 So I've got to be honest with you, last week when I was on my staycation, I wasn't filming. To watch Tulsi Gabbard go on the Rubin Report and not push back against his right-wing framing of questions, it's not only not push back, but proceed to agree with the way he framed it. That kind of hurt my heart a little bit, I'll be honest. The Democrats are basically trying to outdo each other for open borders, something like that. Um, A, do you think that's a fair way to start the question, and B, where do you sit? Tulsi no! Now I was going to talk about that, but Kyle Kalinsky, my brother from another mother actually did a really fair job covering that, so I will link you to his video there. I think that pretty much everything he said, I agree with. But let me say this, Tulsi did make it up to me in a way because she went on Fox News and she was interviewed by Neil Cavuto and she absolutely demonstrated that she is not afraid to push back. I don't know why she didn't push back on the Rubin Report, but here she pushed back and I think this is more important because if you go on Fox News, you are reaching a broader audience, so you need to be ready to push back against any right-wing framing against any misinformation and right-wing Republican Party talking points and propaganda. And she did just that. Now in this interview that I'm about to show you, she was very critical of Donald Trump's response with regard to the issue of Iran and she said things that were probably really uncomfortable for Fox News's audience to hear, hence why the video has more dislikes than likes, because how dare she criticize Daddy Trump on his home turf. Fox News is supposed to be a safe space, so how dare this outsider, this intruder, come into our domain and criticize Lord Donald Trump. So it's good that she said this because Fox News viewers, they are in a bubble and we're all in political bubbles in one way or another, but they are in the biggest, most thickest bubble that is very, very difficult to penetrate. And oftentimes you don't reach these viewers unless you go on their own home turf. So what she did in this first clip, I'm going to show you, there's two clips in total but I'll link you to the full video. She basically educated Fox News viewers about the Iran deal and why it was a net good and why ultimately this is something that fostered peace and why because it's now gone, we are dealing with the current situation and the escalation with Iran. It's because Donald Trump tanked the Iran deal. Take a look. We need to reenter the Iran nuclear agreement and get rid of these crippling economic sanctions that are continuing to escalate this war against Iran. So Iran has been doing this kind of stuff with or without sanctions, right? With or without a deal, right? So it doesn't seem to matter the occasion or the deal, right? That's actually not true. While the Iran nuclear deal was in place, Iran was found to be in compliance both by our own intelligence agencies, the IAEA, other countries intelligence agencies, they were complying with that deal and it was making it so that they were not moving forward towards building a nuclear weapon. Now that that deal has been thrown in the trash, Iran is continuing to move forward. Well, the nuclear deal is not just standing there, it's always been provocative, right? So I guess what I would ask you, would you as president then ignore that provocation deal or no deal? Would you work on behalf with the Saudis? Do you like the Saudis more or less than Iran? What? It's not about who you like or who you don't like. It's just about once again focusing on our objective of keeping the American people safe. Iran has just happened and transpired over the last few days here, didn't just pop up out of nowhere. So we can't look at this in isolation away from what has been happening over the last several months that really was kicked off by President Trump, walking away from and throwing that nuclear deal in the trash, increasing crippling economic sanctions that are really hurting the people of Iran most of all, designating their military as a terrorist organization, deploying more of our troops to the region. So there's a number of things that have pushed us all the world to this point where we are today. She said exactly what Fox News viewers needed to hear. What we need to do is stop escalating, stop being aggressive and actually opt for diplomacy. It's a crazy thing. You know, Donald Trump is vying for diplomacy with Kim Jong-un and I think rightfully so. So to suggest that he should be more hawkish and aggressive when it comes to Iran, it's nonsensical if you want to be consistent in your foreign policy. So you know, for her to say we need to stop with the aggression, lift the sanctions, re-enter the Iran deal, that's exactly what we need to do. Now Kavuto then says that Iran's behavior continues to be provocative. So you know, regardless if we have sanctions or not, you know, they're still going to be aggressive. But she corrected him and she said something very important and I'm going to read back her quote. When the Iran nuclear deal was in place, Iran was found to be in compliance both by our own intelligence agencies, the IAEA, other countries intelligence agencies. They were complying with that deal and it was making it so they were not moving forward with building a nuclear weapon. Now this is so crucial because the Fox News audience, they've probably never heard this. If you were a Fox News viewer and you've drunk the Kool-Aid and you've watched Fox News religiously for years, you've heard nothing but bad things about the Iran deal. That it makes it easier for them to get a nuke and that they violated the deal multiple times. But in actuality, that's factually incorrect. They were in compliance and we were the ones that violated the deal. So if you want peace, if you want them to be less likely to get a nuclear weapon, if you even want to, you know, agree that that's what they want, then you have to understand that we are the ones who are responsible. Donald Trump is responsible. Had he not withdrew from the Iran deal, then we would not be in this predicament. But because Obama did it, it's just automatically bad. And that's what Tulsi Gabbard was trying to explain to Fox News viewers. But Neil Kovado, he kind of took a cheap shot at Tulsi Gabbard by insinuating that, you know, maybe she loves the Saudis more than the Iranians. And that's why she's saying this. That wasn't the first time he said that and you're going to see in this next clip that he's going to bring that up again and again, that there must be some underlying thing that's motivating Tulsi Gabbard. You know, she just she loves the Iranians. And maybe that's why she is taking the stand. But she does a really good job. I think that shutting that notion down and once again educating Fox News viewers about what's at stake and why we are seeing the situation get so tense. Is it in our interest for Saudi Arabia to be protected or its kingdom to be protected or do you draw a distinction? Well, let me tell you what is not in our interests is this alliance that has been longstanding between the United States and Saudi Arabia, in spite of the fact that they are directly and indirectly supporting al-Qaeda, terrorist group that attacked us on 9-11. We just observed the 18th anniversary of that terrible attack on our country in 2001. They are continuing to spend billions of dollars every year propagating this extremist Wahhabi ideology that's fueling the growth of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS and others around the world. They are directly supporting those who pose a threat to our country and to United States, that threat that we need to defeat. Is that threat greater than Iran? Yes, it is. So Saudi Arabia is more important for us than Iran. Currently Iran does not pose a direct threat to the United States. We have the opportunity to make sure that we prevent Iran from continuing to move forward towards developing a nuclear weapon. That's where we need to be focused. If I were president right now, that's exactly what I'd be doing, getting back into that nuclear deal, getting rid of these crippling economic sanctions and being able to make sure we can move forward in the interests of our national security. So a president also governed would see Saudi Arabia as a bigger threat to our country than Iran. What I would like to see is Saudi Arabia ending their support for al-Qaeda, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. I'm sorry, that's not what I asked, it's not what I asked. I know you're turning my words around, you're turning my words around. I want to just be very clear, but you have a higher opinion of Iran than you do Saudi Arabia. No, that's not at all what I'm saying, that's not what I'm saying. I'm focused on how we can best keep the American people safe, on how we can make sure that we have our national security intact. And the Saudis are a bigger threat to that safety than Iran. I just want to be clear. The Saudis are directly supporting the very terrorist group that attacked us on 9-11 and that continued to pose a threat to the American people today. So if the president were to take action against Iran, with or without Saudi intelligence or help, that would be a bad move in your eyes. That would be a very bad move. It would not serve the interests of the United States. It would cost thousands more of my brothers and sisters in uniform their lives. It would cost us as taxpayers trillions of dollars more. It would make the Iraq war that I served in look like a picnic compared to the cost and the consequence and the devastation that would come about as a result of that war. Well, to speak of the fact that it would be unconstitutional, given the president would do that without that authority coming from Congress. So that went off the rails, but it ended on a really strong note. So let's break it down. So Kavuto asked her, is it in our interest for Saudi Arabia to be protected? And I think that she handled that answer well. But if it were me, I would have just rejected the premise of that question altogether, because this notion that Iran is more militaristic and aggressive than Saudi Arabia is nonsensical. I mean, when what was arguably a proxy war in Yemen ended up devolving into a genocide by Saudi Arabia, it's comical to suggest that Saudi Arabia is innocent here. And she explained why Saudi Arabia is not a good ally. And I would have added that, you know, when you are committing a genocide in Yemen and carrying out human rights abuses of your own people when women are treated as third class citizens, when atheists and LGBTQ people are put to death. Yeah, they're not a good ally. They're not good. So if there's any relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia that goes deeper than just a sheer economic relationship, then it should be us exerting pressure on them in a positive way, using diplomacy, using soft power to get them to actually stop with the myriad human rights abuses. So she did a good job. But as you can see, she said something that essentially got Nioca Vidal off the rails. It made his head explode nearly and he couldn't move on after this. So she said, currently, Iran does not pose a direct threat to the United States. For her to go on Fox News and say that their heads are exploding. Like you could hear, if you listen closely, heads exploding across the country because that is something that is unfathomable to progressives you know, that's just common sense. But if you are a Fox News viewer, that is something that seems counterintuitive because all these years, think about this, if you've been tuning into Fox News, all you've heard about is how bad Iran is and how they pose a direct threat to us and they want a nuclear weapon so they can use it on either us or one of our allies, Saudi Arabia, Israel. But what she just said there was a dose of cold water. And it's why Nioca Vidal, at that point, he was triggered and he couldn't get past the fact that she basically was saying that Iran is in a threat and Saudi Arabia may possibly be a bigger threat to, you know, world peace than Iran, especially as they carry out a genocide. I mean, crazy thought, right? And even though that was pretty redundant with him just going back and forth with her, I did want you to be able to watch that play out just so you can see how ridiculous, you know, it really was. And she ended on an important note that I think you can't really overstay. It's important that we emphasize Donald Trump does not have the authority constitutionally speaking to unilaterally wage war with Iran. He doesn't get to do that. Congress makes war. Congress, not the president. So the idea that we're even entertaining, well, will Donald Trump take us to war? Like we need to understand the president should not be doing this because they don't have the authority to do that. And the expansion of executive power, it's been it's been this ongoing phenomenon now for decades, political scientists have been tracking it. And it's it's absolutely time that Congress takes back their authority to declare war. So she ended strong. And, you know, that was really important. I wish that she would have pushed back, you know, against Dave Rubin as much as she did against Neil Kubuto here. But this was a really strong interview. And what she's doing here is trying to shift the Overton window to the left when it comes to foreign policy issues. And that's super important, especially when we're talking to Fox News. Fox News viewers, they will accept whatever, you know, they are told. They'll accept anything. And they've been fed this line of nonsensical propaganda that Iran is at our doorstep, ready to attack us at any moment. And they're overly aggressive. And what she's saying is actually here's the truth. The Iran deal was good if you care about peace. And no, Iran isn't actually a threat to us. That's not going to be something that will resonate with a lot of Fox News viewers because, again, look at the like to dislike ratio, but it's still something that is important in terms of just planting seeds and getting us on the right path. Maybe a couple of viewers will take the liberty to Google what she said and learn a little bit. Maybe some of them rejected and they have that cognitive dissonance that they're not willing to fight through. But, you know, they just they hear it from her and then they hear it again. And maybe they start to have doubts. This is what political discourse needs. We need someone to, you know, get in that bubble of Fox News, shake it up and tell them the truth.