Glenn Greenwald: Iran War Updates, False Flags, and Netanyahu’s Plot to Imprison Americans

in the conflict with Iran, the United States and Israel are engaged in a joint war against

“Iran and all of us are trying to figure out what's happening there.”

But as our attention is diverted outside of our borders, it's also worth paying attention to what's happening here and in the rest of the West that is not directly connected to this conflict, but still affected by it. And one of the things you notice is that our country, and certainly Europe and Australia and New Zealand in Canada, have all clamped down on their own populations in very unusual

unprecedented ways over the past year, but particularly since this war started two weeks ago. And that's a familiar phenomenon.

Things at war tend to become more authoritarian, it always happens.

But we should be on guard against it. And one of the ways it is happening in the United States is that free speech is being curtailed. Your inherent God-given right to say what you believe in public. That's the basis of the United States.

It's the very core of our bill of rights for founding documents. It's the reason that we are exceptional in the world. It's that one thing, our ability to say what we think because that right comes from God, not the government. That's what our documents say.

And so of all rights that we should be resistant to losing, that would be at the very top of the list.

And yet there is a concerted effort as our next guest is about to explain to strip that

right from Americans using both the pretext of war and the cover of war. And again, we should be unguarded against it. King Greenwald has spent his entire professional life advocating for the freedom of speech has been punished for it. He has been analyzing carefully what's going on right now.

He joins us now. Glenn, thanks a lot for doing this.

“How would you assess the state of free speech in the West right now?”

It is seriously in peril. It's often in peril, but it's more in peril than ever before. And there are a couple of different reasons, obviously there's been a attempt on the part of the EU to undermine the ability for people on this populist right to express certain views.

And there's been a lot of attention paid to that, but the far more significant threat to free speech. And you and I have been talking about this talker since all the way back in 2023, after October 7th, is the very concerted effort on the part of the Israeli government. And in each of these democratic countries, they have pro-Israel lobbying groups, not

as strong as the United States, but still very strong, that have overtly said that there's too much permissive language under the laws of these countries for what you can say about Israel. And that young himself, just a couple of months ago, said that we're warning Western state you better do more to protect the Jews in your country and you better heed that

warning in ever since. And even, you know, there's been a spade of these kinds of things before that, but ever since, there's been an extra lot of draconian changes to just obliterating free speech in the name of protecting this foreign country, the most reason of which was, I don't know if you saw, but the Australians, after Bondi Beach at the insistence of the Israelis, passed

a law banning a whole bunch of common political slogans that offend Israel, like from the river to the sea, and things of that nature. And a bunch of Australian citizens were angry that they're not allowed to express this political view any longer or else they'll be arrested, and they went as kind of civil disobedience wearing a t-shirt that said, from the river to the sea, and each and every one of them was

arrested and processed through the court system. So when you see these sorts of things, these kinds of new speech codes that haven't promulgated, including in the United States, a whole bunch of legislative frameworks that really have no purpose other than to expand the definition of anti-Semitism that's existed for decades to include a wide range of common criticism of Israel, or even of Jewish individuals,

that is an extremely serious attack on free speech, not in the name of marginalized groups in our own country, but in the name of shielding this foreign country. I just, Australia's story is so shocking that I didn't think it was real at first. I talked to a friend in Australia who confirmed that it was, but it leaves so many questions. The first of which is, how does a foreign prime minister have the power to tell citizens many

“thousands of miles away that they're not allowed to criticize him?”

I think, you know, if you had asked me this three years ago, I would have had to have been delicate

because the answer is something a lot of people were out of wherever even top was taboo, but I

think a lot of people understand now that these countries have very strong organizations, activist groups, well-funded lobbies that are not loyal to the interests of ordinary Australians or

to be in the West in order to most effectively and aggressively shield Israel.

And Bondi Beach was, you know, in fairness, a pretty horrific attack. There was, you know, a two-gun men and they, you know, Hanukkah celebration and gun down people. But since when in the West do we believe that the solution to massacres or to mass shootings which happen all the time is to immediately curb free speech and not only curb it but make it illegal to express a whole wide range of views. And it's not just Australia Tucker, it's happening and I

can, you know, go through every single example of which there are many over the past two years and especially recently were very similar things are happening in Canada, in South America, all throughout

Europe and even increasingly United States. If I could just give one example, one of the

“most disturbing things I think I got very little attention was that when President Trump got into”

office, he made combating anti-Semitism, a major priority across all agencies of his administration, they even have anti-Semitism's are who's very, very aggressive. And a bunch of regulations got passed saying that if you criticize Israel, you're not eligible for these kinds of programs. And what Israel did about 10 years ago was promulgated this very new radically expanded hate speech code called the I-H-R-A, which is the International Holocaust Remembrance Act. And it takes very

benign and common views about Israel or about Jews such as Israel as a racist society or you can compare Israel to the Nazis or the Jews played a role in in killing Jesus, a whole bunch of other kind of criticism of either Israel or Israelis or Jews or Israel, and they banned it as hate speech, which is I thought what the American right was was so angry about for so long and when Trump

“negotiated when he withdrew funding from a bunch of colleges on the grounds that they were allowed”

into much anti-Semitism, every one of the negotiations required them to implement this aggressively expanded definition of anti-Semitism so that even professors of genocide and Holocaust studies who have been teaching for decades decided that they had to change their their reading list because it was

now prohibited in the name of Israel. This is America, the first, where the first amendment

is still in place and yet this is all over academic institutions. This all happened under the cover of combating wokeness, combating the left-wing death grip on American higher education, which is real, it's the most real thing of all, but rather than break death grip, it hasn't been broken, it's still in place completely. This was used as an opportunity to restrict the inherent free speech rights of Americans and very few people noticed this. I didn't understand it was happening.

Because the problem here is that it's happening in our mostly institutions of higher learning, our universities, our colleges, which you know, going back to the Enlightenment, everybody agreed was the one place where you needed completely unfettered speech and debate including offensive ideas to test things that have been declared taboo to even dissect the most sacred orthodoxies. The fact that these speech restrictions are happening on college campuses,

I think is extra disturbing and destructive to free speech. There's also, it's very hard to pinpoint because there's been so many, you know, you mentioned DEI. The Trump administration came in promising to dismantle DEI, they did dismantle a lot of so-called DEI programs for black people for months recognizing this group or that group, but in many of these agreements, Tucker, with some of the biggest universities, they included classic DEI requirements, but not for black people, not for women, not for trans

“or gay people, but for Jews. And there's a lot of these programs that say, once a year you have to have”

an event, recognizing the importance of Jewish life on campus, you have to go recruit it, Jewish day schools to try and get people who are Jewish to go to the school, you have to create a whole office where people feel offended and it's a series of rights and agencies available, only for Jews. It is classic DEI. So they dismantle DEI for some of the unfavoured groups, but created new DEI programs for the ones that are most favored. And that actually happened.

Why did no one on the right say anything about it? Well, I didn't say anything about it. Again, I wasn't aware, and I should have been aware, it's my fault, but I didn't know what was happening. Did, I mean, why did no one mention it? I've been mentioning it a lot, and there's, you know, some university associations, very worried about free speech and scholarship that have been active on it.

a zillion different initiatives. They really came in from Peter to their credit. And it was just

one after the next. And I always felt like one of the most dangerous ones was that they cut off

“university funding for all of our most important institutions. And these, this government funding,”

you know, doesn't go to like trans people in Armenia in the 17th century. The reason our universities get government funding is because that's where the most important advances in technology and science are developed. That's where the internet came from was government funding of the internet research at universities. And they cut it off and they said, you're not getting it back unless you'd agree to all of our conditions. And one of the main conditions was the installation

of these heightened speech codes. I hate speech codes that ban the airing and expression, not just by students, but by faculty of all sorts of ideas, had nothing to do with the protest. They also forced the firing of Middle East professors and chairs of the department, who they deemed to be too friendly to criticism of the Israel. It was a remarkable assault on academic freedom at our highest and most well-regarded educational institutions. And it was kind of done, as you said,

with very little attempt at because where's this flurry of other stuff going on at the beginning of the Trump administration. But if you go back and look at what those agreements were or what the DEI causes were are or what that IHRA hate speech code is, you will be shocked at the kinds of ideas that are no longer permitted to be expressed in classes by faculty in reading, in student debates upon the aim of being expelled or suspended or fired.

A lot of people hesitate before getting traditional therapies for cholesterol health. They don't want to wind up stuck on capsules for the rest of their lives. Pills, they'd rather feel like they

“have some say and how they take care of their own bodies. And that's why more Americans are”

turning to more gentle alternatives with ingredients they recognize. Greetings like ginger and pomegranate. One of those alternatives is a dose for cholesterol. Dose for cholesterol is a clinically backs cholesterol support supplement that targets triglycerides, LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol levels. We know a bunch of people use it and the results have been overwhelming. They no longer fear having blood work done because at last the results are good and they're not on some kind of weird

chemical cocktail. It actually works. It wouldn't partner with them. If it didn't work. Dose is easy to use. It's a daily two ounce liquid shot that tastes like mango. Ooh, no capsules, no powders. It's seamless to use. Visit dosedaly.co/tucker. Use code Tucker for 35% off. That's dosedaly.co/tucker code Tucker for 35% off. That's worth it. It's shocking to me that that happened. And again, I just want to apologize for not

understanding what was happening as it was. But I have to ask about the pretext for it. I mean, I hate seeing anybody hassled for his religion or ethnicity that Jews, Christians, Hindus. I just don't like it, okay? And I hate what a lot of, you know, agents of, you know, con politics are now doing with Muslims. Hate all the Muslims. I don't like that anymore than I like hate all the Jews. But I wonder, like, was there massive harassment of Jewish

students in the Ivy League or Jewish students underrepresented? It Ivy League schools. Was there evidence that they were systematically discriminated against? The ADL about a year ago issued this statement, uh, complaining that Hollywood had adopted all these diversity rules for how many actors

“you have to have, and directors, and whatever, and they complained that Jewish people were not”

among the minority groups that were part of the diversity count, and they basically argued, not just

implicitly, but explicitly that Hollywood has long been known for discriminating against or creating barriers for the participation of Jews in various, uh, power sectors in Hollywood, which I think would come as a gigantic surprise to anybody who has ever had any remote familiarity with with Hollywood, and the same is true at educational institutions. Go and look, we will ask seven of eight Harvard professors were, they were all Jewish. John Mirchheimer talked about this. You know,

he's been in academia for 50 years and he said, keep hearing that there's this like problem with not enough Jews or Jews being attacked. I've been in academia for 50 years. The idea that Jews are underrepresented is so insultingly false, but the attempt to turn these educational institutions into somehow bashings of anti-Semitism, even though they're filled with

Jews at every crucial level, including donors and administrators and professors and students,

you know, you always need a reason to censor. You always have to cite some sort of crisis, but I think the key thing here, Tucker, is that even if you believe those protests were anti-Semitic

but these speech codes I'm talking about, that Trump forced the administration, the universities

“to adopt, or IHRA, they have nothing to do with protests. They're not about conduct. They're solely”

about ideas. I mean, I could just give you a couple. You're not allowed to say that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. You're allowed to say the United States is a racist endeavor. You can say that about China or Japan or Iran, Norway, Indonesia, any other country and the planet, inark schools, you're not allowed to say it to race in endeavor. You're not allowed to claim that Jews participate in the killing of Jesus. You can't draw comparisons between

Israeli policy today and that of the Nazis. You can compare American words to Nazis, any other country. It's all special protections of the kinds that we told we were going to be done by, and there are so many more of these that are amazing, that are just so obviously protected speech, but no longer safely expressed in the college or university setting. But it leaves America to like this war, it leaves America unprotected. So, I mean, not that these are protections, and I would

never, of course, support a law banning criticism of the country that I own, you know, America,

we all own this country as citizens. So I would never support those, but it's just interesting that there's no criticism of the United States our country that is banned or even discouraged, only of a foreign country. Is that correct? There are no bands on your ability to criticize

“the American government, American wars, the American founding, you know, and that's what's”

remarkable. I was obviously vehemently opposed to the kind of tsunami of left-wing censorship that happened in our elite university. I was on your show many times to talk about why you remember. That was so dangerous. And I don't want to, in any way, justify it. But what I will say is at the very least, the ostensible, pretextual argument for why we needed censorship, anti black, speech, or anti trans speech, whatever is because we were protecting marginalized American citizens

who belong to groups that were endangered. Totally false, totally dangerous, but at least they were trying to ostensibly protect American citizens in the United States, which is so remarkable about these new codes, is there only to protect Israel? Imagine you go in and in your citizen of Australia and you wear a shirt criticizing or advocating for something with Israel and you get arrested in your own democratic country of Australia. It is bizarre, Tucker. There's no other

laws that would be applicable to any other countries. It's only for this one country over and over

and it also sends a very unsettling message because censorship is always leveed on behalf of the

people in charge. Of course, the people to power are the only ones who ever pass laws telling you can't criticize them. Of course. And so what does this tell you? I mean, it's spooky. I've never been the guy who runs around saying Israel runs the United States. I was overstatement, but I don't want to think that. But if you can't criticize the foreign country, then that country is in charge, right? I mean, what other conclusions should I draw? I can't really provide you with the coaching

one. I will say I think, and it doesn't in any way justify or change anything you said, but I

“nonetheless think it's important to to know that I think one of the reasons is this is happening”

and me or Shimer and Walt, who wrote that the Israel lobby book back in 2007, the Pioneer

and First Ever Real book about the influence of the Israel lobby. They've recently talked about

how a special mere Shimer held back over the last several decades. It was very important for the Israel lobby to act kind of in the shadows. I don't mean that nefarious. I mean, they just didn't want it obvious if there was this force that, I mean, like most lobbyist groups operate in the sewers and shadows of the capital. But over the last three years, the pro Israel lobby has had to come out into the open so much more than ever before and really just be so explicit in calling everyone

inside some of the systems advocating for speech restrictions and the reason is is because there has been a very radical and from an Israeli perspective, an extremely alarming collapse in support for Israel among Americans in basically every demographic group other than conservatives over 50. So basically like decades on boxwaters, but even conservatives under 50 have all basically now have majority opinions that are disfavorable to Israel. And you see some of what they've been

trying to do in response, Larry Ellison, tried to buy TikTok, which was one of the perceived sources where so many people were hearing about anti-Israel criticism, so they tried to add the hands of the owners and put it into Larry Ellison's hand. You see the Ellison family buying

all desperate moves. And I think the same is true with this very brazen attempt that they wouldn't have

done before. So so out in the open, try and sense American speech for Israel, but it's because they feel panic. They're in panic. It's kind of a desperation. That spiral of support for Israel among Americans, which had been utterly unthreatened for decades, is very rapid. And I don't

“think it's ever going back. And I think a lot of these efforts as kind of, you know,”

just obvious. And it was such a high potential for backlash, are being pursued anyway, because they're just desperate about trying to find some way to reverse that public opinion trend in that state. Inflation makes credit card statements particularly scary. You work 40, 50 hours a week just to buy groceries and gas. Things you used to be able to afford without thinking that much about it. Then the banks charge you 20% interest if the system is designed to

keep you underwater, it's working, but there's another option. Our friends at American, financing or doing something in big banks despise. They are helping people. Mortgage rates in the Fives, supporting the American dream of home ownership. And they're showing home owners how to take their hard earned equity to wipe out high interest debt. Now we're against debt in general, but in this economy, most people have no choice at all. So don't go bankrupt and sleeping yourself

to a lender. Average savings are about 800 bucks a month and it takes only 10 minutes to talk to a salary-based mortgage consultant. No upfront fees or obligation to see how much you can save. Give American financing a call, 800, 685, 5696, as 1,800, 685, 5696, or visit American financing.net/tucker, America's home for home loans. Either a misreading the goal or this is the dumbest campaign ever waged, because if the goal is to make people like Israel, this is having the opposite effect

of course. So maybe, and it's, I mean, really having the opposite effect. It's changing people's

“minds against Israel, Israel is doing that. And so you have to wonder, like, maybe that is the goal.”

We saw the exact same thing many times, but most recently with the last, and you know, in the wake of George Floyd and, and me too, they just started kind of frantically accusing everybody of being a racist and a white supremacist and a misogynist and people that really tell, you know, that was peak-woke and people got really tired of it. And so many people were being accused of it. At some point, it just lost its meaning. And people got angry about it. Nobody appreciates those

who are trying to stay full debate. And there was a huge backlash in terms of people no longer caring about being called racist because they drained it of all its meaning. Exactly the same thing is is so clearly happening here. And the, of course, there's going to be a lot of resentment. The more people see how much of a speech crackdown in the West generally in United States in particular, there is indefense of this foreign country. But again, I would just go

back to the fact that it was really the obliteration of Gaza, all the inhumane atrocities that we saw, that accompanied it, that we saw literally every day, that we realized the United States was paying 400 go Biden and army and funding. It really radically transformed how people think of their own government and how they think of Israel. And I just think that this was all, this is all

an effort to put the cat in the bad because there's always been a perception that Israel's existence

depends on why it spreads the 49 states. And that is crumbling. I hesitate even to say this because it pains me so so much. But, you know, we've been doing shows together for a long, 10 years. And the basis of most them has been, you know, free speech. It's the most American idea there is. And it's the one worth dying for. And we both have always agreed on that. And you're a lifelong figure on the left. I'm a lifelong figure on the right. And we both agreed that

like the left was the real threat to free speech because it was. Over the last year, the right seems every bit as the right, whatever that means like the Republican Party, I guess, seems every bit is threatening to free speech. Maybe even more so. Maybe more effective in this attack on free speech than the left. I really don't want to think that. It pains me to admit it. But I want to be honest. And I'm starting to believe that.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's because the left suddenly had an awakening about the importance and virtues of free speech in the attack. It's really because they're out of power. And the right is in power. And that of course is something very common when people claim to believe in certain liberties and certain civil civil rights. And they get into office and suddenly they find reasons

“to unravel it. But this has been going on for a while. I think, you know, you mentioned how the”

speech goes to universities and get a lot of attention. Another thing I never got a lot of attention.

predates October 11th, a seven. I would say it's now up to 35 or 36 states in the United States.

The vast majority of which are red states, but not all, that have enacted laws that make it a

“requirement. If you want to govern in contract, that you certify that you do not support a”

boycott of Israel. And a lot of people who had contracts before this law was passed and did up getting fired because they refused. There have been hurricane relief aid that cities have conditioned on signing a form that says you don't support a boycott of Israel. There have been all kinds of firings and universities for people who criticize Israel. So it's been developing for quite a while. It's not like it just started. Hurricane relief was predicated on a

signed statement that you don't support a boycott for Israel. In other words, you don't even

have to be actively boycotting Israel. But if you can sexually support it, you can't get hurricane relief. Emergency disaster aid? Is that true? Well, this is the kind of thing that I know people don't believe and let's know. I mean, it's like, it's so shocking. I know. If I didn't see

“myself, I also wouldn't believe it. I think if I heard that, it'd be like that. That's a conspiracy”

theory saying crazy stuff. No, that actually is something that was instituted in many places. Different kinds of language. But mostly it requires that you certify that you don't participate in a boycott of Israel. In order to get a state contract, or in order to get hurricane relief, there were HHS regulations, once RFK took over, that were forced on by the administration that said certain grants, you can't get unless you certify that you're not supporting a boycott of Israel.

Time out of grants for research that would help Americans health. That would then got conditioned on this sort of thing. So this has been something that has been going on for a while. Let me just say one of the things, Tucker. One of the people who supported that ban on people getting state contracts unless they certify they won't support a boycott of Israel was Andrew Cuomo when he was governor of New York. When he was governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo ordered the state to boycott

the state of North Carolina and the state of Indiana over angered you to it because of their

“their bathroom bills, their hands bathroom. I remember that. So Cuomo ordered a boycott of American”

states. Once these laws started proliferating, Andrew Cuomo embraced this and said, if you boycott Israel, New York State will boycott you. We won't do business with you. This is someone who said, it's totally fine to boycott your fellow countrymen, your states in the United States. That's not only is it fine. I'm ordering those boycotts. The one thing you can boycott any other country on the planet as well, any other state, any other city, you just can't boycott

Israel. So many American laws in place that imposed or coney in deprivations in the event that you're not able to certify that treefully. It's beyond belief that there not only states that did this, the majority of states by your telling, but that there's been no protest against it. Because of course there's no ban on boycotting the United States. Our country doesn't play a role in any of this. It's like a foreign country of 9 million people. Their interest determine

whether you get hurricane relief or a federal contract. Why is no one protested this? It's just, you know, for a long time before October 7, especially, there was just kind of a Israel was sort of on the back burner, but also, you know, this very well, there was a really a taboo. There was a high career and computational cost. If you were going to talk about Israel

and anything other than the Reverend, you know, bipartisan script that we always have to finance

and arm and support Israel and go to war for Israel. If you deviated it all, a lot of people, you know, pay the big price for that. So I think there was just always, you know, I've been writing about Israel and this sort of stuff and it's influenced United States for 20 years. And there are many times when I saw things that I just couldn't believe real and they were real. And as you say, they got very little attention because there was a climate that convinced people

implicitly or otherwise, you're better off just not talking about Israel. There's a million other things you can go talk about. Leave the Israel topic alone. And a lot of people did it and after October 7th, it just became unsustainable. I mean, and I think after this war, it will become unsustainable. I don't think that any of this can remain unchanged in some of it will be overturned. And actually, let me just take a quick side detour here and ask you,

this war is not popular. I just want to say on the record, I'm hoping for the best resolution

from the very first day, the majority of Americans are against it. But there have been no protests,

no meaningful protests against it. What is that? One of the problems is that there's a constitutional framework that was created by the founders that everyone can go read the Constitution article one says that Congress is the exclusive right to to clear war. And not just to declare war, but other aspects of how those wars are conducted. And there was a reason for it. If you go read the Federalist papers, if you go read a

bunch of other stuff that was written about it at the time, the reason is is because wars are the

“singular, most potentially dangerous thing, the worst thing, the most destructive thing that a country”

can embark upon. And the people who end up having their lives risk for it are the citizens of the country fighting the war, at least that used to be true. That's no longer true. But it was true. Back then, in the theory was, if you're going to start a war, you have to have the consent of the people who are going to actually be fighting in the war or paying for the war, or otherwise burning themselves. And the way to do that is you have the branch that's closest to the American people

is the Congress, because they're elected, they're elected every two years. And that was why it was so important to approve those wars. We've completely gotten away from that. President's belief in bull parties, they can start wars and they frequently do without any kind of attempt to gain congressional approval. Obama started the war in Libya with no congressional approval. A couple of days later, the House actually voted on whether to authorize it, the House voted no. We're not authorizing it,

and Obama just went ahead and didn't do it anyway. So we've lost this idea that we're supposed to

“have a debate that it's in the hands of anybody other than the president. I think beyond that, though,”

traditionally people have gotten really angry about wars, have started protesting wars, when there's a lot of Americans deployed in Vietnam and by a draft. But even when Iraq, when there's a lot of troops coming home and in body bags, or dying, and I think the ideas if we're just airbombing, just airbombing, if that's all we're doing, it just doesn't provide the impetus for Americans to go out and protest. And also, the big difference between

Iraq and war and the Iran war for all the valid criticisms of Bush and Cheney and Condolese rights in that whole crew, at least they had a nationwide campaign for more than a year to convince Americans that they should support the war and laying out the case. It was filled with lies and falsehoods and all kinds of wrong and ignorant predictions, but at least they did it. This war was just like, here it is. And there was no public debate, meaningful debate about

“whether we should have a second war. It wasn't part of the 2024 campaign. So I think it just happened”

so quickly. There was never really any consistent rationale or motive as to what we were doing,

or what the goals were, and I just don't think that gave Americans the fuel to protest. I think you will see that if this gets further out of control. The gold industry bank rules a lot of conservative media. Much of the gold IRA business is not actually about selling gold at all. It's about selling massively marked up coins to people who trust the voices delivering the pitch. Why is gold a hedge? I've decided to partner with the top rated precious metals company. The companies

have the exclusive control. They can manipulate the price of the coins at any time. That's the dark side of it. What he said was you don't get as much of a loss and they tend to really accelerate when the market goes up, which obviously sounds too good to be true. We know this is happening

because we talk to people who work inside these companies. The reality is there is no regulation.

And then we talk to people who lost their savings. They were a pumping this company and I trusted them. Even as the price of gold rises. It's so crushing. The great gold scam. Watch it now at Tucker Carlson.com. People are getting robbed. We're sounding the alarm and we hope you will join us. In the modern age, the protester organized and they're organized over social media by text message and they're organized by groups with a stake in politically, whatever the outcome of the debate is.

So the Iraq War protests were organized by groups and the George Floyd protests were organized by groups. We could identify and paid for by companies whose names we know. It wasn't just random Americans showing up on the national mall to express their opinions. They were bus dead. And I'm not criticizing that at all. But that's not happening now. So it's not just that Americans are engaged, like they're opposed to it. But there's no group on the left that seems interested

Well, I think the other problem with it is that although there are a lot of Democrats posturing as being opposed, you know, when they go on like MSNBC or whatever, there's no real effort on the part of the Democrats in Congress to take any steps that would actually impede the war. I mean, there was a vote about whether they need authorization and they lost that vote.

But the reality is that the Democratic leadership, Chuck Schumer, Hawking Jeffries,

they support this for, especially Chuck Schumer. They have no interest in doing anything like having votes on funding because they don't think it's politically wise. And when you have no

“leadership from the Democratic Party, which is supposed to be the opposition party, I think that also”

contributes to a reason why there's, there's not a lot of the nation-wide protests. You need leaders to do it. But again, I think the big issue was it just came out of nowhere. You know, it wasn't like the Iraq War or other words where you had time to protest. You just woke up one day and there was a true social post from Trump in the middle of the night announcing the war and then there was the war. Yeah. No, that's a really good point. And so like so many of these changes, it was

unheriled that it just happened. And so back to the speech question, I know there was a not famous enough moment where the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, who's I think been a pretty good governor in some ways, but traveled to Israel to sign what looked like hate speech laws that are applicable in Florida. Is that a mischaracterization? Some of his supporters denied that actually happened. Did it actually happen? And what does it mean? It did actually happen. He actually

went to Israel twice to sign laws in Israel that applied to people on Florida. The first one was

“kind of an iron and had some connection to Israel. The second one, though, which was in I believe”

2022 when he was gearing up to run for the Republican primary nomination, a big part of what the strategy was was they were they were going to get and they did get most of the hard core fanatical Zionist groups in pro-Israel, activist types, and pundent types. They they wound up not behind Trump up behind Ron DeSantis. And that was very much a part of his strategy was Korean favorite with this crowd, which, okay, that's, you know, what people doing politics, to go to and I don't want

to completely mischaracterize the law because there is some, you don't want you can overstate it, but it absolutely was a law that took certain speech and prescribed it, not for the people in Israel, but for the people in that Florida. And it was about funding hate speech programs. And again, only about anti-Semitism in Israel and he went to Israel in order to sign it. That was just true. I can't, I don't understand that either, you know, that that was not something that

provoked a lot of outrage. Why is he signing bills for the people in Florida in Israel when it actually can have the effect of confining or restricting the speech of the people in Florida in relation to Israel? It seems like he was siding with this foreign country over the citizens of the state that elected him. It's, if nothing else, it's so humiliating. It's so obviously humiliating. I mean, I'm going to a foreign country to sign a law any law that affects you in my state. I mean,

what? I mean, I'm just trying to understand the psychology here. I mean, again, like a lot of things you've just mentioned, I didn't really believe that could actually have happened, so I didn't, I wasn't as focused on it when it did happen. I should have been my mistake, but I'm wondering the thinking of like these really government officials who pushed this, there were some,

“how did they think that helped them? Didn't they think that would in gender resentment?”

How could it not in gender resentment? I mean, did it, though, because, you know, again, I think that there wasn't that much attention paid. How many people really know that Ron Desantis did it? Every time I mention it, people who don't know are shocked and angry for obvious reasons, but if this weren't something that we're done in isolation, you could create some kind of rationale. You know, again, yeah, for sure. Ron Desantis was trying to be a pro-Israel, you know,

candidate going there, kind of does that. There's a lot of money there, you know,

you have Mary Amado saying it can be a campaign strategy. But the problem is is that I can point you

to every institution, laws and hate speech codes. Do you know how many people got fire doctor, October 7, for expressing criticism of Israel or dissenting from the narrative about Israel, Bill Akman assembled blacklist for students who signed a petition, blaming Israel for the conflict in general. This was a huge crackdown on speech after October 7, people in media and journalism

about Israel that were deemed off limits. And it is pervading our our country. You can see it in

every sector, all the time. I mean, I chronicle it all the time. So it's like the most of them

“aren't available at the top. I had because they're so many. It's, uh, it's, where does this go?”

Like, this is totally incompatible with our founding documents, with the history of the United States and with American culture itself. It's too much. And so it either becomes much, much worse or it goes away. I don't think we can stay where we are. It's my instinct. What's yours? Well, I'm Jewish. So when people talk about anti-semitism and the christian anti-semitism, that is something that I don't dismiss lately against a semitism is really, it's a dangerous

in history. You know, I can't get that black racism lots of other things. And for a long time,

there was this kind of victimhood mentality after October 7 that Jews were uniquely endangered in the United States that I found very, uh, unpersuasive to put it generously. But I do now think that when you have you know, all these people who are oiled to Israel buying up our media and putting IDF soldiers in charge of TikTok censorship and very, why you sit here at CBS News to kind of control the, the moderation. And on top of that, you know, you have this word now that that was for Israel,

or at least in large part Israel played a very big role. I mean, even government officials mentioned that. Obviously, Israel's main adversary. There's no denying that. That's when I really start to think that the more they try and view the semitism accusation at everybody, the more they get more desperate as we were talking about before and interfere in our American politics to try and, you know, have lockdowns and crackdowns on our speech. The more had crews in linti Graham and all these

politicians constantly are talking about how often they're in Israel and saying that their main, you know, issue when they ran for Congress was defending Israel. I do think that has a very high potential of producing anti-Semitism because at some point people are going to be asking, what, what is going on here? Why is there so much external influence on behalf of this foreign

“country and who's doing it? That is something that worries me. Well, I think you have every,”

I think all of us have every reason to be worried and it's absolutely producing actual anti-Semitism. I see it every single day when I go on the internet, which is trying to do too much, but you can't avoid it and it's real too. It's not just like, I don't like what Israel's doing, APAC is bad, which I vehemently agree with. It's like Jews are bad and it's not clear to me exactly

where all of it's coming from. I think some of it's inorganic, clearly, these are basically

ideological false flags, but I do think some of it is organic. I think some of it is absolutely real and I hate to agree with the ADL, but on the specific point is anti-Semitism rising and I say, oh, no doubt, and it's bad, it's totally bad. So that kind of gets to my deeper concern, which is not about Jews specifically, it's about all Americans. I feel like ethnic conflict is being encouraged in this country. Yes, I mean, we have had ethnic conflict before and part of it has hated

so much about the left wing ideology and the way to express itself over the last decade was the fact that it just seems so maliciously designed to defy people based on these very primal crude demographic groups and to separate them and tell them to all go into their corners and

“to blame the others, which is incredibly volatile and dangerous to do. And I think that,”

you know, if you turn on, I don't know how often you do this, but you know, there's this whole, like as you get older, there's like these different sectors of media and entertainment that you know nothing about because it's not for you. But it's fine, making effort to pay attention to them, you know, there's all these like good celebrities, but because you're over 30, I do who it is. Oh, yes. But they're super famous and you're like, who's that? But I try hard, especially when

it comes to political stuff, to pay attention to like big streamers and that whole culture where Gen Z does politics and you will be shocked if you go and listen to it or watch it for any amount of time, how common, how overwhelming anti Israel sentiment is in a very aggressive way and how often it does kind of morph into, you know, sometimes ironically, sometimes transgressively, but it's very linked to how people feel about Jews. And let me just say one quick thing on this

Tucker, because this is such an important point that is hard to express like a social media whatever.

the criminal law and the EU, it's now in Australia, it's on our on our campuses. One of the things that

bands is conflating Jews and Israel, meaning if Israel does something bad, you're not allowed to say, oh, this was done by Jews because that is a conflation that is considered anti-Semitic because you're blaming a bunch of Jews who had nothing to do with Israel for what you're criticizing. Yet look how often the people who are on the other side of that debate who love Israel, who constantly say they worry about anti-Semiticism, they conflate Israel and Jews all the time.

“And I think this is the problem. So if you say Israel killed, you know, 10,000 children,”

they'll immediately say, oh, look, blood libel, he's accusing Jews of killing, you know, 10,000 people or having, you know, rape soldiers. And no, you didn't accuse Jews, you accused Israel, but when they conflate it in order to place criticism of Israel, off limits, to make it seem like your attack and Jews, even though you're not, that true is a very dangerous conflation that they themselves are promoting. So that when people now think about Israel and their minds, because they're constantly

hearing it, that means Jews. So if they're angry at Israel, if they think Israel does something disgusting, if they don't want the US funding Israel or Israel interfering, that quickly becomes Jews. And it's their fault, the part of the people who are Israel supporters and managing this discourse. I couldn't agree more. I think that's the original sin here. I think it's very short-sighted and dangerous. If they were a self-identified Christian nation that was just for Christians,

there isn't one, but if there was, I'd be like, yeah, go Christian country, I'm Christian. And then if that country started behaving in ways that were brutal and outrageous and deceptive and started killing people because of their bloodline, really behaving in ways that were impossible to defend. And they started filling my airwaves to propaganda about how every Christian has to be loyal to this country doing things that are nauseating to me. I would feel,

first of all, I'd be outraged by that, but that don't do that in my name would be number one, and number two would, I would feel threatened. I would feel physically endangered by that. Why you tying me to this? I've got nothing to do with this. I mean, I would, I think. Well, well, that was very much what happened. You know, after September 11th, there was this huge danger that because there's some Islamic groups or Islamic countries, I participated in this

horrific attack that all Muslims were going to be blamed and so many Muslims have all sorts

of different views. You know, you're talking about hundreds of millions of them or a billion,

and one of the things George W. Bush did to his credit was work very hard from the start to say, no, we're not at war with Islam. This isn't Islam that did. This is this distorted version of

“Islam, and that I think is exactly what we're seeing now is it's such an important rhetorical tool”

to say Israel is the state of the Jews. Oh, look, Tucker Carlson said this horrible thing, even though you said it about Israel, about the Jews, and his constant inflation for the reasons you just said is exactly what if you're in that group being tied up to this nation state, you should fear more than anything and come back as as passionately as you can. I mean, you must feel, well, I guess you're maybe a separate category because you are Jewish,

but you have had the same views for your entire professional life, and you've been very vocal about it. But I mean, this must be a real concern for a lot of people who aren't against Israel, but are not on board with the Netanyahu government, and they're somehow tied to this against their will. Yeah, I mean, you know, if you're going to have this foreign country, and this is what I was getting up before, exerting massive amounts of influence inside another country,

you better make sure that you're doing it in a way that's very subtle, that's very visible,

“you know, and that they weren't always doing that, and that's why they were so angry at”

a near shimer and walled's book. You go back and if you don't remember, look at them. They're just the absolute attacks on them. They people lost their minds about that book because it dragged into the

light, something that was always supposed to be secret. The problem now is it's not secret,

the desperation and panic have made them have to come out into the light and be very open about what they're doing, and people see it, and if you're going to just sit there and be very visible on vocal and all over the place about how we have to change our laws or, you know, restrict speech, and everything else, fire people to defend this foreign country or protect this foreign country, the outcome is going to be very predictable, and I think you're seeing a lot about it.

So, it's just back to the previous question, because you don't just cover principles and ideas, but politics and have for a long time. Where do you think this goes politically? Like, what is the country look like we've got midterms this fall to your, and then we have a presidential election, clearly there's going to be a re-lineman. The neocons have intentionally blown up the Trump

precludes putting Israel first, so they wanted to destroy the coalition they have. Where do things land given those facts? You're already seeing this major transformation, actually well on its way, if not coming soon to its conclusion in the Democratic Party, where it's becoming almost untenable for, and it's in the Democratic Party, including in comments to run, especially in primaries, if they're too supportive of Israel, if they accept a PAC money, this transformation is close to

complete. That is not going to be reversed, and what made the Israel lobby so powerful for so long

was that it was more than anything else by partisan, unfailantly by partisan. It wasn't one party or the other, Netanyahu kind of destroyed that, but there were still a lot of pro-Israel's for the Democratic

“Party, that's gone. And I think if I were Israel, and I were, you know, a Israel firster in the”

United States, primarily concerned with the standing of that country in the United States, the thing that would alarm me the most is that this is now happening on the right. I can't imagine a 28 primary campaign in the Republican Party that does not prominently feature this question, and I also can't imagine that there's not going to be somebody like a major candidate who's not purposely occupying that lane of saying, we were told that we weren't going to have any more

foreign wars or foreign attachments. One of the major problems is Israel, we don't hate Israel, you know, we don't have anything against it. We just need to stop being responsible for funding

it and fighting wars for it, and I think that's going to have a lot of appeals. So it's always

going to take the DC establishment very long. I don't know if Susan Collins is like walking around,

“she promised she was going to only serve two terms. I think she's getting like seeking her seven,”

and somebody went up to her and said, what about all these dead people in Gaza that you paid for, and she kind of like just stumbled into her car very days because of her age, and she just like uttered this cliche, I'm pro-Israel. And so you have this like older establishment generation that's never going to change. It's programmed in their brain, but you see the trend so clearly, not just in the Democratic Party, but in the Republican Party, where this issue is transforming

and not solely but rapidly. Well, this is why the Neocons so hated Charlie Kirk because he saw this happening, and I remember you and I did an interview at my house the summer, and you explained a lot of your views on this topic on Israel, and we're immediately, you know, they leaked the tape to try to embarrass you, and one of the very first people to defend you in a heartfelt way was Charlie Kirk, you know, I was actually made emotional watching it because it was just so principled,

and it was so not what you expect, and he did it at actual personal cost to do this, but he really meant it because he could see that you and he while you have differences were basically seeing the same picture of the future of America, which is like, let's help the country, and they

“hated that, I never forget that as long as I live. Yeah, I mean, Charlie and I have had a lot,”

Charlie was a super interesting. Yes. Independent subtle thinker, and I know everybody on the left, if you say anything good about Charlie Kirk, they're immediately going to get in rage. I don't really care at all. I think we are missing, not just emotionally, but very subsequently and in a very compelling way the presence of Charlie Kirk when it comes to this war and related issues. And you know, we, I mean, he was very supportive of the snowing reporting and free speech. We had a lot of that

in common, but also this question, and I talked to him as he was evolving. And one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen Tucker was, you know, for a long time, Charlie Kirk was, was very pro-Israel, and he obviously started questioning that in all sorts of ways to the point that he was refusing to de-platform you, even if at the end, the loss of donors that in the millions of dollars, who didn't want anybody questioning Israel, criticizing Israel on the stage,

and he went out in interviews, including on his own show, a big one with Megan Kelly, where they both said, you know, what is going on here? Like, we need to start questioning this, but they try and make it so that you can't because you'll have your reputation destroyed, because they will call you anti-Semites. And one of the things Megan said that that I really think was observant and perceptive was that Charlie represented younger conservatives, you know, 18 to 32 or

whatever the age group was. And overwhelmingly, they are turned against Israel. And he couldn't just be this hardcore fanatical pro-Israel champion. He had to acknowledge that the debate was opening and had to open that debate. And when he did, he himself started not abandoning Israel, not becoming

anti-Israel at all, but clearly being skeptical of U.S. support for it. And I will never forget

For, you know, that day for hours, and then for days after on every network that could find,

“talking about how Charlie was the most stalwart devoted Israel, LLS, that the United States has”

ever produced. And that was a very strange development, but it was also a very propagandistic one to try and prevent people from remembering that even Charlie Kirk was having serious

second thoughts about the whole Israel issue. Well, he defended you, really, at a moment where

he did not need to say a word about that, you're traditionally very famous man of the left. So it's not like he was, he was not pandering to his own audience. Obviously, he was enraging his donors, they were already enraged with him, but there was just no reason for him to do that other than heartfelt convictions. It's a ball, principle. I felt that was one of the bravest things I have ever seen in American politics. It was basically ignored, but I just want to say that out loud,

because that that revealed who he was. Like, in a moment, you could just stay silent and just not say anything. He looked stopped and said, I just want to say Glenn Greenwald, what we disagree

on some things, we've different orientations. He is a good man, and this is a political hit on him.

“And that was about Israel. I mean, you had just, I mean, I think that's why that hit happens,”

because of Israel. But whatever the cause, he did that. And that tells you everything about what he was thinking at the time, and why he was so hated by the Neocons and to see them get up and be like, oh, here's my best friend. Okay. Not true. Yeah. You know, this topic for so long, Tucker has relied on a climate of intimidation and belief in coercion. And it's not just that you get criticized. I can show you hundreds of cases of people being fired before October 7th in the United States

for stepping out of line in Israel or losing funding or all sorts of other ramifications. And

most people, if they're being, I guess, self-interested or pragmatic, may be well advised to avoid it.

You know, because they just figure, oh, I have a lot of other issues and problems. I don't need this one. And the fact that Charlie not only was doing it with Israel before that happened with me, but on the day that it happened, stood up and so fathomically defended me and implied some of the problems or the causes that that probably led to it. Yeah. I remember seeing that. I was really moved as well. Oh, it made me emotional. I'm not even connected to it. Yeah. Just was friends with both of

you. So do you think that, I mean, it's we're guessing now, but we're also extrapolating forward based on what we're seeing right now? Do you think that what's this conflict with Iran, which has revealed so much and, you know, we pray it goes well, but if it continues to, on this current course, does it, does it kind of reorient the two parties? Does it shake up the system? People keep saying, no, no matter who you vote for, you get President Netanyahu and there's some truth in that.

I mean, let's stop lying. There's some truth in that. The big decisions are influenced

“if not made by a foreign leader. Does that end after this? And if so, how?”

There have been presidential debates in the past 30 years, most recently probably or vice president, one as well, where the two party candidates, when it came to Israel started arguing about who was from more pro Israel. That's typically the limits of the debate that we've been permitted to have. One of the things that I'm so amazed by, maybe I'm being naive here, but it's very frustrating and shocking at the same time, the Iraq War was, one of the worst debacle is probably the worst

American debacle in our lifetime. Yeah, the two, that's eight. From the crisis, and all the other things, but that was what led to this whole unraveling of trust and faith in the integrity and reliability of American institutions that has caused so many things after that. But also just the, what it did to that region itself, all the lives that the credibility of the United States, those lies, everything that we were told would happen, none of it happened. It gave rise to ISIS.

It was, you know, everybody acknowledges it was one of the worst actions in American history. And yet here we are 20 years later, and the thing that has really amazed me was through the extent there was any kind of attempt to have a debate about the Iran War to justify it. It was based on exactly the same tactics, the same script, the same rhetoric, the same jargon, the same twisted rationale, and often the same people who sold the

war in Iraq back in 2002 and 2003. I saw Fox News clip. They like excavated condolese arise from some like underground layer or bunker, whatever in which he works these days. And they put her on and Brett there did, and she gave like this five-minute speech about how we have to go to war in Iran to, you know, make sure they don't have weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons,

what she was saying. And the debate has almost been identical. So I want to say, yeah, this war goes really bad. It'll create this gigantic realignment. And maybe it will as part of, you know, these developments that these events that led up into the Iran War, including the Israel stuff we're like about, could create a realignment. But I don't know. I thought that we would

never live through, you know, a very similar, if not identical, new war to the Iraq War, and yet here

we are doing exactly that. And ways that aren't even protectionally different, like they're not even changing the script or the cast of characters. Literally. And I guess one of the lessons I learned from the Iraq War is that, you know, the groundwork has always laid for big changes, and you sort

“of see it being built, but you don't really believe it's going to happen. I remember being at”

the White House right before the start, you know, like in February of 2003, and someone told me, yeah, we're about to invade Iraq. And of course, I'd been advocating for it, shamefully, but I didn't really believe it was going to happen. Even though I was like on the side of it, I thought that's too crazy. Like that can't actually, they had nothing to have done 11, like, so why are we doing this? And this person's single, of course we're doing, like, what do you

think this is? And so with that lesson in mind, when the ship started steaming toward the Persian Gulf, I was like, it looks like we're going to have a war. To take that same principle and apply it to the IHRA effort, you know, the effort to constrain free speech and to ban and to make illegal certain expressions of conscience and opinion. Like, do you feel like we're getting into place where people

“are going to be arrested in the United States for their opinions? The one thing we have is the first”

amendment, which we should be very grateful for because if we're time to create a constitution now, we would not have that. And one of the ways I know that is that, you know, I'm for very familiar with a lot of other countries, including one I live in, where that doesn't exist. Do you Kate doesn't have it? Obviously, all throughout Europe doesn't have it. But it is already happening in in other countries. You know, there was there were two bands in the UK that did a concert

and one of them said, "Death death to the IDF." Not death to Jews, not even death to Israel, "Death death to the IDF," the military of Israel that was fighting a war. And another one, saying a song about Hezbollah and Hamas, they were criminally charged with terrorism.

The courts ultimately just in the last week, threw it out. We just saw the woman being arrested

“in Australia. This is absolutely the trend. In the West, over the past, I think the galvanizing”

event was the dual traumas of Brexit and then Trump's victory in 2016 over Hillary that made Western elites think we cannot tolerate any longer. Free exchange of ideas on the internet and dissemination of news, and it's just too unpredictable, and it causes too many dangerous outcomes that are out of our control. But for sure, this is the trend in so many ways. And yeah, the West is a banding very aggressively. They're belief in free speech, not as some absolutist, you know, the concept

in the way that I might affirm it. But just the basic notion that you can't be punished by the state for the expression of political views. I mean, that is the rule everywhere in the world. I think I don't know that there is a country in which free speech exists, except the United States, and it's, as we've been talking about for an hour, it's definitely under attack. But do you

despite the fact we have a first amendment? We've all kinds of we've a fourth amendment, too,

and it's routinely ignored. I've been the subject of, you know, it's violation, and you have, too. So like amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is ignored routinely. Do you think it's possible that the first amendment will be overridden by the state to punish people for having opinions the state doesn't like? Again, this is going to sound probably naive, but this is actually what my immediate reaction to it is. If you go to law school, which, of course, every judge in the

federal judiciary does and has done, and he's steady, you know, the history of jurisprudence or whatever, the idea that the first amendment is the kind of, you know, crown jewel of American rights and constitutional liberties is so indoctrinated into your brain. And it is before that as well. Like one of the things we're taught is that the reason America's exceptional, the reason America's different is because we have the right to say things without being punished in other countries.

So I, I, I'm sure there will come a day when judges will start to retreat from that, but for the

“moment, you've seen some actually good cases where judges draw line pretty rigorously.”

No, the state can't do this. The problem is is that so much of the censorship now

is through big tech companies, it's through online, and there are ways to circumvent it increasingly. And I do also think that, you know, if these Western liberal democracy start embracing a true aggressive form of a framework of censorship, you have political changes in the United States, and I could easily see them starting to find ways to circumvent it too. None of these things are prominent. None of them are guaranteed. You know, you have rights that you think are guaranteed

on a parchment, and I've seen it many times. So as everybody was studying history, it's gone the next month or the next year, even though none of the processes to get rid of it were in vote. Right. That's right. Or, you know, and you see this also in a lot of countries where the husk of the old system remains in place, the Roman Senate is still gathering, but it's not a legislative body anymore. It's a symbolic body or whatever. Its existence is designed to

bolster authoritarian power. It's not a counterbalance against authoritarian power. Like you've seen that. I mean, the judges in Zimbabwe still wear wigs. Yeah. And in the UK too, let me just have one thing is that even though I came kind of gave a rosy eye to optimistic answer, but I wanted to advance it was it might have been a name. When it comes time to war for war, ever all bets are off, and we've seen that in a lot of wars. In the middle of the war in terror,

Nukingrich wrote this article saying it's time to repeal and limit the first amendment.

There have been all kinds of measures designed to, you know, accept it by courts. I mean, you can go find it. It's online. It's like 2006, we're fighting for the American way of life and our rights and liberties. And he's like, appeal, repeal the first amendment. But war is when things get really scary because people, you know, all of war propaganda is so effective. If you look at it rationally, you can deconstruct it transparently. But you don't really react

to war propaganda rationally. It's designed to trigger like most primal influence in states of tribalism and, you know, patriotism and getting bad guys and feeling noble. And when that happens, people, do you start to think that if you're criticizing the war a little bit too excessively, if you're questioning the real reasons for the war, that this is somehow not just a irresponsible or destructive opinion, but it starts to ease into sedition or treason. We've seen this a lot in

many different American wars. And I do think there's kind of a sense of seeing that now. I mean, not so much that I can point to somebody convicted or charged with sedition. But there's a lot of sentiment going around, not just for random accounts, but in mainstream ones, that this needs to happen. Well, as you said earlier, when things change, just a moment at which, like, lots of

“Americans die. And that's why 9/11 was the most profound thing to happen in our lifetimes,”

because 3000 Americans died on camera. And it was just like the worst thing anyone still the worst thing I've ever seen. And I think every American felt that way. And so at that point, it gives the people in charge license to do things they would not be allowed to do, like create TSA or whatever, invade a rock. And so are you concerned that, you know, there could be attacks here in the United States and like what that? I feel like there was already in the talk of the United States

that at Austin shooting, we haven't heard much about it, but it seemed pretty clearly linked to be around war. And if it goes on, I would be very, very surprised if there are others, which, again, I think means that not only are we fighting a war for the benefit of citizens in another country, we're doing it by endangering the citizens of our own country for so many different reasons. And I do think if it gets to the point where, you know, this really gets out of hand and

you start to see mass casualty attacks in the United States, you know, the history of United States and other countries leaves no doubt that emergency measures will be instantly imposed in those emergency measures don't go anywhere at when there are emergencies. That was the history of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was this radical extremist, un-American law that we needed supposedly in the wake of 9/11. If they assured us, oh, don't worry, it's going to be temporary.

“Here we are, 2026, it's part of our woodwork and nobody ever talks about it anymore. That's how”

quickly these things can get normalized. Man, it's, well, I hope you never go off the air because I hope

Keep up the right work, Tucker. I'm always great to see you. Thanks, Glenn. See you.