Tucker Responds to the Epstein Class Attacking Macklemore & Resurrecting Cancel Culture

Last Friday was the year anniversary of. Charlie Kirk's murder and the internet. was flooded with remembrance of Charlie. and unfortunately even more so all kinds. of predatory people trying to use the. memory of a fallen man for their own. political or financial purposes. That's. kind of always the case. We sat it out. because that's depressing to see. But. you did see uh people who knew him. genuinely well and liked him and weren't. trying to profit from his death raise. the question how do we honor his memory?

And that is a completely fair question. But it begins with a more fundamental. question which was what was his life. about? If you were to remember Charlie. Kirk, what are the first qualities of. his that come to mind? Of course the. personal qualities, enthusiasm and. decency and energy and intelligence, but his beliefs. Well, as someone who. knew Charlie well, I would sum them up. this way. He believed all kinds of. things, but the main thing he believed. was Christianity. He was a sincerely.

religious man. He was a follower of. Jesus. And politically, he believed a lot of. things as well. Of course, he spent a. life talking about them. But above all, he believed in free speech, the right of human beings to say what. they think, to share their deepest. beliefs. And those two were directly related. Charlie Kirk believed in free speech. because he believed in God. And because. he believed in God, he believed that. each person was created by God with a. distinct soul. God does not create.

communities. God creates individuals. And because they are individuals, sovereign individuals created in the. likeness of the creator. Each one has an inherent right to say. what he thinks to his own conscience to. make up his own mind and to express. his conclusions. So that's where the. belief in free speech comes from. That's reflected, by the way, in the. founding documents of the United States.

These are inherent rights. They're not. given to us by the state. We are born. with them. And the purpose of the state. is to protect them. And Charlie Kirk was. a eloquent defender of this idea and a. great explainer of this idea. Not just. eloquent and good at it, but really one. of the very few left or not a lot of. people explaining why free speech is. important and what it is. But Charlie. Kirk spent really the entirety of his. public life doing that up until the day. he was murdered. We could have picked a.

lot of clips to show you on the question. of Charlie Kirk and free speech, but we. just grabbed one and it's as good as. any. Here's Charlie Kirk, I think last. year, but it could have been any year, explaining what free speech is and why. he defends it. Watch. >> I was wondering if you could talk about. where you draw the line with um free. speech, hate speech, and slander. >> It's a terrific question. My position um is that even hate speech. should be completely and totally allowed. in our country. The most disgusting.

speech should absolutely be protected. And it's not a viewpoint that is held by. the left. The ACLU used to hold this. viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties. Union, they used they sued so that. legitimate Nazis could march through. downtown Skoi. You remember this back in. the 80s and 90s? Now, why would the ACLU. do this? Because they said as soon as. you were use the word hate that is a. very subjective term because then all of. a sudden it is in the eyes or the it is.

in the implementation of whomever has. the power. So here's my belief. The more. speech the better. Well exactly. So not. only is that answer good the question. actually reveals a lot too. So the. question was what's your view of free. speech, hate speech and slander? And Charlie didn't explain the. difference between those three. categories, but it's worth just pausing. for a moment. So there's free speech, which as described is inherent to every. person. You have an inherent right. You.

were born with this right. You will die. with this right. Whether or not it's a. bridged, it still exists to say what you. think, to express your conscience out. loud. There is a category called hate. speech, which as Charlie just said, effectively means speech the people in. charge hate. And there's a third. category called slander. And that's a. legal category. What's the difference. between hate speech or ugly speech, speech I don't want to hear, and. slander. Well, it's worth saying the. difference is slander is by definition. untrue. That is the legal definition of.

slander is factually incorrect. You are. lying. You lying about somebody or. something. Free speech and even this category. called hate speech. Those are true. things and therefore they cannot be. abridged ever. Why? Because you have to have the right to. tell the truth. And any society that. doesn't protect that right collapses and. is also of course morally stained. On.

what grounds you suppressing something. that's true? So slander is by definition. a lie, but protected speech is true or. it's believed by the person who utters. it to be true. And that's a meaningful. distinction as well. I'm not lying. Of. course, I've been wrong about a ton of. things and will be again. But this is my. sincere belief. I mean it. And that. includes opinions, but also claims. I. believe this is true. And so if you are ruling over people,

which is to say human beings, if you. consider the people you have care over. or power over to be human beings, then. by definition, you can never prevent. their right to say what they think is. true. Of course, because by definition, if you do that, you are not treating. them as human beings because you don't. consider them human beings. That's how. you treat a slave. You don't have to. listen to what a slave says because he's. not a human being. So in the very same. way you can tell your dogs to stop. barking, you can tell a slave to shut up.

because he doesn't have that right. because he's not fully human. So anybody. in charge who tells you you're not. allowed to say something that you. believe is true is not treating you as a. human being. He's treating you as a. slave. That's how he sees you. And you. should know that because underneath the. impulse to censor other people, and it's. always dressed up as something else, concern, protection, but what really underlies it, of course, is malice and contempt. I hate you. I.

don't consider you fully human. Therefore, I'm not going to allow you to. speak. That is unmistakably the message. of every attempt to censor speech. And. as Charlie Kirk said pretty well in the. clip we just showed you, it is always. employed by the people in charge on. their own behalf. In other words, censorship is the process of the people. in charge telling you you're not allowed. to criticize them. And of course, they're clever enough almost never to.

say that, though increasingly they are. saying that, but in general, they don't. And so they dress it up and they say, "Well, there's some group that's somehow. powerless and you can't criticize them. because they don't have power and your. criticism of them is cruelty and there's. a power imbalance and you're punching. down and we're not going to allow that. on their behalf.". Well, whether or not that's actually. true, and we could debate it, the one. thing you can be certain of is the group. they claim to be protecting is just a.

proxy for them. It's just a proxy for them. Always. attempts at censorship are an attempt to. protect the people in charge from. criticism. And as famously been noted, if you want to know who is in charge, ask yourself who you're not allowed to. criticize. That's just a fact. That's not a slur or. a slander. That is a fact. Because of. course, you would never affect. censorship. except in defense of your own interests.

And that is 100% of the time what. happens. Censorship is used to protect. the powerful from criticism to gird and. protect their power. Of course, there's. no other reason for it. And because the. people in charge are usually in every. age, no matter who they are, fairly. clever and ruthless, that's how they got. there. They will almost always find some. fairly sophisticated way to hide that. fact. And once again, they will tell you.

that your criticism of their behavior is. somehow cruelty or out of bounds. But. no, what it really is is a threat to. their power, of course. And so Charlie. Kirk's prescription is the only. prescription. And he said this. repeatedly, if you don't like speech you. hear, there is only one way. There are. not a myriad ways, there's one way to. combat that, and it's with more speech. Tell me how I'm wrong. And in fact, he. spent the last years of his life touring. the country effectively asking crowds.

that. Tell me how I'm wrong. Ask me. anything. I'll defend any of my. positions. And I'll do so openly at. length in public. And if he died for. anything, it's that. In fact, he died. doing that. And so, if you wanted to honor his. memory, of course, you would try to keep. that dying tradition alive. No one seems. to be doing that. But what you wouldn't. do under any circumstances is do the. thing that he devoted his life to. fighting, which is shutting down speech. you don't like with threats or.

censorship or even with back of the hand. dismissals and name calling. No, you. would pause and take seriously the. criticism even if you think it's. illegitimate aimed at you or your. beliefs and explain why it's wrong and. offer a counter vision of what you think. is right. This was what the right used to refer to. famously as the marketplace of ideas. because the idea was that the market. itself was self-correcting. That was the. beauty. There was an invisible hand in. charge of the market and it would find. natural equilibrium if you just backed.

off and allowed that to happen. So if two people had opposing views, they would debate those views in public. and then the people watching could. decide which was valid on the basis of. the strength of the arguments and the. facts marshaled. That was the tradition of debate. In. fact, that was the core of the western. tradition of discourse. going all the way back to Athens. And. that's what Charlie Kirk was upholding. when he was murdered. And what's.

interesting is that the last. presidential election, the 2024. election, though very few people said. this out loud, really was a referendum in part on this. because it was a reaction against what. we now refer to as wokeism or cancel. culture. Well, what are those things? Well, they're really two things. their. identity politics. The idea that on the. basis of your bloodline, how you look, qualities you were born with, your. genes, you are subject to different. rules than other people. Certain groups.

get treated differently because of the. nature of those groups. We are no longer. equal in our citizenship. Some groups. are treated differently, usually better, but sometimes worse. And because that is true, because. certain groups get special rights, certain groups are the only people who. can use certain words, for example, literally. Because of that, we have to constrain. the speech of everybody else. We need.

censorship in order to protect those. groups. So. to sort of move beyond the details of. this or that specific controversy, that's a pretty accurate description of. what wokeism and cancel culture were and. are. And the truth is most people find. it tiresome if not infuriating and. immoral to live in a country governed by. rules like that which are constantly. changing, never fully explained to. anybody, backed with by no principles.

whatsoever other than the interest of. the people in charge and kind of no one. likes that. Who likes that? In fact, it. is so universally disliked. that standard or shifting standard. whatever suits the people in charge that. even Alexandria Kaziocortez, congresswoman from Brooklyn, who hopes. to run for president in this upcoming. cycle, who is of course a great and. famous practitioner of identity politics. and wokeism, got elected to Congress on. it. In fact, she was out there the other.

day kind of mildly denouncing it, saying, "That was kind of silly.". In the same way that people who screamed. at you for not taking the COVID vac. willing to say, "Yeah, we kind of went a. little overboard, a little over, got a. little crazy, caught up in the moment.". And that's their way of acknowledging. that their past behavior was. reprehensible to some extent, but also. their way of avoiding any penalty for. what they did by half admitting that. what they did is wrong. And they do this.

because they don't really have an. option. I mean, nobody would defend the. federal government's response to CO at. this point. And nobody, no sane person. would defend wokeism circa 2022 at this. point because it's just so obviously. awful and absurd and childish and cruel. and it hurt a lot of people. So the. point is if we're at a place where even. Alexandria Kaziocortez is admitting that. wokeism. is pretty stupid at best, I think we can.

say conclusively that everybody's. against it. The problem, however, is. that not everybody is against it. And. this gets to the question of why it. exists in the first place. It doesn't. exist because it's a remedy to some. obvious injustice because there was just. so much racism in America. So much. anti-semitism in America that someone. had to act before people got hurt. That's just not true. There of course is. racism and anti-semitism and all, you. know, all kinds of bad attitudes and. hatreds and and all of that, but that's.

not what these movements are about. Every single one of them is an effort by. the people in charge to protect their. own power, obviously. And that's just. always true no matter who's in charge. And so, every group that's in charge. faces the temptation to dive head first. into identity politics, which by the way. has the ancillary effect of dividing the. country to the point where you can. dominate the country, fight amongst. yourselves, but we sell you meme coins. or invade Iran or whatever. So, there's. that. But it's also just kind of a a.

classic move. employed by the powerful against. everybody else. And so Charlie Cook. understood this. He understood that when. he criticized wokeism or attacks on. speech or identity politics, he wasn't. simply speaking to the people who were. then in charge and we check that that. clip you saw was from 2021. during the early Biden administration. Democrats were in charge. He wasn't just. criticizing them because he knew that in.

his own party, which was the Republican. party, there were people who, if they. ever got power, would immediately. embrace exactly the same worldview and. employ exactly the same tactics against. the entire country. He knew those people. existed because even then they existed. And now, of course, they dominate. completely the Republican party. And we could spend hours going through. the irony and pulling the clips of. Republicans denouncing cancel culture. and then a year later appearing on Fox.

News to champion cancel culture. Literally the cancellation of people. whose opinions they don't like. But. we're not going to do that because it's. just too easy and too depressing. But. instead, we just want to show you an. example of what Charlie Kirk feared. And. we're not guessing about this. Lots of. people jump up and down about the legacy. of Charlie Kirk and try and grab it for. their own. We are totally confident when. we say that Charlie Kirk then and were. he still with us now would oppose what. you're about to see. So this is a.

Republican congressman from New York. called Mike Lawler and he's explaining. his views on free speech. Watch. We have. seen a rapid rise in anti-semitism on. these college campuses. Uh and we need. to crack down on it. This is not a free. speech issue. This is hate speech. Chanting from the river to the sea was. not aspirational. It was absolutely vile. uh and intended uh to undermine Israel. uh and and frankly call for its.

extermination and that cannot be. tolerated anywhere in this country. >> Oh, it cannot be tolerated. It's not. free speech to have that opinion. It's. hate speech. It absolutely can't be. tolerated. Now, that man, Mike Lawler, who again is a Republican member of. Congress, not one of the brighter ones, but still apparently a member in good. standing of the Republican party, serving in the House of Representatives, a little over a year after that, sponsored legislation with his.

Democratic colleague Josh Godheimer to. ban criticisms of the government of. Israel to encode in federal law the IH. definition of anti-semitism, which is. well, seven out of 11 criteria are. criticisms of the state of Israel, the. government of Israel and its behavior. would be classified under federal law. Anti-semitism and therefore a hate. crime. It would be illegal, for example, under the definition that he tried to. encode in federal law to describe what. the Israelis are doing in Gaza as a.

genocide. But what if it is a genocide? What if it. meets every definition of genocide? What. if murdering 20,000 children could be. proven, which it already has been, would. it be okay to say that? No. Not under. that law, which thankfully did not pass. But it will someday if this trajectory. continues. So here you have a Republican. who no doubt would describe himself as a. conservative, a constitutional. conservative trying to ban criticism of.

a foreign country. Said it cannot be. tolerated. And what's interesting is why. So, this. is not a blanket ban that Mike Lawler is. trying to get into federal law where you. can't criticize foreign countries. There. are plenty of foreign countries Mike. Lawler would like you to criticize. In. fact, there are countries Mike Lawler's. destruction has called for himself. Russia, for example, or Iran, countries that his donors don't like. So, what you're watching here once again. is the most powerful people in the.

society, Mike Lawler's donors. And of. course, he'll repeat whatever they ask. him to repeat. Trying to encode their. preferences and their advantages in our. legal code. In other words, you take. this 250-year-old country and you take. the machinery of the country and you use. it to your own benefit to protect you. and to make you richer. That's exactly. what you're seeing here. There's no. principle at all involved in this. In. this, Mike Lawler is saying it should.

not be allowed to criticize Israel. But. you can criticize Russia again. Why? Well, because Mike Lawler's donors love. Israel and they hate Russia. Therefore, you can criticize the country they hate, but you're not allowed to criticize the. country they love. Okay? So, that's just. like a total collapse of the rule of. law, of decency, and of the thing that you really have to. have in order to have a real country. which is a love of the truth. What's.

true, what's objectively true, provably. true, has to be has to remain at the. center of the project. Has to remain at. the center of your legal code. You can't. convict people of a crime unless you can. prove that they did it. You have to know. the truth before you can punish someone. Therefore, if somebody says something. true, you have to allow them to say it. Period. Whether you like it or not. If. someone walks up to you and says, "You've gained 30 lbs." And you have,

that might be a rude thing to say. You. might hate to hear it, but you cannot. punish someone for telling the truth, even if it stings, but they're trying. They're trying. And by they, we mean. everybody in charge. And at this point, that means Republicans. But of course, it's hard to get. censorship. through the Congress. Because we do have this thing called the. bill of rights and the first right. enumerated in it. The very first is the.

right to say what you think is true. The. first amendment protects your right to. say what you think is true and prevents. the government from constraining that. right in any way. And this has been. debated for 200 years. And so we know. what the parameters are and they're very. very wide. So it's going to be pretty. hard for any sitting member of Congress. to vote for a Mike Lawler bill. So they. have to find another way to prevent you. from telling obvious truths that they. find inconvenient or that their donors.

don't care for. So how are they going to. do that? Well, through threats of. violence, of course. It always comes to. that. Through threats of violence, through intimidation, through making you. afraid to say what you think is true. And so it's probably not surprising that. the clip we're about to show you in just. a moment comes from Nikki Haley. She's. the former governor of South Carolina. and has some appealing qualities for. sure. Not everything about Nikki Haley. is bad, but one thing about Nikki Haley. is notable, which is her very high. tolerance for violence. So Nikki Haley.

was one of the very few Republican. politicians who in the opening hours of. the George Floyd riots when the city of. Minneapolis was on fire and a police. station was burning to the ground, cars. were flipped over, people were being. shot to death, women were being raped. Clearly things were getting out of. control. This was mob violence, which is. the scariest thing. And anyone who's. ever seen it firsthand can confirm that. As she watched that on television, Nikki. Haley sent out a tweet saying in effect,

"You go mobs. America needs this. The cleansing fire. of rioting to burn the racism from our. souls." We're dressing it up in a more. poetic way, but you can pull up the. tweet because it's still on the. internet. Nikki Haley saw the. destruction of an American city by. violence and approved of it. So someone like that who was willing to. tolerate the killing of people who did. nothing wrong for the larger good of.

purging racism from the American soul. probably doesn't have a very difficult. time saying something like this. watch. >> When I get into office, the first thing. we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to. show America their algorithms. Let us. see why they're pushing what they're. pushing. The second thing is every. person on social media should be. verified by their name. That's first of. all, it's a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden,

people have to stand by what they say. And it gets rid of the Russian bots, the. Iranian bots, and the Chinese bots. And. then you're gonna get some civility when. people know their name is next to what. they say. >> It's a it's a national security threat. that you have opinions that Nikki. Haley's donors don't like because the. problem is Russian bots or. Iranian bots, North Korean bots. Bots. her donors don't like. The problem is. not bots. Of course, Nikki Haley's. totally in favor of bots if they're say. Israeli bots which dominate social media.

at the moment. Haven't heard many. complaints from Nikki Haley about that. That's not a national security threat. The national security threat is that you. might express something true and we. can't find you to hold you accountable. for that. So this kind of thinking can. get you to I don't know North Korea. pretty quick. In fact, probably unlikely. that North Korean politicians have the. balls to say something that open in. public. Because if you have no right to express. your view anonymously online, why do you.

have a right to turn to your wife in bed. with the shades closed and say something. naughty about Israel? That could be a. national security threat, too. Anytime. people say something out loud that Nikki. Haley doesn't like, it's a national. security threat, and we have to find out. who's saying it. Hm. So, as a practical. matter, why would it be so important for. Nikki Haley to strip the shield of. anonymity from people on the internet? Why do we have to know who you are if. you criticize Israel? That's an interesting question. And the.

deeper question is, why would people. fear saying what they think about Israel. to the point where they wouldn't say it. under their own name? That's a question. worth asking, too. Why are people so. intimidated. by Nikki Haley's donors that they don't. want to express their views openly? Don't you want to live in a country. where people just say what they think, where they're not afraid, or would you. rather live in a c country where people. cower before the threats of figures like. Nikki Haley and her national security.

concerns. and they just won't say what they think. because they know they could be hurt for. doing it? Well, Nikki Haley clearly. prefers the latter. But by stripping the. anonymity away from people online, it. would allow, I don't know, some. organized nonprofit group to hunt down. anyone they find online expressing. unimproved thoughts about Israel and. hurt them. Really hurt them. So, this.

clip is from the woman um who changed. her name, by the way, speaking of. anonymity. She had some kind of Eastern. European name. Now, she has a kind of. strange one- syllable last name. Anyway, not using her real name. In any case, here is the woman who runs a group. called Stop Anti-Semitism, which is a. digital vigilante group. And that's not. an overstatement, as you're about to. see, but she's describing what her group. does to people who criticize the Israeli. government. Watch this. >> We have featured more than 1,000.

anti-semites on our platforms. 1,000. not theorized about them, not quietly. documented them, feature them publicly, clearly, and with evidence. The results. speak for themselves. Approximately 400 of these Jew haters. have faced real consequences, including. firings, suspensions, and expulsions. If you target Jewish students, your.

actions will not disappear into the. darkness. We will shine a light on you. that thanks to Google and SEO will. follow you for the rest of your life. When you look for a job, when you look. for a spouse, when you look for a nanny, when you look for anything, our work. will always be documented. Again, thanks. to Google and SEO. >> Huh? When you look for a job, when you. look for a spouse, really? So what are. we talking about here when she says when.

you target Jewish students, when you. hate Jews, well of course anyone who. makes physical threats against anybody, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, doesn't matter. That person has. committed a crime and we have well. layers of law enforcement agencies to. deal with that. And and they do and they. should. But that's not what she's. talking about. She's talking about the. IH, International Holocaust Remembrance. Association, definition of. anti-semitism. And as noted, there are.

11 examples of anti-semitism. And seven. are criticism of the Israeli government, which to remind you is a foreign. government. It's not the US government. By the way, criticism, including in. tempmperate criticism of the US. government, is always and everywhere. allowed and in fact encouraged in our. schools by our government officials. You. can accuse the US government, our. government, the one that your ancestors. died for in any way that you like. You. can accuse them of sending crack into. black neighborhoods. And by the way, maybe they did. Who knows? We don't. really know. But we know that it's.

perfectly fine to speculate about that. We know that it's hate to suggest the. Israeli government might have been. involved in the assassination of our. president, John F. Kennedy, in 1963, though there's evidence they were. But. it's totally within bounds to suggest. our CIA was also involved. That's. totally fine. And it looks like they. were involved, by the way, in that. assassination. And that's fine. And. there's no penalty for acknowledging. that. But to suggest that they might. have worked in concert with the Israeli. government, well, that will open you up.

to online vigilanteism like that where. you can't have a job, you can't have a. spouse, can you even live here? Hard to. know. So when Nikki Haley calls for stripping. the shield of anonymity from people who. dare to criticize her donor's favorite. country, the reason she's doing it is so. the woman you just saw on the screen can. bat cleanup and round up the people. foolish enough to say what they really. think and hurt them. Not just in the.

short or medium term, but for life. No. spouse for you, no job for you. Maybe. you starve to death. That's okay because. you're a hater. And of course, the great. overarching irony of all of this is. who's the hater? So if you go online and say, "I think. what the Israeli government is doing to. children in Gaza is immoral because I'm. not for killing children,". you get screamed at and called a hater. by someone who then tells you you can. never get married or have a job again.

Who's the hater exactly? Of course. But. the problem is because no one in. authority has pushed back against any of. this and because the temperature has. risen to a point that sincerely is. dangerous. It's accelerated. And so there's no doubt trying to be. charitable about it that the woman you. just saw from stop anti-semitism. believes that she's doing a virtuous. thing. She believes she is saving Jewish. people from Nazis. Now of course her. definition is deranged. Most people who.

were against killing children are also. anti-Nazi by definition. Of course, violence against innocents was one of. the signature crimes of the Nazi regime. That's why we're against the Nazis in. the first place. We're not mad about. their economic policy. Most of us don't. even know what it was. We're mad because. they hurt innocent people. And that's. always and everywhere immoral. And so. there's probably a huge overlap between. people who are disgusted by what the. Israeli government is doing in the. territories it occupies and people who. are also disgusted by what the Nazi. regime did in the territories it.

occupied. Probably almost 100% overlap. between those two groups. But because no one will say that out. loud and because extremists have been. allowed to hijack the conversation and. because there isn't actually free speech. on this topic, the free speech that. Charlie Kirk so assiduously called for. The other side of the argument which is. moderate and temperate and fact-based. and not hateful, which is universal. rather than sectarian,

which rejects identity politics in favor. of universally applicable standards for. every human being. That side of the. argument rarely gets an airring. if ever. And so the net result of this is to with. every passing day make people crazier, angrier, and less restrained. And if. that pro process continues long enough, you wind up with Mark Levvin. Basically in the clip we're about to. show you calling for crystal knocked.

Watch. For six months, I've been fighting these. bastards, whether it's Tucker Carlson or whether. it's Nick Fuentes, and I've been looking. over my shoulder looking for help. And. you know what? I found. nothing. Nothing. We're here today to do something about. this. What do you mean we don't cancel people?

We cancelled David Duke. Donald Trump canceled David Duke. We. canled Pap Buchanan. We canled the John. Burch Society. We cancelled Joseph Soin. We canled pornography on TV. We cancel. stuff all the damn time. Hitler admires, Stalin admires, Jew haters, American. haters, Churchill haters. You're damn. right we're going to cancel them and. deplatform them. >> Whenever you hear that guy talk, you.

want to be serious because it does. matter and it is important to explain. what's wrong with what he said. But it's. so disjointed and and illogical and. there's always at least a line or two in. there that doesn't make any sense at. all. We canled pornography on TV. You. know, I think you've promoted. pornography on TV as far as I know. Um. Churchill haters. Just like throw it in. there. Jew haters. Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm. against Jew haters. Churchill haters. You're not allowed to hate Churchill. now. Was Was he like some British prime.

minister who screwed up at Gallipoli? I. think it's okay to dislike Churchill. No, I kind of Let me check my passport. and see if there's fine print in there. about having to pledge loyalty to. Churchill. I don't recall that part of. the American creed. Churchill haters. Where did that come from? Actually, we. should think about it because if it's. disqualifying. to hate Churchill, maybe there's more to Churchill than. we've been told. Why are they defending. Churchill? H Now they've gotten.

pornography off TV. Yeah, Mark Leven's. against pornography. Sorry for the sidetrack there. It's just. impossible uh to parse a Mark Leavvin. speech without winding up in a. culde-sac. But to the center of what. he's saying here, you have, so the. speech you just saw was given November. 1st, 2025. So that's almost exactly one. year from Donald Trump's second election. as president, which was the first. Tuesday of course of November 2024. And. if you can recall back almost two years.

and ask yourself what was that election. about? And if you voted for Trump, and. if you're watching this, maybe you did, I did, what were you voting for? Well, probably a lot of things. lower gas. prices, no more foreign wars. But one of. the things you were voting against, of. course, was what we called cancel. culture. The idea that if you disagree. with someone, you just SHUT THEM DOWN. CAN'T have a bank account, can't fly in. an airplane, can't have a job, can't. have a spouse. We're just going to. cancel you. We're not going to rebut.

what you're saying. We're not going to. explain why it's wrong. We're not going. to offer a competing vision that entices. you over to our side. We're going to. smack you in the face as hard as we can. till you shut up and never say it again. In fact, we may hurt you as a lesson to. everybody else. Hang you by your ankles. so pastors by will know. Don't say that. That's what cancel culture is. And if. there's one thing that virtually every. single human being who voted for Donald. Trump fewer than two years ago voted. against, it's cancel culture. And here's. Donald Trump's favorite pundit,

a Fox News host in good standing, unlike. some of us, calling openly in a speech on camera for. cancel culture, including canceling. people who don't like Winston Churchill. But there's menace in his voice, of. course. Damn it. Bastards. Bastards. He wants to hurt people who disagree. with him. He's got what we used to refer to in.

right-wing world as Antifa face. AH, SCREWED UP IN RAGE. I'M MAD AT MY. PARENTS, SO I'M GOING TO BEAT YOU IN THE. FACE WITH A FLAGPOLE. AH, ANTIFA FACE. Mark Levin. Maybe this is what power. does to people. Maybe when they finally. have the ability to hurt others, when. they think they can finally make words. they don't like go away, shut up or I'll. hurt you, they can't resist using the. power to do that. It may be that power. itself corrupts everyone who wields it. That's something we're thinking about.

You don't want to believe that, but. there's a lot of evidence that that's. true given that the people we elected. fewer than 2 years ago wound up behaving. exactly like the people they replaced, except a little more aggressive and a. little less disorganized. Because of. course, the upside of dealing with. liberals is they, you know, everything. is like macra and campfires. They can. never really get it together. They argue. amongst themselves, but you elect these. guys and they're of course still. disorganized and flaky and know they.

probably couldn't organize your. daughter's birthday party very well, but. they're a little better than the Kla. Harris team. So, it's the same brand of. politics, but a little harder edged. What? It's just remarkable to see it. And it. makes you wonder, are there options? And if you care about speech, which is. if to say if you care about humanity, because there's no difference. We are. defined by language and our ability to. use it. It's not the opposable thumb. that separates us from animals. It's our.

tongue. It's language. It's words. In. the beginning was the word. as the opening verse of John says, and. it's true. The word is the most important thing. Words are the most important thing. They. endure long past. Bullets or cannons or swords have been. replaced by some new technology that. kills people. But all that in the end is. forgotten. Words remain. Your words. define you. And if someone takes away.

your words and your ability to. articulate them, they've stripped you of. your humanity. So in the end, it is the thing that we. have to defend. We have no choice. We. have a moral obligation, an obligation, a duty to the people who follow us. to. defend it. But now the question is who will defend. it? Because when the party that opposed. free speech got beaten by the party that. promised to uphold free speech and then.

less than two years later both are. united in their total opposition to free. speech and are threatening people openly. threatening people hurting people who. disagree with them and not even. bothering to explain why they're wrong. You have to ask, if both parties are. against it, who's for it? And before you. think too long, here's the answer. Everyone is for it except the people in. charge. That's the truth. People with power always oppose free. speech. Everybody else, of course,

clings to it like a life jacket. It's. all they have. In a country where people. no longer have economic power, where the. middle class hasn't been the majority of. the country since 2015, where the integrity of our elections is. well up for debate in a world where AI. can hack anything, anyone who thinks. electronic voting is secure hasn't. thought about it very carefully. So in a world where people don't have. economic power and they may or may not. have political power, what power do they.

have? the power of their own conscience. and their inaliable right to express. what's on their conscience. They have in. the end only one thing and that's their. words. And so anyone who seeks to take. that away from them is a blood enemy. Make no mistake. and that gets us to the free speech case. of the moment which is a unusually. illuminating one. And it has to do with. a performer called McLemore who you may.

or may not be familiar with, but he was. scheduled to give a performance with Ed. Sheeran at Gillette Stadium recently and. he was cancelled by Robert Craft, owner. of the Patriots and owner of a number of. stadiums who is a I think it's fair to. say a fairly fanatical devote of the. state of Israel and not just devoted to. the state of Israel, which fine, but. devoted to hurting anyone who who was. not and slandering them as anti-semites.

And so he canled this performer's. appearance at his stadium and said, "Anyone who criticizes the state of. Israel," and of course he dressed it up. in false language, anti-semmites, Nazis, Jew haters are not allowed here. But what's interesting about this case. is that the performer he canled, Mlemore, had a chance to speak for himself. So we. want to read this to you. This is what. he said on stage as he criticized the. state of Israel's behavior in Gaza. And.

just to be clear, anyone who's not. criticizing what Israel is doing in Gaza. is either lying about it and there's. some of that or just doesn't know. anything about it. And there's a lot of. that. Most people just don't know. But. five minutes of reading about it and not. just some like partisan anti-Israel take. on it, but just the facts which have. been gathered and widely disseminated, anyone who reads about it for five. minutes cannot come away defending it. because there is no defense of murdering. tens of thousands of children. It's. always and everywhere wrong. Whether. Jewish children or Catholic children or.

Palestinian children, doesn't matter. In. any case, before we tell you what Robert. Craft and various news outlets said. about this performer McLemore, here's what MLmore himself said because. it matters. These are the words that got. him cancelled as a Jew hater. And we're. going to read them. Quote, "To all my Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of. apartate, being against genocide in no. way is a criticism of you. My message is.

for peace, love for all human beings to. be treated with dignity, respect and. equality. So I say free Palestine. I say. free Lebanon, free Cuba. He goes on. to my Jewish brothers and sisters, criticism of Israel, criticism of. partaking against genocide is no way a. criticism of you. Because by the way, it's not. It's not. Criticism of the behavior of a. secular government. is not criticism of an entire people, many of whom disapprove. in fact hate.

what that government is doing. And so. don't let anyone lie to you. They are. not the same thing. That is not Jew. hate. Despite what the IH definition may. try to impose on you and this country's. legal code, they are not the same thing. And so that's what he said. So for. saying that, we want to put on the. screen how Fox News characterized that. Watch this. This is the headline of the story. Anti-Semitic rapper booted from.

performing at Gillette Stadium over free. Palestine chant. Anti-Semitic rapper. Okay. Now, now it's. actually worth going on here. You find. yourself in middle age doing things you. never thought you would do, which is. like defending political rappers on your. podcast. Never thought I'd be here. But. it's not a defense of any one person. It's a defense of the truth, of the. literal meaning of words, and the intent. of the words, and of reason. But above. all, it's a defense of the inaliable.

right of every person to express his. conscience, whether you or I like it or. not. So, the Fox News piece, and not to beat. up on Fox News, but a lot of people. uncritically believe what they watch or. read. And so, here's how Fox News.com. characterized this controversy. Quote, "Mlemore is learning the hard way that. concertgoers paying top dollar for. stadium shows do not want to lecture on. Middle Eastern geopolitics from the guy.

who wrote thrift shop.". Oh, okay. So, what does that tell you? Concert goers who paid a lot for these. tickets aren't interested in McLemore's. views on the Middle East. Well, we. haven't pulled the topic, so of course. we don't know. We watched a video of his performance on. stage and we noticed that the whole. stadium seemed to be cheering him as he. said free Palestine. But what do we. know? We're not pollsters. What we do. know is that the audience didn't make. the decision. And in fact, there's a way to know what.

the audience thinks and that's by. continuing allow to allow Mlemore to. perform. And if he sells tickets, well, presumably the audience agrees or they. wouldn't be buying them. But the Fox. News piece in a very kind of clever. feline, incredibly dishonest way frames. this as a decision that the audience. made. Concert goers who paid high dollar. for tickets don't want to hear the. lecture. Really? They're the ones who canled him. They're the ones who said you can't. perform at the stadium. Oh no. One.

billionaire made that decision and then. he got in the line with a bunch of other. billionaires who also own sports teams. and said we can't let this guy perform. in our stadiums. Is that the market at work? Is it. actually the market at work? That's what. they're telling you. Which his stadium? Really? Well, if that's going to be the. standard, let's take a close look at how. he got the stadium. Were there state or. federal tax dollars involved in that? Was that purchase in any way subsidized. by the public? Yeah, I think so. Has any.

stadium in the last 30 years in the. United States been a product of pure. market capitalism? or are they all subsidized by taxpayers? I don't know. We're going to have to gro. that one. But our guess is that every. single stadium in the United States, including Gillette Stadium, which is. owned by Robert Craft, is subsidized by taxpayers against their. will. So, it's not as simple as, oh, he. owns it, or any of these people own.

anything, and we are strongly in favor. of property rights. strongly and. justice. But that's not what's happening here. This is a veto by one guy likely against. the wishes of the overwhelming majority. of the American population. So don't. tell me this is a product of the market. at work. This is censorship by the. billionaire Epstein class. And by the. way, yes, he is mentioned in the Epstein. files. Look it up.

So why would you defend that? You could. argue about how to fix it. Not that easy. to fix really. There are some, and if. this goes on long enough, there will be. many who just call from taking the. stadium away from Robert CF. We're not. for that. We're running for anything radical or. crazy, actually. This is a hotbed of moderation. But we. can tell you that if someone doesn't. move to fix the current situation where. a tiny group of totally immoral.

monomomaniacal people who have no actual. connection to the United States or. loyalty or to it or love for it. and don't care at all about. the founding documents. and the spirit that they express which. is of individual sovereignty. If those people continue behaving like. this, you're going to get a radical. population. So maybe short term, Robert Craft felt. like he was doing a good thing by. getting this Jew hater off stage who.

just spent, you know, five minutes on. stage explaining how he loves Jews but. doesn't like the behavior of the. Netanyahu government and it's like a. good thing to slander him as an. anti-semite. But long term, it's very foolish and. it's even more foolish to defend it as. many on the so-called right are. And. that raises the question, what does it. mean to be on the right. if you're defending censorship by. billionaires who share none of your. values? How are you conservative? And how more precisely,

a year and 5 days after the murder of. Charlie Kirk, are you upholding his. memory? Well, that's the question we had. to ask ourselves as we saw someone we. know very well and still like, but who appears every day on the Charlie. Kirk show say something we found. absolutely remarkable. And this is not a. personal attack and it's done with some. reluctance, but you just have to say it out loud. This is where we are. We're talking. about a man called Blake Ne who worked. for me for years. Always liked him a. lot. Helped get him the job that he.

currently has. But there was a pretty distressing. and highly revealing, which is why we're. going to talk about it, profile of him. in Politico recently. And there's a lot. in there that we're not going to get. involved with, but there was a passage. that we do think is worth highlighting. because it tells you a lot about the. total rot at the center of the. conservative movement as of September. 2026.

And whenever you get this kind of rot, you get people who literally can't hear. themselves. And we're not don't want to. be too judgmental here because a lot has. happened in the last year. A lot of. traumatic events for the staff of. Turning Point. And so you always want to. extend grace to them. I've tried to do. that even as they do things I disagree. with. And I know that Charlie would. vehemently disagree with. and I've been frustrated by that, but. haven't said a word. But the second that. you give up on the very core of Charlie.

Kirk's message while continuing to. occupy his studio under his name, I. think it's important to say something. So that's what we're doing now. So I. want to read this to you. This is a. profile of Blake Nef from Politico. Nef. confessed to grappling in a roundabout. way with the possibility that his. maximalist position on free speech has. helped foster the conditions that have. allowed rank conspiracism to flourish. I've reflected on this often, he said, sipping a samora's flavored cold brew on. a leather couch in the studio's green. room. So, let's just stop right there. A.

maximalist position on free speech. And. this is not that, by the way, that's not. a Blake Nef quote. It's just to be. completely fair and we want to be fair. That's the anti-free speech political. author Ian Ward's. kind of clever framing here, but it's. very common maximalist position. Well, there's no maximalist position on free. speech anymore than there is on. pregnancy. You either are for it or you. are pregnant or you're not. Free speech.

means acknowledging the inherent right. of your fellow citizens, whether or not. you like them, to say what they really. think. Period. And if what they really. think is repugnant to you, and if they. have some version of events that you. consider a poisonous conspiracy theory, there's not really anything you can do. about it. In fact, there's literally. nothing you can do about it under our. system, and I would also argue under. Christian precepts, other than rebutting. vision that is more compelling to.

listeners. That's it. As Charlie Kirk. said at the outset of this segment, more. speech. But that's not the conclusion that many. on the right are coming to. Now, why? probably because they spend way too much. time on social media and they read every. attack on themselves and they get more. paranoid. In fact, they become kind of a. version of what they claim to hate, which is conspiracy nuts. But they get. completely overheated. They feel like. they're at war. I'm at war. Never seen. war, of course,

but they think they're at war. They. think they're under attack. And bit by bit, it completely corrods. their decency, but also their sense of. proportion. and they wind up abandoning. the principles they're there to uphold. So as they sit day after day underneath. a sign that says Charlie Kirk on it, they wind up with views like this. And. we're going to read this and we're. quoting, this is Blake Nef, the guy in. the Charlie Kirk show. We got what we. wanted on speech and that means we also.

have to endure a lot of things that were. tamped down on before. Nef sees only two. potential paths for this verbatim quote. Either we have to make our peace with. censorship and explain how we're going. to do that or we have to explain how. we're going to combat this without. censorship. Period. But we've got to. confront it. And that's the point at which you just. you just feel like, well, we're done. We may have to make our peace with.

censorship. How would we do that? It's. like saying, well, you know, I'm I'm. really mad. I we may have to make our. peace with genocide. We may have to. kill, you know. Didn't Didn't ever think. I'd say it. Didn't ever think I'd be. here. We're going to have to kill them. all. Maybe there's another way to do it. But it's possible we might have to make. our peace with murdering all their kids. just cuz it's it's that important. It's. that bad. Didn't didn't think we'd come. to this place, but here we are. So, we're going to think about it. No, you can never make your peace with.

turning other people into slaves. You can never be the slave master. because slavery is bad for them. But. it's even worse for you. It is totally. dehumanizing to everyone involved to. turn other human beings into something. that is less than a human being. And. that is exactly what censorship does. each and every time. So even to float.

that possibility that you could quote. make your peace with it. There will be. no peace with censorship, you can't have. peace with censorship because you are. suppressing by definition what people. believe is true. So if you want to. eliminate, if you want to forall even. the possibility of peace, try to impose censorship. It's an. oxymoron. Make your peace with. censorship. But that's where we are because people. have lost any sense at all of what the.

principles, the ones that actually. matter are. And to restate, those. principles are not don't hurt other. people's feelings or tell truths that. billionaires don't like. Those truths are respect the inherent. the God-given dignity within every. person. And that dignity is expressed. through their ability to say what they. think, not what you think. Other people. have no obligation to repeat back what. you think. They have an inherent right.

to say what they think because their. interests and their dignity and their. humanity is every bit as important and. every bit equal to yours. And even on the Charlie Kirk show, they. seem to have forgotten that. And we hope. they remember. Eating right is pretty. important, but it's hard if you live. here. About half of the American diet is. ultrarocessed foods, and that hurts you. Fake food harms your body, your mind, and especially your liver. So, people. think that feeling sluggish and foggy.

and bloated is just what it is to be. older. But that's not true. Eating crap. makes you feel that way. Well, our. friends at Dose have a solution. It's. called Dose for Your Liver. This doctor. approved plant-based liver supplement is. clinically proven to promote liver. function and lower liver enzyme levels. That means you're less bloated, less. tired, you feel more like yourself. All. you need to do is take a daily 2 oz. shot. Tastes like orange juice. An easy. shot of liquid. It's not the vax.

People we know use dose for your liver. and they have seen rapid results in. their blood work and they feel much much. better. The difference is very obvious. Lots of brands claim to support liver. health, but do so before their products. have gone through testing. This has been. tested. Everything checks all the boxes. Visit dosedaily.co/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 35% off. That's. dosedaily.co/tucker. Code Tucker 35% off. You're going to.

love it. Home ownership has always been. at the center of the American dream. It. is an actual asset, a place people work. their entire lives to build, a place of. stability and security and real value. Right now though, too many homeowners. are stuck swiping credit cards to cover. groceries. There's basically a survival. tax of 20% interest or more. So why keep. handing your money to the banks when you. could keep it for your family? Interest. is what kills you. Our friends at. American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners use their. hard-earned equity, and they're.

supporting Americans looking to fulfill. the dream of owning a home. With. mortgage rates currently in the fives, American Financing saves its customers. an average of $800 a month. That's about. 10 grand a year. It's not just a loan, it's a true financial reset. We. recommend American Financing. They're. called America's Home for Home Loans for. a reason. So, get out of credit card. debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow. money. No judgment, but it doesn't make. any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 800685-55696.

800685-55696. or visit americanf financing.net/tucker. Meanwhile, we thought it'd be. interesting to speak to someone who has. been historically on the other side of. political debates from us. She has been. for 19 years a host on. probably the most famous. left-wing podcast, one of the very first.

uh leftwing podcasts in the world, The. Young Turks, and that's Anaka Casperian, who we just spoke to a moment ago. Here. she is. Anna Casperian, thank you so. much for doing this. Do you think we. have free speech in the United States as. of now? I think it would be wrong to say that we. have free speech considering the fact. that we literally have the majority of. our states passing laws that would. punish American citizens or. organizations that are critical of. Israel by denying them any public money.

or public grant. That's clearly a. violation of our constitutional rights. because it's literally the government. getting involved and violating our. freedom of expression. So no, at this. current moment, I would not say that we. actually fully have free speech here in. the United States. >> Yes. There's a there's a way though that. free speech is not just defined as the. constitution defines it which is a. system where the government stays. neutral on speech but also like on a. practical level if you are punished by.

organizations by saying denying you a. job or housing or a right to a bank. account or a right to live peacefully in. your own home then like in what sense do. you have free speech? >> Well, I mean that's true. Uh now the. argument is that if you are engaging in. certain speech, you can't expect that it. comes without consequence. That's right. That you that you should expect a. response that you might not like to that. speech. And you know the big argument.

that you'll hear from those defending. say uh Robert Craft today uh would argue. well Robert Craft is the billionaire who. owns the Gillette stadium and he gets to. decide what type of musical acts are. able to perform there. Okay, I guess. that's a fair point to make, but why. don't we take a step back and look at. how this intermingles with our. democratic process because if I can. recall several years ago, you had, you. know, the world's elites getting. together at the World Economic Forum to.

note that their plan moving forward is. to ensure that no one owns anything. In. fact, uh, all of us will just have to. rent things. So, there will be the. owners who own the property and then the. rest of us. And so if we're going to. base free speech rights on. property owners, you know, the wealthy. elite being able to squash free speech. because they happen to own things and we. don't. Is that really a fair and just. society? And do we have the economic.

conditions on the ground to ensure that. there's a level playing field? So if one. billionaire decides, "No, I'm going to. crush you because I don't like your. comments about a foreign country." Are. we going to have other opportunities or. other platforms, other means to put our. work out into the world? You know, that's the real question here. Yeah. >> Well, and in some way, I mean, the. nature of our economy has changed. The. economic structure of the United States. has changed. Obviously, there's much. more concentration at the top, but the. truth is rich people have always run. this in every other country. I just.

think we have different a different kind. of rich people. Like previous. generations of oligarchs felt like, well, you know, everybody has a right to. say what he thinks and if I disagree. with you, I've got some obligation to. explain why and make a counter case. I. don't see that that gracefulness at all. in evidence. Now, it seems like our. current leadership class, the current. oligarchs who run everything, just. decide like if I disagree with you, I. don't have to explain why. I don't have. to convince people that you're wrong and. I'm right. I can just crush you and.

that's enough. >> Well, there used to be a middle. middleman, I guess, and that middleman. used to be our government, right? Where. the government would step in and uh. provide protections or defend ordinary. people. And I'm worried about the lack. of will among our political elite to do. what they know is the right thing to do. in serving the American people. I mean, these are people who signed up to be. public servants, yet all they do is. serve moneyed interests who bribe them. during their campaigns. And so, just to.

give you one example, and I know you've. been very critical of FDR, but not for. the reason that I'm about to describe. You know, FDR was savvy enough to. realize that following the Great. Depression, uh, communism, socialism was. on the rise and he very much wanted to. protect a capitalistic society. So he. realized if I don't step in and. implement some of these economic. policies that will help improve the. quality of life for ordinary American.

workers, we're headed toward socialism. We're headed toward communism. And he. didn't want that. And so it same with. Henry Ford. I mean Henry Ford was the. CEO who decided, you know what, it makes. sense to give them my workers the. weekends off. it makes sense for me to. pay them enough money to be able to. afford Ford vehicles. Like these are. people who don't just think about their. personal benefits and what benefits them. in the short term. They have long-term. goals that goes beyond, you know, their.

own self-indulgence. And we just don't. have much of that right now, either in. our political elite or certainly not. among the billionaire oligarchs who uh. we're unfortunately being ruled by right. now. Yeah, there there's not a lot of. longitudinal thinking. It seems like. there's a kind of a day trade uh. worldview in force. So, you've always. been on the left or the progressive. left. I don't think you're much of a. Republican voter. Um and or haven't been.

anyway. Uh I think it's fair to say, but. I notic. >> I think it's complicated. It's. complicated. >> It's complicated. It's complicated, right? Well, it's complicated for. everybody all of a sudden. So I'm with. you on the complexity, but I on the. question of free speech. So I saw the. Biden administration as totally opposed. to free speech. They're pressuring. social media companies to shut down. people's accounts for disagreeing with. them on COVID or lots of other topics. And I really believe that the Trump. coalition was put there in part to. defend free speech, free expression,

free exchange of ideas, including those. you disagree with. And yet it seems like. a lot of its leaders pivoted almost. immediately to a Biden-like position on. speech where if I don't like you, I'm. going to cancel you when they had just. run against what they called cancel. culture like 20 minutes before. Am I. imagining that? >> No, you're not imagining it. And the. fact of the matter is, regardless of. which political side is doing it, and. both political sides do it, >> yes, >> it's it's an attempt to hide something.

from the public, information that they. don't want the public knowing about. And. I think a big red flag, especially from. the government is when they say they're. doing something in the name of safety. So, in the case of the Biden. administration, we want to keep you. safe. We don't want you to get COVID. disinformation. uh in the case of the Trump. administration and by the way also to. some extent with Biden on the Israel. issue uh there were efforts and have. been efforts to essentially say we got.

to keep our Jewish community safe as as. a result of that we can't let you say. certain things that are critical of the. Israeli government which obviously makes. no sense and we shouldn't be conflating. the Jewish population with a foreign. country but you know Israel likes to. hide behind human shields uh in their. own way so they intentionally make that. conflation. >> Um, but yeah, the word safety, once you. hear the word safety, and by the way, I've seen every political faction use. similar arguments, even on the far left,

you know, stifling free speech on. college campuses in some cases because. students feel unsafe. And I'm sorry, in. that particular context, you are going. to an institution to learn obviously, but also to be made uncomfortable. Like. you're not growing, you're not learning. until you're actually being confronted. with ideas that challenge your own. >> Sure. And it's also a misread of the. human condition. You're never safe. I. mean, you the future is not assured. And.

resistance to your narcissism is just. like a fact of life for everybody. And. it ought to be. And that's how you. become an adult, right? I mean, of. course. So, you actually want. confrontation because it draws you out. of your own stupid little universe. Um, but I just wonder if the left did it. with cancel culture and wokeness or. whatever you want to call it, but that. whole movement that we suffered through. for so many years and now the right is. doing exactly the same thing. They just. picked a different victim. It was black.

people. Now it's Jewish people. It'll be. somebody else. It's all it's always a. cover for con protecting the people in. charge. Then like who actually will. defend free speech? Well, there have always been very loud. voices that have been consistent on. protecting free speech. You know, Glenn. Greenwald happens to be one of them. He. he's undeterred in that mission. And in. fact, totally, >> the one area where he and I might have a. disagreement on free speech is whether. or not corporations are considered. people with protected speech and thus.

can provide unlimited campaign bribes to. politicians. Like he has defended that. Supreme Court ruling. I have a different. perspective on that. But in terms of in. actual individuals practicing their free. speech, he's always been consistent. And. whether the cancel culture proponents. like it or not, we do still have. constitutional rights. And if someone is. willing to take some issue to the court, I do believe that the courts tend to. side appropriately based on what our.

constitutional rights happen to be. But. that can be a costly way of pushing back. and defending your free rights. And it. becomes an even bigger problem when. again you literally have the government. on a state-by-state case passing laws. I. mean I mean Ronda Santis, the governor. of Florida, literally went to Florida to. sign state legislation that made it. clear if you're criticizing Israel, we're not going to give you any. government money, no grants for you or.

if even if it's a government. institution, we're going to strip you of. your funding. That's ridiculous. Especially since this has to do with. criticizing a foreign country. You can. you can criticize our country as much as. you want. And I like that. That's that's. what we should have. But we shouldn't. have certain protections uh for a. foreign country that violate our free. speech rights. >> We are strongly pro- dog on this show. We make no secret that dogs are one of. the great blessings of this life. And to. keep them healthy, we recommend Dutch. It's the solution to skyrocketing. veterinary costs. Why are those costs so.

high? Well, private equity, in case you. didn't already know that, big investors. have bought up veterinary clinics across. the country and doubled the amount they. charge. So, they're exploiting your love. for animals to make money. And are they. providing better services? Well, if you. can't afford to go to the vet, you get. no services at all. We did a whole show. on this, and it's really distressing. Dutch is the solution to this. Licensed. veterinarians easy remote appointments. start with the code Tucker plans at just.

$82 per year. That's like nothing. compared to what you will get if you. walk into a private equityowned vet. 50%. of Dutch customers say they had not seen. a vet in 3 years because they couldn't. afford it. Dutch fixes that. 10-minute. calls, no waiting room, no clinic. markup, free shipping on products, coverage for up to five pets. Visit. dutch.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for $50 off. Truly, Dutch is real. It works. We did a lot of.

research into this, used it before. recommending it. Dutch.com/tucker. We live in an age defined by technology, AI. And the promise, of course, is that. this is progress. But has it been? Well, you've also seen amidst all this. progress the total destruction of our. social fabric, an epidemic of. unhappiness, a spike in the suicide. rate. So, as we get closer to the. promise of technological progress, our. lives will all become better and easier. Less work, more automation. We get. farther away from what gives our lives.

purpose and meaning. What gives us joy? So, how do we recover what we've lost, the means to live a fulfilling life? Our. friend Shaun Stone has just written a. book about this. It's called 10 Things. to Learn: Ancient Wisdom for the Modern. Soul. And it draws on ancient wisdom to. help us navigate the spiritual. disorientation of modern life and. restore a sense of purpose in a world. defined by technology. Get Shaun Stone's. 10 things to learn today. It's only at. tucker carlsonbooks.com. That's tucker.

carlsonbooks.com. My sense is it's a very anti-democratic. small D democratic move too because I. think most people hate this when you see. AOC thinking about running for president. get up and admit like wokeness was it. went too far. it was bad. What she's. really saying is secretly everybody kind. of hated that. >> and that, you know, it takes a few years. for people to admit it cuz people are do. benefit from shutting down public. conversations about this or that, but. like ordinary people hate it and now she.

has to admit that. Very few people are. admitting that now about our current. explosion of identity politics around. Israel. But my sense is that deep down. though they may be afraid to say it, most people really resent this. Do you. think that? Oh, I absolutely I know for. a fact that people resent it, but people. are terrified. >> I know. >> And for me, the reason why I'm a. loudmouth about things like this is. because I know that when. >> people see an individual public figure. go out there.

unafraid to just say what needs to be. said. It kind of gives them permission. It gives them a little more comfort to. come out and say what they want to say. And we do need to foster that kind of. environment. And I can't emphasize this. enough. We can't give the sensorious. people regardless of where they fall in. the political spectrum or on the issue. of Israel. We cannot give them an inch. under any circumstance. So like for me, when they come at you with a bad faith. allegation, the left falls for this almost every.

time, and I'm trying to get them to like. think a little more savvy. U they're not. looking for an apology. And in fact, if. you do apologize when you haven't really. said anything wrong to begin with, they. see that as an admission of guilt. So. don't give them an inch. Don't play. their game. Don't play their game. A as. long as what you actually said wasn't. coming from a place of hate where you're. trying to get people hurt. You're just. sharing your perspective on something. Don't let the bad faith actors convince. you that maybe apologizing will make.

like this crazy mob go away. The mob is. not going to go away unless you ignore. them and double down. In fact, so. >> well, you've you. got a congressional medal of honor for. for that. I mean, that's definitely the. way you approach it and God bless you. for that. Graham Platner, what just. happened to the political candidate in. the state of Maine, Graham Platner, earlier this year seems like a pretty. good example of what you're describing. Can you now that you know we've had a. month or two to assess it, what what was.

that, do you think? Well, okay. So, let me back up and give. you my perspective on Grand Platner and. the entirety of his campaign. So, I'm in. a kind of blackpilled place in life. where, you know, the midterms are coming. and everyone thinks it's like, oh, it's. going to make all the diff. It's not. going to make all the difference. Our. political system's broken. >> And I don't really have a dog in this. fight, believe it or not. So, when. Graham Platner came on the scene, I'm. like, same old, same old. Yes, you're.

going to do all these wonderful things. for working-class Americans. I don't. believe anybody. Okay, >> fair. >> And then the tattoo thing happened, you. know, and I sighed him because I'm like, how do you have like he at some point he. realized the tattoo he got the skull and. bones, he realized that it was like a. Nazi symbol. He even admitted that. And. then he kept it on his person for years. until he ran for Congress and it became. an issue. I thought that was weird, but. whatever. It's not for me. It's not. disqualifying necessarily. I just didn't. buy his story.

>> Yeah. >> Final thing though was the allegation of. forcible rape, which. >> I understand when someone has been raped. and they're terrified to go to the. authorities because sometimes it ends up. backfiring when you go to the. authorities. It's insult to injury and. you go through a terrible time. If you. don't have hard evidence, people are. going to deny you or or blame you. It's. awful. So, I can understand that. But. the woman who accused him of forcible.

rape, uh, who she had been dating for. two years, by the way, uh, decided, I'm. not going to go to the authorities after. he allegedly forcibly raped me. I'm just. going to come out and talk about it in. public as the, you know, primary for. Platner's, you know, race approaches, thus forcing him to drop out. And then. we never heard from her again. Did she. ever go to the authorities? Is she. comfortable with the fact that um if in. fact she was allegedly raped by Graham.

Platner, well now he's free to go. wherever he wants to go, do whatever he. wants to do, and potentially rape. someone else. >> Exactly. >> And and so for me, Tucker, I think the. reason why she didn't go to the. authorities. >> and instead came out and told the entire. world about what allegedly happened is. because I don't believe it actually. happened. I just don't. and the. reporting on it uh intentionally omitted. details that I think the public should. have known about. Namely, right, namely. the fact that she sends him a te the way. their interaction started that night.

She sends him a text message about how. she needs a glute massage, >> but they omitted that from the. reporting. I just to me it looks like a. fishy story to say the least. >> The glute being the butt muscles. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Pretty provocative text. I mean, and. look, I I wasn't there, you know, I. wasn't dating Graham Platiner. I don't. know, but that seems that seems like a. relevant detail to me. Here's my take on. it was less sophisticated than yours, but I was just trying to take a big.

picture assessment. So, here's a guy. who's who's clearly going to beat Susan. Collins, one of the most mediocre. She's. a joke, of course, Susan Collins. Um, probably not an evil person, but like. Susan Collins, come on now. He's going. to beat her. He's a conventional. Democrat in some ways, but the big issue. on which he disagrees with his party's. leadership is Israel. And he just says. it. He's like that what's happening in. Gaza is a crime because it is a crime. And it's that issue that torpedoes his. candidacy because his own party,

including the state party in Maine, >> turns against him on orders from their. donors. That that seemed to be what. happened to me. But maybe I'm missing. something. I mean, if you do take a step back and. you look at the specific candidates who. have beenounded and treated poorly. throughout their primaries and even. after they won their primaries, you'll. notice that there is a through line. And. that through line is. criticism of Israel, criticism of US.

financial support for Israel's wars, genocides, atrocities, things like that. And um you can't argue that you want to. be a public servant who genuinely. believes in an America first agenda when. you're okay with doing things like. merging the IDF with the US military or. continuing this like gravy train that we. can't afford. We like we are literally. going deeper and deeper and deeper into. debt in order to pay for Israel's. weapons. Trump just signed off on.

another $3 billion to for 2,000 lb bombs. for Israel. They're not even paying for. it. We're going to go into debt to. provide it for them. >> And that is an injustice. And these are. the types of things they don't want us. talking about. They want us to shut up. There is nothing in my commentary right. now that even touches on, you know, the. Jewish identity, right? It's about. morality. It's about finite resources. It's about doing what's right for the. American people as a member of the.

political class. And somehow that is. considered like incredibly outrageous, dangerous, and offensive to say. And. other candidates who have said things. like this tend to be the ones who are. targeted um maniacally by people like. Laura Loomer, who by the way, last June, I don't know if people know this, uh was. bitching about the fact that not enough. Americans hate Muslims, so maybe we need. another 9/11. >> Yeah. So what what does that make you think.

when somebody who's you know a very. powerful player for some reason at this. moment within our political process. calls for another 9/11. I mean that that. seems like a extraordinary thing to say. I not only is it extraordinary. I I think it. the bigger picture I think the. overarching issue that I'm struggling. with.

is what like what is my identity because. I've always identified as American I've. always identified it as American right. like I love this country I want to. defend this country I want to live here. for the rest of my life my f you know my. family my brother is raising his four. kids here I want them to thrive I want. everyone to thrive but there are so many. different things happening. simultaneously right now, Tucker, that. makes me think, oh my god, like we are. surrounded by people who don't really. see this as their country. Like they. just. it's like a commuter country. Like you. come in, you take what you need, and.

then you go. And so when you have. someone like Laura Loomer saying, "Maybe. we need another 9/11." Disgusting. Okay. When you see the willingness of our. lawmakers to sell out our own country, put us deeper and deeper into debt on. behalf of a foreign country, it it just. disgust. It just feels like everything. here is being exploited for other. purposes. >> Yes. >> And I'm angry about it. And I know other. Americans are angry about it. Ela Chow, Ela Chow turns out to have worked for.

the Chinese government while serving in. the the Trump administration. That was a. huge story that was uh broken by the. Daily Caller. I just reported on it. yesterday on our show. How is that okay? How is that okay? >> Yeah. >> A two-time cabinet secretary in two. separate administrations. Her husband. was Senate Majority Leader and she's. working for China. And of course, there'll be there will never be any. attempt to hold Ela Chow accountable for. that ever. >> Um it's crazy.

>> But at least I guess here's the the the. point of my thoughts today on this. specific topic. At least we can still. acknowledge it, report the truth about. it, try to call other people's attention. to it, rally support for some kind of. solution to it. That's why speech is. important. And I just wonder given that. all of our conversations take place. digitally and the digital platforms are. owned by people who clearly are not. committed to the concept of free speech, like how long does this last?

>> I don't know. But I'm not going to stop. I'm not going to stop and I'm willing to. I mean there have already been. consequences for me personally and I. haven't stopped and I'm going to keep. going. >> Yes. >> Because the ability to express yourself. is one of the most precious rights that. we have in this country and I don't. think that we should give it up. willy-nilly. I I think some people have. been willing to do that but honestly if. it takes. sacrificing potentially everything I'm.

going to keep speaking my mind. Yes. I. know no other way. It's torture to not. be able to speak your mind. I I can't. imagine living in that type of society. So, look, there are consequences. already. Luckily, I work for Jenkuger. and Jen Uger really does believe in free. speech and even if he does, >> you know, we have some big fights on the. show time to time and he's never once. retaliated against me because we. disagree and I I just love that I'm. lucky enough to work for him. >> Um, but even if he ended up firing me. for speaking my mind, where there's a.

will, there's a way. And if it means. that I have to do menial work uh to make. ends meet in order to continue being. able to speak my mind, I'm going to keep. speaking my mind. But here's what I. would say to the audience because this. is really important. How about we don't. give into these people anymore? How. about we have each other's backs as. Americans? >> Yes. >> You get what I'm saying? >> Oh yes. So, like the whole Mmore. debacle, I think the way that that. played out was kind of fantastic because. there's a lot of rage among Americans.

who don't think he said anything wrong. Even Jesse Waters, he's like, "What did. he he said? Free Palestine. I don't. think that's hate speech." And so, people having Mammore's back. And in. fact, Ed Sheeran being a coward in this. scenario has now lost like half a. million followers on social media. because he didn't stand up for what was. right. And so I love to see that. Let's. do more of that. Let's have each other's. backs because you're not just defending. one person. You're defending the whole. concept of freedom of expression.

>> Amen. My boy. And on that note, thank. you. Thank you for everything you've. done to preserve and expand the. boundaries of speech at cost to. yourself. And I I really think you'll be. >> whatever you're going through now, I. think you'll be rewarded for it in the. end. I I believe that. So Anna Caspian, thank you very much. >> Thanks, Tucker.