 As many of you already know, Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic Party about a couple of days ago, I want to say, and she's already campaigning for the most far-right extremist Trump-supporting candidates. As NBC News's Sahil Kapoor points out, she's campaigning not just for Kerry Lake, but Blake Masters as well, and in her endorsement for Kerry Lake via Twitter, she writes, for too long, establishment leaders from both parties have sought to enrich themselves, play games, and build up their power while ignoring and even enabling the suffering of millions of hardworking Americans. Kerry Lake is a leader who, puts people first, is fighting for border security, energy independence, public safety, and other policies that actually make life better and more affordable for the American people. Kerry Lake isn't afraid to call out the warmongering, elitist cabal, of permanent Washington and the military-industrial complex and their propagandists in the mainstream media. So, a lot of what she's saying here is ironic, first of all, you are part of the media propaganda apparatus because you are on Fox News, weekly, if not daily, right? Second of all, for you to use the word cabal, we all know that your dog whistling to QAnon, and she has to pander to them because if she wants to build up clout within Trump's base of support, she also has to try to cultivate some sort of support with those types of people by simply throwing a little bit of a nod to them here and there. Now, for her to purport to be against warmongering is really rich, considering one of the candidates who she endorsed, Don Boldick, who has consistently criticized Joe Biden for not being harsh enough against Russia and China, and what he said on Fox News was so extremist that their own Pentagon correspondent had to come out and rebuke him because of what he said and how dangerous it was. In the Fox News interview, Boldick repeatedly claimed that there were direct military actions the U.S. and NATO could take against Russian forces in Ukraine. He suggested the CIA or military could get in there on the ground in Ukraine using indirect fires and direct capabilities to attack Russian targets. At one point, he said the U.S. could use special operations troops in a way that we get in there, though without boots on the ground. So Tulsi Gabbard, who is supposedly against warmongers, endorsed this guy who called for a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. This would quite literally catalyze World War Three. The candidate who she endorsed effectively supports World War Three. And again, it's so dangerous that Jennifer Graham of Fox News debunked him right after he was on. I have to respond to something your previous guest Brigadier General Balduk said, because he really was way off the mark in terms of talking about what the U.S. could do on the ground and with the backdrop of what you've just said in terms of Putin has nuclear weapons. That is why the U.S. military and NATO do not have troops on the ground inside Ukraine. The Ukrainians are very good fighters. They have been, it's a totally different military than it was in 2014. Because of the training that has been done quietly by U.S. forces and other allied forces. And they are a tough, tough group of fighters. They do not need Americans to fight for them, because that would then cause this to spread. And clearly, Brigadier General Balduk is not a student of history. He's a politician. He ran for Senate in New Hampshire and failed. He's not a military strategist. And to suggest that the U.S. would put indirect fires or special operations or CIA on the ground to give Putin any sort of excuse to broaden this conflict is extremely dangerous talk at a time like this. Yeah. So when Fox News has to come out and denounce what you say, because it's so insane and dangerous, I don't think that you should be characterized as an anti-war candidate. But yet, Tulsi Gabbard, who's against war mongering, endorsed that guy, one of the biggest war mongers, perhaps to the right of Lindsey Graham. Now, at this same event, can you guess what she said? Probably some stupid things, right? No, she said the stupidest thing at this event. According to The Daily Beast, this is what she said, quote, and this is something that is, you know, throughout history. We look at authoritarian leaders and dictators in other countries, Gabbard said, in a tangent about Biden's Philadelphia speech from September on anti-democratic extremism among Donald Trump and the Magda Republicans, quote, I'm pretty sure they all believe they're doing what's best. Gabbard continued, even Hitler thought he was doing what was best for Germany, right? For the German race in his own mind. He found a way to justify the means to meet his end. So when we have people with that mindset, well, you know, we've got to do whatever it takes because as President Biden said in that speech in Philadelphia that those who supported Trump, those who didn't vote for him are extremists and a threat to our democracy. Just to be clear here, she compared Joe Biden to Hitler. Okay. So she's jumping right in with the far right rhetoric, with the far right extremism and insanity herself. And the reason why Joe Biden made that speech is because there are individuals like candidates you endorsed, like Kerry Lake, who are a threat to democracy, right? But it's funny. Tulsi Gabbard called Joe Biden Hitler. But what was it that she said a couple of years ago when she endorsed him? Although I may not agree with the vice president on every issue, I know that he has a good heart and he's motivated by his love for our country and the American people. I'm confident that he will lead our country guided by the spirit of Aloha, respect and compassion and thus help heal the divisiveness that has been tearing our country apart. Interesting. So just a couple of years ago, Tulsi Gabbard was singing Joe Biden's praises and now she shifted to the opposite end of the political spectrum and she's going to be stumping for election deniers. So let's go to a recap of the candidates who she supported thus far. As Walker Bragman puts it, Tulsi's candidate, Kerry Lake, pushed Trump's big lie, suggested she won't accept election results if she loses, called the COVID-19 vaccine, a nightmare that will never stop, flirted with the idea of secession, very patriotic, rails against critical race theory, says she declared invasion at the border. Now when it comes to Don Bolduc, he promoted Trump's big lie, suggested that COVID jabs install microchips, very intelligent, opposes legal abortion, opposes Medicare negotiating drug prices, supports Pago and federal spending cuts, supports voter ID laws. Yeah, and not mentioned in that tweet is his support for World War 3 effectively, because that's what would happen if Joe Biden did what he wants. So, yeah, you know, on one hand, people might think that Tulsi Gabbard is politically irrelevant at this point. So there's really no reason to focus on her. But I think that there is a point. I think that she is going to be politically relevant and people are speculating about what she wants to do here. What is this grift supposedly setting her up for a media career or a career in politics? Once again, albeit as a Republican, I think it's either or. But really what I think she's jockeying for is a spot on Trump's ticket. If she is incapable of winning a Democratic Party primary because the left and the center disliked her for different reasons, but they both disliked her. Well, it's hard to say whether or not she can make it through a Republican primary. She can't be Donald Trump, right? That's for sure. She probably can't be DeSantis because she doesn't have as much right-wing clout as both of those individuals. But what she can do is set herself up for a place on that ticket. If she at least proves sufficient loyalty to Donald Trump. Now, Trump values loyalty above everything. So what Tulsi Gabbard is doing currently is she's laying the groundwork for a co-run with Donald Trump as his running mate. She endorsed all the little lunatics that he's endorsing as well. Kerry Lake, Blake Masters, some of the biggest boosters of Donald Trump. It's also this connection. You know, Blake Masters is bankrolled by Peter Teal. Tulsi Gabbard is on rumble, a website that is funded heavily by individuals like Peter Teal. So I think that there's that connection as well. But I also think that she is genuinely setting herself up for a run either as a future Republican president or to be on Trump's ticket, whether or not she'll be successful, that she had to be seen. But either way, I think that her grift on the right is going to be much more successful than the grift that she had on the left. But one thing that I've got to ask is, you know, all of the biggest boosters of Tulsi Gabbard in 2019 and 2018, who attacked individuals like myself and Anika Sparion and Emma Viglin for trying to objectively gauge how progressive Tulsi Gabbard was, how these people come out and apologize to their audiences for being so wrong about Tulsi Gabbard. I mean, has Jimmy Dorr said, boy, was I wrong about Tulsi Gabbard? I mean, I think that he referenced her changing in a tweet. But with how heavily you boosted her as a surrogate for Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy, maybe you should do a little bit more and admit that you were flat wrong. And perhaps we shouldn't trust your characterizations of candidates if you fell for a fraud like Tulsi Gabbard long after many of us have already realized that, yeah, it seems like she's not as progressive as she was leading on. And perhaps when she dropped out from the DNC and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016, that was an opportunistic move to try to grift the left and it worked out for a little bit. But the left has standards, so we quickly saw through her grift. But now she went from the left to the far right. And I've got to say, she is one of the biggest frauds in politics. She's incredibly transparent, but I don't think that the right cares. And I think that now at this point in time, she feels as if the bridge between centrists and leftists has been thoroughly burned. So she has no reason to not go all the way in when it comes to supporting far right MAGAJUDS, even if she's contradicting herself by supporting warmongers. Again, the right doesn't necessarily value consistency, so they're not going to have an issue with this here. But either way, like she's got to feel a little bit of shame, right? Well, probably not because grifters usually don't care about shame or principles because they value money and clout over everything. And that's why she's as brazen as she is with this transparent grift. I'm going to come to the castle.