Tulsi Gabbard LIVE: The END Of Free Speech, Nuclear War, Trump’s VP & More! - Stay Free #360
Aires Tech - EMF Protection visit https://airestech.com/pages/russell-brand Use Promo Code: RUSSELL30 for 30% off at checkout.Today we are talking to Tulsi live about the end Of Free Speech, Nuclear War, Trump’s VP & More! Tulsi Gabbard is an American politician, United States Army Reserve officer and political commentator. Visit www.tulsigabbard.com to get her new book For Love & Country: Leave The Democrats Behind. You can follow her @tulsigabbard across all social platformsALSO covering the antisemitism bill - which we meant to do yesterday.Join the awakening wonders community here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-Store Listen as a podcast: https://podfollow.com/1648125917Follow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello you Awakening Wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot, or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda.
We appreciate you and we love you.
You're part of our community.
So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble Show five days a week.
It's on Monday to Friday.
We decipher the latest news stories, we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering and if they aren't, Then we critique why they're not and what they are covering.
Every week as well, right?
We do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker, Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate.
These things are already up and you can listen to them now.
So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show.
To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand.
You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.
Now, please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thanks.
Thanks for joining us today for Stay Free with Russell Brand, where we do our level best to stream to you live across the world, wherever available.
The truth is the best as we can understand it from what we have been shown.
You might be watching us on Rumble right now, like The Real Mix or IbizaLiveCam.com.
That sounds like an interesting endeavor.
Good evening, Russell, they're saying, nevertheless.
They're watching us on Rumble.
And then there's our Awakened Wonders, people like Mrs. CMS.
They're members of our community.
They're terrific people, and they get access to additional content, exclusive videos, all sorts of stuff, book clubs, stuff you'll love.
You might be here today because our guest today is Tulsi Gabbard.
She's coming on in a minute and the reason I'm excited to speak to Tulsi Gabbard, tell me if you agree with this, is because you've noticed that the categories of left and right are atrophying, fading and breaking down.
The reason for that of course is because they were not undergirded by any moral principles but by expedience.
these political parties mutate in order to fulfil particular agenda, backed as they are
by certain financial interests, global financial interests and cultures of dominion.
So Tulsi Gabbard I think is an interesting figure who has aspects of both of those parties
in her personal, social, political and economic beliefs. So we'll be talking to her in a moment.
That's not her, that's my German shepherd, Bear. He's joined us as he frequently does
and if you don't allow him in he stays outside barking at me with some dreadful expectation.
An expectation that I sometimes cannot fulfill.
Some of you will be very excited to talk to Tulsi.
In fact, we did a poll earlier asking you what you would most like me to ask her, and the results of that are a lot of you want to talk about censorship.
I suppose you perhaps saw her on Joe Rogan, did you?
Where she sort of said that the TikTok legislation that's been signed away by Biden will ultimately be used as a utensil to further censor free speech in much the same way as we've seen increasing across the world.
Lately.
Yesterday we talked about the WHO treaty, didn't we?
At some length.
And later on today, guys, we'll talk a little bit about the anti-Semitism bill and the problems incumbent within it from a variety of perspectives.
If you're watching this on YouTube, we'll be with you for 10 minutes, then we're going to talk about the anti-Semitism bill, then we're going to bring on Tulsi Gabbard and we're going to do our best to have a conversation with Tulsi, human to human, about the state that we're in and what is required for us to create the kind of changes that are I believe that all of us are beginning to sense our necessary.
Ask her about Gaza and censorship, please, says that person that's got a name that's evocative of an Ibiza webcam and, for me, redolent of a time where, as a young man and a hopeless drug addict, I lived on that Epicurean Isle, looking for pleasure in all the wrong places, hopelessly in love with Amanda Algarro Alejos, demented In my pursuit of hedonic enlightenment and revelry.
First of all, let's have a little chat about... What are you doing, Gal?
Framing us up?
Was I a bit out of focus?
Like in that Woody Allen film.
Out of frame.
You don't try and frame me, man!
Don't try and hold me back!
I can exist in a variety of contexts, like Tulsi Gabbard, who cannot exist on either the left or right.
Melissa148, I remember you then.
Them was crazy days, baby.
Crazy days, indeed.
Let's have a look at Trump.
First part of the show while we're on YouTube, which of course we love.
We love you and we love that we have access to this platform.
Indeed, we are grateful to whoever it was that created that platform, even if it was a deep state operation designed from the get-go to capture information, which it may not have been.
We'll look into that sort of thing we should look into, isn't it?
We love you, but we can't remain legitimately on a platform that is part of a media conglomerate known as the Trusted News Initiative that have an agenda.
For example, when you see concerted attacks and smears on media figures, let's face it, alternative media figures, me, Alex Jones, there's been a whole bunch from Joe Rogan, remember, Ivermectin, O'Clock, Remember when you were naked on that police van?
Terrible times, Jim Earthsea, 137.
Tragic, tragic, unusually cold, as I always say, days.
Let's have a look at Trump, who is potentially facing imprisonment if he doesn't be quiet.
And I, for one, am getting a bit sick of seeing Donald Trump in that echoey antechamber.
Are you?
Like, so if you see him and he's behind that little barrier, so this is disgusting, this is disgusting, it's sort of like very echoey in there.
Colleen Pead, I want to see the dog.
You'll see the dog.
You'll see the dog.
Right, let's have a look at Trump.
Tonight, former President Trump facing a new threat of jail time at his hush money trial after his tenth violation of the judge's gag order.
He's taken away my constitutional right to speak.
The judge directly addressing the possibility of putting Mr.
Trump behind bars over future violations.
The magnitude of such a decision is not lost on me.
You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well.
Adding, as much as I do not want to impose a jail sanction, I will if necessary and appropriate.
Nobody is above the law.
The law is a new deity now.
It is the principle, omnipotently undergirded.
It is a legislative god, deigned by ink.
Breathe into being by legal minds.
It's extraordinary, isn't it?
Because you have to, I suppose, question whether or not you believe Trump's trials are about the pursuit of justice, and from where is that principle derived?
Whose moral authority?
Whose judiciary?
And not a potent attempt to attack political opponents.
You'll notice that RFK is being strongly censored, Donald Trump is being attacked but using the techniques and tools of lawfare, and you'll see continually on legacy media various people, pundits and the like, often with former ties to the establishment, the White House, the defense industry, saying the only way to ensure democracy... I mean there's a...
An oxymoron there already.
The only way to ensure democracy.
What you've got there is a paradox.
The only way to ensure democracy is by voting for Joe Biden.
A curiously hollowed out individual.
A living phantom.
A projection, presumably of a conglomerate of interests.
Would you assume that?
Would you assume that?
Let me know in the chat, you lot.
Tulsi's coming up soon, but we've got the antisemitism bill before that.
You know what?
Our Constitution is much more important than jail.
It's not even close.
I'll do that sacrifice any day.
The judge fining Mr. Trump an additional $1,000 for complaining about the jury in deep blue Manhattan, saying it's 95% Democrat.
The judge saying the former president wrongfully called into question the integrity of the jury.
Oh, there you are then.
It's interesting, isn't it, to make those kind of inquiries.
That's called contempt of court.
Are you tensile?
You mean a tool, says Frank Dick.
That's right, but that is a synonym for that, and I see what you're doing.
You're making a joke, which I think is good.
The VP search goes on.
Do you want me to ask Tulsi Gabbard about that?
I see a lot of you are saying Matt Gaetz, VP.
Remember, I remember you lot were all about Vivek.
A little while ago.
And then you were about RFK for a while.
You capricious maniacs!
Let's have a look at this story about the Veep.
Possible Veep stakes contenders converging this weekend at a donors conference in Mar-a-Lago.
At least seven contenders on the shortlist.
According to Trump World sources, Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Doug Burgum seeing their stock rising.
Governor Christine Noem seeing hers falling.
And Trump praising them and the other prospects in his speech on Saturday.
Pretty funny because I suppose obviously the dog shooting stuff ain't going down well.
We'll look at that tomorrow.
There's such a lot of funny content about that lady's relationship with man's best friend and her main target practice focus and it's fantastic stuff.
Let's have a look at Jen Psaki saying that how Joe Biden should handle this presidential campaign is by pitching his wits against that unfavourable coliseum of opinion that is The View.
On both sides of working as a press secretary, but also now being in the media, and there's been a lot of criticism of Biden, most recently from the New York Times, that he's held the fewest interviews and press availabilities of any president since Reagan.
I personally think it would help dispel some of the concerns about his age if he did more.
What would your advice be to the White House in terms of his accessibility to press?
Well, I think the benefit of the media environment right now, there's a lot of challenges, but I'm sorry for the optimistic side, is that there are so many choices.
And when you're communicating from the White House, I mean, respect for freedom of speech and freedom of the press is important, but you're also really just trying to communicate with the American people.
So my view is, he should come on The View before he does a press conference.
You notice that everything is becoming banalized and desacralized, stripped of all meaning and even the potential for meaning.
The legitimization of Joe Biden's brevity being that it's a more expedient and effective way to communicate.
We got too much.
We're too busy with our busy lives to listen to complex political perspectives and political manifesto.
Let's just get him on the view where he can be crisp and succinct.
Obviously, one might assume that this is an attempt to mask his inability to cogently communicate for periods of time because of a number of reasons, which in a sense makes him the perfect candidate, don't it?
Let me know what you think.
We'll only be available on YouTube.
In fact, we're going to have to leave YouTube now because, I'll tell you why, because Tulsi Gabbard's coming up in about 10 minutes.
And before that, I want to cover this anti-Semitism bill that makes parts of the Bible officially Hate speech.
Let's have a look at that.
If you're not on Awake and Wonder yet, you can use the code ISURRENDER to get one month free as an Awake and Wonder.
You better join us live for our conversation with Mike Benz.
Have you seen that guy?
He helps you to understand how the deep state works.
You can join us for our book club where we do readings.
At the moment, I'm reading Mere Christianity.
It's a brilliant book by C.S.
Lewis.
You've probably heard of it.
I'm also looking into The Reason for God.
That's fantastic.
Just click the link!
Okay guys, let's have a look at this.
We've been promising you this story for a little while and it's time to get into it before we engage with much delight and gratitude with the impeccable and incomparable Tulsi Gabbard.
So, first of all, we know that this week the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act has finally passed.
Now, there's a number of complexities around the passing of this bill.
Where has the language and the principles behind it been derived from?
Let's get into it together.
The House passes a bill that conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
That is indeed one of the components of this bill.
The criticism of Israel is deemed to be antisemitism.
Double standards towards Israel is regarded to be antisemitism.
And in a minute, we will talk through a curious aspect.
One of the people that came up with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances set of principles of what constitutes anti-semitism.
Himself says this oughtn't be utilized in a legislative context. It's a set of principles to guide us,
not something that should be utilized for law. This is from anti-war.com
The legislation adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA's definition of antisemitism, which lists drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis as an example of antisemitism.
The IHRA also defines antisemitism as applying double standards to Israel by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
I suppose an example of that would be that if you believe that the United States is a settler colony, or Australia is a settler colony, you would have to hold them to the same standards that you might hold Israel to.
Currently, there are no Actions, military or otherwise, are there by Australia or the United States of America that could be compared to, for example, Israel's actions in Gaza.
But in a sense, you can see what this is designed to do.
The IHRA are ensuring that we know what antisemitism is and that antisemitism should be prevented.
But what's common and has been common in the last few years during the pandemic is under the auspices of protection, legislation has been passed That ostensibly is there to protect people from being persecuted, whether that's vulnerable people during a pandemic or ethnic or racial or religious minorities during times of an apparent rise of anti-semitism.
What we have to be aware of is the potential for this legislation to be deployed to control, persecute, imprison and shut down free speech.
I guess that's an important aspect of this conversation.
And also denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor in and of itself.
Matt Gaetz pointed to another part of the IHRA's definition that lists claims of the Jews killing Jesus as an example of antisemitism.
The gospel itself would meet that definition under the terms of the bill, he said.
Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk had a little online conversation about that and agreed that The whole of the New Testament potentially would become hate speech under this new definition.
Let's have a look at some articles that further help us to understand.
the first one, this complex idea, the first one's by Lee Fang.
Kenneth Stern, an antisemitism expert who helped develop the IHRA definition of
antisemitism, has since criticized efforts to enshrine the definition into
law. There was never any idea that this would be used as a de facto hate speech
code on campus, Stern told the Times of Israel. He wanted to train police
officials on it and so forth but to curtail speech on campus in particular
is something that was never contemplated.
Presumably, part of the function of this bill is to control, curtail, interrupt and disrupt ongoing pro-Palestine activity on various university campuses.
A debate over the appropriate bounds of free speech has roiled the Republican Party since October the 7th.
For years, conservative pundits and politicians had claimed the high ground on free speech,
accusing the left of suppressing conservative voices and ideas in the media and on college campuses.
Many of those same figures on the right are now pursuing the repression of anti-Israel speech
with equal vigor.
It continues, the article continues, "The Israel-related legislation is just the latest saga
of the American speech debate that has pulsated through political
and media discourse in recent years.
Over the last decade, left-leaning groups have attempted to suppress speech
perceived as crucial of non-white minorities, transgender people, and immigrants.
The Biden administration circulated plans for the Department of Homeland Security to police online content concerning racial justice under the banner of combating misinformation and hate.
So on that basis this is not a particularly unique piece of legislation except in so much as it uses one of the Religious doctrines which undergirds what was formerly known as Christendom, Western Democracy, is now newly defined as hate speech and we now have to re-enter the debate of how humanitarianism, rationalism and secularism undergird their ethics and morality, i.e.
why is a human being sacred?
Why is human life sacred?
Why do we have to love one another and protect one another?
All of these moral and ethical ideas Assume a kind of religious position, and in this case the word religious for me is in inverted commas, because even if you are an atheist and still claim that human beings by virtue of consciousness or their sentience or their relationship to nature have some kind of unique position, that ultimately is a religious paradigm.
You would have to agree.
Let's have a look at the next piece that we have on.
This is by a theologian.
Curiously, Michael Schellenberger made some great points about this, he queries how the
legislation will ultimately be deployed and utilized and whether it will have utility beyond its
current application. He says here, "Our government is using allegations of antisemitism as a
basis for political censorship.
The Department of Homeland Security, which played a large role in creating the censorship
complex behind suppression of dissent around COVID-19 and the 2020 election, is exploiting pro-Hamas
incidents at universities to expand its influence over academic curricula in the name of fighting
It's not hard to see how DHS limitations on academic freedom may be weaponized against other political positions in the future.
Do you find it helpful to Try to remove what the argument is, what the subject is, what the issue is.
It doesn't matter whether people are talking about vaccines.
It doesn't matter which cultural religious group people are talking about.
Then you can identify whether or not you have a principle.
For example, if you believe in free speech, that free speech is only relevant, as this headline suggests, if you defend it for people you hate.
The words of this theologian are also very useful in helping us to understand who might ultimately benefit from legislation That further undermines the idea of living life from a religious, or in this case of course specifically Christian perspective.
Christians know that some of this language, he refers to the idea that Christ was killed by Jews, which of course is literally scriptural and some would argue historical as well as liturgical language.
Some of this language has been used throughout history as an anti-semitic context.
So here, Albert Moeller doesn't deny that that is an anti-semitic trope or has been used as one.
Not that it fundamentally, universally is one, but that it has been used as one.
At the same time, orthodox biblical Christianity, even the simple principle Preaching of the Gospel could be directly targeted by this kind of legislation or language.
For that matter, by this loose logic, the entire New Testament can be targeted as hate speech, just start with the Gospel of John.
It's almost as if this definition has been constructed to serve the ends of liberal theology.
It will be even more dangerous in the hands of modern secularists and I feel that what the writer Albert Moeller is pointing to here is the potential that ultimately all of our ethical and moral and spiritual principles will ultimately be stripped away until not only will we own nothing and be happy materially, we'll believe nothing and be happy spiritually.
Without the possibility of choosing a path, surrendering, Finding a God of your own understanding, which, as you know, in my case, is Christianity.
As of recently, I've been a Christian, wait, how many minutes now?
And already look at what we're into.
The idea that that kind of ideology, theology and scripture can be legislated against, even though perhaps Matt Gaetz was being facetious in raising it, It's significant because it is not ultimately the project of secularism and materialism, the stripping away of divinity, the stripping away of our individual and communal connection to higher principles and our right to be born again, our right to change.
Our right to grow beyond the limitations of the material world, our right to seek atonement in another figure, potentially a religious figure, the idea that this language can be legislated against is a dangerous precedent.
Even, as Albert Moller points out, conservative activist Ben Shapiro has come out against the bill noting massive problems with the definition of anti-semitism.
His concerns are both accurate and honest and powerful, coming from a prominent Jewish voice.
He concludes, Yoram Hazony, one of the most important Jewish intellectuals of our time, posted on X, anything that relies on the confused IHRA definition of anti-semitism is a problem.
I especially appreciate one of his posts from 2022, says the writer, when he stated, Orthodox religious traditions, Christian and Jewish, are the only things that will survive The blast furnace of ongoing cultural revolution.
Make sure you're on the right side of this struggle.
The writer says he truly understands what's at stake.
Our ability to find, define, determine, interact with, and live by meaning is what is potentially under threat, as well as further empowerment of the censorship industrial complex.
This empowers all the wrong forces within American and global political life.
And the fact that this is just another one of these bills, just think about how many bills have just whisked through Congress in the last couple of weeks and been signed away.
Section 702, 95 billion dollars more for war.
TikTok's banned now.
All just whooshing through in a political torrent in a smash-and-grab fire sale of policies.
It seems to me something extraordinary is happening and it's going to require new relationships and it's going to require New alliances and a new emboldening of all of us as a community.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
Before we get to Tulsi Gabbard, I would like to say that by all possibility, your very phone is spying on you right now.
In fact, it's made all the more Likely, by the passing of Section 702, surveillance is just part of American, and therefore global, life now.
Here's a quick word from our sponsors, and then I'll be with Tulsi Gabbard, passing on your questions.
I'm happy to tell you that Airtek are the only published, peer-reviewed, patented EMF protection solution.
That means electromagnetic field, you know that.
Trusted by experts, neuroscientists, doctors, biohackers, and profiting athlete cage fighters, its effectiveness has been proven in real time using EEG brain scan
demonstrations, remove the fear and unknown levels of daily exposure and have peace of mind with Airstek
LifeTune protection. Over 20 years invested in research and development, Airstek
technology creates synergy between you and your devices by modulating and transforming chaotic
frequencies to match our own biological Unlock better wellness.
Go to airstek.com and use the code RUSSELL30 for 30% off your entire purchase.
Have one of these in your area and remember if you're on AwakendWonder you can see in our 5G video exactly why this stuff is so important. So take advantage of this offer. Click the link
in the description. Let's get back to the content, baby.
What is most exciting about Tulsi Gabbard, a woman who's dedicated much of her life to
the US Army and to Congress, is that she perhaps defines in her career the new fissures that
are appearing politically and the impossibility of old taxonomies in describing what's happening
at the heart of American life.
Tulsi's here because she's got a new book, her first book, For the Love of Country, Leave the Democrat Party Behind.
It's just been released.
It's available now.
We'll put a link to it in the description.
I'm afraid we'll probably post it on Amazon One.
Just easier, isn't it?
That's what they've done.
They've made globalism so easy.
There's no way around it.
We're gonna have to probably do it.
I mean, you could go and buy it from a bookstore, but, you know, we know how commerce works these days.
Now, it's an exciting guest.
You've posted your questions.
A lot of you want to talk about censorship.
A lot of you want to talk about the military.
A lot of you want to talk about corruption within the Democrat Party.
You can follow Tulsi using her handle, at Tulsi Gabbard, across all social media platforms.
Tulsi, welcome to Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thank you, Russell.
It's great to see you again.
Great to talk to you.
I'm very excited to speak to you.
Among the many things that you've achieved mastery in, promotion is perhaps chief among them.
Your ability to place your book in shot is mesmerizing.
I watched you on Joe Rogan.
I'm learning.
It's very good.
It's very good.
Having dedicated so much of your life to the American military and having dedicated so much of your life to the Democrat Party, I mean I suppose the title of your book gives a pretty clear indication where your alliances lie and how you have evolved, but you must love to a degree both of these institutions and yet one of the main reasons you've left the Democrat Party is because you say they are a party of warmongers now.
Can you tell me how the establishments Foreign policy has become divorced from the interests of the American people, the interests of the world, and even from the interests of the American military.
Well, thank you, first of all.
Just for the purpose of clarity, my love is for our country.
And the reason why I serve in our military now for over 21 years, serving as an officer in the U.S.
Army Reserve currently, is motivated by that love of country and wanting to be of service.
My time over 20 years in the Democratic Party, I joined in 2002, I was 21 years old.
I saw back then a party of free speech, a big tent party that welcomed people with different backgrounds, different religions, different views, that stood up for civil liberties and free speech, even for people they disagreed with.
And it was a party that fought for the little guy.
You fast forward to where we are today, that party has become wholly unrecognizable.
And so just as my being part of the Democratic Party was driven by my love of country and my desire to serve, so too was my decision to leave the party because it has become a party that stands diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles of freedom that make this country the great country that it is.
I've spoken to a number of West Point veterans, military personnel, and former and current, and it seems to me that there is a pervasive sentiment throughout the US military that of powerful anti-establishment feeling, that they believe that the government is out of control, that numerous wars that your country has been involved in and remains involved in either through aid or direct military involvement are put in it succinctly corrupt Do you feel that there is a real danger that the military could become an anti-establishment force?
That patriotism in America now means not the love of your government, but as you have described, a love of your nation, distinct, discreet, and very definitively separate from your government.
Yeah, I think that the prevailing sentiment is because oftentimes those who serve and wear the uniform, they understand the costs of the decisions that politicians make and have the clarity to be able to see that even as we have a civilian-led military, as we should, when you have politicians, too often from both political parties, who are putting their own self-interests first, We're putting the party's interests first, or as we see very often, the interests of the military-industrial complex first.
Nothing could be more offensive and insulting to a service member willing to lay down their lives in service to our country, to have a politician who has the power to send us to war, not caring about our country at all, and not asking the most basic question is, is this decision Do we get involved in this war or that war?
Do we go and wage this war or do we choose peace and diplomacy?
Those decisions are not very often being made answering the question, does this actually serve our national security interests?
Does this serve the interests and the well-being of the American people?
Both Bobby Kennedy and Donald Trump, in their own ways, of course, to a different degree, are enjoying extraordinary success.
And perhaps it's reductive to say that both are regarded as anti-establishment figures.
I know that there are detractors of both who would deny that.
And I know that the Biden critiques of Trump would be that he's crazy.
And the establishment critiques of Bobby Kennedy would be that he's a crazy pro-vaxxer and all of that kind of stuff.
But does not the rise of both of these figures suggest that there is a steep yearning for significant change in American cultural and political life?
No question about it.
I know that both of these parties are at least purported to have courted you, your support and your membership, maybe even as Vice President in both cases.
I wonder if you believe that either one of those purviews could represent the kind of change that America requires on the basis of your analysis of deterioration during the time that you've been involved in particular with the institution of the Democrat Party.
Yeah, you know, it's very telling.
There was a Gallup poll that was done a couple of weeks ago that showed 43% of Americans don't identify with either party.
We've seen how that number is growing over time.
And really, so it shows the minority of Americans identify with the Democrat Party or identify with the Republican Party.
And even those who still identify with those parties, I meet people all the time, talk to people almost every day.
Who are disenfranchised Republicans, who are disenfranchised Democrats.
Most Americans very frustrated because we see too often a system, and currently the party that's in power again, who is not looking after the interests of the American people.
So how this election season shakes out, we will see, but I agree with your analysis that more Americans recognize how deeply rooted the corruption and the rot is within our government, both in elected officials, as well as those who've either been appointed, or bureaucrats who are acting for their own self-interest instead of the interest Of the people.
And so while that is a very bad thing, the fact that more and more people are waking up to it because they're seeing the consequences impacting their everyday lives, their families, their communities, my hope is that this is an election where we can actually bring about serious change.
Plainly, you'd prefer either of those candidates to the current incumbent of the White House.
Which would you vote for?
I'm focused on, in my book, in delivering the message of my experience within the Democratic Party, the danger that the Biden-Harris administration pose to our fundamental rights and freedoms and how they are undermining our democracy.
Once we get a little bit closer to Election Day, I'll share my plans.
Oh really?
Yeah that's something you have to be careful about because it's still divisive and do you suppose that even between Trump and RFK now there will be more hostility rather than a kind of alliance based on the idea that in spite of in Each instance indicators that in some regards they are supporters of establishment edicts such as Trump voting for that 95 or being supportive excuse me of that 95 billion dollar aid bill and Bobby Kennedy's position perhaps on Middle Eastern conflict that ultimately they will turn on one another.
I don't know much about how your politics works particularly when it heads into the sort of white heat of November.
Is it for you a difficult thing to get involved in?
Well, for me, it's more so about where I feel that I can make the most positive impact.
I left the Democratic Party.
I have a message that I can deliver that shares my experiences, that talks about the very, in detail, the very real consequences.
Not of saying, well, you know, the Democrat approach to education versus the Republican approach to education.
For example, I tackle these issues like freedom of speech, like the rule of law, how increasing Increasingly, the Democratic leader fomenting racism in our country and tearing us apart, looking at each of these issues in detail so that voters can recognize the problem first of all.
In order to be able to find a solution, we have to first correctly diagnose the problem.
And I left the Democratic Party because they are the party that is undermining freedom and willing to sacrifice the rule of law, our democracy, and so forth in their pursuit of power.
You know, there's been some back and forth between President Trump and Bobby Kennedy.
I know both of them.
We'll see how things shake out, but it's clear that President Trump, as the presumptive Republican nominee, is in a far better position and a far stronger position to defeat Joe Biden than Bobby Kennedy.
Having spent a good number of years within the system, do you have anything that you can share with us about the actual practical abilities of a man like Joe Biden?
Because someone like me, who's just anti-establishment in the most broad and sweeping way, would assume that whoever were in the White House, whether it was a socially capable individual like Barack Obama or George W. Bush, who at the time was kind of regarded, you know, attacked as being a kind of a dope and a joke and stuff like that.
I wonder how much actual executive power is wielded by a figure like Joe Biden.
And the recent claim that he speak only in soundbites and do less PR and much short speeches seems to be an indication that they are acknowledging his senescence and cognitive decline.
What's your feeling about this man who once was a sort of a pretty potent firebrand, albeit a career congressperson and seemingly pretty corrupt in a bunch of ways based on what I've learned.
He at least seemed cogent.
How much actual power is that person capable of wielding?
How can he make decisions?
How can he direct power?
He has an incredible amount of power, and over time we've seen how, and this is something that Congress has either allowed to happen or willingly executed, which is an increase of a transfer of power away from the legislative branch and into the executive branch, into the hands of the White House and the President of the United States.
It's an unfortunate thing because our system of governance, of course, is set up with three co-equal branches of government.
But on the issue of war and peace, for example, we've seen that the last... We have been in many wars and many conflicts, and yet Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility to be the body that actually declares war before that action can take place.
They've given that over to the president and the executive branch because they don't want to be held responsible for it.
This administration, the Biden administration, there are certainly challenges, there are certainly questions about his state of mind and his ability to be present and focused in the decisions that are being made, but ultimately I hold him responsible.
I have no doubt about the fact that he is surrounded by people who have You know, they're handing him the note cards and they're shaping the agenda.
We see over and over how they go in and he says one thing and then they come back and say, well, no, he didn't actually mean that, and say the exact opposite.
His handlers have a lot of power, there's no doubt about it, but he was elected as President of the United States.
He is making the decision to run for re-election.
He is the person that we as American voters must hold responsible for the decisions that are being made and the very dangerous consequences of those We're continually invited to regard the haunting and ghoulish figure of Donald Trump as a kind of reincarnation of the militaristic despotism that blighted the 20th century, but it's my belief, Tulsi, that what we're
Sliding into is a new kind of technological dictatorship, a despotism that is kind of, that bears the aesthetic of bureaucracy that owes more to Kafka and to Huxley and Orwell than Hitler or Stalin.
Through the increasing power of the censorship industrial complex, through the ability to shut down protests, through the ability to shut down free speech, smear political dissidents and opponents, Use the judiciary as a tool of weaponry, shut down the campaigns of active political opponents, whether it's through censorship or lawfare.
Seems to me that the thing that we are being instructed to fear in the form of Donald Trump is already upon us in the form of this technocratic yet technological dictatorship.
It's already arrived.
Do you feel that?
Yes.
Yes, it's more than a feeling, it's fact.
The evidence backs it up, and it's a very intentional, strategic move for the Democrat elite's narrative to be warning the American people, saying crazy things like, if you vote for Donald Trump, if he is allowed to win this election, it'll be the last election the United States ever has, that he will be the dictator-in-chief, painting this dark, bleak picture.
That you've just outlined when the facts and the evidence show that they have already created this.
And this is exactly the problem.
They are weaponizing our public institutions.
They're using the Department of Justice and law enforcement to go after their major political opponent in Donald Trump, but also going after our fellow Americans.
You know, when President Biden said, you know, over half the country I think he said 76 million voters in America are MAGA extremists and they pose this greatest threat, domestic threat to our democracy.
He painted a target on the backs of tens of millions of Americans who voted against him and for the other guy, voted for Donald Trump.
And President Biden spoke to the country saying they are the greatest threat we face.
When you look at the kind of implications that has on our society, and you look at the reality that parents are getting arrested for going to Board of Education meetings and standing and very passionately speaking about their child's education, or their fear and anger around the fact that their gentleman in Loudoun County in Virginia, where I happen to be today, he stood up and his daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy who claimed to be a girl in the girl's bathroom.
And instead of the school and the Board of Education actually doing something about it and holding this kid and his family responsible for this, they quietly transferred him to another school without saying anything, without telling the parents of this girl who was sexually assaulted.
And guess what?
Within a very short period of time, this boy went on to sexually assault another girl in the girls bathroom, even as he claimed to be now a girl.
There are so many examples of how Donald Trump is the face of this figure who is being targeted.
They are throwing everything but the kitchen sink, trying to tie him up in court, drain him of time and money and resources, smear his character, put out this narrative that they hope will cause voters to turn away from him and throw up their hands and say, well, I guess Joe Biden's the only option.
But it's also happening to Americans who you will likely never know the names of, the consequences of this and the precedent that it sets.
And you're exactly right.
It is the elected leaders.
It is the bureaucrats.
It is the administrative state.
Many layers down who are executing this, and the dangerous thing is they're doing this in the name of democracy.
They're telling us we have to do this to save democracy.
They are so terrified of free people in a free society getting the information wherever we want to get it, discerning that information and making up our own decisions.
Particularly as it relates to this upcoming election, that they're trying to get Donald Trump off the ballot.
That over 32 states tried to unilaterally remove Donald Trump from the ballot, so we wouldn't even have the choice to vote for him.
And their excuse for that is essentially, well, we are trying to save our democracy We are too afraid of voters making the quote-unquote wrong choice in this election that we have to undermine and destroy our democracy in order to save it.
Save it from who?
Save it from the American people from actually exercising our freedom.
That's how twisted their mindset is and it paints that picture of exactly where we will go as a country if they're allowed to do this and get away with it.
And it is It creates that certainty for me and for others paying attention.
If they're allowed to stay in power, this country that I love, that we love, will be gone.
It'll be unrecognizable.
Yes, I understand that you're saying that we already face a far greater threat and many people point to the four years that Trump has already had in office and his record on war and a variety of other issues as indicators that the level of polarisation and hysteria are somewhat unwarranted, at least on the basis of empirical evidence.
You've referred To the culture war and the significant power and disruption that are caused around a variety of issues.
You mentioned the issues around gender and how that plays out culturally.
One thing I thought that was interesting that Trump said when referring to abortion and this caused a degree of controversy was that he would leave it to individual states.
I took that to mean that decentralisation and federalism could be part of the solution
to this increasing polarisation, this growing contempt between people on both sides of the
aisle, even though you are an indicator that those taxonomies are starting to melt with
positions that previously have been attributed to one party now migrating, the issue of free
speech, the issue of war being but two of the issues that have altered.
And they continue to flip and change as protests in the colleges currently around matters in
the Middle East demonstrate and reflect.
I wonder, given that it's unlikely that post the November elections we're unlikely to see
a happy and gracious succession of power, do you feel that federalism and decentralisation
may at least in part hold the solution to what seem to be pretty seismic problems in
Yes.
Yes, I do.
And it's something that I've seen throughout my time serving in Congress and have understood how destructive it has been and counterproductive at best it's been when you have this big brother, big government overreach into Into our lives, into our schools, and into our communities.
And going back again and looking at the Federalist Papers, looking at the thoughts and the intent behind our country's founders' vision as they crafted our founding documents.
It really was.
Our Constitution speaks to the very real limitations of government, of federal government.
And it's intent that power be decentralized really to the lowest level possible where people know their communities.
My home state of Hawaii is vastly different from California or New York or Montana or Texas or Florida.
Every state has its own unique culture, has its own unique constituency.
Our communities are best served and best able to impact decisions that are made, important policy decisions that are made when they're made at the lowest level.
We have this deep loathing that many of us feel for institutional, political figures and lawmakers from across the spectrum because of the assumption that they are investing in stocks and shares that they have the ability to regulate and therefore benefit from.
The assumption that companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon wield incredible power over American foreign policy, including the participation in wars that simply wouldn't happen if a more diplomatic perspective were allowed to thrive, or even, let's face it, a more democratic or representative perspective.
What have you experienced of that?
Are there, like, points where you feel like, well, I know this, that this bill's likely to be passed, I should buy some stocks in Lockheed Martin?
Or are there, like, what's lobbying like on the ground?
What's it like to get lobbied?
Is it true there are two lobbyists for every member of Congress?
And where does the lobbying take place?
And how does one, what is the prophylactic against lobbying?
Okay, this is a huge one.
There's a lot of questions there.
There are far more than two lobbyists per member of Congress.
Many, many, many more.
Many more.
I couldn't even begin to count.
One of the first things that happened is every member of Congress, you get elected, you go through what they call orientation briefings, and first they happen in a bipartisan sense where you have Democrats and Republicans, you go and sit in a room and, you know, you get a brief on ethics, the ethics rules, you get a brief on, you know, here's how the process works, you get briefs on here's the big issues of the day that you should be somewhat educated on, kind of a 101 introduction.
And then they break us off into two different places and rooms and buses.
Democrats go one way, the Republicans go the other way.
And the briefings that I got as a new Democrat in Congress at the end of 2012, sworn in early 2013, were very much the same as those that my Republican colleagues got in a few distinct ways.
Number one is, I remember they had a PowerPoint slide up showing how your average day would look.
And it was shocking to me.
I got to find that image because I remember capturing a picture with my phone.
But the predominant amount of time, hours in the day, spent lobbying or spent at fundraisers with lobbyists or on the phone calling lobbyists and asking for money was the majority of the day.
Really, so the amount of time you spent in your committees doing policy work or on the House floor for votes, On average, let's say it's four or five hours a day.
The rest of the day you are spending fundraising.
I went and I saw, okay, well, yes, okay, go to two different fundraising breakfasts every morning.
You'll sit around a table with a bunch of lobbyists and, you know, you talk about different issues or whatever and you leave with a bunch of envelopes with political campaign contributions.
And then, on average, a member of Congress will go and have one or two lunches.
Same situation.
And then you'll probably go and have another fundraising dinner on any given day of the week and make sure you go in and pop in and make sure that, you know, get those phone calls to make sure that people show up to the next days of fundraisers.
And this is how people raise tens of millions of dollars all in the course of a day's work.
I saw this, I experienced it when I first got there and I was just like, man, this is wrong.
I don't like this at all.
And so I stopped taking any lobbyist contributions and political action committee contributions.
And I loved it because I saw how my day was completely freed up.
I was able to focus on my policy work and substantive work in Congress, talking to my constituents.
In Hawaii, but I saw the contrast, and one of my friends who is a lobbyist for a renewable energy industry, she told me, she said, oh, wow, you're not taking any more money from lobbyists?
I said, no.
She's like, well, you're obviously never running for any higher office ever again.
Your political career is done.
You are where you are, and that's it.
I talked to some grassroots organizers who are working on different issues who came and visited me and they said, oh my gosh, Tulsi, you stopped taking lobbyist money and PAC money.
You must obviously be running for president!
And it was just a funny contrast that happened in the course of a couple of days between the Washington insider perception, which is you will never go anywhere in politics unless you take our money.
And the opposite coming from people who were like, you know, the $5, $10 donations, the small dollar donations to support the candidate that they like, going out and knocking on doors and making phone calls, joining the cause of actually bringing about grassroots change.
And their perception was exactly the opposite.
Like, oh, thank God you don't have anything to do with those corrupt Washington insiders.
It is the power of the people who will prevail.
I want to talk about the stocks, because this is a big one.
This is a big one.
To answer your question directly, I never sat there and looked at a vote coming up and saying, hmm, I wonder how Microsoft is going to react to this vote.
Let me go and buy some Microsoft stock.
I saw the opposite.
I went in knowing that perception is reality.
And I did not do any stock trading at all of any sort for the eight years that I was in Congress because whether or not they are acting on insider information or it's just some happy coincidence that they, you know, buy a million dollars of stock that magically goes up 200% within the next week when a vote is taken, It doesn't really matter because perception is reality.
Members of Congress, elected leaders, are held and should be held to a higher standard and should not be in that position where there's even a perception that you are acting in your own self-interest.
So I introduced legislation when I was in Congress that would have prohibited a member of Congress, their spouse, or their senior staff, their chief of staff, from trading in any stocks.
Because you have access to information that the public does not have whether you're acting on it or not.
Perception is reality and it's just wrong.
It's just wrong.
Both sides are doing it.
They're making a lot of money.
I've seen those those memes that people put out that show different members of like what their net worth was when they started and obviously the longer they're there the more wealthy they become and they're no longer really truly representing the interests of the people.
How did that legislation go?
What do you think?
What do you think?
They're still doing it, if that answers your question.
Yeah, in a way that's an indication of the kind of systemic problems that need to be addressed, obviously.
You said before that you're economically populist, and it seems to me that populism oughtn't be as it has become, a kind of dirty word conflated, as many things are, with racism and the right, but it ought be A contract between the people and their elected officials and lawmakers.
Do you feel that part of what we're experiencing, whether it's with the TikTok ban or the anti-semitism bill, is the understanding in the houses and institutions of power that what currently yet exists with social media, even impeded as it is with the rise of independent media, With the phenomenal ability to generate and spread counter-narratives is, first of all, the requirement of categories that didn't even exist, like mal-information, which, obviously, I know I've heard you talk about it.
It means information that's true, but it's really inconvenient that it's true.
Do you feel that, in a sense, the underlying agenda of power is currently to ensure that no populist movement that opposes the real interests That our masks behind the masquerade and charade of American political life, as you have just described it, never get any purchase, never have any impact.
Yes, and it speaks to that elitist mindset of people in Washington who do see populism or populists as a bad word.
They see it as a bad word because they think that they know what's best and they and they alone should be able to make the decisions that the rest of us have to live under.
They're afraid of us actually having access to To information that we can gather opinions or views that may not be sanctioned or constructive for the objectives of the Washington elite and the power elite.
They may not be helpful to the corporate elitists.
Or the political elitists.
And so they are afraid.
They're afraid of a free people in a free society because we actually pose the greatest threat to their power.
We in this country, our country was built upon We the people.
And we have the authority to choose whether or not we want a government of, by, and for the people.
The power is in our hands, but unfortunately, and I get it, it's justified in many ways, why so many people don't even vote.
They throw up their hands and say, well my vote's not going to count, the system is too corrupt, the elections are are already rigged.
I'm just going to stay home and complain about it and talk about it and I know the problems, but not actually use my voice and my vote to bring about change.
And that is my call to action in my book, is exactly that.
We are only powerful if we choose to use our power.
We can only bring about change in this system and in our government if we choose to make that happen.
And yes, it's got to start with stopping the destruction of our democracy and our freedom that we're seeing right now, but it really happens at every level.
We have people at Board of Education, and City Council, and state legislatures, and in Congress, and of course for President.
We have to bring about this kind of change to get the right people in office who are actually focused on serving the people rather than serving the interests of the elite or the bureaucracies.
You're obviously a pretty potent and unusual individual having served in two such extraordinary institutions so successfully and for such a long time.
How do you feel having served in Iraq, and I know that you were honoured in Kuwait and stuff,
or at least for your service in Kuwait, as a part of that conflict,
when the definition of terrorism seems to be becoming as vague and as applicable,
acute, according to utility, as many of the other vague pieces of legislature
that appear to be currently passing?
I know that you have said, for example, that you are anti-all war,
except for when it involves, I think you maybe said, Islamic terrorism,
I know that you'll correct me if I'm wrong, and someone mentioned it in the chat,
I feel like it's a pretty important point.
But when it seems now that the powerful are able to designate as terrorists their opponents, when we are increasingly seeing, in my country and in yours, elite deep state units that were set up to oppose terrorism, in inverted commas, abroad, deployed domestically to target the threat ultimately of free speech and the kind of unified personal power that you represent and are advocating for in your book, do we have to look Even at the categorization of terror and what we mean by that as well as perhaps you know considering the origins even of specific forms of terrorism such as that which you oppose.
Yes.
Briefly on my foreign policy views, I see the world for what it is, not the fantasy
land that too many of our politicians view, the lens that they view the world through
and how they make decisions that ultimately so often end up being counter to the interests
of the American people, to peace and to our security.
I'm not a pacifist or an isolationist.
I just believe that we should exhaust all diplomatic measures, means, outreach before
we look at the potential of war.
It should be the last result.
Sometimes it is necessary.
The adversary may change in different situations, but we the people, as well as those who wear
the uniform, must be able to trust that our elected leaders are going to do all that they
possibly can to prevent war and know that if we are sent into harm's way, it is for
a mission that is necessary, that is unavoidable, and that serves the safety, security, and
freedom of the American people.
To your second point about the vague use of the word terrorism and how these institutions that were created, many of which were created after the terrorist attack on 9-11 here in our country, have been turned and used against our fellow Americans.
That abuse of power, the warrantless surveillance that in the recent legislation that was passed was just Strengthened that allows these intelligence agencies to target Americans.
There was language in the TikTok bill.
I heard you talk about the TikTok bill earlier.
Language in the TikTok bill that included very vague language about who the president is allowed to designate Who is a foreign adversary or who may own a business that they believe is under the influence of or directed by a foreign adversary?
Anytime you do that, anytime you put down in legislation this vague kind of language, There should be no doubt in our minds that it's just a matter of time before it's deployed against a political opponent, so it's not a stretch of imagination for Elon Musk to rightly say, okay, yep, today it's TikTok, tomorrow it may be X. There's a huge divergence between X
And Meta, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Big Tech, all these other entities that have been doing the bidding of the Biden-Harris administration, that have gone along, whether willingly or feel they've threatened or bullied or whatever the case may be, they have been actively censoring free speech on behalf of the Biden administration.
Elon Musk has made clear that X won't do that and they won't play that game and so is it really a stretch of imagination for him to believe that if he's not willing to play ball that their targets may be set on him next?
That's fantastic.
Also, Rumble and Chris Pavlosky, the CEO there, have been extraordinarily bold on the subject of free speech in Brazil and in France, and certainly in their support of me when I was under attack.
Tulsi, thank you so much for coming on our show.
If only we had some image of your book's cover That we could anchor in our consciousness to help us to purchase it.
The book, For Love of Country, Leave the Democrat Party Behind is available now.
We'll post the link and you should follow Tulsi at Tulsi Gabbard across all social media platforms.
Tulsi, thank you so much for joining us.
So good to see you, Russell.
It's been a tremendous pleasure.
Thank you for what you do.
Aloha.
Bless you.
Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, man.
There you go, guys.
Now, listen, we've got a little bit of time, and we're going to use that time to celebrate what I'm going to call an extraordinarily successful and professional interview.
Thank you very much for remaining with us.
Now, what have we got to talk about now?
We can talk about that lady who keeps shooting her dog, and suggest other people shoot their dogs also.
Also, we're going to go over to locals in a minute, and if you become an Awakened Wonder, which you can do using the code ISURRENDER, you can get one month, you can cancel at any time.
If you think this ain't worth it, I'm not enjoying this experience of being part of a radical movement that encourages spiritual awakening and revolution, you can cancel at any time.
But if you join us, You can participate in our conversation with Mike Benz.
Do you know who Mike Benz is?
He's absolutely amazing.
Mike Benz tells you how the deep state are able to manipulate and control Congress.
You'll love it.
He explains it more articulately and he uses that phrase, the blob, rather well also.
You can join us for that.
We do a weekly book club.
We're talking about mere Christianity.
In fact, I'm like halfway through it and have been baptized.
So that's how effective that book club is.
We do a meditation each week.
This week, we did a meditation on the value of each day remaining present.
And we do an exclusive video that's only available to our members.
We did one on Operation Mockingbird.
In fact, I think we've got a bit of that.
If we've got it, we'll have a look at it now.
Because I think you'll like it if you let me know if we've got it.
it.
While the full extent of the CIA's reach is still not known, a former investigation in the 1970s revealed 50 journalists at the country's most influential newspapers all had secret links to the CIA, and were compensated to run CIA-approved articles.
This is one of those conspiracy theories, but not really, insomuch as Well, it's actually demonstrably true that Operation Mockingbird was a thing and may yet be a thing.
Use the code ISURRENDER, you can get a month free and see what we're doing.
We're going to go straight over there now and do another 10 minutes, have a little bit of a laugh together.
And you're right, yeah, it's pretty, it's pretty hot in here.
What do you want me to do?
Strip?
You want me to do the show naked?
Is that what you want from me?
Well, join us on Locals if you think you've got the stomach for it.
Thanks to all of you that have become AwakendWonders.
Here they are now.
Thanks for supporting us and being members of our community.
We appreciate you.
Tomorrow we've got a fantastic show.
Let us know what you want us to talk about.
I'm thinking about the fake meats.
The fake meats have been banned.
I'm thinking about the TikTok ban.
Do you want to learn a little bit more about that and what it's ultimately going to mean for us?
I'm thinking that we should talk even more About censorship and, you know, let me know.
And you, nipples out, no chance for Phoenix Snake UK.
