Tulsi Gabbard - Who Actually Runs The US Government?
05 Aug 2024 (1 month ago)
Who Actually Runs the Government?
- The US government is not truly run by the elected officials, but by a powerful cabal of individuals behind the scenes. This cabal includes the Democrat Elite, woke war mongers, and those in the military-industrial complex who profit from war. They hold significant influence over the administrative state and the National Security State, wielding power through their control of media and financial resources.
- This cabal has been in control for a long time, and their influence has grown significantly in recent years. The current administration, led by President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, is seen as a puppet government controlled by this cabal.
- Donald Trump, despite his flaws, is seen as a potential disruptor to this cabal's power. He is not beholden to the establishment interests that control many politicians, and he has a history of challenging the status quo. His opposition to unnecessary wars and his focus on putting America first are seen as threats to the cabal's interests.
- The cabal's influence is deeply entrenched, and it will take significant effort to dismantle it. The current system is designed to perpetuate their power, and they will use all their resources to maintain control. However, there is hope that a change in leadership, particularly one that is not beholden to the establishment, could begin to break their hold on the government.
What Motivates Leaders to Go to War?
- The motivations of leaders who push for war are complex and often driven by self-interest rather than genuine concern for the country's well-being. Tulsi Gabbard questions whether these leaders truly believe war is in the best interest of the nation or if they are simply driven by personal gain, power, or influence. She suggests that some may have convinced themselves that war is the right course of action, while others may be driven by a desire to prove their strength and power.
- Gabbard highlights the dangers of a "military-industrial complex" and the influence it has on political decisions. She cites examples of past presidents, like John F. Kennedy, who fought against the pressure to go to war, emphasizing the importance of resisting the urge to use military force as a first resort. She warns that the influence of this complex is even stronger today than it was in the past.
- Gabbard expresses concern about the potential for a leader like Kamala Harris to be easily manipulated into using military force to assert her power. She believes that Harris's desire to prove herself as a strong leader could make her susceptible to pressure from those who benefit from war, leading to potentially disastrous consequences.
How Obvious Was Biden’s Declining Health?
- The speaker discusses the declining mental health of Joe Biden, noting that it was widely known behind the scenes but not openly discussed. They believe that Biden's decline was evident even in 2020, despite attempts to hide it.
- The speaker expresses sadness and discomfort at the commentary surrounding Biden's decline, seeing it as a reflection of the Twilight of his career and a potentially lasting negative impression. They feel empathy for Biden, recognizing the toll of a long career culminating in a difficult final chapter.
- The speaker acknowledges that Biden's decision to run for president was his own, despite potential advice to the contrary. They believe that Biden's stubborn nature and desire to achieve the presidency led him to this point. The speaker questions whether Biden is fully aware of the potential consequences of his actions and the implications for his legacy.
- The speaker highlights the broader context of the Biden-Hunter Biden-Jill Biden story, which they believe overshadows more important issues affecting everyday Americans, such as education and economic struggles. They express concern about the state of political discourse and the focus on sensationalized narratives.
Tulsi’s Unique Political Path
- Tulsi Gabbard describes her political journey as non-typical, highlighting her independent-mindedness throughout her career. She served as a state representative and city council member in Hawaii before being elected to Congress as a Democrat.
- Gabbard was appointed Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) shortly after entering Congress, but resigned in 2016 due to concerns about the party's handling of the presidential primaries. She believed the DNC was rigging the primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton and criticized the media's portrayal of Clinton as the most qualified candidate without addressing her record.
- Gabbard endorsed Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election, citing their differing views on foreign policy and war. She saw her role as a voice of truth for Democratic voters.
- In 2022, Gabbard spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), delivering a message about freedom, civil liberties, and avoiding unnecessary wars. She was initially hesitant to attend due to concerns about the audience's reaction, but ultimately received a standing ovation.
- Gabbard's speech at CPAC resonated with many attendees, including strong Trump supporters, who found her message unifying. She left the Democratic Party later that year, but this decision was not planned at the time of her CPAC speech.
Why Tulsi is Popular With Conservatives
- Tulsi Gabbard's popularity with conservatives stems from her adherence to traditional liberal values, such as a strong emphasis on the Constitution, individual liberty, and limited government. These values were once central to the Democratic Party but have become increasingly marginalized in recent years.
- Gabbard argues that the Democratic Party has shifted significantly away from its roots, particularly since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. She believes this shift has alienated many who identify with traditional liberal values.
- Gabbard criticizes the Democratic Party's attempts to reshape the Supreme Court, arguing that it represents an effort to exert control over the judicial branch and undermine its independence. She sees this as a violation of the principle of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.
Why Didn’t RFK Jr Get More Momentum?
- RFK Jr.'s lack of momentum is attributed to several factors, including his late entry into the race as an independent candidate, the entrenched two-party system, and the significant financial resources needed to challenge both major parties and the mainstream media. The speaker emphasizes the difficulty of breaking through the established political and media landscape as a third-party candidate.
- RFK Jr.'s campaign faced legal challenges and difficulties getting on the ballot in all 50 states, further hindering his progress. This highlights the obstacles faced by independent candidates in navigating the complex electoral system.
- The speaker addresses concerns about RFK Jr.'s shifting political stances, arguing that his core principles remain consistent and that his willingness to challenge even leaders within his own party demonstrates his commitment to those principles. The speaker cites her own experience challenging President Obama's proposed military intervention in Syria as an example of her independent thinking and willingness to prioritize principle over party loyalty.
Does Tulsi Miss Being in Congress?
- Tulsi Gabbard does not miss being in Congress because she finds it increasingly dysfunctional and tribalistic. She believes that many politicians prioritize their own interests over the needs of the country and the American people.
- Gabbard does miss being able to hold government officials accountable, particularly in situations like the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Maui wildfires. She feels that she could have used her position on the Armed Services Committee to question those responsible for the failures in these events.
- Gabbard observes that the pace of everything, from political discourse to online trends, has accelerated significantly since she left Congress. She cites the rapid spread of memes and the recent controversy surrounding the Google algorithm's suppression of information related to a potential assassination attempt on Donald Trump as examples of this accelerated pace.
Trump’s Speech to Christians
- The speaker discusses a clip of a Trump speech where he says Christians won't have to vote again, followed by the sentence "we'll have it fixed so good you won't have to vote again." The speaker questions the validity of the clip, highlighting the potential for selective editing and manipulation.
- The speaker connects this to the growing distrust in information and the rise of nihilism, particularly among Gen Z men. They argue that this disengagement from politics is concerning, as it ignores the direct impact of political decisions on everyday life.
- The speaker uses the example of transgender athletes competing in women's sports to illustrate the importance of engaging in political discourse. They argue that while change takes time, it's crucial to speak out against issues like this, as seen in the case of female swimmers who successfully advocated for stricter regulations in swimming.
Understanding the New TikTok Bill
- The TikTok bill, passed with bipartisan support, grants the president the power to designate companies as "agents of foreign adversaries," effectively allowing them to be shut down. This provision, while seemingly small, represents a significant threat to free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for government control over information access.
- The bill's proponents argue for its necessity in protecting national security and combating disinformation, but critics, including Ron Paul and the ACLU, highlight its potential for abuse and its violation of fundamental liberties.
- While acknowledging the potential dangers of TikTok, particularly its influence on young people, the speaker emphasizes the importance of prioritizing freedom of speech and information access. They argue that the government should not be the sole arbiter of what information is permissible, and that alternative solutions, such as parental involvement and education, should be explored.
The Effectiveness of X for Breaking News
- The speaker argues that X (Twitter) is an effective platform for breaking news, citing the example of the shooting incident involving the former president. They highlight how X was the primary source of information for them during the event, providing real-time updates and videos from eyewitnesses.
- The speaker contrasts the information flow on X with the initial reporting from mainstream news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, which they claim were slow to acknowledge the shooting and initially downplayed its severity.
- The speaker criticizes the FBI director's statement questioning whether the former president was actually hit by a bullet, suggesting it was an attempt to cast doubt on the incident and undermine the former president's narrative of being "shot for democracy." They believe this statement contributed to the spread of misinformation and fueled conspiracy theories among some Democrats.
Conspiracy Theories Around the Trump Shooting
- Tulsi Gabbard discusses the conspiracy theories surrounding the shooting of Donald Trump, noting that a significant portion of Democrats believed it was staged. She finds it ironic that those on the right often criticize knee-jerk conspiracy theories, yet readily embrace them in situations like this.
- Gabbard acknowledges the seriousness of the event, emphasizing that a slight shift in the bullet's trajectory could have resulted in Trump's death. She highlights the stark contrast between the immediate response to the shooting and the subsequent rapid shift in focus to other topics.
- Gabbard expresses her disappointment in the lack of unity and reflection following the incident, noting that people quickly moved on to the next meme or trend. She questions the speed at which society consumes and forgets events, particularly one as significant as a presidential shooting.
The Left’s Relationship With God & Religion
- The Democratic Party's evolving relationship with religion: The speaker argues that the Democratic Party has shifted from being inclusive of religious beliefs to becoming increasingly antagonistic towards religion, particularly Catholicism and Christianity. This shift is evident in the party's reluctance to acknowledge God in public settings, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, and in its opposition to religious figures in public office.
- The Democratic Party's view of authority: The speaker suggests that the Democratic Party seeks to establish itself as the ultimate authority on truth and acceptable behavior, rejecting any higher power or authority, including religious beliefs. This is seen as a power grab, as those who believe in God are less likely to submit to the party's authority.
- The consequences of the Democratic Party's approach: The speaker argues that the Democratic Party's approach to religion is both unsophisticated and dangerous. It alienates a significant portion of the population and undermines the principles of freedom of religion and individual autonomy. The speaker also criticizes the party's lack of concern for the potential consequences of its policies, suggesting that they are driven by a desire for power rather than a genuine interest in the well-being of the people.
Is Politics Salvageable?
- The speaker finds it reassuring that the bar for political leadership is so low. This suggests that the system is more about incentives and dynamics than individual competence. The speaker believes that anyone can be "warped" into a "useless liar" by the system, regardless of their initial intentions.
- The speaker has experienced a series of "yogurt lid moments" where they have realized that even highly regarded individuals are fallible and ordinary. This has led them to believe that the system is not as impenetrable as it may seem, and that anyone with the right motivation and principles can make a difference.
- The speaker emphasizes the importance of motivation and purpose in political leadership. They believe that anyone, regardless of their background or experience, can be a good leader if they are driven by a genuine desire to serve and make a positive impact. The speaker encourages people to get informed, vote, and actively participate in the political process to bring about the change they want to see.
Australia’s Voting Mandate
- The conversation discusses the policy of mandatory voting in Australia, where citizens are obligated to vote. The speakers debate whether this policy leads to a more accurate representation of the populace.
- One speaker argues that mandatory voting could result in people voting flippantly, simply marking a box without genuine consideration. They believe that voter motivation should come from within, not from external pressure.
- The conversation then shifts to the idea of a "costly walk" as a factor in voting. Rory Sutherland, a behavioral economist, suggests that the physical effort required to vote, such as walking to a polling station, can encourage more thoughtful engagement with the process. This effort, he argues, can make the decision of choosing a leader more meaningful.
Irony of the Political Class
- The speaker highlights the irony of the political class claiming to care about equity and opportunity while simultaneously favoring those with credentials and connections over those who may be more competent but lack those advantages. This creates a sense of unfairness and a feeling that the system is rigged.
- The speaker points out the hypocrisy of the political class, particularly in the context of the Democratic primary, where candidates are prevented from openly criticizing the incumbent, even if they believe they are better qualified. This reinforces the perception of a closed system where power is concentrated in the hands of a select few.
- The speaker suggests that the increasing visibility and transparency of these practices, fueled by social media and online platforms, may make them seem more shocking and novel, even though they have been occurring for years. This highlights the changing media landscape and its impact on how we perceive political processes.
The Degradation of the Nuclear Family
- The speaker expresses concern about the erosion of the traditional family unit, particularly the nuclear family, and sees it as a concerning trend. They believe this erosion stems from a desire by the government to exert control over the raising of children and the decisions parents make for their kids.
- The speaker cites examples of government intervention in family life, such as the increasing pushback against homeschooling and the recent law in California that allows the government to make decisions about gender-affirming care for children without parental consent. They argue that these actions demonstrate a belief by some in government that they know what's best for children more than their own parents do.
- The speaker finds this mindset concerning and believes it is rooted in a paternalistic view of government. They argue that the government's role should not be to dictate how parents raise their children, but rather to support and empower families to make their own choices. They believe that the government's increasing involvement in family life is a dangerous trend that threatens the fundamental rights of parents and the autonomy of the family unit.
The Truth About Project 2025
- Tulsi Gabbard acknowledges the existence of "Project 2025," a document reportedly containing a plan for the Trump administration, but states she hasn't read it and therefore can't comment on its contents. She emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and encourages viewers to read the document themselves to form their own opinions.
- Gabbard highlights the polarized reactions to "Project 2025," with conservatives claiming it reflects their values and Democrats using it to spread fear about a potential Trump agenda. She emphasizes the need to be cautious about accepting narratives at face value from either side of the political spectrum.
- Gabbard shares her personal experience in Congress, where she routinely received conflicting recommendations from both Democrats and Republicans on the same legislation. This experience instilled in her the importance of independent research and fact-checking to avoid being swayed by partisan narratives.
Tulsi’s Thoughts About Kamala
- Tulsi Gabbard believes Kamala Harris is unfit to be president and commander-in-chief, citing her history of putting her own political interests ahead of the people she was supposed to serve. Gabbard also expresses concern about Harris's susceptibility to manipulation and her tendency to overcompensate with displays of strength, which could lead to dangerous consequences for the country and the world.
- Gabbard criticizes Harris's lack of belief in the Constitution and fundamental freedoms, highlighting her support for policies that undermine women's rights, such as the dismantling of Title IX.
- Gabbard expresses frustration with the lack of courage and leadership within the Democratic Party, specifically pointing out the absence of any Democrat in Congress who has publicly opposed the administration's policies on gender identity and Title IX. This lack of dissent, according to Gabbard, reflects a deep-seated cowardice within the party, where political positioning takes precedence over principled stands.
What’s Next for Tulsi?
- Tulsi Gabbard expresses her desire to be in a position of impact, emphasizing that she views her involvement in politics as a path of service rather than a career.
- She acknowledges that she doesn't have concrete plans for the immediate future but intends to continue advocating for truth, facts, and common sense.
- Gabbard hopes to inspire people to recognize the power of their votes and to work towards course correction and a return to the foundational principles of the United States.
Where to Find Tulsi
- The speaker expresses gratitude to "tsy" for their participation in the video.
- The speaker encourages viewers to watch their full-length conversation with Douglas Murray, which is available on the platform.
- The speaker emphasizes the enjoyment viewers will likely experience watching the full conversation with Douglas Murray.