You were put on notice and you backed it and you backed a genocide to the hills for years
on end.
How dare you talk about corruption?
Thank you for your diatribe.
Oh, you get to make a speech every day.
You get to make a hypocritical speech every day.
And God forbid you should be questioned about your diabolical record.
It's amazing that you can show your genocidal face in public.
I'm Ryan Christian.
Welcome to the Last American Bagobond.
You know, Americans like those moments, right?
We like to see the corrupt get called out to their face.
Now the sad thing today, what we're all, I think a lot of us bumping up against is recognizing
a disconnect between the accusations, the criticism and being accountable, being held accountable.
And so I'm talking to a friend of the show, journalist, author, Sam Husaini is joining me
today to discuss multiple things.
His recent calling out of corruption all across the spectrum is talking about running
for Congress as well as just discussing the larger problems we're dealing with today.
Sam, welcome back to the show.
How are you today?
Good to be with you.
Thank you, Ryan.
It's just great to see.
As much as it is like I'm highlighting and I want to get into with you, a lot of what
we see today from other people who don't mean what they're saying.
And I believe you do.
It's a lot of yelling and accusations and then no follow through and nobody's ever held
accountable.
And that's a really important point right now for a lot of Americans all over the
spectrum.
You know, hashtag arrest someone, like even from Republicans, you know, it's becoming
very frustrating.
So just on that first note, you know, it's nice to see him being called out
because I think it's obvious these people are corrupt on both sides and I believe
we share that opinion.
And so let's just get into this and first, you know, what happened there, how you
were banned afterward and what just not new for you and trying to call corrupt
people out and being banned from places of journalism.
And then let's talk about, you know, what you think is changing and then
overlap that with Congress and like how you want to change that.
Like, let's see some accountability today, you know.
I, it was an event at the press club where I'd been a member for 20 years.
It was against corruption sponsored by public citizen, presumably anti-corruption
organization.
And I found out that they weren't going to take questions for Schumer.
There were other parts of the event where they would have Q&A, but it was
clear that Schumer wasn't going to take questions.
And I just thought that this was preposterous.
So after he, you know, spoke for a minute or two, I stood up and called
him up and said, you know, you're talking about corruption, well,
it could be more corrupt than backing genocide.
And I think that it's not just simply cathartic, but it's especially
important to do as Democrats are trying to rebrand themselves somehow as,
you know, being the party opposed to the Gaza genocide, for example,
then including, you know, central figures in the Clinton in the
Biden administration.
So I thought that it was important to do that.
You said I haven't been banned.
I've been, you know, taken out of places, but I don't recall ever
being outright banned.
I guess I was referring to you not showing back up at the State Department.
Well, they actually did let me back into the State Department
because they didn't have a case as to, they rescinded my access for a while
and then with virtually no explanation, re-granted it.
But then they had a signed seating.
So they put me way in the back right near the door if they want to
drag me out again.
And they kind of threatened me with, you know, security
once I was, you know, chiming in in ways that they didn't like.
And then about a year ago, the State Department stopped having
press briefings altogether.
The State Department has not had a normal scheduled press briefing
with a spokesperson for over a year now.
So they just pulled the plug on, you know, in a kind of minimal
accountability altogether after, you know, taking pains to
avoid me and violating their own rules and so on.
But here, this is a press club that's supposed to be an
organization dedicated to press freedom.
Back in 2011, I was actually suspended from there for asking
a Saudi autograph tough questions, but they had the ethics
committee kicked in and overturned that suspension.
It was just a two-week suspension at the time.
And it got play.
I mean, I got covered in the Washington Post and other places.
This time, I've seen no coverage in any mainstream outlet.
And the president and executive director of the press club
won't even tell me who the chair of the ethics committee is.
So, you know, just another, you know, threat of degeneration.
I got the letter just a little bit ago from the executive
director telling me that I had been banned, completely banned
from the club, not just a suspension for a period of
time or anything like that, which also wouldn't be
justified.
They concocted this narrative where I was somehow a threat
to safety and security.
You know, it just, you know, complete lies and, you know,
hopefully either the press club elements within it will realize
the damage that they're doing to themselves, not to mention
just journalism and also defaming me.
But also, you know, folks like you and hopefully other media
will awaken to this and, you know, start covering it.
Hopefully, yeah.
I mean, so all that, all those points that the media
not covering it, the state department shutting down
briefings, you know, some of these points are generally,
you know, not wanting to talk about what's happening,
but, you know, you've done this a long time.
It's not unprecedented, but all these things together,
what sense does that give you?
You know, what does that show you in what's going on today?
Yeah, that, you know, institutions that are supposed
to do things have been even more hollowed out
than they were five, 10 or 15 years ago.
And, you know, just this complete capitulation
to this, you know, Trump mentality of he's the big threat
and nobody else is going to be scrutinized.
I mean, you know, Schumer is Mr. Wall Street
and he's talking to public citizen against
against against corruption, allegedly.
I mean, there's so many preposterous layers to this
and you're right, I have been at this for a long time
and, you know, I've lived outside, you know, near DC
for 30 years now, trying to do this kind of work
and part of what I'm doing now is running for Congress
because, you know, I feel like I've been battling
against official Washington getting into news conferences
and working, you know, trying to get good information
into establishment media and so on and so forth.
And I've lived in what is now Maryland's
Fourth Congressional District for most of that time,
some 20 years, and I wanna try to organize people
in the area.
I don't want to run a campaign for the sake of it.
I feel like a lot of campaigns, political campaigns,
sort of try to exploit movements.
And I think we've seen that from presidents,
to senators, to Congress people, to mayors and so on,
that they actually use movements
in order to gain public office.
I'm prepared to take public office.
I'm trying to get into Congress,
but I realized that it's a severe long shot,
but I'm more than anything trying to juice up movements
rather than, you know, suck them dry.
And that means activating people
who are outside of Washington DC
and could cast a shadow onto official Washington
instead of being in the shadow of it.
Right, right.
I mean, I think, in my opinion,
I think there's clearly movements
that are dishonest from the start
or just not what they appear.
But I think a lot of these movements
are clearly genuine throughout history,
but I think almost to a group,
I end up seeing them co-opted, manipulated
from the top down.
And that's kind of what I think you're speaking to,
is that it's just a common practice
to take things with good intentions
and just squeeze them dry for the political motivation
and drop them.
I've even seen memes going around about that,
specifically from the left,
but it's both sides of this.
We're seeing, I think, happened right now
with the Republican side of this,
the MAGA movement and all of that.
But, you know, I appreciate what you're trying to do.
My audience is very familiar with my stance on this
about not that I believe, you know,
since if we're living in a state of society,
which is what we are, not anarchistic,
which is arguably what I think and I would prefer,
but since we are in this type of governmental society,
I argue that, you know,
the system done correctly requires informed electorate,
you know, engaged, voting,
and expressing your opinions and being engaged.
My point is always has been
that I believe these things have been stolen from us.
And I think that's a very easy case to make
from both sides,
whether it's voting machines or just corruption,
voting manipulation.
And so I've always opened the idea
that I'm wrong about the entirety of it,
but I'm very skeptical
and I think most Americans are today.
And so expressing all that,
I'm just, my opinion is that I don't even think
I'm in a position or ever will be
with all this to be out there and voting,
but I do appreciate,
and of course I could be wrong about that
and I advocate for people to do voting included
what they think is important.
But my point is that I think that all that said
that what you're doing is important,
like Derek Brose, for example,
did something similar or ran for a different reason,
but still trying to get political momentum,
get people to think about the right things.
And so I support you in doing that.
And I think that if anyone is gonna have an effect
at somebody like you,
who I believe has good intentions in all this.
And so that being said, you know,
how do you see yourself making a difference
in a system that you openly admit
is broken and corrupted to a degree
that all of it there just that is corrupted.
How do you see yourself making a difference
through a system like that?
I think virtually every system that we operate in
from media to being on X,
which I probably spend too much time on to,
I mean, even in the realm of armed struggle,
legally and the legal realm,
every realm is corrupted.
And you realize that going into it.
And I think the electoral realm is hugely corrupted,
but that doesn't stop us from trying to use our smarts
to figure out ways to short circuit the system
to take what opportunities can avail themselves.
I mean, I've gained some notoriety
because of my questioning and so on.
So I'm like, okay,
could I actually make a run here for Congress
and knock a very pro genocide establishment Democrat
down to size and gal galvanize this district.
So I think that there are opportunities
and you take them where you can and you try to,
I mean, one thing that I wanna do
is start generating PDFs.
That people can download and print as part of the campaign.
And I hope that this effort will take a life of its own
after the campaign so that people can have an excuse
to knock on their neighbor's doors,
can have an excuse to be handing out flyers at Metro stops,
can have build up the tools and the mechanisms
whereby people can be engaged wherever they are
with the legal information
and not just be,
I'm still torn about what names to give this PDF project.
I have a version of it up right now called papers project,
but I'm almost tempted to call it something
like get off your phone and read a piece of paper
that this person handed to you or something along those,
something shorter than that,
but just maybe just get off your phone
and finding ways to engage people.
Imagine handing out flyers in front of military bases
in front of health insurance companies,
so on and so forth.
I think that, a line that comes to my mind a lot
is the roomy line, be fiery cold ones
so that heat can come.
So to try to inspire people to,
in microcosm going from my tough questioning
to can we take that to other venues
so that people can be active in their day-to-day life
and produce a citizenry that's more meaningful?
Yeah, most definitely.
And I personally love that for the reasons you stated,
but also just the idea of where all this goes.
Everything digital, even from the COVID-19 era,
no contact.
I think that's in a lot of ways challenging
where the world, in a governmental sense, I guess,
just controlling sense is going,
where it's less contact, more online,
so I appreciate that.
But I guess the larger point of it is
in a system that is designed to not change.
I guess, I mean, all you can do
is have hope that you can change it from within
if you want to effectively change it.
That's where I sort of lose that momentum
is that I'm just so battered down
with examples that it's designed not to.
And so it's like, but at the same point from the beginning,
I wholeheartedly support people's desire
or effort to try to change that, whether or not it can be.
It's like, it's still, you know,
but I just hope I'm wrong in that
because I know there are good people around this in it,
you know, less in it today than ever,
but clearly there are people that are choosing
to try to do things for the right reasons.
I'd like to believe a Massey is trying to do that.
I'm gonna hold people's feet to the fire,
yourself included, and hope that they follow through.
And I-
Absolutely.
Your history has shown that you will
and that you demand those kind of questions.
What I say about Massey all the time
is somebody who's honest
should be demanding themselves be questioned.
So I very much appreciate that.
So what are some important things
that you think you want to start with in this, you know,
like what'll be your, you know,
not necessarily your entire, you know, campaign,
but you know, some primary focal points for you.
Before I answer that, I'd love to give a little bit
of a historical context to this because, you know,
I think that the system does produce a lot of dead ends
and a lot of co-optations,
but in that there are openings.
I mean, for example, after Vietnam and Watergate,
you had Carter come in,
who very much consolidated the system.
But you also had people like James Abrask,
who became a senator in South Dakota
and was an incredible rebel rouser in the Senate.
And similarly, with the end of the Cold War,
you had Clinton come in and consolidate the system.
And then after the Iraq invasion,
you had Obama come in and basically consolidate the system.
And each of those consolidations
laid the groundwork for further regressions.
You know, Carter started the Rabbit Deployment Force,
which became SENTCOM,
which became the instrument for all, you know,
all the wars that we've seen in the Middle East.
So there's an insidiousness to it,
but with the Gaza Genocide,
I think that the Democratic establishment
is attempting frantically to consolidate it in many ways
and to co-op the movement against genocide.
I mean, I think a lot of politicians
who talk about Palestine now,
I don't, you know, I'm not a mind reader.
I don't know what's in their hearts,
but I feel like they're benefiting more from the cause
than they're actually giving in to the cause.
Most of it, exactly about that today.
And I, yeah.
I mean, that's an extreme example of Hakeem Jeffries.
And by the way, my opponent, Glenn Ivy,
has actually taken more money from APEC
and APEC related super PACs
than Hakeem Jeffries.
He's way up there.
So, I mean, that, you know,
the whole Gaza Genocide is central
and not just simply ethically
and not just simply because it's our tax dollars,
but also because I think that the issue of Israel
is central and the US-Israeli establishment relationship
is central to the corrosion of democracy and freedom
in the United States in terms of big tech,
police training, and so on and so forth.
So, you know, I think that these are central issues
that affect us.
It isn't an issue, it's emblematic
of making the US more and more of an empire
and even less of a democracy.
So I think that that's completely central.
But my other issues,
I mean, some of them are very boilerplate,
progressive stuff for enhanced Medicare for all.
And, you know, there's clearly a dire situation
in terms of health insurance and health care coverage
in the United States.
But, you know, at a deeper level,
there's a real unequivocal commitment to civil liberties
and to building up what we have in the United States
rather than continued draining it
for the benefit of the Epstein class
in terms of where the resources go.
Yeah, I love it.
I mean, you know, these are,
I mean, what's interesting is you'd expect almost everybody,
I guess we'll see more as we get closer to, you know,
I guess primarily the presidential election,
but these would be things you'd hear from politicians
because in my opinion, and tell me if you agree,
I think it's pretty obvious the vast majority left
and right of the field have generally these criticisms
about these larger issues.
And so I'm surprised to see not as many people,
you know, stating that and not meaning it.
You know, that's what a lot of politicians do,
kind of like Jeffrey saying, stop with the genocide
and continuing to support the genocide,
whether it's funding or so on.
But I guess what's important though is that, you know,
these are things that I doubt I will see in that
because I think they're so, I mean, from every,
everybody that I can see has some kind of connection
to funding through some kind of a lobby connected to Israel,
some kind of a merchant of death out there,
whether it be these days, Palantir, Oracle,
or even going back to the old school ones, you know?
And so clearly I think that a lot of them
are just stuck in this old kind of status quo system.
And I think that's one of the reasons
that people are starting to see through all of this,
you know, that we're, I mean,
I guess I don't want to jump ahead to this,
but since you mentioned the two-party illusion,
I was kind of an end with this,
that I think that, you know,
we've talked about this before, in fact,
you and I had an interview about this
going back to Elon Musk,
that I think you were 100% correct on.
Elon Musk saved your free speech
or the great digital divider.
I'd like to believe that's pretty clear today,
but to the larger point about the two-party illusion,
you know, do you see that right now
playing more of a factor?
Like, do you see there being a divide
between these two sides,
or do you think they're all kind of locked in
when it comes to the larger issue?
And what does that say about where we are as a country?
Yeah, I think that a lot of the screaming and shouting
between the Democratic and Republican establishments
is largely performative
and that they effectively foster the same interests
or severely overlapping interests
of Wall Street, Big Tech,
military industrial complex,
US's empire, Israel, and so on behind the scenes,
and sometimes not even behind the scenes.
So I think that it's still very much a major issue.
And I think that they, you know,
we've seen a marginalization of the issue
of the Gaza Genocide, even as it's continued.
And I think that it's part of a very calibrated effort
by the establishment to put it out of sight, out of mind,
and to substitute it with issues
that are more amenable to, you know,
this facade of a great debate,
whether it's immigration, for example,
or, you know, the buzzword of today, socialism.
These, I think, are propaganda terms and mechanisms
of the establishment to get people to get them stuffed back
into their partisan boxes.
So that they, you know, they gotta back Trump
because they don't want the social, isn't it?
They gotta back the Democrats
because Trump's gonna, you know,
is using ICE for all of these diabolical ends,
ignoring the fact that the Democrats,
generally speaking, aren't for abolishing ICE.
They're not for, you know,
they perpetuated this system.
And the crisis of immigration largely came from issues
that the two party duopoly agrees on,
corporate trade deals, drug wars, and interventions.
These are the things that caused desperate immigration.
And then the sort of result of that is desperate immigration
and then the duopoly uses that to stuff everybody back
into their partisan boxes.
And even the creation of ICE, you know,
that came out of the aftermath of 9-11
and the false flag anthrax attacks,
as part of the whole so-called reorganization
of the so-called Department of Homeland Security,
the Patriot Act and all of that.
So all of these issues that are used
for partisan division are effectively
the results of duopoly collusion.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's one of the most central issues
of our time.
I really think most people,
just in this last administration,
I mean, I would argue like to double the amount of people,
if not the majority today that see that
or at least are beginning to question it.
I get pushed back on that,
but I think it's beginning to develop more clearly.
But on the part of the Israel aspect,
because again, to Americans, and at least as I see it,
it has become a central issue.
And this is not anything about anything other
than the reality of the Israeli government
dictating or manipulating US policy.
And so like section 219, for example,
the National Defense Authorization Act
or previous elements of legislation that are there,
you know, do you think that's a driving factor here?
And to what degree do you think Israel is at least
trying to influence US policy?
And then how does that play a factor in your potential,
you know, if and when you become a member of Congress?
I think it's very much a driving factor.
You know, I view it as empire elements
within the United States and Israel,
collude, your mileage may vary as, you know,
the whole, you know, tail wagging the dog
and all of that.
I think, you know, people of goodwill can debate that.
I am concerned and part of the reason I'm running honestly
is that, you know, there's murmurs of a third party
from, you know, Tucker Carlson and company.
I'm concerned that that's not going to happen.
I'm concerned or that if it does happen,
it's just gonna be another tentacle of the establishment.
And, you know, some activists with the Green Party
went out and did the work here in Maryland
and got on the ballot.
And some Green Party people kept knocking at my door
saying, we got an open ballot line here saying, you know,
I mean, I've known other decent people who, you know,
ran for office and spent their entire time
trying to get on the ballot.
So this was handed to me on a silver platter.
So that was part of my thinking
and part of my thinking is to, you know,
to put forward a contrast of this is a political figure
who actually means what they say
and we should be expecting this.
This should be the norm.
This shouldn't be a novelty.
And that it's here and now,
it's not hoping that Tucker Carlson and company
come to the rescue like the cavalry in two years
because they could very well end up folding
behind JD Vance or something, you know,
or, you know, who knows what.
This is here and now and I'm hoping
that it will resonate with people.
And I think it already has been resonating with people
on the last just week, 10 days around the country
and especially within the district.
Yeah, I actually agree.
Now, just to be clear, so you are running
on the green party, is that what the,
I didn't get that in the first place.
So good, that's what you got about that
because I understand the logic, a lot of minds
about why that might hinder your effort
to potentially win.
But to me, all of this is about principled stances,
you know, that's really what Americans wanted
from what I can see and just they don't get it.
And so as much as, you know,
I don't believe right now representing
either side of the, you know,
left-right system is a good look.
I don't think they're accurate or honest.
And I mean at the level, you know, DNCR and see,
and I think that's pretty clear.
So I'm glad to hear that,
even though I do have my thoughts about any of them,
like I said, the whole system, you know,
I have a good, you know, feeling about this
and your intentions.
And so I think that goes a long way.
And I believe people will pick up on the,
you know, what you're laying out
and that I believe you'll follow through
with it as best you can.
And I think, you know,
it'd be a rice for fresh and change,
put it that way and people in power right now.
So it's good to hear.
I've been open of my criticisms of the Green Party,
particularly around things about,
I shouldn't say the Green,
members of the Green Party,
primary members and particularly
on the issue of COVID origins
and other related things,
which I've done a lot of work on
as you're aware, Ryan.
And, you know, part of what resonates with me
is some of the early Greens would say,
we're not from the left or right.
We're, you know, we're upfront.
We're forward.
And that resonates with me as well.
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, and like you said,
we should be questioning it, you know,
because people across the political spectrum
will tell you what you want to hear, right?
So question it, hold the feed to the fire
and hope though, you know,
that's one of the things I talk about today is that,
you know, if we're not hoping
that something like this becomes what we want it to,
then what are we doing?
You know, it's a lot of people end up in that position
where nothing is ever possible.
You know, and I get framed that way,
but I'm very hopeful.
Even when it comes to the Tucker thing
and I don't have good feeling about it,
but I still hope that it ends up being what we would want.
You know, same thing with the left, right presidents,
you know, you just should all hope
that they do the right thing,
but be honest about it
because truly it's, you know, pretty clear
if you're being honest with yourself, you know?
So I'm looking forward to that, Sam,
and I hope we can follow up on that point
as it develops.
I know a central part of this as well,
and I'm sure, and you already mentioned,
this is a central part of this for you as well
is the direction of this,
you know, the technocracy direction in my opinion.
The idea of the reason I frame it
as technocracy in particular,
as opposed to just like technological surveillance
is because I'm of the mind,
and I think it's very obvious
that it's not just the growth of surveillance,
the transition of the surveillance state
into some technocratic, excuse me, technological side of it,
but that it merges with the government part of it.
You know, the actual technocratic side,
like the, you know,
going back to the original idea
of like the engineers and the scientists
kind of running things, which it's not that so much anymore.
If people look up the term of technocracy,
it's become more of a, in my opinion,
you know, a transition of society
into some sort of like CEO run tech level country.
And that's what they're openly discussing.
And so all of that said, take it wherever you want,
whether it's the focal point of data centers
and their issues or the larger government side of it,
you know, where is your mind
when it comes to data centers, block cameras,
the whole thing as it pertains to Americans?
So many things come to mind.
I will try to be coherent.
When you say the CEO,
I got to mention a local thing here.
There is not a superintendent of schools here
in Prince George's County where I am.
There is a CEO of schools, you know,
what you're talking about resonates in so many ways
so that you have schools that look like prisons
and were probably designed by some of the same people.
And I think that that dovetails
with the technocracy that you're exactly talking about.
And I think it's very inspiring
to see a lot of the activism
around the data centers and so on.
And it's fascinating to see the deeminization of that
saying, oh, there are Luddites and so on.
If you go back and read,
and I don't mean to deify these figures,
but Bertrand Russell and Frank Lloyd Wright
and their warnings about technology
and where it was leading
and how it would be used for the benefit of the few
until we fixed our political and economic systems, right?
You know, they saw, you know,
Einstein and Bertrand Russell put out a manifesto
mostly dealing with nuclear, the threat of nuclear war,
but there were other strands in their thinking.
And they basically said, unless we,
and until we fix our economic and political life,
all of these technologies will be used
for the benefit of a few.
And, you know, so they almost,
especially in the case of Bertrand Russell,
who I know did some bad stuff.
He was pro-eugenics early on in his life and so on.
You know, it was basically,
became an enlightened Luddite, you might say.
You know, he's not anti-technology
by any stretch of the imagination.
He's anti-this technology
that this establishment is putting forward
to use as an instrument to further dominate us.
And it's really fascinating to see young people today
sort of know and realize that instinctually.
It's also to the credit of people like yourself
and the other independent journalists out there
that are calling it out
and our ability to reach them today, which is growing,
but also what you said.
But I think that's important to note
that things are changing in the way
that our society operates.
And I think that's largely what this transition
is being driven for,
because people starting to see through things
doesn't work for the establishment.
Yeah, absolutely.
But the threats are tremendous.
You know, the threat of nuclear war,
of, you know, a few elite making horrific decisions
that would basically destroy humanity
has sort of given away to the threat of enslaving humanity.
Using this techno fascism or technocracy
or however you want to term it
with the constant surveillance.
And I think a huge part of it is the disparity of it.
Like, I could imagine a reasonable society
where everybody lived in a glass house
and therefore nobody through stones, right?
It would be like living in a village
and everybody knows everybody's business and it's equal.
That's not what we're tending towards.
We are tending towards a system
where a privileged few have complete secrecy
to do every diabolical thing you can possibly imagine
and some that you can't while the rest of us
have absolutely no privacy in any part of our lives.
Right.
That is completely horrific
and completely empathetical to any decent ethical system.
And what this is the craziest thing for me,
I bring this up often
that people still can't see what you just highlighted
despite the fact that Larry Ellison can sit there
in front of a million, I think a large audience
and just simply say, what we're building the future,
everyone will be on their best behavior
because you're all being watched.
It's like just openly tell you that.
Or Mark Andreessen on Joe Rogan
talking about how that's the reality of the world
and you've all been lied to.
Democracy doesn't exist.
You need the good oligarch to save you from the bad oligarch.
But people, it just doesn't connect.
It's almost as if they're talking about
some hypothetical distant future
they're talking about right now.
They've written books about all this.
So it's such an important point to see.
And I'm glad to see that this is something
that is on everybody's radar,
but importantly people like you
who are trying to work through the system to change that.
Because, I mean, before I forget actually,
the point though about you made
about the glass house and the village.
You were making a point there
and I think it's important to see the contrast.
But just from my perspective, I would argue
that that's not, I wouldn't want either.
And also-
I understand that, but there is a difference
between no privacy for anyone
and what we are getting towards.
Well, that's what I was saying.
You were clearly making the point there of the contrast.
I'm just simply highlighting,
which maybe you agree with me,
but that ultimately it comes down to the choice.
And I think that's the issue is even right there,
which I think will end up in a position in the near future
already we're seeing versions of it
where it becomes some kind of a thing like that.
Where it goes, okay, we'll find.
Do you want this one or do you want that one?
And it shouldn't be a false binary.
And this is what I think Americans need to get around.
It's not left or right.
It's not going through the same hamster wheel.
It's trying to find different paths.
And it's not always easy to see.
And sometimes it's not one person with the answer.
But I think that's important is that it's about
people choosing their own path
and how they want to live their lives.
Hey, if you want to make a community
where everyone has glass houses,
then you guys can all gravitate towards that.
But it's about forcing people into it.
And these people truly believe
that they either know what's best for us
or honestly, I think some of them are just truly,
as you said, diabolical.
Just self-serving interest.
But both of those are alarming to me.
Absolutely.
And as you say, this is a real world thing
that's unfolding and people can see it.
And you'll have a medical issue
that you email a friend about
and suddenly you see ads dealing with the medical issue
if you're a typical phone user and so on.
So that kind of thing is obviously snowballing more
and more corporate and government interests
know virtually everything about you,
even things that you don't share
with the actual people in their actual life.
And you know, absolutely nothing
about the insidious things that they do.
So something definitely has to come to a head
to really genuinely deal with that.
And I mean, the obscene stuff is,
I think a window into that immense disparity,
but there's certainly others.
Well, so on that point alone though,
do you have any thoughts on what you're,
at least as it pertains to your constituents,
what, if and when, what would you try to do to stop that?
Massive government disclosure.
If I were to actually get into office,
I would be pushing for massive government disclosure
on all fronts as rapidly as possible
before they can use AI to rewrite government documents
before God knows what else happens
to prevent further disasters
to massive government disclosure
about the origins of the pandemic,
about all kinds of insidious government actions,
I think is one major remedy.
I mean, I've tried to push the envelope
in terms of what it means to be a journalist
and I'm gonna try to be pushing the envelope
as to what it means to be a candidate
or how to activate movements
rather than to sponge off of them.
And if I were to end up in Congress,
I would try to redefine what it means
to be a member of Congress.
I mean, I think it's scandalous
that you have members of Congress
who to their credit are calling bombings of Yemen
by Biden unconstitutional or bombings
by Trump of Iran as unconstitutional,
but then aren't taking the obvious next step
of introducing articles of impeachment, for example.
It only takes one member of Congress
and I think that, and there had been some,
Al Green put forward a thing in the summer of 2025
when Trump first bombed Iran
and he got suffocated
by the rest of the Democratic Party sandwich
and then he lost his seat.
So, there are obviously diabolical mechanisms
that are targeting anybody and everybody
who tries to make a stand,
but I'm trying to make a stand that I can
and I would fulfill a very unique role
in that I would call out both sides in various ways.
I would move any president
conducts an illegal unconstitutional
or I would seek to impeach of either party.
I would call out the Democrats
for their complete denialism and propaganda
regarding the origins of COVID
and I would call out the Republicans
in pretending that this is a reason to demonize China
or to pretend that it was all Fauci's
Fauci's a horrific actor
and I called them out fairly early on in the pandemic
to some extent even before,
but it's an entire structure, for example, of bio weapons
in which I'm in Maryland.
It's not in the district, but Fort Dietrich is here.
So, I've put forward a challenge to Maryland Greens
and other progressives that we need to confront
Fort Dietrich, the largest biodefense facility in the world,
which was likely responsible
for the false flag anthrax attacks in 2001,
which Congress never investigated.
2001, after 9-11, Congress suffered
a false flag of bio weapons attack
and Congress never investigated it and that's ridiculous.
I'd certainly put forward
that there should be a serious investigation
of those anthrax attacks.
They tried to pin around one guy and he ended up dead.
Right.
We've been covering that for quite a long time
in the surge of the COVID-19 timeframe
kind of a little bit about dark winter and so on.
It's still, and I'm glad to bring it up though,
because these things drift from the background
and it's like people become generally just aware,
but there's never accountability.
So I'm glad to hear, I swear, your headline,
your tagline should be, we will impeach people.
I just don't think we can, trust me.
I don't know that I can get to impeachment,
but one Congressperson can put forward
articles of impeachment.
Right, right, right.
What do you mean is we'll start it.
We'll start the process, but it's nice to hear
because there's a lot of that happening
and not so much accountability.
Right, so in a sense, people might try to peg me
as a radical or coming from the orange or something.
In a sense, if I were to get into Congress,
I feel like I would be the only one
actually upholding their pledge to the Constitution
regardless of partisan games.
I mean, even the best Democrats never,
I don't think even thought of impeaching Biden
for his illegal bombing of Yemen, for example,
even when they called it unconstitutional.
Exactly, right, because not to give a pass or anything,
I think it's just as corrupt as do this,
but their mind might just be that it's bad for the party,
so we can't do it, to the accountability, calling them out,
but that people are done with that.
It's just so clear that I think this last administration
right now of the Republicans getting frustrated
with nobody being held accountable just shows you that.
That was such a cohesive thing at the beginning
and they just, I mean, they've lied and challenged
almost every promise they put forward,
but clearly people are just tired of that.
But speaking of the Iran War,
and we can kind of finish on this,
is that it's an interesting addition to all of this.
I mean, I'm not gonna act like I know
why things look different
or why Trump keeps cycling through this weird series of lies.
It's just weird, it doesn't even line up for me,
but clearly it's different.
The Strait of Formuse has been talked about
for a long time about the potential of what that might do.
I just want your general thoughts on all of this.
Do you feel there's more about this
that is about some kind of energy transition?
Do you think this is just about Israel forcing war
to take out Iran?
What are your thoughts and how do you see,
I mean, well, I'll leave it there
because we talked a lot about the left-right paradigm.
I don't think either side cares, honestly,
but what are your thoughts about that
going forward for the future of it?
I think it could be a whole series of things
from Trump and his cronies playing the markets
in sort of a micro profiteering sort of way
to geopolitically how they are trying to figure out
how to ensure that BRICS is what's sometimes called
a part of the sub-imperial structure.
They may well be trying to form an accommodation
with elements within Iran.
I mean, obviously all of the Arab governments
are completely acquiescent to
the apartheid genocidal state of Israel
dominating the Palestinians.
They haven't done a damn thing
other than obviously Yemen and Surallah and Hezbollah
and we saw the horrific deaths of Nasrallah and others.
But to what extent is this become a show
to distract from Israel?
To what extent is it, I mean, it is obviously open aggression
by the United States against Iran.
I don't want to minimize that at all.
And Iranian people have paid a heavy price
in terms of sanctions and so on and so forth.
But you do end up with sort of these militarists
on both sides gaining primacy to some extent
and to what end to how will this affecting
in a positive way?
I mean, if we end up, there are just so many scenarios
it's hard to parse it all out, right?
I mean, if we end up with a toll on the Straits of Hormuz
and the Iranian establishment,
the US establishment rake in some cash,
I don't know that that's a real win here.
I want actual accountability for the horrific war crimes
that the US and Israeli governments have committed.
And I want actual freedom for the people of the region,
not just the Palestinians,
but the people throughout the region.
And in some cases, I made a slight foray into poetry
at the height of the pandemic.
I wrote a piece, Palestine Will Free Us All,
which was basically about everything from seeing through
the diabolical intricacies of the party or the duopoly,
whatever you want to call it,
to people in various countries, Arab and otherwise,
seeing through the duplicities and complicities
of their governments and seeing through the fact
that we have what's basically a Palestine laboratory
of surveillance and so on that will affect
and is affecting all of us,
where they try out their surveillance and drones
and other mechanisms of control on Palestinians
and then rule them out to others.
And that if there's a strong enough solidarity effort
that Palestine, the issue of Palestine
will free us all.
So, I don't know where the cracks are gonna emerge.
I mean, they could emerge in the US military.
They could emerge on the Arab street,
they could emerge in the citizenry,
in districts around the US.
I mean, I'm certainly hoping that one effect of my campaign
will be to galvanize the people in this district,
but also to indicate,
how can we strategically use campaigns?
I mean, Malcolm X always talked about,
I'm for anything that is intelligent.
In the past, I bet we've talked about this, Ryan.
I've talked about vote pact, disenchanted Democrat,
disenchanted Republican pair up
and both vote for a third party.
I haven't emphasized that in this campaign
because my current district is overwhelmingly Democrat.
It's very deep blue and on the face of it,
it's quite establishment.
I mean, Bernie Sanders did very poorly here
in primaries in 2016 and 2000 against Clinton and Biden.
But I do think that there's a restlessness beneath the surface
that I'm hoping to tap into
and hoping to activate.
And obviously with this Iran war,
going back to your question,
just on the face of it,
costing people according to Moody's $700 per month,
just an increased fuel and other costs.
Never mind the toll as taxpayers.
That should jolt people out of this sleepwalking
and thinking that putting in a completely establishment
Democrat, Glen Ivy, my Democratic opponent,
who ran over to Israel twice, at least
during the height of the genocide to meet
with quote unquote Netanyahu,
and was put in, as I mentioned earlier, with APEC money.
He defeated Donna Edwards back in 2022,
who was a Democrat,
but was as good of a Democrat as you're gonna,
she actually went to Gaza in 2009.
So I think that that put a target on her back
in the APEC circle.
So when they saw their chance in 2022, they knocked her out.
She ran for the Senate,
lost, tried to win her house seat back,
and that's when they got her.
So the system is diabolical.
There's no question about that.
The question is, what tools can we use?
Media, art, comedy, legal mechanisms,
activism, obviously, or what combination of those
can we use in order to meaningfully change things?
And that's what I'm trying to do right now.
If I can plug the website, samhuseini.com,
for the campaign, obviously people can donate,
but they can volunteer.
We're gonna be setting up phone banking,
and we're gonna be trying to generate these PDFs
and hoping that people can be passing them out,
can be really meaningfully engaging the public square.
And yeah, it's, you know, it's ringing the bells
that still can ring.
I don't, I got my problems with Leonard Cohen too,
but that goes through my mind a lot.
Well, I'm glad to hear it, Sam.
And, you know, I think that this is, you know,
like I said before, I think you have good intentions.
I think you have, you know,
I think what you want to do
is what I would like to see happen.
So in so far as that goes, I support you with that.
But I, you know, like I said,
I just don't think the system is something,
I don't think I'm gonna be voting any time soon,
but that way.
But I just, I hope people will support you either way.
And if you think the voting makes a difference in this,
and I advocate that you do it,
because I believe that Sam has good intentions here.
But, you know, it's nice to see this even get talked about.
That's what's so crazy about this.
I mean, it just lasts depending on the way out.
Don't you find it insane
that these things are even being discussed right now?
I mean, 20, I mean, a couple of years ago,
I wouldn't have said we would be discussing
what Israel was doing the way that we are,
discussing some of these things and such, you know,
it's become surface level.
And I think that that is a testament
to the power of independent media
and people like yourself, journalists out there
who are just, you know, have principles
and care about the truth
and try to fight to get it out there.
I think there's a win there.
You know, and I think that's like I said,
why a lot of this negative stuff is happening.
So as much as it's, you know,
kind of darker before the dawn,
you know, darkest before the dawn,
I do think that we're having positive momentum.
And so I hope that people can see that
with what you're doing as well and support you.
So any other final thoughts before we wrap up today, Sam?
Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know,
people have pointed to a change in public opinion polls.
I mean, I'm still amazed that anybody says
that they support Israel after what we've seen.
So, and, you know, and, you know,
I mean, who would have thought three years ago
that they could get away with all of this
and Netanyahu's still be in power
and so on and so forth.
So I think that they have gotten away
with a hell of a lot.
And I'm sort of, you know, in this part,
one of the things that I'm doing with this candidacy
is saying, okay, there's supposed to be this shift
in public opinion.
Where is it?
You know, it can't just simply be two or three races
in New York and maybe a senatorial race in Michigan
of people who you're not even sure
they're really gonna put their shoulder to the wheel
if they get into office, right?
You know, I mean, I'll say he has already said
that he will not, that they so fervently
against the filibuster.
Well, that's the main thing that a senator can do.
A sole senator, if you want one senator to stand up to APAC,
the first thing that they would do
is use the filibuster to call out everybody else.
And he's already positioning himself
to not be in a position of doing that.
So I'm sort of calling everybody on,
is there really a big transformation in public opinion
and where is it manifesting itself
in a way that will actually make a difference
or will the system consolidate?
Just like it consolidated after the Iraq War,
just like it consolidated after the end of the Cold War,
just like it consolidated after the Vietnam War.
And enough consolidation.
We have to find ways of breaking with the system.
And that's part of what's galvanizing me to do this
and to do it in the way that I'm doing it.
I'm not simply running.
I'm saying I'm going to run an activist campaign
that is trying to activate a particular district
right outside of Washington, DC
that has a lot of government workers.
That means a lot of potential whistleblowers, right?
That means if there's a real systemic shift
in pockets of this country that really changed,
then that begins to crumble the edifice of empire
and something truly beautiful emerging from that.
Well, I'd love to hear it, Sam.
And I hope you the best.
I wish the best and I hope that you actually succeed in this.
And at the very least,
I hope that your efforts will bring attention
to some of the things that people aren't thinking about.
So hopefully we can follow up during it,
afterward and continue to talk about this, Sam.
So I appreciate your work.
Keep me accountable, Ryan.
I will, trust me, you know I will.
Thank you.
I'll move it there for today.
As always, everybody out there, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
From the president's office in the White House
in Washington, DC,
we present an address by the president
of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In holding scientific research and discovery in respect,
as we should, we must also be alert
to the equal and opposite danger
that public policy could itself become the captive
of a scientific technological elite.