Tucker Responds to Trump’s Plan to Livestream an Execution and His Anti-Christian Death Cult

If you've ever been around politicians or government bureaucrats who are about to deliver a statement or hold a press conference or give a speech, there's a sense in the room from the politician or bureaucrat that, like, this is really important. The world is watching! But when you're not in that world, you realize, like, nobody's watching. Nobody has any idea what the Secretary of the Interior said yesterday, what he's working on, even what his name is. People don't even know what the president says or sends out on his true social or social media or whatever. It's like most of the stuff just kind of goes out into the ether, and only Politico reporters read it. But if there's one statement from an administration official that you might have caught because it was a little bit jarring, it was the announcement the other day from the Secretary, well, now of War, formerly of Defense, Pete Hegseth, that the man responsible for the massacre of military personnel some years ago, Nadal Hassan, is finally going to be executed. He's been under the death penalty for quite some time, and the process is reaching the end of its course. And then not only is he going to be executed, the execution is going to be live-streamed. You're going to get to watch his killing. Boy, they don't say that kind of thing very often, but Pete Hegseth did say it. Here's exactly what he said. Watch. Major Hassan, this news that came down regarding firing squad, can you tell us about how that came about and what led to that decision process? No-brainer. Execution by firing squad. Army major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of people. Americans at Fort Hood. Of course we're going to do it at Fort Hood. We're going to do it on a Thursday. We're going to do it at 1 o'clock, which is when he did it. And it's going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad. It hadn't been since World War II since we've done that. Well, I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was when? We know what it is. It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks, and so he's going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be. And we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that. And there's serious consequences for these types of things. So in general, it's not worth parsing these statements literally because they're not meant to be taken that way, though it is kind of hard not to pause on the phrase, we win, and ask the obvious question, which is how does executing this guy who's been in prison for more than a decade constitute a win? Win what? Against whom? He's a federal prison inmate who's going to die. Okay, you could argue, I guess, the morality of that, but it's hard to see that his death will lead us any closer to a victory over what? But none of this stuff is ever defined. You're not really supposed to think about what it means. But consider for a moment the idea that the U.S. government will publicly execute a prisoner. So there are two levels on which to assess this, the effect on the prisoner and the effect on the rest of us. Now, for the first, it's pretty easy to make the case that this is a bad person. He is, after all, a mass murderer, an admitted mass murderer who murdered 13 people and shot 30-some others at a military base. He was a military officer. So as Pete Hegseth correctly said, this was not simply a murder, it was a betrayal of the country whose uniform he wore. So there's something especially ugly about this crime. He wasn't fighting combatants. He was fighting people just standing in a room who were unarmed. So it's awful what he did. And it's hard not to argue that the guy doesn't deserve to die for that. Well, of course he does. Of course. He took 13 lives and wrecked many others. So on that level, okay. But that's not really the question. There are a couple other questions that aren't getting enough attention. Maybe the most deepest question is, okay, he's guilty and needs to be punished. But as you assess that, ask yourself, am I guilty of anything that I haven't been punished for? Have I gotten away with anything? Not mass murder, of course. But there is a deep sense on which there aren't a lot of truly innocent people in the world. All of us get away with stuff if we're being honest with ourselves, including the person you just heard say this and the person he works for as well. And so while you always want justice to be done and wrongdoers to be brought to account, and certainly you want the rest of us to be punished. You want the rest of us to be protected from murderers, you never want self-righteousness to creep into your assessment of other people. Because in the end, you may not be a mass murderer, but are you anyone to judge other people? No, you should always extend grace to everyone. Because again, just to restate, all of us, and if we're honest with ourselves, we know this is true, are getting away with things. Just a fact. And so it doesn't mean you shouldn't punish murderers. Of course you should. It just means dial back the self-righteousness. The self-righteousness a little bit. Because who are you? Who am I? Who are any of us to stand up and pretend we're God? Well, of course we're not in a position to do that, and we should never forget that. But the second question, which hasn't gotten enough attention, is, okay, he's a bad guy, killed all these people, we're going to execute him, okay. But do it in public? So we don't do that in this country, and we haven't in a very long time, a hundred years, the last public executions in this country were in public. And so we don't do that in this country, and we haven't in a very long time, a hundred years, the last public executions in this country were in public. They were in the 1930s. I think the last one was in the late 30s in the South for rape. It was a real rape. The guy deserved it, but it was in public, and they shut down that process. No more public executions. In Europe, same thing. Hasn't been done in about a hundred years. In Britain, it hasn't been done in 150 years. And so you have to ask yourself why. You could say, well, these countries have just grown weak. They don't punish the guilty anymore. Eh, maybe. Okay. But there's more than that. They continue to execute. They're executing people, but not in public. Why? Because they want to humiliate the condemned? Well, he's dying. No. The reason that we don't conduct public executions is because of the effect of the spectacle on the rest of us. Is it good for your society to have people gawk as a bound man is killed? Whether or not he deserves to be killed, that's a secondary question. Is it good for you to watch it? I don't know. Probably not. Is pornography good for people? Does it enhance your sex life? Probably not. Is watching porn good for people? Is watching ugly things inherently virtuous? No. But in the case of public executions, we know pretty well, because there's a long record of them, because they have been a staple of civilization since the very beginning, there's a long record of what they do to people who watch them. And if you're interested in the topic, it's really worth taking 20 minutes and reading an essay, really a letter to the editor, that Charles Dickens, one of the most perceptive novelists ever to read in English, wrote in 1849 after seeing a public execution. Without getting boring about the details, was a husband and wife, a pair of murderers who had killed a guy who was actually the wife's boyfriend at one point, stolen his money and buried him under the stones in their kitchen. And they got caught and they were executed. And no one really argued that they didn't deserve to be punished, maybe even executed for what they did. Dickens didn't make that argument. He made and said the argument that doing it in public brought out something ugly and dangerous in the people who watched. It lowered. Them. Almost to the level of the people they were watching die. It incited bloodlust in them. So you will hear the argument made by dumb people and really dumb people are the only people with power right now. So that's the argument you're likely to hear that this will deter crime. Well, if that's true, do videos of people getting killed deter violence? Have you ever seen a war movie? People get killed in the war movie is the lesson of the war movie that if you're at war, you can be killed. No, of course not. Every person in the audience takes away the same lesson from any war movie, which is it's good to shoot bad guys. They incite an animal instinct in all of us. And that instinct will never die. We can either encourage it or we can do our best to suppress it or encourage other people to suppress it within themselves. But the last instinct you ever want to encourage if you want to keep your society orderly and happy. If you want brotherly love to reign is bloodlust between citizens. Now, again, there you can make the case or plenty of Americans deserve the death penalty for sure. But watching it makes Americans. Much more likely to hurt each other. And if you deny that, then you're denying an obvious reality. That people have bloodlust in them. And you probably don't want to incite it. Any more than you have to. So it degrades the people who watch in the same way that pornography degrades people who watch. Same way that snuff videos degrade people who watch. Child pornography is illegal. Even child pornography that's AI generated. Why is that? No child is being hurt. Because we collectively understand that watching something like that is bad for the people who watch. In fact, it may be dangerous. You can inspire people to become pedophiles if you play them enough child pornography. That's just true. Anyone who claims it's not true. Doesn't understand human nature and has some reason to lie about it. But that's a fact. So how are public executions different? Well, they're not. And it's not clear that Dickens understood that before he saw one. But after he saw one, he said no decent nation should allow this. This is worse than what heathens do. And our people are behaving as heathens do as they watch these people march to the gallows and swing. And so he began a campaign to end it. And the parliament responded about 20 years later and ended it in Britain in the late 1860s. And so it ended for a reason. And we should think about why the idea of it is now being resurrected. It's important to pause and ask, why did the Secretary of War just suggest this? Now, whether he'll be able to pull it off is an entirely different question. There's reporting today that apparently the president had no idea that Nadal Hassan was in a wheelchair. He was struck a number of times by bullets, which ended his murder spree. Lo, those many years ago. And he's been a paraplegic ever since. And do you really want to know? Do you really want to execute a paraplegic on camera? Not that it makes maybe a moral difference, but it looks like it. looks kind of bad. And so it's possible that Trump will shut this down. But it's really interesting in the meantime, the number of people who endorsed it, which is pretty much everyone in the administration. Mark Wayne Mullen, who, you know, it's not a minor fact that he is the head of the Department of Homeland Security and also a committed neocon. And there is a connection between neoconservatism and the worship of violence, which we'll get into in just a minute. It's very obvious. Mark Wayne Mullen was asked about this and commands a lot of armed federal employees. He's one of the biggest ammo buyers in the United States. And so when asked, is it a good idea to publicly execute someone on a live stream? He said, yeah, of course. That's probably not a coincidence that someone like Mark Wayne Mullen, who believes that killing foreigners is a great idea just because they're foreigners or whatever, who has the kind of callous attitudes you'd have to have to support neoconservative foreign policy would be for this. It's also true that Mark Wayne Mullen is a part owner of a Kratom company. Without getting too far afield, what's Kratom? Well, Kratom is, as yet, not banned by the feds, substance that's sold in many convenience stores that acts on the brain much like opiates do. It's addictive, it's fatal in high doses, and it's in a lot of places completely legal. So this is the guy who runs the Department of Homeland Security, our second biggest law enforcement agency, who's invested, personally invested, in a drug that is addicting kids and killing kids in the country. He's already rich, by the way. So you have to ask yourself, like, what kind of person would invest in something that killed American kids? And not just invested in it, but has, according to news reports, personally lobbied throughout the administration to keep it legal so he can keep getting paid. So imagine the sensation of going to sleep totally sober, feeling like you're floating, and then waking up rested with no soreness from a stiff mattress. You can do that. All you gotta do is switch to Brooklyn Bedding. We guess you're probably thinking, a mattress like that is super expensive and made in Bangladesh, but no! Brooklyn Bedding is an American company, hence the name. It's got a 650,000 square foot facility in Indiana. A guy called John started it and built it from the ground up right here in the U.S. No college degree, by the way. Brooklyn makes mattresses for every sleep style and body type, plus uses temperature regulation to make sure that you stay cool throughout the night. No hot nights. 365 night, a full year sleep trial, so you can return your mattress if you don't love it. We don't expect that to happen, but you could. Brooklyn Bedding has been awarded the best mattress by CNET, the best hybrid mattress by Wirecutter. It's totally real and vetted. BrooklynBedding.com is the address. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for 30% off site-wide during this fall sale. That's BrooklynBedding.com, promo code Tucker, 30% off site-wide. If you see a survey after all of it, let them know that we sent you. Imagine if every time Inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too, in your own brokerage account automatically. Well, that now exists and it's called Autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi stock tracker, Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI-driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account like a Schwab or Robinhood, and every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So now, no more guessing, no more staring at charts, and no more checking the market between meetings. With over $1.3 billion already invested, you can find Autopilot on the app store or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principal. So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted, foggy, disconnected from themselves. But it does happen, and it happens slowly. You're working hard, you're showing up, and then your energy disappears by midday. Your focus is dull, your weight won't move. A lot of people are told, that's just getting old. That's what it is. But that's not actually true. For many men and women, these are not personal failures. They are signals tied to your metabolism, your hormones, and nutrient imbalances that go undetected for years. You don't even know you're deficient. And that's why we're happy to partner with Joy & Blokes, a company that was built for people who are not deficient. And we're happy to partner with Joy & Blokes, a company that was built for people who are all done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed clinician. An actual human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan, which includes hormone optimization, peptide therapy, targeted supplements. So don't settle. Go to joyandblokes.com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker for 50% off your lab work and 20% off all supplements. That's joyandblokes.com. Well, it's up to God to judge that behavior, but I think we here on earth can say that's not a guy you want to hand guns to or give the power of life and death over because that is clearly a sign that this is a callous, cruel person who just doesn't care about other human beings. So that's the kind of person, and those are the kinds of people that we want to hand guns to. And that's why we're kind of people who think there's no problem at all with supporting public executions. And what's interesting is because this is a Republican administration, and because there are still people out there who support them on the basis of the idea they're conservative, you have to ask yourself, like, is this the conservative position? That you execute people in wheelchairs on camera for the, what, edification of your population, that bread and circuses are okay? These are people on whom it hasn't dawned that, like, executing a guy on a live stream is not that different from, I don't know, feeding people to the lions? So is that the conservative position? Well, I mean, conservative, like so many other words in our language, doesn't have a precise definition. But I mean, you can turn to people who are widely recognized as conservative leaders and ask them what they think. And we found a clip from Charlie Kirk, because we checked. Kind of interesting to know what Charlie Kirk thought of this. You know, he's not the end-all, end-all source of what's conservative, but, you know, the guy thought about it a lot, and he was the single biggest conservative political leader in the United States. And he was asked about this not that long before he died. What do you think of the death penalty? And it's worth watching his answer and paying close attention, because there's some really interesting observations in this. Here's Charlie Kirk on the death penalty. What was the exact wording of the question? Death penalty is wrong. The death penalty is wrong. Well, that's a moral question. So you did answer correctly. I'd say it's political. But I would say in America, I would oppose the death penalty for a very specific reason, because right now the trend is this current government will use any power we give them against us. And this is the Patriot Act argument, right? The moral argument, I'm totally on board. If we had a government that was ethical and understood, you know, duty and use. You're saying just you think the government's so far gone that they could in the. Practically right now in America, I think we should oppose the death penalty. We should. Because they could start executing Charlie Kirk. No, they would. They absolutely. Maybe. I don't know if they would. I don't know if it's that far gone. I mean, like, it's pretty bad. I'm just saying, you know. No, no, it's that bad. But they're not doing it yet, at least. What, the death penalty part? Yeah, they barely carry out the death penalty at all. No, because right now opposing the death penalty fits their agenda, which is to try to have compassion supersede justice, right? But make no mistake, as soon as the actual Bolsheviks take over, they're going to want to bring back the geek, right? They're going to come to this table. The idea that Michael Knowles and Charlie could still be in a gulag on Alba is like, no, no, no, no, we got to wipe them off. He's still a threat. He's still breathing. Two things jump out of that clip. The first is his statement, not even a prediction, a statement of fact, there are people who want to kill me, and if they have the power, they will. Pointing to see that now. The second is the word he used to describe the people who use the power, government power, to kill people, and he called them Bolsheviks. And that's more right than we acknowledge. So one of the great lies of history is that the Bolsheviks who took over Russia, and then the entire region in 1917, were ideologically motivated. That Bolshevism was an economic program. Well, of course it wasn't. They were agnostic on economics, the people who began that revolution. The Bolshevik revolution was a revolution against Christianity and the Christian order. And it replaced God with what? Well, money and power. And it used violence as a kind of secular blood sacrifice, both to terrify the population and the submission, but also for more power, because that's what a blood sacrifice does. You kill in order to receive power. And so that word, which is not used often enough, kind of describes what we're living through now. This isn't ideological when people are calling for killing. And as you'll hear, it's much more common than it ever has been in this country. The idea that killing is itself a good thing. It's just something innately satisfying in killing, taking life. That's not an ideology, of course. That's an ancient religion. It's the religion of blood sacrifice, which is still common, by the way, around the world today. Wikipedia doesn't spell that out, but it is. But the idea that you get powerful by killing is the oldest understanding of the supernatural. But in modern terms, in modern secular terms, which of course are never really secular, it was the Bolsheviks who embodied this. Replace God with money and power. And of course, that's what they were after. And they gave themselves both, money and power. How is that different from what we're watching now? Well, it's not that different, actually, once you take out the window dressing of Marxism and Marx and Engels and what's the, you know, power of the proletariat and all the slogans that obscured what it actually was. It was a revolution against Christianity that began with the murder of the Christian regent of Russia, the czar and his family. You see it clearly. And how is that different? Well, it's different in scale and severity than what we're living through now, but the idea is not different at all. Overthrow the old moral order, which is rooted in Christianity, and replace it with blood, money, and power. So that's not a conservative idea. The conservative idea, at its core, at least always has been, these things are moving fast and changing, has always been equality. Well, how could you say that? Equality? Are conservatives racist? Well, yeah, probably some of them. But the idea, that's kind of not the point. The point is that at the root of the worldview we have called conservative for so long, and certainly at the root of the founding documents of this country, is the belief, the bedrock belief, that God, not just a higher power, but the highest power, created every person. And because God created every person, people are imbued with what the documents call inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away. So while there's massive variation in ability, of course, and appearance, of course, there is no variation at all in moral value. Every human being has a soul. And so on the most basic level, we are all equal. It's the basis of the idea of citizenship, of course. And it's that idea that is evaporating before our very eyes and being replaced by exactly what you would imagine him to be replaced by, total callousness for human life, because not all lives are created equal. So it's interesting that this whole moment began, you could say this on a lot of issues, with exactly the. Opposite promises. So it's hard to believe this is real, but it is. Here's the current president at a pro-life event of some kind explaining, well, really reading words other people wrote, but he read them, explaining why life itself is the most important thing. Watch. Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life. When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse, the majesty of God's creation. I notified Congress that I would veto any legislation that weakens pro-life policies or that encourages the destruction of human life. The destruction of human life. So that's the key right there. Not simply, you know, whatever Trump believes personally, and he's obviously not opposed to abortion, that's pretty clear now, or for human. But the idea exists outside of Trump and outside of the moment in which we're currently living because it's an eternal idea and it's true. We don't seek to protect just American life or value just American life or life that contributes meaningfully to GDP or non-Palestinian life or whatever, but life. Because every human being is inherently valuable. Life itself is valuable because we didn't create it. And sorry, AI guys, we're never going to be able to. So that right there underpins the entire American project. And that's why, and it goes downstream to every interaction that you have with your government, or did until recently, that's why the police can pull you over for broken taillight, but they have to be polite to you. They can't violate your rights because they didn't grant you your rights. God did. And you're a citizen of the United States, but you're also a human being. And once again, those rights are inalienable. So when that goes away, the deal changes completely. When the people in charge no longer see other human beings as human and feel that they can kill them without apologizing for it, everybody's in peril. Everybody's in peril. Well, when does that happen? How could that happen? How could something so foundational, a belief that really kind of describes every part of our country, that, but the belief that every life is sacred, how could that belief be overturned? Well, of course, by war. Things change fast in war. Attitudes change. Realities change famously on the ground, but we change. And that's what we don't perceive. We change as we watch the brutality of war. Our expectations change. Our understanding of other people changes. Even our views on the humanity of our fellow human beings change very, very fast. There's one of the reasons you don't want to have wars, if you can help it. Because they make you callous and brutal. You become the monster you're fighting. This has been noted since ancient Greece. It's not a new concept, but every generation forgets it. But if you doubt it, ask yourself in, say, 1985 or 1995, during the 1980s and 90s, if the secretary of then defense stood up and said, you know, we're going to execute this guy by firing a squad. He wasn't fine. And we're going to do it in public. There would have been an outcry. What? No. And debase us? Even people who are for the death penalty would say, no, you can't do that to us. You can't put this on a public medium where my kids can see it any more than you can stream pornography, because we're not going to be degraded by you. So most of the snacks you could buy at your local corporate grocery store are not real food at all. They're made of weird chemicals, kinds of ingredients you can pronounce. You don't want to put that in your body, all those dyes, red 40, yellow five. No, thanks. Grass fed beef sticks from Paleo Valley are totally different. Unlike most beef sticks, they are completely natural and entirely free of something called encapsulated citric acid. Zero encapsulated citric acid. Paleo Valley uses old world natural fermentation. That's a method that people have used for centuries. And that means what you eat is totally real. It's healthy, tastes good. No sugar, soy, nitrates or any of this stuff you'll find at gas station, meat sticks. It's quick, it's easy, and it's good for you. The original flavor is our favorite. It's seasoned perfectly. Throw a few Paleo Valley beef sticks in your bag and your glove box and desk drawer whenever you need protein quickly. It's worth it. Paleo Valley dot com slash Tucker. Use the code Tucker at checkout for 20 percent off your order. Paleo Valley dot com slash Tucker code Tucker at checkout 20 percent off. But nothing like that happened. I mean, there were, of course, people who were texting each other and saying, can you believe Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, said this? But there was no attack on Pete Hegseth really by anybody. Because nobody in power saw it, maybe as ugly or whatever, but as shocking. No moral Rubicon was crossed in their minds. Now, why is that? Well, there are a lot of different reasons, but partly it's because war changes all of us. We see incredibly ugly things. And the more we see those things, the more we accept those things. And that's why you could see a man like that, that video that you just saw was shot in 2020, become the man you're about to see. This is the same man, President of the United States, Donald Trump, responding to a question about the Iranian girls school that the United States apparently bombed, vaporizing over 100 little girls in class. His response to this reveals what appears to be a completely different man. Watch. Ron, can you now say whether you will hold anyone in your administration accountable for the strike on a school that killed more than 100 children on the first day of the war? No, if it was a fault, and as you know, that's under investigation. It's such a strange question to be asked at this stage. Talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose. I guess you'd have to say about them, what about the thousands of soldiers that they blew up when they opened their car? What about the thousands of people that were killed by Iran? No, mistakes are made. A war is nasty. But I know it's under investigation, and I could have a report for you tomorrow. I'd ask, I would ask Pete, I would ask Pete Hegseth that question, because they have it under investigation. Yeah, it's under investigation. Just like every time settlers shoot a Palestinian, including Christians, it's under investigation. Can't talk about active investigation. Can't talk about it. Well, it's probably a lie. Maybe it's true. Who knows? But you don't need an investigation to reach a quick and certain response. And it's one rooted in your own decency as a human being. And the response is, that's awful. I hope we didn't do it. If we did it, you know, we're going to apologize for it immediately. Because girls are never a legitimate target, ever, in war or peace. You can't kill little kids, ever. And so we just want to say, that we're really sorry about this. We're not at war with the children of Iran or any other country. And God willing, we hope they never declare war on our children. Because it's just awful. It's the worst thing. It's not hard to say that. And any normal person would say that, because that's the obvious conclusion, right? But he didn't say that. And what did he say instead? Well, he immediately went to, well, they were mean to us. And you should be asking about that. And during the Iraq War, doesn't make any sense, of course, during the Iraq War, which another American president also started on behalf of Israel. We had no reason to have an Iraq War at all. They had nothing to do with 9/11. But whatever. During that war, Iranian-backed proxies killed old American soldiers. Well, yeah, that's absolutely true. And whose fault is that? Was the fault of the American president who sent them into battle on behalf of the Israeli government. So that person, his name is George W. Bush, ought to be punished for that. All those people died because of a decision he made. But whatever, Trump, of course, would have said that five years ago, back when he was opposed to neocon forever wars, but won't say that now since he's leading one. But it's interesting the mechanism by which he defends the indefensible. What he says is, why are you asking me about this? Bad things have happened to us. And that illustrates one of the deep truths about people, which all of us should keep in mind. This is one of the reasons therapy tends to be so poisonous for people. And the principle is this. Once you believe you are the victim, you lose empathy for other people. Narcissism makes it impossible to care about others. Once you start collecting wounds, once you start brooding about how you've been mistreated, the mistreatment of others means absolutely nothing to you. You become a monster to the extent you believe you are a victim. This is exactly what's happening in Israel. It's a country which not that long ago had all kinds of decent, interesting people who disagree with each other and debated the moral course of action all the time in public. That's no longer the country. There's still people like that in Israel. But overwhelmingly, the consensus in Israel is that we were hurt, we have always been hurt, and therefore we have no obligation whatsoever to care about what we do to other people. But of course, it's not just Israel that's like this. We're all like this. People are like that. The more you consider yourself a victim, the less empathy you have for other people. It is a consistent and unchanging theme of human nature. And by the way, you see it in crime videos in this country and in other countries. People who believe they've been victimized, they're the target of systemic hatred or whatever, tend to be unusually cruel in the way that they treat other people. It's just a fact. So here you have Donald Trump basically saying, I don't have to apologize for a strike that almost certainly came from the United States or its ally Israel that murdered all these little girls because they were mean to us once. And really, the outrage is what they did to us. No, the outrage is both. Killing innocents is always wrong no matter who they are. Period. If that's not true, then Charlie Kirk was really right to worry about where this impulse to kill people could lead. What's used against my opponent will be used against me. That is a fact. So we have to preserve the truth and say it out loud. It is always wrong to kill the innocent. And simply because you were harmed or your family or your nation was harmed, your feelings were harmed by someone else does not give you license to hurt them. But of course, it's a very human thing. That's the truth. So you would think in a normal country, one with a working political system, there'd be some pushback because our system is designed to police itself through the adversarial relationship between the two parties. We only have two parties. Lots of other countries have a ton of parties. We have two. But the idea is that's enough because they keep each other honest because they call each other out when they go too far in one direction or just into complete lunacy, as you just saw. But of course, no one, really, called Trump out on that. There's no groundswell demand from Democrats that Trump apologized for killing all those girls in a girls' school. I mean, different politicians may mention it. That's bad. But no one's marching in the streets over it. Of course, there are no no-kings demonstrations against killing schoolgirls in Iran. Now, why is that? Well, there's only one conclusion because they're not really against it. Because they don't believe in the only precept that makes them a good person. They don't believe in the only precept that makes them a good person. And what's that? Equality. Every human soul has identical value. Again, the idea this country is based on no longer has the support of its leaders in either party. Well, how do you know that? Well, you know that because they don't ever challenge Trump on that. It's all about his corruption. Okay, yeah, it's bad. Is it worse than the U.S. president coming out and saying it's okay to kill the innocent? Nothing is worse than that. Nothing is more dangerous to all of us than that. And if the Democratic Party, at least at its leadership level, is not opposed to that. And if you don't believe it, watch something that got completely lost. It's just kind of an amazing moment that we would like to put in a time capsule somewhere so our descendants can look at it in horror and say, boy, we're a lot better than we used to be. Those were the dark ages. This is Governor Maura Healey of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announcing passage of a bill in that state which would allow abortion up to birth. Infanticide. Watch this. We're here today to take another step to protect and strengthen, abortion protections and to make sure that patients get the care that they need. To be clear, abortion is on the ballot this November in Massachusetts and around the country. And the role of governors is really, really important. And I'm proud as governor that I've been able to work with the legislature to make sure that we stand up for women, mothers and fathers and families in making health care decisions for themselves in consultation with licensed and trained professionals. My opponents are, anti-abortion. One of my opponents, Mike Minogue, is proudly anti-abortion. But the bottom line for people in Massachusetts, if you care about women's health, if you care about making sure that women are able to access the health care that they need in consultation with their doctors, to be clear, I stand with women. My opponents do not. Everything about that is depressing and sad, the delusion of the people behind her, imagining they've been liberated from something they haven't. But for longtime connoisseurs of American politics, the first thing that jumps out is the way the governor describes the bill. She doesn't dress it up. She doesn't say this is health care, abortion's health care, it's vital health care. She doesn't say it's reproductive freedom. She calls it what it is, it's abortion. So people didn't used to talk like that at all. Why? Because everybody recognizes that abortion is awful. No one wants to hear the details of abortion. If we were to play video of a late-term surgical abortion right now, you'd turn away. In fact, we might be taken down because it's so brutal. And everyone kind of senses that. And even under circumstances where normal people think, okay, I guess abortion is allowed, only a ghoul would celebrate that because it is death. And there's kind of no way around that. You can get mad and scream at people for imposing the patriarchy or your religious values. It's values. You're ending a life. Science attests to that. It's indisputable. Owning a home has always been the core of the American dream. It's the asset that families work their lives to build, a place of stability, security, and actual wealth. But too many homeowners right now are stuck swiping credit cards to cover groceries, paying a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So we're against that. We always say that. But you can't buy a home. The question is, who are you going to get a loan from? Why are you handing your money to big banks when you can keep it for your family? Our friends at American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners tap into their hard-earned equity. They're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the American dream of owning a home. American Financing saves its customers an average of 800 bucks a month. That's nearly $10,000 a year. It's not just a loan. It's a total financial reset. And so American Financing is worth looking at. They're called America's Home for Home Loan. For a reason. Find out more at 800-685-5696. 800-685-5696 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tucker. So the media loves to scare the crap out of you with reporting about crises. Some are fake. Some are not fake, which is real. Well, the source of concern is often the best measure. Take artificial intelligence. Fears about AI ending humanity are coming not just from crazy people. They're coming from the people who are creating AI right now. People working on AI are terrified of AI. So if the people who created the technology fear it, then you probably should pay some attention because they know what they're talking about. So how can you prepare for whatever is coming in this AI-dominant future? Well, it's hard to know for sure, but you definitely need to own key survival essentials, obviously. I mean, like, why wouldn't you? And that's why we're here. We started Last Country Supply to make it easy for you to do that. They would include survival food, light, energy, and just basic supplies. Last Country Supply has everything, and it's high quality. We've got all of it in our garage. You probably should, too. So if you're concerned at all that maybe the future won't be quite as stable as today, Last Country Supply is a very quick way to put your fears at ease and to do the right thing for your family. So if you're concerned at lastcountrysupply.com. So the only way to get the public to accept it, of course, is to dress it up as something else, to lie about it, to cloak its reality in euphemism. And that's what generations of pro-choice politicians have done. I'm not pro-abortion. It should be safe, legal, and rare, said Bill Clinton. But there are extenuating circumstances when the 12-year-old daughter of the migrant farmworker gets pregnant, and like, you want to deny her a future? Of course, she needs access to this life-saving care. Okay. Okay. It was all a lie, of course, but at least they're paying me the compliments of lying to me, Maura Healey didn't. This is abortion. We're for abortion up to the moment of birth. And my opponent, the other guy, the Republican, is bad because he's, quote, anti-abortion. Aren't we all anti-abortion? Some of us think it could be necessary and therefore should be allowed under certain circumstances when a doctor and her clergy person of choice talk it through. No, we're just for abortion. More abortion, the better. We've got a million a year, but that's not enough. So we're not going to lower gas prices or make it easier for your kids to go to college or buy a home or make your life better in any way. But the one thing we're going to do is give you more abortion. And guess who responded? Nobody. Like a small group of evangelicals and passionate Catholics who follow this stuff online. They were upset. You know, they've been upset for 50 years since Roe v. Wade, but nobody else. It didn't even rate. Yeah, Maura Healey doing her women's thing. That is another marker of our, our collective callousness. And it's bipartisan. Yes, there is a guy posing as the president. He doesn't make any of the key decisions, but whatever. He calls himself president. He just got us into an unwinnable war that is tanking our empire and our economy. Okay, he deserves the blame. But if we're being honest about how we got here in the first place, we have to say it is the refusal of the leadership of both parties to acknowledge the humanity of every person that got us here, that allowed the Biden administration to fund genocide, actual genocide in Gaza. And so there's no, the point of all of this is there's no restraint. There is no part of the system that is working to correct these impulses. There's no constituency for treating human beings as human beings. The system is so completely out of whack that everybody with power agrees that if you are inconvenient or annoying, you can be killed. If you're an Iranian school girl, if you're a baby in the womb, who's unfortunate enough to be in the belly of a woman who doesn't want a baby. If you're a Palestinian and you don't have a seat at the UN and no one really cares what you think because there's no incentive to care because like, what can you do for me that it's okay to kill you? And both parties feel that way. And trust me, if you're not a billionaire, if you don't have your own private lobby in the Congress, if you don't have Trump's cell phone, that could be very bad news for you. Because whatever they're doing to a eight month old in utero or the Palestinians or the Iranian school girls, why wouldn't they do that to you? Who's going to stop them? This is the point that Charlie Kirk made, that Bolshevism is a replacement of the Christian social order, an order which was open to non-Christians, thankfully, since its inception, but that was based on the humanity of every person because God created them. So when that goes away, what does your society become? Of course, vicious and cruel and obsessed with money and power, obviously. And that's exactly what we're seeing now. What we're seeing is Bolshevism, which is non-ideological and not the same as Marxism, which is like absurd. And no one even cares what's in Marxism, Marxism, nobody even cares. All of this accelerates, however, in a way that is not the same as Marxism, which is like absurd and no one even cares what's in Marxism, Marxism, nobody even cares. All of this accelerates, however, in a way that is not the same as Marxism, Marxism, nobody even cares. All of this accelerates, , , , how does that work? Well, as noted, part of it is the nature of war results in the deaths of innocence. And if you look at that enough on a screen, it's like if you look at pornography enough or bestiality videos all day, after a while, it's kind of an attractive horse. I get it. I'm not into it personally, but it's not crazy. We are shaped by the worlds around us, of course. So if you're living in a country that's blowing up schoolgirls, the first time you hear about it, it shocks you. The fifth time you hear about it, you're like, yeah, war is hard. Mistakes are made in war, as Trump said. Civilians die in war. It's very unfortunate. But they did a lot of bad stuff to us. Really? The Iranian schoolgirls did? Okay. But there's another mechanism by which the rest of us become monsters. And that is the fear that is instilled in us by our leaders on purpose in order to control us and to get us to comply. With what is very obviously an anti-human agenda. And what's interesting, having seen this many times, what's interesting is how often the leaders employ this tactic. It's like since the beginning of time, be afraid, be very afraid and do what I say. But how those leaders, even as they tell these lies, push this propaganda, become besotted by it themselves. Like they start to believe it. They start to become paranoid. You see this in Netanyahu all the time. He gets up and gives these gassy speeches about, you know, we're, everyone wants to kill us all the time. And it's like, actually, people are pretty mad at you now that you committed genocide and like blew up southern Lebanon and leveled all these churches. What do the Christians have to do with this? So they're pretty mad. You're the least popular country in the world. But you can envision another path where Israel sought peace with its neighbors. Like 60 years ago. Yeah, okay. We took Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But like, we're not, we're not giving them back. But let's figure out a way to live together. That never happened. But it's not just the Israelis who are like this. It's everybody. So how do you get like that? You get like that by telling yourself again and again and again, everybody else hates me. We are under constant threat. We are never safe. Kill them before they kill us. It's a kind of brain disease that, again, does not just happen in Israel, though that's the most obvious example because it's been going on for so long. It happens here in the United States. And even the people spewing this nonsense are susceptible to being swayed by it. So the number one fact about the United States, as in any country, the number one fact is a geographical fact. The first thing to know about a country is where it is on the globe, who lives there, and what are the resources. Like, those are the actual facts of a country. And a lot of the stuff is just an overlay. Well, you have this kind of system, and it's a bicameral system, and they're Marxists, they're capitalists. Oh, shut up. Do they control the Strait of Hormuz or not? How much oil do they have? How close are they to their historic rivals? Like, these are the actual. Or an ocean defending them from invasion. Like, these are the basic questions that somehow get lost in all of this. So the most basic fact about the United States is it's separated from the rest of the world by the two biggest oceans on the planet. And so that's a pretty good thing, especially now with the internet service. Like, it's an inherently safe country, and it's a dangerous country only to the extent that our leaders want it to be. All things being equal, this is the safest country in the world. And remains so. Okay? It's not. But it's not because our leaders have intentionally made it dangerous to keep us on edge and control us. But it's still safe. This country has never been invaded. And it, I mean, God willing, never will be. Pretty hard to invade it. How are you going to invade it? How are you going to get the troops over here? Maybe by drones now. But this country is very, very safe. It has a vanishingly small number of terror attacks. Too many. But not as many as they told us were coming. Do you remember that after 9-11? We're never going outside. We're never going outside again. No more commercial air travel. And by the way, you cannot see the 9-11 files. They're classified forever. Okay. In any case, they whipped themselves into a frenzy. George W. Bush and all the dumb people around him whipped themselves into a frenzy, which was designed to terrify the population, but in the end terrified them. You're seeing the same thing with Trump right now. The same thing with Trump. This is an amazing clip that got almost no attention, or the right kind of attention. The way he needs a ballroom. Now, on some level, you may suspect he needs a ballroom because he wants more monuments to himself. And he's like a sad guy who doesn't like himself. And he's 80. And so he wants to leave behind, you know, stat gilded statues. So you never forget that he existed. Okay, obviously, that's true. But there's another reason. And he kind of talked about it in this clip. Here's Trump on the ballroom. Are you worried about the ballroom funding, Mr. President? There's speculation that could be. No, I'm building it. The ballroom is being built. I'm building the ballroom. You saw it yesterday, right? Yeah, we're building a great ballroom. It's been needed. It's a very military complex. The roof is actually a drone port. The roof of the ballroom is a drone port. And it gives great safety to everything below. We're building a really great ballroom, but it's also a military, a strong military position for our people. That's the cool thing. It's a drone port. The drones go out. It's so stupid. It's unbelievable. Yeah, the President of the United States is very unsafe. We just haven't spent enough in the federal budget to protect the President of the United States. I should probably spend too much, actually. I mean, the core requirement of leadership is that you're willing to, one hopes you don't have to, but that you are willing to lay down your life for the people you lead. It's the father's first job. Of course, most important job. There's a home invasion. Honey, will you get the home invasion? No. You're the dude. Go deal with the home invader. It's true in the military. It's true in every structure. The leader is the person willing to lay down his life for the people he leads. And so, like, of course, you want to keep the President safe. Of course, he's elected by the people. He's a person. You don't want him to face undue risk. But the idea that the President's life is worth a lot more than your life is a lie. And we should call it out as a lie. His life is worth exactly as much as mine and yours and everyone else in this country's. Every single person has identical value to the President of the United States. That's why we're not doing it. We're not slaves. He's not a king. He wasn't appointed by God. He was appointed by us. that we need more protection for the president. Oh, stop, you narcissist. But it also suggests that this is a guy who's been convinced that we are under serious peril and is now doing his best to convince us of that. And that paranoia makes us much more easy to control. You'll accept things you would not accept otherwise if you think your life is at stake, of course. So what is this? Well, of course you know what it is. It's the only other way to rule a population. There are two ways to rule a population. One is by consent. Happy families are ruled by consent. There's someone in charge called the dad, but he doesn't impose things on his family that they hate or that are bad for them. Of course, it's a subtle dance. And in every happy family is the same. It's a subtle dance. Find out what people want, mix that with what you think is good for them and come to a decision. But it's not totalitarian in any sense. People who attempt to run any structure in a totalitarian way have an unhappy and unstable structure. Fact. So we have always had at least the appearance of a government run by consent. The people want this. That's why we're doing it. So that's one way to do it. Historically, the way that we have run this country. The other way to do it is to rule by fear. It's terrify the crap out of everyone so they do what you say. And that's a much more traditional and longstanding form of government. In fact, that's the form of government of most countries at most times in history. And it's popular because it works. You can terrify people into doing what you say. And this probably has been the rule for all of history. It was probably the rule in the caves. But it ended in the West in 33 AD with the rise of Christianity. How did that happen? Here's how. The early Christian church existed within the Roman Empire. Jesus lived within the Roman Empire. And the Roman Empire ruled the world. And the Roman Empire ruled by fear. It was a huge slave population. They probably didn't have a choice. And one of the ways they instilled fear was by torturing people to death in the most gruesome possible way. And in fact, in the 2000 years since, very few people, even the most diabolical minds on the internet, have devised a form of death by torture more gruesome or more painful than crucifixion, which consisted of hanging a man by his arms, attaching him to a wooden crossbar with nails, and letting him just die there. And the process took days, sometimes several days. And he was hung naked in full public view along a busy thoroughfare so everyone could see this guy writhing in unending agony for days until he died. It was such a horrible form of execution that it was effective. And it was, by the way, not meted out to everybody. There were lots of ways the Romans executed people, but the people whose deaths they hoped would make a statement, a powerful statement to the rest of the population, were crucified. And they were convinced to crucify Jesus. So, okay. And a lot of other people, by the way, including two people with him that day. What makes it different? What makes it different is that the followers of Jesus took that symbol, that cross, that torture device, and didn't run away from it, but embraced it as the symbol of their religious faith. Of their faith in Jesus. And that cross, for 2,000 years, that torture device has been the symbol of the Christian church and of Christianity itself and of belief in Jesus. Think about that. Imagine if a new religion started next week and it took as its symbol the electric chair or the rack or some other unimaginably horrible torture device. Why would you do that? Well, you would do that probably to send the very clear message inherent in the symbol, which is, we are not afraid. The worst thing the temporal world has for us is slow torture by nails and a cross. And that doesn't scare us at all. And so it was at that moment, that's inherently destabilizing to temporal authorities. That's the worst you got? I'll make it, I'll put it on the side of our churches. I'll wear it on a pendant around my neck. Your torture? It means nothing. Nothing you do can scare me. Because this is not the end. And that has been the position of faithful Christians ever since for 2000 years. Paul, the author of a lot of the New Testament, wrote a bunch of his letters while chained to a wall in a prison. And they're cheerful, by the way. So you can't intimidate people like that. In fact, people like that intimidate the people in charge. There is nothing scarier to people who seek to rule by fear than someone who is not afraid. They're not afraid of you fighting back. I got my AR-15. Yeah, they got drones. They're not afraid of you at all. The only thing that puts fear in their hearts is your fearlessness. And the only thing that gives people true fearlessness is a belief that this is not the end, but instead the beginning. And so if you wanna rule the world by fear, the very first thing you have to do is extinguish Christianity. And Bolsheviks of every age, of every age, going back to the first century and extending through the French Revolution and the Spanish Civil War, and yes, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and the current revolution that we're watching, the AI Revolution, all of them have as their aim extinguishing this one religion, not all religions, that religion, the religion that put a torture device on the side of its buildings and called it holy and said to temporal leaders, "There is nothing you can do or say to us that will make us afraid." So they have to extinguish that, and they're trying hard to do it. They won't succeed, obviously. But in the process of doing that, they are changing our society. And by they, we mean adherence of a very specific worldview, and that's neoconservatism, which apparently is supposed to be like an antisemitic slur, but the truth is a lot of neoconservatives are not Jewish. You don't need to be Jewish to be a neoconservative. Some of those famous aren't. It's not synonymous with Judaism, actually, sorry. But it is anti-Christian. Neoconservatism is an attack on the Christian order and Christianity itself. And you know that by its aggressively callous attitude toward the taking of innocent human life. So aggressive and so callous that after a while, if you've watched it for 20 years, as some of us have, you begin to suspect that the taking of human life, especially innocent human life, people with no role in anything, made no decision worthy of the death penalty. That killing them is the point, that this is some kind of blood sacrifice ritual. They derive some kind of deep charge from this. That's not a slur. That's not just like the nastiest thing we could say about the neocons. That's a considered opinion based on years of observation. And we could give you a million examples, but we'll just point to the arch neocon, no longer with us. And we'll just point to the arch neocon, no longer with us. probably don't know that. And it's sad to say, but also true, that a lot of the people who are spouting these ideas and calling for murdering this or that person are actually nice people. And I know that because I know them. And that would include Lindsey Graham. He's one of the most charming people ever, ever. No one would turn down a dinner invitation from Lindsey Graham because he was hilarious and fun to be with. Sorry, that's just a fact. But the ideas themselves are diseased. And how sad is it to watch people you know and like personally espouse those ideas in public with moral certainty? Now, one of the reasons you know that killing is the whole point, not saving life, but extinguishing it is the point, is by the studied indifference of advocates of the Ukrainian government, indifference to how many Ukrainians have died. So if you really believe that it's worth fighting a war against a country you can't beat, which would be Russia, then you have to answer, why do you believe that? And they will always say, well, because this is wrong and we need to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. And you'll give a speech all of us have heard many, many times. But you would think anyone giving that speech would be giving it on behalf of the Ukrainian people. So there would be a point at which they might ask, how many Ukrainians have died in this effort to save Ukrainians? How many Ukrainians have died in the effort to save Ukrainians? And yet not only do they not ask that question, they don't care at all. They don't ask it privately. They don't know. If you press them privately, like in a gentlemanly way, like how many people have died in this war? No idea. They don't care. If you don't care about the deaths of other people, it's fair to assume over time, like five years, that you probably applaud them. And how sad is that to see? How sad to see the total distortion of decent people by these ideas, which again, at root are an attack against the core precepts of Christianity. So here's an example from Fox News just the other day. But for me, for the way they innovated drone technology in order to take out what's fueling the Russian war machine is phenomenal. They'll be writing about this in war journals forever. The Ukrainians have modernized modern war before our very eyes. I'm not so sure that's a positive, Brian. I mean, there are 30,000 young men on each side that are dying every single month. Every single month, we should not be practicing drone, you know, technology. We need and using these kids as guinea pigs. If you've seen the videos. The war is good. A war. Other people's sons are fighting and now their daughters, apparently, and their sons with Down syndrome and their fathers in their mid 50s. The entire population is fighting and losing a war in Eastern Europe at the behest of leaders in the West and thought leaders like the one you just saw. And they're being decimated. The historic nation is gone and will not be rebuilt. It'll be repopulated by people from South Asia. Just a fact. So that's a tragedy. But you look at that. It's an avoidable tragedy that we caused. But you look at that and your conclusion is what we're getting valuable drone technology. Watching other people's kids die. By the way, since I know everyone on that set, I can tell you they're all super nice people who love their kids and have good values and go to church. They're not monsters at all. But that idea is monstrous and it is being repeated uncritically at every level of our leadership. That the upside of war is Raytheon shareholders make money. Can you hear yourself? This is disgusting. And no nation that puts that as a priority, killing people in exchange for a rise in defense tech stocks can long endure. It's too disgusting. And ultimately, a nation like that, that allows itself to become totally callous to human life that celebrates an infanticide bill or looks at the Ukraine war and says, we're getting valuable drone technology. A society like that will destroy itself. Won't be destroyed from the outside. It'll be destroyed from within because people will lose all love for each other. The sympathy that binds the nation together. The idea that, oh, you're an American. You know, we're in an airport in Frankfurt, but you speak American accent and English. I don't know who you are. Maybe you're a different color or whatever, but we're American. We're in this together on some level. That dies. And Americans lose sympathy for each other and therefore cohesion and therefore the country collapses. That's exactly where that goes and is indeed going. Here's a clip that just kind of says it all. So there was a woman called Christina Pike, I think is her name. She's a murderer, not defending her, never would. She killed somebody and she's been sentenced to death. And however you feel about women being executed for the record against it, our society exists to protect women. Sorry, that's patriarchal. Not supposed to send them to go die in war of their limbs blown off by landmines or be executed just against it. Sorry. Call me Libra. Liberals, of course, are totally for it. But the point is, whatever you think of the idea that this woman was executed or sent to be executed, any normal person would pause when learning that the prison failed twice to execute her. Now, this is not the first failed botched execution in human history. There have been many and they're famous. Why are they famous? Because in civilized countries, Britain, for example, at one point in history, civilized countries looked at botched executions, particularly repeated botched executions and said, wait a second, maybe there's a message here for us. And you can look it up and they're fascinating to read about. There are a number of instances from English history, American, Australian, the civilized countries, in which a condemned man dropped through the trap door in the gallows and the rope broke. And in some cases broke twice. And spectators at the execution who had come to gawk, foolish possible motives, said, whoa, wait a second, the rope broke twice. Maybe there's a message there. Maybe we're not in charge of the universe. Maybe God himself is weighing in on this question. And in a number of instances, which you can read about, the crowd at the execution pressured authorities by yelling at them to stop trying to kill this guy and acknowledge that maybe something else was going on here. And in some cases, they just let the guy go. Sorry, we tried to kill you twice and it didn't work. Clearly, there's something going on. God has a say in this too. So this woman, Christina Pike, apparently tried to kill her twice and didn't work through lethal injection. And probably going to try it again. So a longtime conservative and religious commentator commented on this the other day. And it's a very nice guy, by the way, Glenn Beck. Jovial, seems kind to his family. But the callousness, the cruelty, the wanton cruelty expressed in this clip should make you wonder about our future unless we pull back from this. Here's Glenn Beck. Executions work. You know, it's like, what's her what's her name? Ricky, you know, who's like, I can't use my arms anymore because you. Yeah, yeah. That was the point. You know, you weren't supposed to use your arms or your legs or any other part of your body. That was the point when they were trying to execute you. Yeah. Krista Pike. So she says she's confused now. Well, she was supposed to be brain dead. I mean, she was supposed to be dead, dead. And then when she didn't die, they said she was brain dead. And then she came back. Of course, she's confused. She was supposed to be dead. And I'm sorry, but I told you, I told you the minute it happened, they're going to make a case that, you know, this is cruel and unusual punishment and you botched it. And so she shouldn't be executed yet. No. I don't know why we rushed her to the hospital and we were trying to save her. You're executing her. Execute her. Do it again. You know, if that's conservative, most decent people will be out. I mean, make a case that what she did was worthy of the death penalty. OK. But to mock her because she's paralyzed and was brain dead. Now she's back and shut up and kill her as a human being. By the way, there's a fellow American who, you know, obviously gave up a lot of her rights by murdering someone, not defending her in any way. But to look at the case and feel that it's like outrageous that anyone would feel sympathy for this woman. She's a person and a woman, by the way. Aren't you a man? Isn't your duty on this earth to protect women? Apparently not. Giving up that duty. Send them to the front lines in Ukraine. We'll get valuable drone technology out of it. Glenn Beck's opinion on whether this woman is executed again probably will have no material effect on the outcome. But it's a window into his total degradation. And the degradation of the rest of us who sort of nod along and be like, yeah, yeah, she killed someone. I've never committed any crime at all. I've been treated totally justly. I've been punished for every bad thing I've done. Who can say that? Again, it's not an argument against the death penalty, though you can make a pretty good argument against the death penalty, and we probably should. It's an argument against callousness and self-righteousness. And it's an acknowledgement that if you engage in callousness and self-righteousness long enough, you'll be their victim. What goes around comes around. That is a fact of nature and of theology. So slow down, Mr. Self-Righteous Guy, mocking the woman whose arms are paralyzed. She's not suffering enough. Do you even know anything about the crime? Or are you just taking joy in the suffering of another human being? So if you talk this way enough, if our leaders talk this way enough, if they encourage callousness toward fellow Americans, do you think it changes the behavior of Americans? Well, of course it does. if you tell people that the people who oppose you are not fully human, they're just Palestinians, you can kill them, 75,000 of them, who cares? Then after a while, they're going to behave like that's true. Take a look at this tape. Watch this tape. This is from a recent Trump rally. Yes, he's still doing rallies. And a protester in the back, sure, we disagree with her on a lot of things. She seems to be American, however, gets up with a shirt that says, like, release the Epstein Files. Watch for yourself. Watch what happens to her when she does that. These are paid protests, or they're all paid. They get paid by the lefties in order to destroy our country. They're scum. Just punch her in the face. Trump calls her scum. Punching women in the face? Again, it's remarkable the extent to which the conservative leadership has internalized the most repulsive and untrue lie of the feminist movement, which they purport to oppose. And I think that's a very, very important thing. I think that's a very, very important thing to propose. And that is that sexes are identical and have identical roles and identical obligations. That's not true anywhere in nature. It's not true in the animal kingdom, among plants, and it's definitely not true among people. It is materially different to punch a woman in the face than it is to punch a man in the face. And in a lot of ways, our legal code reflects that obvious truth. And so you should be, as a man, upset to see a woman, even if you despise what she's saying, punched in the face by a man. Your impulse should be to protect her, period. Your job. Nature ordains that. It's not up to you. In any society that loses touch with that unchanging fact has lost its honor. What's worth defending? If you're sending women to go die on the front lines, what's the point of the military in the first place? I thought it was to protect the women and the children. Now they get to go die? That's equality? No, it's degradation. And any normal person feels that instantly. Show a hundred people, a hundred men, video of a man getting punched in the face, and they'll say, you go, you get him. I don't know what he did, but yeah, they support it. How about a woman having her nose broken? No normal man finds that appealing. They recoil because it's disgusting inherently. But we have gotten to a place where some woman says, release the Epstein files. It's hardly like a left-wing trope. If that's left-wing, then we need to, I think we need to redefine the terms. It's left-wing. I don't want to know anything more about Epstein. I think he was drinking grape soda and eating pizza. No doubt about it. And anyone who says he wasn't is a liberal. Yeah, that's not really how the terms are defined, actually. But whatever, she gets up and says, release the Epstein files, and some guy punches her in the face, and the president of the United States says, you're scum? What the hell is going on? Because again, this is the president. We're not just singling out Trump, who's hardly the worst offender here. But he is the president, the most powerful president in the world, we were told. Before we learned he has no power at all. But whatever, he's still symbolically important. And he is encouraging violence against this person for making a totally normal, in fact, you could argue conservative point at this rally. What message are we being trained to receive? Well, you don't really have to overthink it. We're being trained. To believe that violence against other people, including our fellow Americans, is totally fine. It's normal. It's the same message that the Bolsheviks went out of their way during the Russian Civil War and in the years after to deliver to the Russian people. It's totally normal to execute people, to crucify them, which the Bolsheviks did, to murder all your clergy. It's like totally normal. This is just how the state works. Fall in line and we'll do it to you. Are we really being trained to believe that? Is that just paranoia? I don't know. Take a look at President Trump's truth social post from today. This is real, by the way. Watch. What was that? Well, I mean, there are probably many levels of meaning there, but on the most obvious, that was video of human beings getting killed by wild animals, like in the Coliseum. That was people, just a kind of jump cut of people being eaten by lions and tigers. Some apparently are AI-generated. Some are real. It doesn't matter. The President of the United States just sent that out. With reference to nothing, as a non-sequitur, just, oh, by the way, here's some video of people getting killed by big cats. Huh? I mean, you know, there's a kind of chaotic quality to Trump that's appealing under certain circumstances, but that's not chaotic. That's a constructed video of people getting eaten by wild animals. What could possibly be the point of sending that out over your social media channels? Well, there are probably many, but I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Again, but the most obvious one is, I would like to desensitize you to cruelty, suffering, and death. Now, why would they want to do that? Why would your leader ever want you to be desensitized to human suffering and death? I don't know, but it can't be good. It doesn't portend a rosy tomorrow. It's not good news for you. And then you have to ask, where is this going? So we've been thinking about this for a full year, a little more than a year, actually, since early last summer, Tulsi Gabbard, who was the director of national intelligence, put together a video that decried the horrors of nuclear war. Of course, only two bombs have ever been dropped against populations in the summer of 1945 in Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. And hundreds of thousands of people were incinerated, and many died later of radiation-related illness. And Tulsi Gabbard, who was the director of national intelligence, put together a video Tulsi Gabbard has been saying for many, many years, over 10 years, that her main concern as a public official, a member of Congress, and then a member of Trump's cabinet, that we are moving toward a nuclear exchange. So last summer, in her capacity as a Trump official, she put together this little video that just said, hey, just to remind you, nuclear explosions are the worst thing. They kill the most people. They have the longest lasting effect. It's a freaking nightmare. Nothing is going to stop us. It very easily has the potential to eliminate all life from this planet, not just human, but all life, make it unusable for millions of years. And so we should know that. So we exercise restraint and make wise decisions to avert it. That's it. That's all she did. And two things happened almost immediately after. One, Trump exploded in rage, including to me. So I know that happened. He was outraged. She went, what is she doing? I don't know, making a point that you made for years and years and years. And she said, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't citing your uncle, the MIT professor. Nuclear war is the worst thing. You don't know how destructive a nuclear weapon is. Trump often said this in private and in public. It's scarier than people know. So here you have your director of national intelligence just repeating what you have said many times and it outrages you. Why is that? What has changed? Well, the Butler shooting for one and maybe other things. But Trump was outraged. But so, critically, was the entire neoconservative mob, the cheerleaders for endless war, the death cult. Here is an amazing analysis by Ben Shapiro. And every time we play a Ben Shapiro clip, I feel a little guilty because like, why are we elevating this guy and his eyebrows? But still, he reveals unintentionally the entire program. Not his program, not the podcast, the failing podcast, but the program. The plan, unintentionally. So here is, and watch this carefully. Here is Ben Shapiro's response to Tulsi Gabbard saying, you know, nuclear war is not good. Watch this. Tulsi Gabbard, of course, has presidential aspirations of her own. And she put out a very bizarre video that I think speaks to the horseshoe theory connection between the isolationist right and the Howard Zinn left, which sound almost identical. This video made a lot of waves for good reason, mainly because many of the things, she's saying here, are pretty egregious. Here is Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI. I recently visited Hiroshima in Japan and stood at the epicenter of a city that remains scarred by the unimaginable horror caused by a single nuclear bomb dropped in 1945, 80 years ago. This attack obliterated the city, killed over 300,000 people, many dying instantly while others died from severe burns, injuries, radiation sickness, and cancer. That set in in the following months and years. Yes, dropping an atomic weapon has massive consequences. Yes. There is carnage that emerges from dropping a nuclear weapon. Everyone knows this, and no one is taking that lightly. But why is she dropping this? It's such a strange thing. This happened in 1945. It is now 80 years later, and she is dropping a video about how terrible the dropping of the A-bomb was. This kind of bizarre retcon of American history, where America was the bad guy in World War II because we dropped an A-bomb, actually two A-bombs, in order to end World War II. That is historical revisionism of the highest order. So it's pretty funny. So first, he's like, yeah, well, this is what happens when you're a fringe character. Like, it's the horseshoe theory. Like, if you're a total wacko lefty, a Marxist, if you're a Marxist, or if you're like a total right-wing extremist, if you're a Nazi, you agree on everything. Only the fringes agree. Unlike me, Ben Shapiro sits squarely in the middle of American public opinion. What's the percentage of Americans who are OK with the nuclear exchange? Not very high. Outside the Daily Wire and, like, the White House. And the Israeli embassy. Pretty small, actually. Most people are sort of against exterminating all human life. So that's not a fringe position. That's the position of the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. The fringe players are the ones who think it's OK. And in that group is Ben Shapiro, which leads to the second point, which is amazing. A guy with outsized verbal skills but not a super high IQ is an amazing vehicle for actually revealing the truth unintentionally. And that's exactly who he is. So he says, why is she? Why is she bringing this up 80 years later? Like, why is this relevant? I don't know. Maybe because you want the United States to use nuclear weapons on behalf of Israel, which obviously he does. And by the way, if it's irrelevant, why are you upset about it? If she's just doing some, like, kooky, you know, little piece on World War II, why is it, you know, why be mad about it? Why devote precious airtime on the Daily Wire to denouncing it? Because she's getting in your way. That's why. Tulsi Gabbard, whatever you think of her, knew early that neocons want a nuclear exchange, which they do, openly now. They want a nuclear exchange. Most people don't want a nuclear exchange. Tulsi Gabbard called that early, and that's why they're attacking her. Now, think about that for a minute. In what world could you openly, and now they are openly, call for a nuclear exchange? Only a world that had gone completely crazy. Well, how did that world go crazy? Well, through words. That's how the world always goes crazy. So here's how it works. You can speak reality into existence. You can make things true by repeating them. It is often noted that a lie repeated often enough will be accepted as the truth. What's too seldom noted is that the lie will actually, in some sense, become true simply through words, otherwise known as spells or incantations. I mean, this is sort of recognized as a witchcraft principle. It's almost never acknowledged as just a human principle. If you keep saying something long enough, it is likely to happen. Trump believes this, but you can see it all around you. Do you remember the first time you heard of gay marriage in the 80s? No matter how liberal you are, you're like, well, that's not going to happen. Gay marriage? What? Like, Steve meets Steve? People made fun of it. Liberal Democrats made fun of it. In fact, all Democrats opposed it. In fact, they voted to ban it. That's how much they opposed it. This wasn't that long ago. I remember it. I was there for the vote. So this wasn't in the 1920s. This was like 20 minutes ago. This was in the 2000s. The state of California had a referendum that banned gay marriage. The state of California. Can you imagine? If you woke up tomorrow and it's like, oh, by the way, California voters just banned gay marriage. You'd be like, what? Well, that's clearly false. Well, they did. Less than 20 years ago. They did. And now, of course, it's like you're a freak for saying there's something wrong with gay marriage. What are you, like, a weirdo? Like, I don't know, some kind of extremist? So in 20 years, whatever you think of it, it's not an argument either way, but just acknowledging that's what happened. Well, how did that happen? Just by saying there's nothing wrong with this. It's great. And over a period, pretty short period, people just accepted it. Do you remember the first time you heard the idea that a man could become a woman? Again, no matter how liberal you are, the first time you heard that, you're like, what? A man can become a woman how? By, like, wishing it so? Isn't sex determined at the DNA level? How can you change your DNA? Well, you just wish it that way because you're born another gender. And you were like, shut up. And even if you, like, didn't judge transgenders, then called trannies, you were dead certain that there's no chance that this could ever be widely adopted. There would never be, like, a boy on your daughter's soccer team because that's insane. And then in a couple years, again, it's not even taking a side on the question. It's just acknowledging that. Acknowledging what happened because people kept saying, no, no, this is normal. Most people accepted that it was normal. That's exactly what's happening now. That's why Ben Shapiro was outraged that Tulsi Gabbard would criticize dropping nuclear bombs on civilian populations because he would like to do it. And in fact, they plan to do it. And in fact, they are changing the internal American nuclear doctrine in order to make it easier to do. That's why they're doing that. It's not like they expect to be hit with. It's not like they expect to be hit with a nuclear weapon and have trouble responding. That's already in the nuclear doctrine. The only reason they're changing the nuclear doctrine is they can drop a nuclear bomb in what we used to call a first strike against a non-nuclear armed nation. And thereby risk total annihilation of the global population, 8.3 billion people. And, like, they're doing it in public. And almost everything we're seeing, the encouragement to feel callous about other human beings, not to love your fellow human beings, the encouragement to become monsters. The encouragement to become monsters. Is preparation for that. Because there is a small and determined group of people who see nuclear war as both inevitable and a fulfillment of some kind. And now we're getting into theological territory, but it's no less powerful a motivator of human behavior than any other motive. And that's absolutely real. And we know it's real because the president of the United States just threatened a nuclear strike at the United Nations. Watch this. But I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before? Maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world. Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance? No chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations. But I believe we'll make a deal right after the election. So just to be totally clear, in case anyone tries to lie to you about what you just heard the president say, he is not threatening the use of conventional weapons because there is no conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal that can achieve anything like what he just described. The total annihilation of a civilization of a nation. For centuries with no hope of recovery and an instantaneous annihilation that does not allow time for them to respond. There's only one thing he could possibly be describing. And it's the thing he is describing, which is a first strike with nuclear weapons, after which it's hard to know what would happen. But it's pretty likely we would be down the road to a total annihilation of everyone on Earth. So to be clear, that's crazy. That's reckless. That's a crime. Casually threatening the extermination of the world's population is a crime. If you were to talk like that to the clerk at 7-Eleven, you would be arrested for threatening to murder him. And when the president of the United States talks that way about exterminating the entire population of the Earth or even of the 90 million Iranians, that is a crime. And it's only because we have been trained by success. It's only because we have been trained by successive generations of leaders in this country to accept casual brutality against the innocent that we've been encouraged to hate each other on the basis of our differences, to dehumanize each other, sufficient that a Trump supporter, and we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, is probably a decent law-abiding man who loves his kids, is willing to punch a woman in the face in public on camera because she dared to demand the release of the Epstein files. How deranged have we become? Utterly deranged. Utterly deranged. Where is this headed to total extermination of the species? Because that's the terminus. That's where it ends. That's where it always ends. And the only relief from this, the only possible relief from this, the only off-ramp from the cycle of attack and counterattack of blood grudges, of course, is the off-ramp offered in the Sermon on the Mount, where you do not respond with violence, where you do not keep a grudge. Where you remember that as much as you hate your enemy, God provides him sun and rain, too, and God created him, too, that we are all human. That's not liberal claptrap. That's the only thing that keeps us from mutually assured annihilation at the hands of lunatics like this and Netanyahu and others. That's exactly where we're heading with the encouragement of every institution in American life. Don't forget. get the steak. this country founded on true equality not of ability not of outcome but of humanity and when you give that up the logical end is what you just heard and that's an end for all of us thanks all for watching tonight