missiles in Ukraine.
The parallels are there, and we've talked about it before.
The difference is back then, they talked and compromised.
And unfortunately, at this point, because Putin of Russia kept saying, don't go down this road, don't militarize Ukraine, don't put missiles on our doorstep, and they were laughed out of the room.
So finally, it's come to this.
It doesn't excuse what happened, but it suggests you have to understand what happened, and it's very important.
But as you say, the whole bringing in of NATO, we're seeing more and more of this.
And in fact, the Secretary General of NATO himself, Jen Stoltenberg, essentially said today at a press conference that the victory of Russia in the conflict in Ukraine will be the defeat of NATO, and that can't be allowed.
Here's a guy who said, NATO is not at war with Russia over and over again, and now just saying, if Russia wins, we are defeated.
And we can actually listen to him say this exact thing on this next clip that we have, this audio clip that's coming up, if we can put the next one on.
It's him saying it in a press conference today.
Because it is important for all of us that Ukraine wins the battle, the war against the invading Russian forces.
Because if Putin wins, that is not only a big defeat for Ukrainians, but it will be defeat and dangerous for all of us because it will make the world more dangerous and it will make us more vulnerable for further Russian aggression.
That's all we need from that one.
And I think recognizing this, Dr. Paul, is Victor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who this morning in a press conference with Olaf Schultz said, and if we can actually skip over to that tweet from AZ Geopolitics, I'm going to skip ahead just a little to what Orban says, because Orban recognizes this too.
He said a truce should be concluded not between Russia and Ukraine, but between the U.S. and Russia.
Anyone who thinks this war will be completed through Russia-Ukrainian negotiation does not live in this world.
The reality looks different.
You know, I want to talk about the bridge and the planning, because that just didn't happen one day, but a couple bad politicians got together.
Let's blow up a bridge.
There had to be some planning and strategy.
But sometimes they come up with a simplistic solution or an answer and explain it all.
Oh, the Russians did it.
Well, you know, what is so bizarre about that is they actually maybe thought that somebody was going to believe them.
But nobody believes them now, and everybody's very suspicious.
Now, there's some evidence, some concrete evidence.
There's some memos that have come out to show that there was a conspiracy.
There was a true conspiracy.
And they were conspiring and planning this thing early on.
And what I found interesting, he says, they were talking about the information they got.
The author spells out the terms of the mission, and that's in clote, disabling the Kerch Bridge in a way that is audacious, disrupts road and rail access to Crimea, and maritime access to the Sea of Azov.
You know, they knew exactly what they were doing.
And where was the money coming from?
Again, U.S., but who was their cheerleader?
U.K. and other so-called allies of Germany, people who were and maybe should have been more allies with Germany and maybe worked for the market delivering their oil.
But of course then, if you were looking for the market to deliver the oil to Germany, which is a great idea, it's a great idea not to have World War II going on forever.
Stop the war, get together.
Well, what do you have, Russians?
Oh, we have oil.
We'd like to sell it to Europe.
Okay, we'll build a pipeline.
But then again, there's competition there.
Well, that's going to crowd out some other people who sell oil.
You mean this is not a free market.
So what we have to do is get rid of the pipeline, and they're allies of Germany.
It makes no sense.
And some people are saying, if Germany's not careful, that what their policies have done, because they're so crazy, that might be the initiation of the final collapse of the European Union.
And I've never thought the European Union made a lot of sense anyway, because I like small separate governments and letting people take care of their own cell.
But this may be a resolve.
Maybe long term is not the worst thing in the world to happen, but on the short term, it's chaos.
I'm afraid it's going to be a lot more violence before it's resolved.
Now remember when the war first started, our good friend Colonel Doug McGregor said, this war will be the end of NATO and the EU.
I thought that's a pretty bold prediction, and it turns out it looks like he's right.
But what you're talking about, we can actually put this clip up.
This is a great investigative piece, and I encourage people to read it.
It's from the Gray Zone, which does great work.
It's Max Blumenthal and his group.
Kit Clarenberg did an investigative report exposed before Ukraine blew up the Kerch Bridge.
British spies plotted it.
And what they did, the Gray Zone got in possession of an April 2022 presentation that was drawn up by Chris Donnelly, a former senior British Army intelligence operative and rank NATO official.
He made this presentation to senior UK intelligence officials, as you say, telling exactly how and why the bridge could be taken out.
So it's obvious that the British may not have blown this up this time, but they were planning on it and plotting it.
And you mentioned that, you know, they would suggest that Russia blew up the Kerch Bridge.
I can think of one scenario where they might have, because it wasn't permanently damaged.
They didn't hit the span.
But what they did do is they absolutely, absolutely brought together Russian society in a way that it hadn't been because there had been some protests.
They solidified, as we did after 9-11.
That is the symbol.
The Kerch Bridge is a symbol for Russians.
And as we did after 9-11, nobody was in disagreement.
The guys who did this have to be taken out.
And so, if, I mean, Russia could have done that if it needed to bring the people together, but I think it was probably just another miscalculation.
You know, when the bridge was built, the structure went up in two years, which is a pretty good job done.
But they didn't know what to call it.
We call it the Birch of the Kerch Bridge, right?
The Kerch Bridge.
And that has prevailed.
But I think when I look at it and see the connection and see the economic benefits, highway and trains going back and forth and connecting two continents almost like.
And they should have called it the Peace Bridge and worked in that direction.
But instead, you know, look at what's happened, something wonderful is that.
But it also emphasizes how vulnerable this is.
You know, surface navies, how vulnerable they are.
World War II airplanes that still fly around the world with the plans of dropping bombs and intimidations and all.
So it's the moral climate of a country and the people who are so-called running the country makes the difference.
Vulnerability And Support00:03:07
And if it's run by the deep state type people who's their main goal is power and money, and who's going to control the oil?
That's why I thought it was sort of pretty neat when we threw our weight around, put sanctions on everybody, put all these sanctions on Russia, and they doubled and tripled their income from oil.
So sometimes it doesn't always work out the way they think.
And maybe in foreign policy, you have to have a cleansing system, you know, to make the tables, you know, more equal, because that's what happens in economics.
You liquidate debt and malinvestment, go back to work and start building again.
And maybe the two things will happen together.
Who knows?
Well, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul, if you're ready, by thanking our audience, obviously, for our listening and viewing audience for tuning in with us.
Encourage you, we are, as you know, live on Rumble first.
So if you go to Rumble, please subscribe to the Ron Paul Liberty Report so that you'll be with us.
Please join our locals page.
We've got a lot of stuff planned there.
It's very easy to hit plus on the Rumble and give us a rumble.
That'll help us move up and get more exposure.
So you can do a lot to help us move the show without contributing, which you're certainly happy if you'd want to do that as well to the Ron Paul Institute.
But let's move up the numbers and get the show.
We're very happy with how things are going.
Last pitch is for people to come out to Lake Jackson, Texas, wrestle a few alligators, and come to the Ron Paul Institute Conference, shut up, cancel culture, and the war on speech.
It's a very timely event, Dr. Paul, and we're looking forward to visiting with some great people.
November 5th, less than a month away.
So snap those tickets up now.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
I'm going to close by congratulating Tulsi, you know, because this was a bold step, and I'll bet she feels very good about it.
I think her reception has been good, except for the people who are behind the scenes are now trying to figure out how are we going to prevent her from continuing to tell the truth.
We have to stop this.
You know, we don't believe in all this exposure.
No, Tulsi, you're doing a great job.
We've worked with you.
We'll continue to do that.
And I think people don't quite realize what it takes to take this step because, you know, you're putting things behind.
But I think what you'll find, Tulsi, is that there's a lot more people than you suspected that will be very supportive and they're going to come.
You obviously understand the system and you know there are people out there, you have a good reception, but believe me, you'll never know how many people really will support you and will in the future.
We don't know those things, but we do know that taking a stand and doing it with, you know, with an effort to support the truth and tell people exactly what's happening will do well for you.
And you deserve this wonderful congratulation for your step.