Ep 99 | Tulsi Gabbard Confronts Dangerous Smears of Our Military & Conservatives | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless.

And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should.

One, it's $15 a month.

Two, seriously, it's $15 a month.

Three, no big contracts.

Four, I use it.

Five, my mom uses it.

Are you playing me off?

That's what's happening, right?

Okay.

Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 for three-month plan, $15 per month equivalent required.

New customer offer first three months only.

Then full price plan options available.

Taxes and fees extra.

See Mintmobile.com.

The guest today was so horrified by the 9-11 attacks that she enlisted in the National Guard.

She was 21 years old, and at the time, she was serving

as the youngest woman ever elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives.

She often describes a moment during basic training when she stood in formation and she looked at all of the other soldiers around her.

She said, I didn't see Democrats, Republicans, Independents, conservatives, liberals.

I didn't see black, white, or brown.

I didn't see different religions.

She said, all of those things she didn't see because all she saw were Americans, all in the same uniform, all serving the same flag.

She learned to place country before self as she was serving two tours of duty.

In 2012, she was elected to the U.S.

House of Representatives.

She was the first American Samoan congresswoman and the first practicing Hindu member of the U.S.

Congress.

Nancy Pelosi at the time called her an emerging star.

Then she ran for president, and she did something that the parties, either side, don't like you to do.

She challenged the establishment.

As a Democrat, she challenged the Democrat establishment on national television.

As you can imagine, or if you remember, the blowback was enormous.

Hillary Clinton called her a Russian operative.

The media was all too happy to spread this outrageous narrative.

We're going to dive into all of that, I think, but a lot more.

This conversation is exactly what I had in mind when we started the Glenbeck podcast.

I don't know how much I agree with Tulsi Gabbard's viewpoints on policies,

but I think we have principles in common.

Today, Tulsi Gabbard.

Tulsi, I don't know how many people watch this or how many people listen to it, but I feel like I'm talking to a movie star.

The plants behind you are so beautiful.

You look so great.

This is the nicest production value anybody has done on Skype, I think, in the history of the world.

Welcome to the program.

This is what happens, Glenn.

Thank you very much.

There's two major factors here.

Number one is: I'm so grateful to be home here in Hawaii, and this little slice of grass and

flowers is thankfully in our backyard.

And number two, my husband's a cinematographer, and he happens to be a perfectionist.

So

it works out.

I can spot him in his work a mile away.

So I want to start here, and I don't mean this to be an uncomfortable question, but I think a lot of people, especially on the right, maybe some on the left, have no idea

how to relate to you.

Because I don't know if you're

a lefty who has come to Jesus, so to speak, or if you're a lefty that

just doesn't hate America, or if

it's

if you're

if we're all misreading you, are you somebody who has turned a corner?

Or are you just somebody like, honestly, and I bet on one of these, are you somebody that we don't see anymore, which is somebody willing to talk to anyone and willing to call out any side

when they disagree?

Which one are you?

I love our country, and I have

dedicated my life in service.

You know, I realized from a very young age that I was happiest when I was doing my best to be pleasing to God, to serve God.

And what better way to

do that than to serve God's children and work for the positive impact and well-being of all of God's children and our planet.

And so as I have approached politics specifically, as you're talking about,

that is my motivation.

And

perhaps because I'm not motivated by partisan politics or power or all of the other things that we see, unfortunately,

pervasive within our government,

People are a little confused about how I approach different issues because I'm not looking at them through a partisan lens.

I'm not looking at them through, you know, what are the political ramifications going to be and then making a calculated decision based on that.

So, you know, I have and continue to look at issues based on the issue themselves,

examine the pros and cons, and try to do what's best for the American people.

As I've served in different elected positions, both in our state legislature here in Hawaii, our Honolulu City Council, and then in Congress for the last eight years.

Then of course in the presidential campaign.

And sometimes those positions may seem a little bit more left.

They may seem a little bit more right, a little conservative, or it's hard.

People have had a hard time placing a label on me, as you've alluded to.

And I edit.

Which I don't have a problem with, because I don't really like labels.

Right, and I don't either.

I mean, I think people slapped a label on me.

When I was at CNN, I was fine.

As soon as I went to Fox, I was the Antichrist.

I said exactly the same things at both places.

And it is hard because

we're hit with so much information now, and you don't know who to trust, and

it's easiest to put people in little boxes, and you just don't know what to do with people that don't fit in a box.

I've always found that great.

The problem with that is, is there's a lot of people who are just

lying bastards when it comes to just, you know, saying whatever they have to to

to gain, you know, a foothold here or there.

I don't think that's you because you have paid a very heavy price with the Democrats

by saying what you have said.

But

I remember my father

and my grandfather, they were on different sides of the aisle.

And my grandfather was a Roosevelt Democrat.

I mean, all the way, you know, it was still Roosevelt in the office, no matter what year it was to him.

But I remember them having great conversations.

I remember them getting along.

I don't ever remember hearing he did anything.

But we don't have that anymore.

Which is the sad thing.

And as you know, the example you're giving is

within families.

You know, we've seen families being torn apart,

you know, families being broken up because of political differences, or one member of the family voted for Hillary Clinton, the other member voted for Trump, and that was

a line too far.

That was a deal breaker.

And

it is so sad to see because it takes us away from kind of the fundamental identity of who we are as Americans in this country that was built on the foundation of freedom and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, having a robust and diverse marketplace of ideas that we can have discussions on issues and maybe find some new perspectives that we didn't consider previously.

Or maybe we walk away saying, hey, you know what?

I agree to disagree, but I respect

you because I know

the same place of care and love for our country that I am.

And we'll find a way to work together.

That's what's missing in Washington.

That's what's missing in the leaders of our country today.

So I agree with you.

Here is is

where the rubber meets the road.

You and I

both have a love for the country.

We have a love for the history.

We will defend the freedom that it represents.

What I'm trying to get my arms around is

there are those people who are

uber left or

how do I say it?

Very, very liberal, not classic liberal, but very, very liberal, who believe in gigantic government programs, et cetera, et cetera, that I don't.

But they still believe in the Constitution.

They still believe in the fundamental framework of America.

I don't believe Bernie Sanders does,

and I know you worked with Bernie.

He is, he is, I think he's on the light side of the

fundamentally transform America.

We have people now that are saying the same things that Bernie Sanders says, and they want to fundamentally change that framework.

No capitalism,

you know,

a giant, all-controlling government.

Where do you fall in?

in this

I took an oath both as a soldier and and as a member of Congress to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

And I am firmly rooted

within that Constitution and our Bill of Rights that speaks to these inalienable rights that have been granted to every single one of us by our Creator and that cannot be taken away by any man or woman or person

within our government.

And fundamental to that understanding of our Constitution

is that recognition that every one of us, that we are all God's children and that we have been granted these rights by our Creator and not by anyone else.

So when you're coming from that place,

then

we're able to have real discussions on that common ground and understanding and recognition.

What I think you're, so that's where I'm coming from.

What I see troubling,

extremely troubling and dangerous, increasingly so within our government, is

whether it is a lack of care or a lack of understanding or a complete dismissal of our Constitution by a lot of people in power who believe that it is within their right.

Right.

as elected leaders to decide which of our rights we're allowed to have, which they will choose to take away, what speech is allowed to be shared, and whose voices or ideas or views should be censored.

And this is what we're seeing now increasingly coming from within our government, but also from big tech monopolies and others, people in positions of power.

And this is taking us so far away from our fundamental identity and this foundation upon which our country was built.

So

I want to, if I can,

frame our conversation around the Bill of Rights, because I think the Bill of Rights being violated in a hundred different ways, at least,

is the core problem that we're having right now.

The fundamental misunderstanding, the misinterpretation,

and the dismissal in many cases of the Bill of Rights.

So, I'd like to talk to you about that.

But I want to first ask you this question, and it's a military question.

I don't understand what's happening with our military right now and this administration.

I find it extraordinarily offensive

that we are on a stand-down position to weed out radical right-wing terrorists or right-wing extremists.

I don't even know what that means, and I find it offensive.

You served two terms.

Did you see a problem?

Do we have a problem with extremists, domestic extremists in our military like that?

Oh, I think we first have to start with something that you pointed out, which is a question that I have asked, is what is the definition of extremism?

Right.

Because how do you go, and I'm, again, from a military perspective, and I'm still serving, I'm almost 18 years now in the Army Reserves, still serving as a civil affairs officer.

And so when I look at things from

that military mindset and you're saying, okay, well, we've got a problem that we've got to root out.

You first have to actually define what that problem is.

Or if you're talking about an enemy, like al-Qaeda, for example, you first have to understand and identify that enemy, what their ideology is, what they're seeking to accomplish in order to go in and defeat that enemy.

I see what is happening here to be so dangerous because these terms extremism, domestic extremism,

these sorts of things are being thrown out without any real definition at all.

And so

an extremist from a

well, we're seeing this,

an extremist from somebody who's coming from the ultra-left in politics could be somebody who has an American flag in front of their house, who says, I love my country.

And it could be someone in New Hampshire who has a live-free or die flag.

know could be someone who is an evangelical Christian or a practicing Hindu who's a very devout practitioner of their spiritual practice so so who is who is defining what extremism is this is and and

this is the problem

I'll just finish that sentence without without defining it then then then what we're seeing is a very dangerous targeting of what a broad swath of America by who and really this comes back to, okay, well, this depends on who's in power.

And

that definition can change depending on which way the political winds blow or the power shifts.

We had a hard time the first 10 years of this century.

We argued over and over again, extremists, not extremists, you're a bigot, you're not a bigot,

over

Islam.

And from the beginning, I don't have a problem with Islam.

I don't have a problem with Muslims.

I have a problem with Islamicists.

That is a very specific category that believe that government needs to be run by mullahs exactly the way all of the the way they interpret the Quran.

And it's extremist.

It is extremist.

It's incompatible,

incompatible with any kind of freedom.

And it's exclusivist as well.

I'm sorry to jump in, but it is that specific Islamist, that radical Islamist ideology is an exclusivist one that says if you do not adhere to our interpretation of the Quran or Islam,

then

you know, we're going to kill you, we're going to behead you, or enslave you.

And this is the ideology that fuels terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

And that exclusivism is,

I'm pointing out because it's so dangerous in, you can see some hints of that with what we're seeing now, where if you do not adhere to our ideology of who's in power,

then

you don't get to speak.

I have to tell you,

I don't think, and I haven't heard people talk about this in mainstream media, I honestly think that

many Americans think there were so many games that were played

in the last election that you don't know, but nothing was ever shown that had real teeth to it.

And even if there was a lot of

game playing and fudging, I don't know if there was enough to prove it.

And the Constitution

doesn't take your best guess.

And once it's over, It's over.

There's no redress constitutionally.

Even if we found a giant, you know, black bag full of all of the evidence, there's nothing constitutionally you you can do about it.

And I really truly believe that people do want to unite.

They're tired of this.

But as we come out of it,

everyone who voted for Donald Trump is now being called an extremist.

You can't even question

the vote.

I'm not questioning it because I want Donald Trump to be president.

I want the election process to be safe

and effective and

right.

I want to make sure we protect for future elections.

But when you see you've got, we want to unite, it is that

isolationist kind of thing.

To

unite, all you have to do is just believe what I believe.

Be on my side.

That doesn't work.

That doesn't work in life.

That doesn't work in marriage or family.

Right.

I mean, at some point, if that's your view in marriage, you are going to get a divorce or you're going to chop your husband into little pieces.

You know what I mean?

It's not, it doesn't work.

At what point do both sides get to that point to where they say,

I keep asking on the air, for both sides,

you don't like it, fine.

But if everyone on the other side is your enemy, then what?

Because you get all of the power like the Democrats have right now,

then what?

You still have half the country that doesn't agree with you.

So you either, and it's quite frightening, you either have to silence them, re-educate them in some way or another,

or round them all up.

So you've been in the Democratic committees and been around people.

Let me ask you: so then what?

The words that Joe Biden spoke in his inauguration speech spoke very strongly to this message of unity, spoke very strongly to this message of reaching out specifically to all Americans, including those who did not vote for him.

There's a heavy weight of responsibility on his shoulders and on the shoulders of those in power currently, Democrats in the House and the Senate, need to turn that rhetoric into action.

But unfortunately, and this is what's so disheartening, is that we're not seeing that.

In fact, we're seeing the exact opposite.

To hear, again, my last day in Congress was January 2nd,

and within

just a few days, to hear Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats.

in Congress talk Republicans, the quote-unquote enemy within,

was so deeply troubling and dangerous

because

of what it is, but also where that leads.

How can you expect to heal the wounds of this country when you're castigating those and the other political party as the enemy within, which then if you carry that through says that if any Democrat is caught talking to making or God forbid working with a Republican on legislation to solve problems, then you're working with the enemy.

What does that make you?

That makes you a traitor.

Right.

And this just, I mean, it flies in the face of, again, everything that our country is founded on.

And, you know, the kind of decorum that I think the American people would expect from leaders in Congress, if not respecting their colleagues, at least respecting

the voters who sent them there.

And that's what it comes down to is when you start

dehumanizing and vilifying others in the way that is happening now, you are dismissing and throwing up the middle finger at

the millions of voters who sent them there.

You are,

you know, they keep saying that

right-wing extremists are the source of problems while not defining them and yet using brushstrokes so broad that everyone who didn't vote for Biden feels like they might be included in that.

And it is almost like you're just getting poked in the eye with a stick every day, and they want you to react.

I mean, I couldn't design

a plan better to get people to rise up against you, which leads me to this question.

I was totally fine with Biden having

a very safe inauguration.

I thought the troops there was a little overkill, but okay.

I don't want anything ever to happen to the president or anybody in office.

We have to safeguard that.

But why are they still there?

Have you ever done a mission that was undefined, was an undefined enemy, undefined goal, undefined period of time?

I didn't think the Pentagon ever allowed that to happen until now.

Is this unique?

In my experience, it is unique, especially here at home.

You and I have talked before, we could have another conversation about

interventionist regime change wars that have ill-defined objectives overseas with

unending deployments.

But when we're talking about a mission here at home, and I have been deployed in these domestic response missions before, we had an active volcano, National Guard went to respond.

Obviously, there are flooding and hurricanes.

There are very specific missions that our National Guard soldiers have been deployed to go and serve a purpose and then get back home to their lives and their families.

I was really disturbed to see on many levels

the what was, I think it was around 20,000 at one point

National Guard soldiers deployed there to our nation's capital.

Again, like you,

we want

inauguration, the president.

We want people to be safe.

But it seemed like a very disproportionate response that sent a dangerous message to the American people and, frankly, to the world

of,

I mean, is our nation under attack from the American people?

Is that really what's happening here?

Is this really

put in place to kind of foment fear amongst our own people that our government is somehow farther and farther separated from us.

And, you know,

some of my friends are sending me pictures still of the, you know, the fences and the constructino wire,

barbed wire, and the patrolling of troops out in our nation capital and not really knowing if or when this is going to end with some saying like in the post-9-11 era, the security measures that were put in place were never reduced.

And now that this may just be the new norm.

Now our capital will only be open to people people who work there, and everyone else will be treated as a quote-unquote threat.

But I also want to talk real quick, Glenn, because I missed answering your earlier question that really does hit home to me.

You asked if in the military I had experienced being surrounded by white supremacists or quote-unquote extremists, whatever that means.

And the answer to that question is no.

Never.

I've served now for almost 18 years.

And from basic training in Fort Jackson, South Carolina, back in 2003, I've served in a number of military bases across the country, in Oklahoma, and Texas and Pennsylvania and South Carolina, many different bases.

I've been deployed twice to the Middle East, worked with troops from across our military.

And

in my experience,

it has been a representation of Americans from all different backgrounds,

different political ideologies, different views on things.

But as you said in your opening, when it came right down to it, when it was time to execute that mission,

it's Team America.

We are putting service and country and the American people above any other, you know, superficial differences or competitors.

Yeah, of course we have debates, we talk all the time about different things, and we come at issues from a different perspective, but we wear that same uniform that has the American flag on our arm with great pride and great privilege and honor to have, to be given that opportunity to serve.

So that's what I thought you would say.

And I agree with you.

And

it's dangerous for them to,

and I read this headline after headline, day after day,

to cast this suspicion

over our military as though this is now who our military is when

nothing could be further from the truth.

And it is the only institution that has been pretty much unscathed.

You know, we don't believe in our justice system.

We have questions about our police.

We don't trust Congress or the Senate or the White House.

Who do we trust?

The only ones that have constantly been up at the top are the military.

And now, I don't know.

I mean,

I believe our military is just like, you know, the Bakers Association of America.

I'm sure there's some bad people in there, and there's a majority of good people because that's what America is.

So they've got their bad apples, but this is not that.

We're not looking for a few people.

I mean,

the new attorney general,

when he was testifying, said this is a more dangerous time than the Oklahoma City bombing for homegrown terrorists and white supremacists and right-wing extremists.

Excuse me?

What?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So white supremacy.

There's a very specific ideology and definition of what

white supremacy is, right?

I mean, you look at those who, which really is that definition, it is those who believe that being white is a superior race and that those who are white should be the dominant race.

And

you see that ideology

adherence in the KKK and Nazis and those who follow that ideology that you and I and virtually everyone would recognize needs to be denounced and defeated.

And you can defeat that ideology with a superior one

that points to the fact fact that we are all God's children.

We are all brothers and sisters.

We are all equal, no matter the color of your skin, your religion.

I mean, we get back to Dr.

King saying, let's judge each other on the content of our character.

So that's a very specific thing, but what's dangerous, and I've seen throughout my time in the military, you know,

you get asked questions, you have to literally fill out petitions.

And

are you an adherent to,

I forget the exact language, but basically trying to say, okay, let's find those who may be those few dangerous people who follow this ideology and may try to carry it out in a violent manner.

And

I think that's really where there may be an area

of concern.

But what's dangerous now is the term white supremacy is really being thrown out and attached to

anybody who voted for Trump,

people who

are white.

You know, apparently now all white people are racist.

It's being thrown out in a way that

allows and enables those in positions of power to abuse that power and

target Americans, whether it's with surveillance or

all of the different tools at their disposal, including those that Adam Schiff is proposing in his new domestic terrorism legislation.

Terrifying.

Which is incredibly, incredibly dangerous and

very much unconstitutional when you look at it from a civil liberties perspective.

So that brings us back to the Constitution.

Let's just go through a few things.

First Amendment.

There are five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Let's just start with the freedom of press.

There is talk now of

silent

Congress members wrote a letter this week and sent it to Comcast, ATT,

Amazon, Facebook, Google, and said, if you're still doing business with Fox News and those like Fox News, we want to know why.

I mean, this is outrageous.

Can you define the First Amendment's freedom of press and freedom of speech?

Because I think we have a misunderstanding in America.

I think you and I clearly understand what that means, but it is scary that members of Congress who are in charge of powerful committees that regulate these media entities

seem to not have that understanding at all.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to tell any media agency

what they can have on their airwaves.

They don't have that power.

But this letter I read as a clear signal of intimidation

That somehow Congress may try to levy or exercise some kind of authority to bully

whether it's ATT or Time Warner or the people that they say Hulu that they sent these letters to

to fall in line.

And the thing that

there's a few things that jumped out to me in that letter, but they're

pointing to

information and what these media entities

were or are doing to stop that.

And again, pointing to conservative news outlets as disinformation, correct.

And pointing to only conservative media outlets as the propagators of this disinformation.

Let me interrupt.

Let me interrupt you here.

That's exactly what I would expect a Russian operative to say.

That's, I mean, that's the disinformation.

Here's the funny thing.

Yeah, that's the disinformation that nobody seemed to have a problem with when they did it to you.

Exactly.

Exactly.

They did not have a problem with

former Secretary Clinton propagating that lie, baseless, evidence-less accusation that I'm somehow working for Russia or a Russian agent.

Not only did they not have a problem carrying that, they continued to repeat it

and reinforce that, and not just over a week's worth of news stories.

This went on for virtually the entire time I was campaigning for president.

Another example, they had no problem,

NBC, ABC, all of these news networks, they had no problem propagating the lie that James Clapper told to the United States Senate that the government was not conducting mass surveillance on Americans by collecting our phone metadata and looking into our emails.

No problem.

In fact, they've given him a platform on CNN as some kind of expert.

So you can lie to the U.S.

Senate, not be prosecuted for it, get your lie covered by the media, and then the media will put you up on TV and pay you a bunch of money to continue to act as though you're an expert.

They had no problem and no punishment, no consequence for propagating the lies that took us into the Iraq war.

The list goes on and on and on.

So if this is the approach they're going to take

and that they are taking,

we, the American people, need to expose the double standard, the hypocrisy, and the very transparent

attempt to silence those who hold views that they, those in power, do not deem as acceptable.

And what's so clear to me in all of this is if there was confidence

in their argument, their policies,

their proposals or philosophy,

that their ideas are superior to those who they disagree with in the conservative spectrum.

Why not just present them and have confidence that your argument will defeat the other?

So it exposes this insecurity and lack of confidence and fear that, oh my gosh, if they hear these other ideas or these other voices, they might believe it, they might support it, they might vote for candidates who hold those views.

And we can't have that happen.

But you know that there are people on both sides of the aisles, progressives, if you will, on both sides of the aisles.

And I mean progressives is the original early 20th century progressive that believes in, you know,

an authoritarian sort of...

dictatorship without without the connotations of what we've learned dictatorships were.

I mean in 1900 dictatorship where somebody is an administrator, and those administrators are just much smarter than the American people, and they're educated, and they're surrounded by experts.

So there are these, there's this, there's this feeling with, I think, a lot of people in Washington, it seems,

that they really almost kind of despise the American people, or

they just need to say what they have to say to the American people, because we know what we have to do.

And so that gives you all kinds of room

to do really anything because it's just a bunch of cattle.

We got to get them through the shoot.

What we're seeing here is this

blatant arrogance that really says we know better for the American people than they do for themselves.

They're too stupid to know any better.

They're too stupid to make decisions for themselves.

They're incapable of gathering information, forming opinions and views that will allow them to make decisions at the ballot box.

And so people in power will make that decision for us.

And

worse yet,

their motivation is not the best interest of the American people.

Their motivation is how do I keep power?

How do I get more power?

Or how do I get power back?

And

that's what I saw very clearly throughout my eight years in Congress, where I was both in the minority when Republicans were in charge and then in the majority when Democrats took over the House.

The decisions were driven very clearly on a daily basis on that calculus.

If you're in power, how do you keep it?

And if you're not, how do you get it back?

So you, I'm sure, know, are you following the great reset at all from the World Economic Forum and what's happening?

I haven't.

I urge you to go to theworldeconomicforum.org and begin to look.

There is

there we are forming an oligarchy, and it's all out in the open

and it revolves around

the idea of ESGs

or is it, yeah, environmental, social justice, and governmental standards.

Well, that's great, unless you're starting to put those into companies and those companies now say, we are only doing business with people who believe this and will do this.

Coca-Cola has on their own site about 100 pages.

This is their bottler in Europe that is ahead of them here, but they're quickly catching up.

Several times they say, in order to justify our business license,

we will do these things in the community.

We will do this and that.

Now, that's great if that's what you want to do as a company.

But we are now seeing, for instance, with Facebook and Google, they're doing the bidding in many ways of

the government, where they are going around the Constitution.

Government can't violate that, but this is a private company.

So they are silencing people, but it seems to be awfully convenient.

the handshake between them and the government, and they're in business with each other.

And you see others, other companies that are also coming in, and they are doing

business with the governments of the world, and they're going to get payback.

It's this ingenious system called

stakeholder capitalism, where we're all stakeholders, not shareholders, stakeholders.

And so, if it's not good for all of the stakeholders, you can't do it.

That's a fundamental perversion of what America and freedom really is.

That's Chinese capitalism, or basically what we've been, except with guns on the other end of it.

It's corrupt capitalism, crony capitalism at best.

When you have all of these interests that are coming together and the government knows it doesn't have the trust trust of the American people.

The media knows it doesn't have the trust of the American people.

The media also doesn't have the money to do it.

When you have people that need each other,

Facebook, Google, they need the governments of the world to not come after them like a bag of bricks.

And the government needs Google and Facebook to help us out a little bit, help us corral the American people a little bit.

How do we get out of this trap?

It's a big one.

And this comes down to

remembering and harnessing the power that we have within our hands, especially in America, through two primary means.

how we vote, who we vote for, and how we choose to spend our dollar.

Because both of these are a means of communication where

we get to take a stand.

Yeah, but when you take a stand,

hang on just a second, when you take a stand, I took a stand at Fox.

I didn't like the direction that I felt that they were going.

I didn't like the direction I thought CNN was going as well.

And I

took a huge risk in 2011 and built my own company.

I was the first one to go.

It was only me and I think Major League Baseball at the time that were doing what's called over-the-top.

And

it was crazy.

Everybody said it was crazy.

Well, now it's the norm for a lot of people.

I know you have your own podcast.

It's the norm for people.

And yet, I every day walk in wondering if something I'm going to say will be the trigger to shut me down and have Amazon pull my services and Google bury me or some ISP just say, sorry, no business for you.

How do you fight back?

Because they hold all of the cards, it seems.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is a very real risk, and that's exactly the calculus I was thinking through as I'm getting ready to launch my podcast and YouTube show is that.

What guests will I have or what topic

that will cause them at any time to just say, yeah, you know what?

We're going to pull the plug and

make it so that your point, your voice is not being heard.

I mean, this is a very real threat that we're facing.

In our society and in our governance, I mean, this is where we have to do a better job.

We, the American people, have to do a better job in deciding who we are sending to Washington to make these decisions.

Is it going to be more of the same where we see politicians who go and collect the checks from Facebook and Google and

big tech and all of these different entities where it's, hey, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

When you need me and that vote's coming before committee, don't worry, I'll be there for you.

Just send a few more dollars my way.

Are we going to keep sending people to Washington who are

so easily cowed to toe the party line based on threats that, and I've seen this based on threats, hey,

if you don't fall in line, we're going to yank your committees.

If you don't fall in line, you know, we're not going to be there for you when you need help in your next reelection.

Or are we going to send people who are firmly rooted in that desire to

always put the interests of the American people first?

You mentioned this stakeholder capitalism, and clearly in this stakeholder capitalism, we the people are not being considered stakeholders.

Oh, no, no, wait, wait, no,

this is the best part of it.

They answer that question.

Well, wait a minute, where's my voice?

They answer that in your elected officials.

So your government is your voice.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

And the government is so, the government, and this is okay.

So this gets to the heart of the problem.

Where, and I saw over the last several years

people

coming, you know, people coming and meeting with me in Memphis and Washington, D.C., and just this constant rhetoric about the concern of the rise of populism in the United States and in the world and what a dangerous thing that is.

And

every time I kept scratching my head,

you see the rise of people's frustrations and anger and pain and stepping up and saying, hey, no,

we're not going to allow the very few, the wealthiest, the most powerful to control all of these decisions that impact our lives

in most often a negative way.

And we're going to stand up and do something about it through who we vote for, through exercising our voice and our freedom of speech and seeing people within our government and within our corporate society

openly and publicly talking about that as being a threat.

And I think there's a silver lining to that because it shows that even though we may feel powerless at different times, there is power.

in our voices.

There is power in our vote.

This is the institutions that our founders set up for us to be able to exercise that power of having a government of biochemistry.

Do we believe that frankly is under threat right now?

Do we believe that, especially if H.R.

1 passes?

I mean,

the federal, I mean, that's unconstitutional.

H.R.

1, I'm sure you're familiar with, is the bill that is trying to be passed by the House to federalize in many ways the U.S.

elections.

That is unconstitutional.

But if they get half of those things through, you're not going to be able to trust an election.

And that's what you've said this a couple of times.

You've got to be careful on who you vote for, and you really have to, yada, yada.

And for the first time in my life,

I have thought to myself each time, well,

yeah, but does that really, I mean, is that going to matter?

I mean, does that matter anymore?

Will our voice actually be heard and counted fairly?

I have no problem.

Everybody I ever endorse or I'm for, they always lose.

So,

you know, I'm used to losing, and I'm a good loser.

I understand the people's will.

I got it.

But I'm not sure that we're entering territories where you can trust that the people,

that that's actually their will.

Is that too conspiratorial?

We have to.

No, it's not.

I understand where you're coming from, and the concern is very, very real

for a variety of reasons.

Election integrity

has been something for years that I, as a member of Congress, not only spoke about and warned against, but actually introduced legislation to address, recognizing that if we as voters don't have faith that our votes will be counted as we cast them, then what is our democracy?

Right.

There's nothing left.

And so, you know, I introduced legislation, the Securing America's Elections Act.

I think you and I talked, actually when I first introduced this bill

that very simply continued to support the state's authority in administering elections and merely said if you're using an electronic system, there needs to be a voter-verified paper backup or a paper ballot record to ensure that we protect ourselves from hackers or manipulation of those votes.

You have an auditable paper trail and provided resources to the states to be able to do that.

That legislation ultimately, and this is bipartisan, this is Democrats and Republicans.

People who've talked about concerns about election integrity, they didn't do anything when they had the chance.

No, because I think everybody likes to play.

There's an issue related.

Everybody likes to play in the gray area.

Exactly.

You know, it might benefit me one day.

But when it's advantageous.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And that's the issue here.

The other major issue here is with the media, the media bias.

And I experienced this in a very real way, especially in my presidential campaign, of how the power of the mainstream media to decide what narrative they're going to choose to tell about you, the fact that there's little to no interest in talking about real issues, substantive issues that are critical to the American people.

It's entertainment, it's ratings, it's political theater, and ultimately if they decide, you know what, we don't want people to hear from you anymore.

I experienced a blackout, a media blackout, that made it so the only way I could communicate with voters was: hey, we're holding multiple town halls every day.

We're out on social media.

We're trying to reach as many people as possible.

But it becomes, you know, like I'm sitting here with a squirt gun

up against a flotilla of aircraft carriers.

And it is.

It's a very helpless feeling.

But

so understanding these threats to our democracy

is critical so that

we can work to address them.

We can work to address them through new media.

We can work to address them through how we cast our votes, through exercising our speech, through pushing back against these threats to our Bill of Rights and our Constitution and our fundamental freedoms.

You have witnessed it firsthand and it continues.

Let me just stay, I don't think we're going to get past the First Amendment, but let me just stay with the First Amendment on something that I know you have had blowback on, but there's news this week that

a scientific-based book endorsed by

doctors at the University of Boston and

psychiatrists

with Princeton, et cetera, et cetera, some big names.

The book has been banned, even though it has been out for three years, for three years.

Amazon decided it was hate speech.

And if you've read the book, I have not, but I have been told by many who have, it is compassionately based.

It is really for parents to get another point of view when a doctor says, oh, give your kids transgender drugs.

Go ahead.

Let them change, have them have the surgery.

It's now been banned by Amazon.

You can't come out and talk about, you, I mean, the bill that you tried to pass or you sponsored banning trans women in girls sports,

you're a heretic.

You're a witch.

We should burn you.

How do you continue to fight when science, this is a chromosomal issue, science is being dismissed?

We have to keep fighting back, using our voices and using our dollars.

I think there was another example, maybe similar to this, the book that was written by, I think Allison Schreier was her name,

that went to, I think it was up at Target, and then I think they got one or two complaints, they yanked the book, and then a whole bunch of people went in and said, I want to read this book, and they ended up reinstating it and putting the book back on their shelves as a result.

So our voices matter.

And even though we may feel as individuals it's tough to make an impact, being able to stand up as people who love and appreciate free speech, whether or not we agree with what's in these books or not, I mean, there could be a book that's written that I may wholeheartedly disagree with.

I will still stand up for the right for people to have access.

to information.

And again, this is something that we started this off with the oath that I've taken as a soldier and a member of Congress and what that oath really means.

It's not just words on a page.

It's not just words we recite when we raise our right hand.

It means, actually,

that I may disagree with your speech, but I'm willing to lay my life down for your right

to speak.

That's what it comes down to.

And this is where each of us,

we can't just sit back and say, you know what?

It's a lost cause because there's so much at stake.

And we have to stand up.

We have to stand up for each other, for our freedoms, and for our country.

So

let's stay on this topic a little bit with transgenderism, but also include COVID.

There is this

my way or the highway, and our children are really at risk.

Our schools are still closed.

We know what this is.

We didn't a year ago.

And our schools are still closed.

And our teachers are, you know, in California having a parade to say, you know, support us.

We want to keep them closed until it's safe.

Meanwhile, our girls, I think, are being disenfranchised by

a boy who says, I'm in the middle of changing to a girl.

You're built differently.

How do we break this for our kids?

Because it seems, let me add critical race theory into it.

It seems our kids are being torn apart and used by a system that doesn't really seem to care.

Look at the statistics on suicide and loneliness.

What should be done there?

Well, I'll start with the legislation that I introduced before I left Congress with a colleague and friend of mine, a Republican from Oklahoma named Congressman Mark Wayne Mullen.

Our legislation, which is called the Protect Women's Sports Act, did just that.

It looked at Title IX and recognized the need to strengthen, clarify, and uphold the intent of Title IX, which I think was enacted in 1972 in order to provide a level playing field for girls and women in sports.

And I'll use my mom as an example.

She grew up in East Grand Rapids in Michigan.

She was the second of three girls and very athletic, very active, but the most opportunity that she had was water ballet and cheerleading.

And she did not have the opportunity to go and compete in the kinds of sports that she wished she could.

So Title IX was a game changer for the generation that came next.

We see these incredible female athletes who've gone on to the highest levels because of those opportunities provided by Title IX.

Now, Mark Wayne and I,

he's got three little girls himself.

They all love to wrestle.

And I think they're 10, twins are 10, and then he's got a 12-year-old.

And they're really good.

They're extremely competitive.

But for him and his wife, their concern is not only the unfairness of now saying, well, hey, you might have to go and compete against a biological male,

but the safety risk that is inherent with that.

So

it is a very practical, science-based, common sense

that

and girls in sports.

Period.

That's it.

It's very simple.

And we see now with girls who are competing in track and field and high school, there are a number of different examples in the country

where

the physiology, the physiological differences between a biological male and a biological female competing against each other take away that level playing field, take away scholarships that they were hoping to get to go to college, take away that opportunity that they were seeking to have as female athletes in sports.

Let's go to COVID.

Common sense.

It comes down to common sense.

Let's go to COVID and the lockdowns, and the now we have to wear double masks, and we may not be able to come out of lockdown until 2022.

What is going on, and what should be done?

Common sense and science.

You know, in the midst of a pandemic,

these should be the driving factors of the decisions that are being made.

And

you look at how we could have alleviated so much of the negative impact that we've seen going back to the very beginning in the hypocrisy and incompetence

of our leaders.

And you mentioned the double masks, they're saying triple masks.

It's a ridiculous and

not non-practical approach to people who want to protect themselves.

This could have been addressed in the very beginning by Dr.

Fauci and the CDC, instead of lying to the American people saying, don't wear a mask, it's not going to do anything for you,

specifically because they were trying to protect 95 medical grade masks for healthcare workers, which was important.

They have the highest exposure.

Why not just tell the American people the truth and say, hey, look, we have a limited amount of these masks.

We want to save them for those who are treating COVID patients every day.

But we're going to do everything we possibly can to make it so that these masks will be available to everyone so that you too can have this same protection.

Tulsi,

I had some of the N95 masks.

I had some of the N95 masks.

Friends of mine had some of the N95 masks because we're preppers.

And we turned them into the local hospital.

The reason why they lied is because they don't believe in the inherent goodness of the American people and

they lack the belief that Americans will do the right thing when you inform them and ask them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think that's what it comes down to.

And it unfortunately, here we are a year later and it's continuing.

I was early on in the pandemic

calling everyone I possibly could, talking to small businesses, importers, people.

How do we get more masks?

How do we get more masks, these N95 masks for our healthcare?

How do we deal with this massive shortage in supply?

And

still today,

it is virtually impossible for

any individual who's not working in a medical field to get access to these masks that could have saved thousands of people's lives because they actually work.

And then we wouldn't be having this conversation about people wearing triple masks, which really make it

almost impossible for people to breathe.

If we had instituted this and leaders at that time recognized the importance of it, again, science and common sense, mass production of these masks, stop exporting them to other countries, then we could have, you

you don't have the kinds of shutdowns of our economy.

You don't have the kinds of,

you know, mass lockdowns that we've seen.

And at its core,

from the get-go, having those who are public health experts lying to the American people has created this suspicion and lack of trust in those who are supposed to be looking

for

us.

Our best

interests.

And I also don't believe that what you're saying is true.

Okay, we are so sadly out of time.

I hope that you would come back on this because we only got to the First Amendment.

I would love to.

But

I do want to ask you this question before you leave.

And that is

the Tea Party

was not anti-American.

It wasn't anti-government.

It wasn't anti-Obama as much as it was, where is my party?

Where are the people who are standing up for the Constitution?

Where are the people that say, no, wait, you can't do that because this is the system we have?

And it was turned into all kinds of things, but, and then eventually discouraged and scattered.

The idea of it, though, was our party has

over the edge.

You

are one of the more important voices in America because

you are saying your party has gone over the edge.

And I keep saying to my audience, look, the Democrats in Washington and the people like Antifa and the leadership that know the goals of Black Lives Matter are not the people who are in your community that are not paying attention that says, yeah, Black Lives Matter.

It means two different things.

And your average Democrat who's not paying attention is not your enemy.

The enemy is on any side where they're trying to stop freedom and shut people off and become authoritarian.

But I'm losing hope that there are Democrats, that there are out there to wake up and to rally.

When do the Democrats do to their party what the Tea Party was trying to do to theirs?

I think there are a lot of people who are afraid in the midst of this cancel culture, conflict culture society that we are living in, which is why I think it's so important to continue to encourage and promote people who are standing up and speaking the truth and being able to call out wrong when you see it, whether it happens to be people who may be in your political party or not, and to call out what's right, whether they are in your political party or not.

And I think that by doing so,

we can

we can begin this kind of

deeper spiritual revival in our country that speaks to, I'll circle back, I mean, this is what we call aloha here in Hawaii, speaks to this recognition that you and I, that every single one of us are God's children.

And when we recognize that, that inspires the respect and the care and compassion and love that we have for one another in understanding that.

And this is what allows us to heal these wounds.

This allows us to find that strength to speak the truth, to stand up, to protect our freedoms, to protect our rights.

This is not about everybody falling in lockstep.

We all have to be the same party.

I don't believe that at all.

This is about us building our future on this foundation, on this spiritual foundation, where real change is possible.

And for us, in who we are selecting as leaders in our country, these are the qualities that I hope we collectively look for for those who are inspired by this recognition of who we all are and therefore inspired to take action towards service.

Tulsi,

I mean this sincerely.

My home, my facilities are your facilities and your home.

If you need anything ever,

I will fight and watch your back in the trenches.

We may disagree on a lot of policies,

but it is a real privilege to see somebody of principle stand up.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Glenn.

It's great to talk to you, and I look forward to our next conversation.

Great.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.