Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr, and Larry Elder React to Second Trump Shooting

Live events are the ultimate truth-tellers in a world full of censorship.

Thank you, thank you! I'm really happy to be here. It's funny; I was just in this building in July, and I had no idea it was the same building until I was pulling up tonight. I thought, "That looks very familiar." Laughter I'm so grateful to be here.

I want to be clear: I like every part of the United States. I'm from here; I was born here, and I will die here—hopefully not too soon. I've made that commitment, and I'm going to be buried near my dogs. I love the whole country; I grew up on one coast and now live on the other. Whoever clapped for me being buried next to my dogs, I like you because I feel that way too.

But I have to say, and this is not pandering—this is totally sincere—I especially love this part of the Midwest. I just love it, and I love it for incredibly shallow reasons. First of all, I love to hunt and fish here. I love your muskies and your grouse. The friends I go on an annual hunting trip with in two weeks, the first thing I'm doing when I get off tour is coming back to Wisconsin to catch your fish and try to shoot your birds. Don't worry, they're safe!

The real reason I love the Midwest, particularly this part of it, is because I married a girl from this area, and I just love the accent. I think it's hilarious! I've been with her for 40 years next week; I met her 40 years ago next week. When I first started dating her, I thought, "You know, I'm sure the accent will sort of lighten up a little bit." But it has not at all! It's still a "car," a motor vehicle. If I say to my dogs, "Let's go to the park," they look at me like, "What?" But if I say "the park," bam! They're up and ready to go.

So, I associate that accent with niceness, particularly nice women. I was walking through downtown Milwaukee today, and I heard people speaking in this accent. I almost wanted to walk up and introduce myself and say, "Oh, it's so nice to meet you!" But then I thought, "You know, maybe you get shot doing that." Laughter However, everyone was actually nice. I just think it's the sweetest part of the country.

Thank you so much! We even have it in my kitchen—the Midwestern sensibility. We're very big on meatloaf in my house. Actually, I don't even know if they still serve it here, but in the 70s in the Midwest, everyone ate meatloaf every day, and so we still do.

The reason we're doing this tour—this is our eighth night, and we're doing the entire month of September—is that I became aware of something. I now work on the internet, and before that, I worked in television. The frustrating thing about both of them is that there's a lot of censorship, now more than ever. I thought to myself, "The one thing that you can't censor is a live event." You can be completely honest because the people are right there. If you're in a room full of thousands of people, you can feel a very strong vibe coming off the crowd, and it's just wonderful. People can be as honest as they want, which is extremely refreshing.

After spending all day worried about what YouTube is doing to our videos, I just wanted to get out and talk to people directly. So, after eight days, I'm thinking, "Maybe I overstated it. Maybe the censorship, the distortion of the facts, the lying, the massive deception machine I've been a part of for 33 years now in the media—maybe it's not as bad as I thought."

Then, someone tries to shoot Trump again. I was here, actually, the last time someone tried to shoot Trump. I was in this room, and now I'm back again two days after. I am shocked watching the lying in real time. Just two days ago, we started getting these reports. I called in to get all the facts, and then I thought, "What are they saying in the media about it?" The first thing you learned if you tuned in was that he was shot by a Trump supporter, which totally makes sense. The guy loved him so much that...

=> 00:05:06

The media's distortion of reality is so pervasive that the truth often feels like a conspiracy theory.

In recent days, I have been reflecting on the censorship, the distortion of facts, the lying, and the massive deception machine that I have been a part of for 33 years in the media. Perhaps it is not as bad as I once thought. However, the situation escalated when someone attempted to shoot Trump again. I was actually present in this room the last time someone tried to shoot him, and now I find myself back here, just two days later, feeling shocked as I watch the lying unfold in real time.

Just two days ago, reports began to surface about the incident. I called in to gather the facts and then thought, what are they saying in the media about it? The first thing I learned was that the shooter was identified as a Trump supporter. This narrative seemed absurd; it suggested that the individual loved Trump so much that he brought a rifle to a golf course to try to murder him. It felt reminiscent of Putin blowing up his own natural gas pipeline—an act of self-harm that somehow made sense in the twisted logic of the media.

As I flipped through channels, I landed on a station where Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from one of the most conservative states, was speaking directly into the camera. He claimed, “you know who did this? Iran.” This assertion led me to investigate further. Ironically, the shooter turned out to be a warmonger himself, sharing political views similar to those of Lindsey Graham. He had even volunteered in Ukraine, yet Graham insisted otherwise, lying to both me and the audience I used to address five nights a week. In my hotel room, I was shouting in frustration, while my wife, brushing her teeth, wondered what was happening.

The media's narrative omitted crucial facts about the shooter, who had been interviewed by every major outlet in Washington. He was a well-known figure, yet the only place to find any reliable information was on Elon Musk's social media app. I don’t own a TV, which has spared me from much of this chaos, and I often recommend ignorance if one wishes to remain happy in moments like this. Unfortunately, my job requires me to stay informed, and I have had to pay close attention this week.

Every single report I encountered was a lie, either directly or through lies of omission. This is just one example among countless instances where reality is completely distorted, leaving the average person with no idea and no means of discovering the truth. The individual now in custody for the attempted murder of Donald Trump, the former US president and Republican nominee, has a criminal record that is extensive—20 charges, including possession of weapons of mass destruction. Yet, the New York Times failed to mention any of this before portraying him as a freedom fighter in Ukraine.

The piece even detailed the shooter's contacts with members of Congress and various U.S. government agencies. This is the same person who brought a rifle with a scope to a golf course in South Florida to murder Donald Trump. It raises serious questions about the implications of his connections with the U.S. government. However, I fear that no one will pursue these inquiries, and this incident will soon be forgotten. In a week, it will be as if it never happened, and anyone who remembers will be labeled the crazy person.

=> 00:09:07

Trust your instincts; they can sense deception when logic fails.

The recent events surrounding a man charged with 20 charges including possession of weapons and mass destruction have raised significant concerns. The New York Times did not take the time to investigate this individual before portraying him as a freedom fighter in Ukraine, where he was residing. The article goes on to describe his interactions with members of Congress, their staffs, and other U.S. government agencies. This raises a troubling question: how could this be the same person who attempted to murder Donald Trump by bringing a rifle with a scope to a golf course in South Florida?

It seems that this information will be quickly forgotten, leading to a situation where people will dismiss it, and you may be labeled as the "crazy person" for remembering. People might ask, "Didn’t some Trump supporter bring a rifle because you’re against gun control or something?" However, that is not the full story. A man who was once celebrated by the New York Times and shares the same worldview as Lindsey Graham attempted to commit murder, and yet this will likely disappear from public consciousness.

In light of this, I believe it is of vital importance to seek unfiltered information from honest sources. But how can one discern who is honest? This has been my obsession for the past year, especially after realizing I was working within a deception machine without even knowing it. It’s akin to having an alcoholic spouse; everyone sees it except you.

I have become fixated on the fact that almost all the information we receive is curated and spun, with relevant facts omitted and irrelevant ones highlighted to manipulate our feelings. So, how do we combat this? One of the primary defenses we have is our instincts. I firmly believe that you can sense when someone is lying. I know this because I have many dogs.

My dogs cannot speak English, yet they can detect when someone is "weird." If you come to my house and exhibit odd behavior, my dogs will bark at you or cower in the corner. They may not have seen your tax returns or spoken to your spouse, but they know something is off. This instinct is universal; if you get a vibe that suggests deception, that person is likely lying.

For example, I recall my first impression of Tim Walls. Having attended boarding school in New England during the 80s, I recognized his type immediately. The moment I saw him, my instincts screamed that he was not someone I would trust. While I may not have the evidence to indict him in a court of law, my instincts are enough for me.

The same principle applies to detecting deception in others. If you observe someone—let's say Lindsey Graham—and feel that they might not be telling the whole truth, trust that feeling. Our greatest weakness is often our tendency to override our instincts, convincing ourselves that we don’t know what we actually do.

Our instincts are perhaps the most important gift we receive at birth, designed to protect us from deception and harm. They are not trying to sell us anything or gain our votes; their sole purpose is to serve us. Therefore, do not ignore them. You know lying when you hear it, and this awareness is crucial, especially in a world filled with misinformation.

=> 00:13:24

Trust your instincts; they are your greatest defense against deception.

Lindsey Graham and others often evoke a sense of skepticism when we encounter certain individuals. You look at that person and think, "I think that person’s trying to sell me something." This instinct is crucial; it signals that "that person may not be telling the full truth." You are right to feel this way. Our main weakness as people is that we override the truth as delivered by our instincts and higher mind. We often talk ourselves out of knowing what we already know.

You already know the truth, and you know it because "God gave you those instincts as maybe the most important gift you received at birth." These instincts are designed to protect you from deception and harm. Your instincts are not trying to sell you something or get elected; their only job is to serve you. Therefore, it is essential that you do not ignore them. You know lying when you hear it.

Reflecting on my own experiences, I admit, "I don't think I passed high school biology." I may have gotten the answers on the test from my then-girlfriend, now my wife. To be honest, I cheated. I’ve never admitted that to anyone—don’t tell my children, but it’s true. I simply didn’t understand the subject matter. Thus, I cannot pretend to be grounded in the hard sciences because I’m not. However, I am deeply grounded in human nature and the way people communicate, which is my job.

When they started telling me things on television, I knew instantly "they were lying." I had no idea why or what the larger purpose was. I still have no idea, but I can speculate. The point seemed to be "to increase their power, to make weed stores more profitable, and to close down churches." I got that, but I still questioned the big picture goal.

I remember the first day I watched Tony Fauci speak on my show. I interviewed him, and while I had no idea he was lying, I felt it strongly. I booked Tony Fauci because he is a long-serving federal employee who lives in my neighborhood in DC. Despite the calls for accountability, "he's not locked up; he's wandering through our dog park with Secret Service protection at your expense." He hasn’t faced consequences; instead, he has been rewarded by institutions like Georgetown University, receiving even more federal tax dollars as a hero.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, only my unerring instinct, I sensed "Tony Fauci was lying." I didn’t voice that on TV, but I felt it strongly and spent the next week trying to figure out what he was lying about. It became clear that all of us are capable of recognizing deception. Every one of us possesses this ability.

In contrast, the truth resonates differently. When you hear someone tell a true thing—something you’ve never heard before or something you’ve heard a million times but never thought about—it "resonates within you like a tuning fork." It hums, and you can’t get it out of your head. You may not know why it’s true, but you know that it is. "The true word is the most powerful force in the world." In the beginning was the word, and when we hear something true, we know it.

The only reason we don’t act on the truth is that we’ve been talked out of it by professional liars or we doubt our own gut instincts. So, I urge you: do not doubt your instincts. If you see someone like Kamala Harris saying, "Vote for me, I'm actually a farmer from downstate Illinois," you can sense the deception. You can see the "Black Earth in my hand," and the tractor behind her as she makes her pitch.

It’s fascinating how the "defund the police chick" can suddenly present herself as a conservative. I don’t even need to know her history; I listen to her talk and think, "You’re lying." This realization comes before I even know anything about her past. That instinct is verification of what I already felt.

As we approach the next six weeks, I encourage you to "hone your Spidey senses." You will be lied to with a level of aggression you’ve never seen before. The command will always be the same: "Ignore what’s right in front of your face." You will be told, "You didn’t see that; that’s not real; you’re crazy." This is the message: "You’re crazy; you can only trust us; the rest is disinformation."

First of all, anyone who uses the phrase "disinformation" is a liar—period.

=> 00:17:48

Trust only those who prioritize truth over convenience; disinformation is just a tool of manipulation.

Nothing about [Applause] her—that's just verification of what I already felt. I knew that without even calling Montel and asking him; I knew who you were, and we all do. So, I would say to you hone your Spidey senses these next six weeks because you're going to be lied to at a volume with a level of aggression you've never seen before. The command will always be the same: ignore what's right in front of your face. You didn't see that; that's not real; you're crazy. That's really the message: you're crazy. You can only trust us; the rest is disinformation.

Okay, first of all, anyone who uses the phrase disinformation is a liar. Period. We're done. Disinformation is not a category; there's only one category: truth or falsehood. That's it. Disinformation is another way of saying, "You're saying something that's inconvenient to me. You are criticizing me. I don't like what you're saying; shut up or go to jail." That's not a valid category; that's totalitarianism, that's tyranny. So, anyone who uses the word disinformation is immediately on the liar's side. Don't listen to another word that person says; they are your enemy. Listen only to people who care about the only thing that is worth caring about, which is: is it true or not? Is it actually true? The people who care about whether it's true are your guides through a dark time, and they are your only guides. They’re not many of them, and I just want to say I'm so grateful that we have two of them tonight, and I'm going to introduce them in order.

Now, consider doing this: Imagine going to your computer and looking at your entire browsing history on the web—everything you've looked at. Now imagine hitting print and then signing your full name at the bottom, maybe with your social security number. Picture printing out that browsing history with your name on it and nailing it to the front door of, say, your house for everybody in the world to see. Maybe that'd be fine, maybe not. And while you're at it, actually take a copy of that same list of everything you've looked at on the internet and post it in the break room at work. In fact, go farther than that: blow that up and put it on a billboard over a major highway on your commute to work. Here's everything I've been looking at on the internet. Would you want to do that?

You don't have to be a creep to think maybe that's not something I'd want to do, but in effect, that's what you're already doing every single day unless you already use the sponsor of this video, ExpressVPN. You are allowing all of your online activity to become public. Why? Because internet service providers can see every website you have ever visited—yes, even if you're in Incognito or private browsing mode; it doesn't really work. And in the United States, your internet service provider can then sell your data to whomever they please, including the government, and they do, by the way.

So, what can you do about that? Well, you can do what people in our office do, particularly when we're abroad but also when we're here, and that's encrypt your online activity before it even reaches the internet service provider so no one can see it. It's private. Privacy is a prerequisite for freedom, so keep it close. We use ExpressVPN to do that. That's our internet provider. Our internet provider cannot see what we're doing on the internet because we use ExpressVPN. They can't record it, they can't share it, and they can't sell our browsing history because they never have it to begin with. Why don't they have it to begin with? Because ExpressVPN reroutes our online activity through secure servers and changes our IP address, making you more anonymous to apps and websites trying to track you. It'll do the same for you.

So, the first person who's going to join me in just a second is my friend Larry Elder, who I've known for a really long time. He is a wonderful man, and of the many things that we have in common, Larry Elder and I are both from Southern California, which used to be the kind of thing that you know...

=> 00:21:50

Privacy is the foundation of freedom; without it, true liberty is just an illusion.

The first guest who is going to join me in just a second is my friend Larry Elder, who I've known for a really long time. He is a wonderful man, and among the many things that we have in common, Larry Elder and I are both from Southern California. This used to be the kind of thing that you would brag about. Now, I tell everyone I'm from Shaban—no one believes me, but I tell them that actually, it's true.

When I was a kid, we felt very sorry for anybody who was not from Southern California. You wouldn’t say it right to their face because you didn’t want to be mean, but we just thought they were deeply unfortunate; they just didn’t know or they couldn’t afford the bus fare or whatever. If you didn’t live in Southern California, we were sad for you because it was such a wonderful place. It was the greatest place; it was the apex of human civilization, and I still think that.

It matters what’s happened to California, and I find myself, since I live as far from California as you can possibly live—in the state of Maine—reflecting on it. It’s like a distant fact to me, like a typhoon in Bangladesh. I feel sad, but it doesn’t really affect me. However, it actually does affect me; it’s our largest state, and it is a bellwether. What happens in California tends to move east inexorably, so we have to care.

What is happening in California? I can promise you that the entire American news media colludes to hide the truth of what’s happening in California from you because they don’t want you to know. What they want to do to you is the truth, and Larry Elder knows. He cares enough to have run for the governorship of California; he’s probably the last sensible person who ever will. It’s a one-party state, but he made an honorable and good-faith effort to dislodge Gavin Newsom. Some of us were really rooting for him.

I had him on for his announcement one Thursday night, and the next night was my last show because I got fired. So, I wasn’t able to cheer him on from my perch at a TV channel, but I was certainly cheering from the sidelines. Larry Elder is going to come out in about 30 seconds and tell us what the state is actually like because you should know, even if you live here in the beautiful, unchanged Midwest.

The second person we’re going to talk to is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. [Applause] One thing I would say about Bobby, who I’ve been friendly with and really admired for a long time, is that before it was even cool, I had some secret opinions about Pharma that I didn’t want to share in public since they were our biggest advertiser. However, I have for many years thought he was on the scent—like one of my dogs hunting down a pheasant in a cornrow. I was like, “Yeah, you’re getting warmer there, Bobby.”

Bobby’s life is amazing; I can go on for hours, but I’ll do it in one sentence. What’s happened to Bobby Kennedy over the last 18 months gives me hope for this country. There’s no one who’s more of a Democrat than Bobby Kennedy, and he’s now campaigning for Donald Trump. How did that happen? It happened because partisan politics, as I’m just learning in my advanced middle age, is a lie.

If you wake up in a world where Lindsey Graham goes on cable news and pretends that he’s on your side while lying right to your face to send your children to die in some pointless foreign war, and Bobby Kennedy is actually trying to save your children from dying young from preventable disease, you might ask yourself—like I have—“Wait a second, maybe this is all fake.” The real divide is not between Republicans and Democrats; the real divide is between liars and people brave enough to tell the truth. Bobby Kennedy is in the latter category, as you are about to find out.

So, with that, I am honored to introduce for an update on the biggest, most important state—the Golden State of California—my friend Larry Elder. [Music]

=> 00:26:09

The real divide isn't between political parties; it's between those who lie and those who dare to speak the truth.

As he's lying right to your face to send your children to go die in some pointless foreign war, Bobby Kennedy is actually trying to save your children from dying young from preventable disease. If you're like me, you've never voted for a Democrat in your life, and you never are going to. However, you might ask yourself, wait a second, maybe this is all fake actually. It is true that the real divide is not between Republicans and Democrats; the real divide is between liars and people brave enough to tell the truth, and Bobby Kennedy's in the latter category, as you're about to find out.

With that, I am honored to introduce for an update on the biggest, most important state, the Golden State of California, my friend Larry Elder.

[Music]

Larry Elder, I'm so honored you're here. Are you aware that Tucker does not wear socks? I don't wear socks either. You get to a certain age and you're like, you know, I still pay my taxes and get a driver's license, but there are some things I'm not doing. I don't want to know what else you don’t wear. I'm in a Commando unit, let me just say that.

Excuse me, I beg your pardon; it doesn't take much for me to get right to the vulgar Newsroom deep inside me. So, Larry, as I said, I got fired right after you announced. I was sitting here, and I killed your show. You did! I came on this show on Thursday and announced I was running for president. By the way, this is kind of the scene of the crime for me. You had the first GOP debate here in Milwaukee, and I was required to get three polls where I was at 1% or better to qualify.

So, I turned in three polls where I had 1% or better. I got a phone call from Ron McDaniel, and she said, one of the polls you can't use. I asked which one, and she said, Ras M. I inquired why, and she said, because it's affiliated with the Trump campaign. It is true that the rules state if anybody commissions a poll, that person can't use it, nor can any other candidate use it.

After the announcement was made that Elder didn't qualify, Raspon put out a tweet saying, we're not affiliated with Trump; there's no reason why Elder can't use me. So, I submitted a fourth one, and she said, you submitted it too late. My lawyer, who is the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, told me that by failing to apply the debate criteria fairly to Elder, what the RNC did essentially was to give an in-kind contribution to the eight candidates who did make it on the debate stage. Based on the value of the time at Fox News, that's $100 million.

I told them I flew here to Milwaukee anyway on the eve of the debate, and I said, if you don't put me up there by 2:00, I'm going to file a complaint with the FEC for $100 million. Tick, tick, tick—I thought they were going to blink, but they did not. So, they didn't put me on, as you know, and I have filed that complaint. We'll find out what happens.

So, I guess my takeaway would be, are you saying the RNC is not totally on the level? Shockingly, I think their goal, Tucker, was to reduce the number of candidates. They thought that 17 was too many in 2016, and they wanted to reduce it to a more manageable number. I guess I don't really know. I wasn't trying to displace Donald Trump; I knew he was going to be the nominee. However, there are some issues I thought were not talked about, and I felt if I could get those issues front and center, I would do my job.

Most notably, the number one domestic problem in America by far is the epidemic of fatherlessness.

40% of all American kids now enter the world without a father in the home married to the mother. In 1965, 25% of black kids were in this situation; now it's 70%. For white kids, it was 25% then, and now that number has also increased. The stats are clear: if you're raised without a father, you're five times more likely to be poor, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in jail.

Now, what happened in the mid-60s? A Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, launched a so-called war on poverty, and since then, we've incentivized women to marry the government and incentivized men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility. Nobody's talking about it. The neighborhood you grew up in, the state you grew up in—you grew up with your dad at home. We've talked about your dad; it sounds like an amazing guy. But that wasn't weird, was it? It was unusual when I was growing up for a mother and a father not to be in the home. Now, it is.

=> 00:30:01

Being raised without a father doesn't determine your future; it's all about the choices you make and the resilience you build.

Being raised without a father significantly impacts a child's life. You're five times more likely to be poor, nine times more likely to commit a crime, four times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in jail. This reality became particularly evident after the mid-60s when Democrat Lyndon Johnson launched a so-called war on poverty. Since then, we have inadvertently incentivized women to marry the government while incentivizing men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility. Unfortunately, nobody's talking about it.

Reflecting on my own upbringing, I realize that the neighborhood and state I grew up in were quite different. My father was present in our home, and he sounds like an amazing guy. However, it was unusual during my childhood for a mother and father not to be in the home. Today, it is the opposite; it has become unusual for both a mother and father to be present in inner-city households. This shift represents a significant change in societal norms.

My father, for instance, never knew his biological father. The last name "Elder" is associated with a man who was in his life for a brief period—perhaps three or four years. I am not even sure if Elder formally adopted my dad. My father's mother was illiterate and irresponsible, relying on a series of boyfriends. At the age of 13, my father came home to find himself in a quarrel with his mother's then-boyfriend. Elder had long since departed, and my father was ultimately thrown out of the house by his mother, never to return.

Growing up in Athens, Georgia, during the Jim Crow South at the onset of the Great Depression, my father had to fend for himself. He picked up trash, cleaned barns, and did whatever he could to survive. Eventually, he became a Pullman Porter, which was the largest private employer of Black individuals at that time. This little Black boy from Athens traveled across the country and eventually arrived in California, specifically in Los Angeles. He was amazed to find that he could walk through the front door of a restaurant, sit down, and be served. This experience left a lasting impression on him, and he made a mental note to relocate to California someday.

My father always kept packages of crackers and tin cans of tuna on hand because, in the South, you could never be sure if you would have a meal. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, my dad joined the Marines. I once asked him why he chose the Marines, and he replied, "Two reasons: they go where the action is, and I love the uniforms." He was stationed on the island of Guam, where he was responsible for cooking for the segregated colored soldiers.

After the war, my father returned to Chattanooga, Tennessee, where he married my mother. He sought employment as a short-order cook but faced discrimination. After being turned away from several restaurants, he visited an unemployment office, where a lady told him he had gone through the wrong door. He then noticed the "colored only" sign and went through that door to the same lady who had previously sent him away. Frustrated, my dad returned home and declared, "This is BS. I'm going to LA where I was before the war. Get me a job as a cook."

Upon arriving in Los Angeles, my father walked around looking for work but was repeatedly told he lacked references. He famously said, "I need references to make ham and eggs?" He returned to the unemployment office, where he learned the hours of operation and decided to wait until they found him a job. He sat in the chair for an entire day and returned the next day to do the same. Eventually, the lady called him up and offered him a job, although she warned him that it was cleaning toilets at Nobis brand bread. My dad accepted the job and did it for ten years while also working a second full-time job at another bread company and cooking for a family on weekends, as they wanted my mom to be a stay-at-home mom.

Determined to improve his life, my father attended night school to obtain his GED. After achieving that, he continued his education at night to learn how to operate a restaurant. He rarely slept, which contributed to his grouchy demeanor. Eventually, my dad started a small café at the age of 47, which he ran until his mid-80s. Upon retiring, he owned the building, the property next to it, and the house, which remains in our family today. He retired with a net worth of above a million dollars.

I share this story to emphasize that being raised by a single mom is not a death sentence. Life is still about choices, and my father's journey exemplifies that. Interestingly, my dad was a lifelong Republican, while my mom was a lifelong Democrat. You should have witnessed the discussions in our household!

=> 00:33:28

Your background doesn't define your future; hard work and choices do.

He went to night school to get his GED. After getting his GED, he went to night school to learn how to operate a restaurant. The man never slept, which is why he was so grouchy all the time. My dad started a little cafe at 47 years old and ran it until his mid-80s when he retired. He owned that building, he owned the property next to it, plus the house, which is still in our family right now. He retired with a net worth of above a million dollars.

So, I tell you that story, Tucker, to say that being raised by a single mom is not a death sentence. You're still responsible; life is still all about choices. My dad was a lifelong Republican, while my mom was a lifelong Democrat. You should have been in the house! My dad would say, "Democrats are going to give you something for nothing. When you try to get something for nothing, you almost always end up getting nothing for something." He would emphasize that hard work wins and that you get out of life what you put into it.

"You cannot control the outcome, Larry, but you are 100% in control of the effort," he would say. Before you moan or whine about what somebody did to you or said to you, go to the mirror, look at it, and ask yourself, "What could I have done to change the outcome?" Finally, he said, "No matter how hard you work or how good you are, sooner or later, bad things are going to happen. How you deal with those bad things will tell your mother and me if we raised a man."

He sounds like an amazing man, but he never made the sale politically with your mom. No, Liv, to be 95 years old during Watergate—you should have been a fly on the wall! My dad thought Watergate was inconsequential, even if Nixon sent the plumbers in there to bug Larry O'Brien's office. My dad thought, "So what? There's no evidence whatsoever that Nixon did it; he covered it up." He believed it was inconsequential and said, "Over time, you're going to realize this is no reason to get rid of a president." My mom thought it was horrific; she hated Nixon. The polls now show most people believe that what Nixon did did not rise to the level of him leaving office. My dad was right.

Well, it turned out that Deep Throat was the number two man at the FBI working in concert with the CIA to crush a sitting president. So, something we've seen subsequently. But your dad was on to that. You know, you graded on the curve. Now, look at the Biden crime family: $27 million in all this corruption. What Nixon did was inconsequential compared to what's going on right now. He didn't get rich in China; that's true. No, he sure didn't.

So, California, your home state, my home state—give us a status report from the Left Coast, if you would. I think this story probably illustrates how bad things are. I ran for governor, as Tucker pointed out, in the recall election. It was a two-part deal: the first part was, "Do you want this man recalled?" and a 50% plus one said yes. Whoever got the most votes on the replacement side would have become governor. I got 49% of the votes on the replacement side; the next highest person got 9%. The 49% was exactly the same percentage that Arnold Schwarzenegger got in 2003 when he successfully recalled a previous governor.

Since then, there were 5% more registered Democrats, 25% fewer registered Republicans, and 50% more registered Independents. Independents in California vote Democrat. There hasn't been a Republican elected statewide in California in 20 years, so the race is over. I raised $27 million in 8 weeks and received 3.5 million votes. California has 58 counties, and on the replacement side, I carried 57 of 58 counties. The only one I didn't carry was San Francisco. I didn't spend one dime or one minute campaigning there because I thought it was a lost cause. I lost that by 149 votes.

So, the race is over, Tucker. I go to a restaurant in the west side of LA to meet a buddy of mine. He's late, so I'm sitting at a table by myself. There's a table next to me with two ladies; I think they feel sorry for me because I'm sitting alone. We start talking, and it turns out they're 85 years old and have known each other since the second grade. One was celebrating her 85th birthday. They told me they were Jewish; one said she was a human rights activist, and the other said she was a psychotherapist.

Then, about 15 to 20 minutes into the conversation, one of them said, "Wait a minute, I know you! You're that guy that ran for governor! You're that Larry Elder!" She said, "Guess who we voted for?" I said, "You didn't vote for me." She asked how I knew that, and I replied, "Let's see, we're on the west side of LA, you're both Jewish, you're a human rights activist—it doesn't take Columbo to put that together. You didn't vote for me.

=> 00:37:18

Conversations can break down barriers and change minds, even in unexpected places.

I found myself sitting alone when two ladies approached me. I think they felt somewhat sorry for me because I was by myself. We started talking, and it turned out they were both 85 years old and had known each other since the second grade. One was celebrating her 85th birthday, and they told me they were Jewish. One lady mentioned that she was a human rights activist, while the other identified herself as a psychotherapist.

About 15 to 20 minutes into our conversation, one of them suddenly exclaimed, "Wait a minute! I know you! You're that guy that ran for governor! You're that Larry Elder!" I asked them, "Guess who we voted for?" When she replied, "You didn't vote for me," I responded, "How do you know that?" I continued, "Let's see, we're on the west side of LA, you're both Jewish, you're a human rights activist... it doesn't take Columbo to put that together. You didn't vote for me." They confirmed, "We didn't."

Then, one of them asked me, "How do you feel about the way Gavin Newsom shut down the state in a more severe way than any other governor because of COVID, while sitting up there at that French Laundry restaurant, yucking it up with the very same people that drafted the mandates, not wearing a mask, not social distancing?" They expressed their outrage, saying, "We were outraged by that."

They continued, "How do you feel about the fact that a million people have left California in the last three years? This is the first time anybody's left this state in 150 years. We've lost friends." They also shared their concerns about homelessness, telling me that they had a homeless encampment near their homes and were outraged by it. I asked them about the quality of schools, and they replied that they had kids but would not put any of them in the Los Angeles Unified School District because the schools were substandard.

As we were completing each other's sentences, I said, "You didn't vote for me." I then asked, "Have you ever had a conversation with a Conservative Republican before?" They admitted they had not. One of them asked, "What are you drinking?" I replied, "Double vodka, splash of cranberry." The other lady asked, "What are you eating?" I said, "Well, I was going to have steak, but now I'm going to upgrade it to lobster if you pay for the meal." We had a marvelous time, and they had never had a conversation like this before.

Later, I had some back issues, and a buddy of mine recommended a massage therapist. He gave me an address, and I assumed it would be in some office building. However, I turned down a residential street and found a house. When I knocked on the door, a lady opened it. She had tattoos everywhere and ear piercings everywhere but her eyeballs. I could smell a big plume of marijuana—not that I would know what that smells like, of course; I've just read about it.

As she worked on my back, she played Motown music, which is my favorite genre of popular music. I could name the songs and tell you about them. For instance, I mentioned, "That was written by Smokey Robinson for David Ruffin, the lead singer of The Temptations." I explained that this song was written by Marvin Gaye, who was trying to dissuade from doing that What's Going On album by Barry Gordy because he wanted to control it. I went over every single song, and she said, "I know who you are. When you contacted me to make your appointment, I knew who you were. I wasn't going to say anything, but had I known you were this funny and personable, I would have voted for you."

I asked her, "Do you know any Republicans?" She replied, "No." I said, "News Bulletin: we have personalities, we have senses of humor." In her defense, I remembered that campaign very well, and I think the LA Times called me a white supremacist. I corrected her, saying, "No, no, no, maybe she thought you were a white supremacist. Let's be accurate: I was called the black face of white supremacy." I joked, "Sorry, I worked very hard for that title, Tucker."

I continued, "What does that even mean? I never figured it out. That's like a Zen cone—it's the sound of one hand clapping. I don't even understand it. I've been on the radio for 30 years, and in the first six months, every third caller called me an Uncle Tom or a sellout or a bootlicker—buggy bootlicking Uncle Tom."

After about six months on the radio, I was walking to a restaurant when I noticed a couple of brothers sitting on a brick wall. Based on the way they were dressed, they weren't investment bankers. One of them said, "Larry Elder, I hate you and I love you. Come on over here!" I thought to myself, if they were going to shoot me, they'd have done it by now. I can't outrun a bullet, so I might as well go over there. When I approached, one of them said, "You know, I've been listening to you for about four or five months now, and at first, I couldn't stand your black ass, but the more I started listening to you...

=> 00:40:52

To rebuild America, start by getting your own house in order and support businesses that align with your values. Change begins with wise spending, not just complaints.

For 30 years, and during the first 6 months I was on the radio, every third caller referred to me as an Uncle Tom, a sellout, or a bootlicker. I was often called names like "buggy bootlicking Uncle Tom" and "sable Tom." One day, while walking to a restaurant, I encountered a couple of brothers sitting on a brick wall. Based on their attire, it was clear they weren't investment bankers. One of them called out, "Larry Elder, I hate you and I love you. Come on over here." At that moment, I thought to myself, if they were going to shoot me, they would have done it by now. I can't outrun a bullet, so I might as well go over there.

When I approached them, one of the men said, "You know, I've been listening to you for about four or five months now. At first, I couldn't stand your black ass, but the more I started listening to you, the more I realized you ain't doing nothing but telling people to get off their ass and stop complaining. You're like Castor Oil; it doesn't taste good going down, but it's good for you. Keep it up."

There are a lot of bad things going on in the world that honestly not many of us can have an effect on, such as rising crime, failing schools, and a tanking economy. What can you do about that? Well, not a lot, but you can get your own house in order. Above all, you can spend money with merchants and companies that support your values and are making this a better country, not a worse one. But how do you find those companies? That's where Public Square comes in.

PuThat's such a great description. All I'm doing is telling the truth. You mentioned truth in relation to George Floyd. There were four months of protests, violent protests that resulted in 25 people killed, 2,000 police officers wounded, and $2 billion in insured property damage, with possibly another billion or two in uninsured property damage. This all occurred because of what happened to George Floyd. However you feel about the incident, there is zero evidence that what happened to George Floyd had anything to do with his race.

The lead prosecutor in the case was a black man, and as a lawyer, I know that the most important part of a trial is the opening statement. In his opening statement, he took pains to clarify that the police in general were not on trial, and the Minneapolis PD in general was not on trial. This individual was on trial for what he did or didn't do to George Floyd, and he never even hinted that the officer committed a hate crime. He was never charged with a hate crime, yet there were protests all over the country based on the assumption that what happened to George Floyd was racially motivated, despite the zero evidence supporting that claim.

It's important to note that police kill more whites every year than blacks. They kill more unarmed whites every year than blacks, yet most people couldn't name an unarmed white person because nobody cares if an unarmed white person gets killed. As my mother puts it, "he's just a dead fly." However, when an unarmed black person is killed, in come CNN and the New York Times, making a big deal out of it without any understanding of what's really going on.

Studies have shown that police are more hesitant and reluctant to pull the trigger on a black person than a white person by far. It's a lie. There is a website called policmag.com that asked self-described very liberal people how many unarmed black men the police killed in 2019. Fifty percent of these self-described liberals thought the police killed 1,000 unarmed black men that year, while 8% thought they killed 10,000. When regular liberal people were asked, 39% thought the police killed 1,000 unarmed black men, and 5% thought they killed 10,000. The actual answer, according to the Washington Post database, was 12. This illustrates the significant gap between perception and reality.

=> 00:44:53

Challenge the narrative and think for yourself; the truth is often far from what you're told.

In recent discussions surrounding police interactions with different racial groups, there is a significant misconception regarding the number of unarmed black men killed by police. Some argue that there is a reluctance to pull the trigger on a black person than a white person by far, but this assertion is challenged by data. A website called policmag.com conducted a survey among self-described very liberal individuals, asking them how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. Surprisingly, 50% of these self-described liberals believed that police killed 1,000 unarmed black men, while 8% thought the number was as high as 10,000.

When looking at the general liberal population, 39% thought the police killed 1,000 unarmed black men, and 5% believed the number was 10,000. However, the actual number, according to the Washington Post database, was 12. This stark contrast highlights the gap between what the left thinks is going on versus what is really happening, which contributed to the four months of protests in the streets of America in 2020. The numbers were publicly available, yet few cited them, except for a select few.

In light of this, a crucial question arises: what advice would be given to those in the audience who wish to express their thoughts honestly, similar to how one individual has done? The response emphasizes the importance of thinking for yourself, using your own judgment, and being skeptical. It is essential to ingest the news in a discriminating way. For instance, the Media Research Center found that 85% of ABC and NBC's coverage was positive regarding Kamala Harris, while 93% of it was negative regarding Trump. Notably, ABC News has never referred to Kamala Harris as a liberal or even a progressive.

The message is clear: you are being lied to. It is vital to use your own common sense and judgment. Thankfully, there are alternative sources of news available, such as Glenn Beck, which encourage individuals to think for themselves.

As the conversation shifts, Bobby Kennedy is invited to join. The discussion takes a sensitive turn as a second assassination attempt on Donald Trump is mentioned. Bobby expresses uncertainty about the situation, stating, "I don't know what to make of it." He acknowledges a growing antagonism and violence in our society, which he feels is orchestrated. Reflecting on past movements like Occupy Wall Street, he notes that society has shifted from a 99% against 1% narrative to a 50% against 50% dynamic.

Kennedy metaphorically describes how, when the ruling class observes their people fighting among themselves, they feel secure, knowing that nobody's coming over the wall against them. He emphasizes that during his campaign, he has chosen not to engage in the vitriol, anger, and name-calling that often characterizes political discourse. Instead, he aims to be civil and to identify values that all Americans have in common, rather than focusing on divisive cultural issues.

=> 00:49:40

In a world divided by anger and fear, the real battle is against the systems that profit from our discord. Let's unite for our children and reclaim our future.

In a castle overlooking their people, who are engaged in conflict, the leaders retreat to the banquet hall, popping champagne corks, fully aware that nobody's coming over the wall against them. This sentiment resonates deeply, especially as I reflect on my campaign, which I announced almost 18 months ago. At that time, I made a commitment: I'm not going to feed into the vitriol, all of the anger, the name-calling, the demonization of my opponents. Instead, I vowed to be civil to everyone and to focus on identifying values that all Americans have in common, rather than getting caught up in the divisive cultural issues that keep us at each other's throats.

I've observed the troubling developments in our country, where systems have been established to shift wealth and power upwards and impose totalitarian controls on the populace. This situation reached a peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, when 3.3 million businesses were shut down without due process or just compensation. During this time, $4.3 trillion was shifted from the American middle class to a new oligarchy of billionaires, with 500 new billionaires created in just 500 days of lockdown. The American middle class has been essentially obliterated, while wealth continues to be concentrated among financial giants like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, as well as big pharma, big tech, and big food. These entities are strip mining the American public of wealth, leaving nothing behind. The mechanism that sustains this system is the division and hatred among us.

One aspect I admire about you is your dedication to your children. You have more children than I do, which is no small feat, and you have made your campaign about them. This used to be a conventional theme in politics—help the children, save the children, the next generation—yet you are one of the few who still speaks about it sincerely. I would like you to explain how your children, as well as other people's children, have inspired you to remain in politics when you could have easily stepped away and returned to Los Angeles.

Reflecting on my own children, I realize that the anger we harbor towards each other can escalate into violence. When my uncle was president in 1963, there was significant anger stemming from the civil rights movement and other issues he was addressing. Upon landing in Dallas on November 22nd, there was a full-page ad in a major newspaper declaring "Wanted Dead or Alive" with his picture. Posters were plastered across the streets that day, and while it is widely believed that my uncle was killed by the CIA, there was also a pervasive anger that had been sown across the American landscape. This atmosphere of violence contributed to not only his death but also to the assassinations of Martin Luther King, my father's death five years later, and many others during the tumultuous 1960s.

It is important to note that this was over 60 years ago, yet the institutions involved remain intact, with many files still classified. Aside from a single series of hearings in 1975, there has been no meaningful effort to reform them. This raises the question: at what point do we learn the truth about everything federal agencies have done with our money and in our name? And at what point will these agencies be reformed? There is an act called the JFK Assassination Papers Act, which mandates that all related documents be released to the American public by 2018.

=> 00:54:10

Transparency is essential for democracy; without it, the public remains in the dark about what their government is really doing.

Years later, reflecting on all the other assassinations that we saw during the 1960s, it is important to consider the implications of those events. However, that was over 60 years ago, and the institution involved in these matters, as you well know, still has its files classified. Despite the passage of time, those institutions remain intact, and with the exception of one series of hearings in 1975, there has been no meaningful effort to reform them. One cannot help but wonder, at what point do we learn the truth about everything federal agencies have done with our money in our name, and at what point are they reformed?

I think it's crucial to mention the JFK Assassination Papers Act, which requires all documents pertaining to my uncle's death to be released to the American public by 2018. During the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump promised to release these documents but ultimately did not, which always struck me as odd. President Biden, on the other hand, ran on a promise to release them, and he did. Recently, I had the opportunity to ask President Trump directly why he did not release the documents. He responded that Mike Pompeo called him and requested, "please do not let me release these; it is going to be a calamity for our country." President Trump indicated that if he were to release them now, he believes he would.

This leads to a pertinent question: why would Mike Pompeo, who I don't think was even born or had just been born when my uncle was murdered, have an interest in keeping those documents secret? Clearly, it is not to protect any individual, as virtually all the individuals directly involved in my uncle's death are now deceased. Many have given deathbed confessions or various kinds of confessions before they died. The only rational supposition is that it is about protecting an institution.

In the last tranche of documents that were released, the New York Times reported something extraordinary: that Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset. The CIA went to great lengths to conceal this information, not only from the Warren Commission but also from the public. As many of you probably know, Alan Dulles, who was the head of the CIA and whom my uncle fired after the Bay of Pigs, returned to public life to get himself appointed to the Warren Commission. He was the only commissioner present for every meeting and the only one paying attention. The others, like Chief Justice Warren, had full-time jobs, while the others were congressmen and senators occupied with their work. Dulles's function was to ensure that any questions about CIA involvement were quashed.

It is important to note that Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited into the agency in 1957 and 1958 and was sent on a false defection mission to Russia before being brought back to the United States. Many of us who have studied the assassination knew this, but it had never been reported in the mainstream press. After the last tranche of documents was released five years ago, the New York Times finally acknowledged this fact. There may be other related information that they do not want to release, but I have no idea what it is.

In a democracy, you cannot have a system where the public has no idea what its government is doing, and that is the situation we find ourselves in now. So, how do we fix that? What would it take to actually bring transparency to the federal agencies? To follow up on why this is important for democracy, when I was a kid, it was unthinkable that the United States government would lie to the American public. No American would believe that. There had been tremendous resistance to starting the CIA in this country. The OSS, which was the first intelligence agency we had during World War II, was created, but Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, had significant reservations.

=> 00:58:49

Transparency in government is essential for democracy; without it, trust erodes and the public is left in the dark.

In today's society, we find ourselves in a system where the public has no idea what its government is doing. This raises the question: how do you fix that? What would it take to actually bring transparency to the federal agencies?

To understand the importance of this issue for democracy, we can reflect on the past. When I was a kid, it was unthinkable that the United States government would lie to the American public. No American would have believed that such a thing could happen. There had been tremendous resistance to the establishment of the CIA in this country. The OSS, which was the first intelligence agency created during World War II, faced skepticism from both Republicans and Democrats. They were very reluctant to create a secret police agency, associating such entities with totalitarian states like the Gestapo, the Stasi, and the KGB. These agencies were seen as antithetical to democracies, and thus, there was a strong reluctance to have them.

In 1948, after disbanding the OSS post-World War II, President Truman became convinced that the United States needed a way to fight wars without engaging in conventional warfare. This led to the creation of the CIA, which was initially intended for espionage and intelligence gathering. However, Allen Dulles, who came in early, changed the agency's function to include paramilitary operations, such as fixing elections and assassinating leaders. My uncle even fired him for these actions.

The first time Americans had inklings that the government might lie was in May of 1960, during my uncle's presidential campaign. A secret CIA plane, the U2, was shot down over Russia. This program was so secretive that no one in the world knew about it; the planes flew at altitudes of 60,000 to 70,000 feet, making them nearly invisible. However, a mole in Langley had provided the Russians with the plans, allowing them to shoot it down. When this happened, the Russians accused the U.S. of violating their airspace. Dulles advised President Eisenhower to lie about it, claiming there was no proof. The pilot, Gary Francis Powers, was supposed to commit suicide but instead parachuted to safety and was captured. Initially, the Russians did not reveal this, leading Eisenhower to go on national television and assert that the Russians are lying and that the U.S. did not have such a program. When the Russians produced Powers, it was the first time Americans realized, oh my God, our president lied to us.

This shocking revelation marked a turning point. Following my uncle's assassination, the Warren Commission report was released, and many Americans dismissed it, believing the government was lying. In 1973, the release of the Pentagon Papers, which contained 27 volumes of thousands of systematic lies, further eroded trust. It became clear that U.S. government officials, including presidents, had been lying to the American people. This led to a widespread belief that any time a government official tells you anything, if his lips are moving, he’s lying to you.

In the realm of media, the most interesting and newsworthy television show of the year is coming to TCN. We are not bragging; that's actually true. The announcement comes with urgency: the president's been shot. Our longtime producer, Justin Wells, and his team have been embedded with Donald Trump on the campaign trail for months, capturing what is happening in real-time. They are the only crew documenting the campaign intimately, providing amazing footage that reveals what it's really like in there.

=> 01:03:27

Trust is dead; when officials speak, skepticism should be your default setting.

In recent discussions, it has become apparent that most of the people in this room believe that any time a government official tells you anything, the sentiment is that if his lips are moving, he's lying to you.

In light of this, we are excited to announce that the most interesting and newsworthy television show of the year is coming here to TCN. We are not bragging; that's actually true. The president's been shot. I repeat, the president's been shot. Our longtime producer, Justin Wells, and a team have been embedded with no publicity at all with Donald Trump on the campaign trail for months. They are the only crew capturing what is going on in real time, intimately. They are with Trump as he campaigns for the presidency across the country, and they’ve shot some amazing footage that shows you what it's really like in there.

For those who are members, you will soon be able to get this stocku series covering the historic campaign, the fall of Joe Biden, never-before-seen footage from the assassination attempt at the Butler Township Pennsylvania Trump rally, and a lot more. This series is going to pull back the curtain completely; they are embedded inside the campaign. I can't wait to see it personally, but to get it first, go to TuckerCarlson.com and become a member of the greatest television event of the year. We are proud to offer it.

Now, shifting gears, let's discuss why so many people fell for the COVID lies. I think that the COVID situation was not entirely a zop, but there was a zop accompanying COVID, and they were manipulating the situation. They were using these tactics because we are hardwired in our reptilian core of our brain to retreat into authorities when we encounter something fearful. Those buttons were being pushed full-time. We were seeing on CNN the chirons every 20 minutes with the new death counts from COVID.

During this time, the announcers on TV, along with radio and newspapers, were calling out the government on its lies. However, during COVID, they completely stopped and went along with it. If any of us tried to say, “Well, wait a minute,” for example, in May of 2020, I pointed out that all the government agencies were saying the vaccines were going to prevent transmissions. I stated on my Instagram account that the monkey studies showed they could not prevent transmission. I didn’t say that because I was guessing or paranoid; I was reading the monkey studies. They had given the vaccines to half the monkeys and a placebo to the other half, and they all got COVID, with the same concentrations in their nasal passages.

When I reported those studies, which were their studies, I got thrown off Instagram and labeled a conspiracy theorist. Then, as you know, for the next year, they were telling us we had to get vaccinated because it was going to protect Grandma. You remember when they were telling us that? They knew it was a lie, and yet all the press went along with it. Most Americans were terrified.

In past conversations, you and I have discussed the CIA program called MK Ultra. During the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA developed various programs for social control to manipulate individuals and populations. They were trying to develop, for example, a Manchurian candidate—an unwilling assassin—using hypnosis, psychedelic drugs, torture, isolation, and sensory deprivation. They explored all kinds of methods not only for manipulating individuals but also for manipulating entire populations.

The group of studies was called MK Naomi, MK Dri, and MK Ultra; MK stands for mind control, and that’s what they were looking for—ways to control people's minds and perceptions. One of the studies they funded was called the Milgram experiment, which took place at Yale. It involved a young associate professor named Stanley Milgram, who brought about 70 subjects into this study.

=> 01:08:13

Authority can manipulate our deepest values, but true courage lies in questioning and resisting that control.

Psychedelic drugs, torture, isolation, sensory deprivation, and various methods were explored not only for manipulating individuals but also for manipulating entire populations. The thought behind this research was how to get populations to comply. This group of studies was called MK studies, specifically MK Naomi and MK Ultra. MK stands for mind control, and that was the primary focus: finding ways to control people's minds and perceptions.

One of the studies funded under this initiative was known as the Milgram experiment, which took place at Yale. A young associate professor named Stanley Milgram conducted this experiment with about 70 subjects from every walk of life, including black and white individuals, students, professors, and business people from the community. The setup involved sitting the subject at a table while an invisible person in the next room, who they were told was strapped to a chair, would receive electric shocks when the subject twisted a dial. Dr. Milgram, dressed in a white lab coat and adorned with symbols of authority, instructed the subjects to turn the dial up or down.

As the subjects increased the voltage, they could hear the person in the next room struggling, screaming, and bleeding. Many subjects expressed their reluctance, saying, "I don't want to do it again," but Dr. Milgram insisted they proceed. Despite their discomfort, 67% of the subjects turned the dial up to 250 volts, which was marked as potentially lethal. Dr. Milgram concluded that a figure of authority could persuade the average person—67% of people—to override their most closely held values and engage in actions they knew were fundamentally wrong if instructed by an authority figure.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it felt as if society was involved in a giant Milgram experiment. A medical authority, specifically Dr. Fauci, was telling the public to do things that many believed were wrong. He publicly stated that masks did not work, only to reverse his stance weeks later, insisting everyone wear them. He also claimed that if one contracted an infectious respiratory illness, vaccination was unnecessary, yet later stated that even those who had the disease still needed the vaccine. People were following these directives from authority figures, even when they felt they were wrong. Additionally, anyone who disagreed with this authority was labeled as dangerous and silenced.

However, the good news is that 33% of the participants in the Milgram experiment got up and walked out. These individuals represent the people in the room right now, who have chosen to resist compliance.

To break this spell, it is crucial for enough people to assert, "We’re not going to do that." There are a couple of rules about totalitarian systems: any power that the government takes away from the populace will never be relinquished.

The most interesting aspect of those who resist is that they often suffer significant personal costs. Many have faced challenges to their prestige and reputations, being banned from platforms like the New York Times and labeled as crazy. Yet, they persist in their efforts to speak the truth. The question remains: is telling the truth out loud enough to break the Milgram experiment spell? Many believe that it is indeed a necessary step to challenge authority and reclaim individual autonomy.

=> 01:13:14

Standing up for truth is the first step to breaking free from oppression; silence only empowers those who seek control.

Certainly, in the prestige of the world that you've grown up in, you have been banned from the New York Times. People call you crazy, but you do it anyway. I love that you're crazy. No, but it's true. You’ve taken a lot of heat from people who are close to you, yet you persist. Do you think that telling the truth out loud is enough to break the mgram experiment spell?

Yeah, I mean, I think that's how we break it. Enough people have to say, “we're not going to do that.” If and when you do it, there are a couple of rules about totalitarian systems. One is that any power that the government takes away from us, it will never relinquish voluntarily. Rule number two states that any power that the government takes from us will ultimately be abused to the greatest extent possible. And number three: nobody ever complied their way out of totalitarianism; you have to resist.

What powers does the government now have that it didn't have 10 years ago? Well, they have the power now to revoke all of our constitutional rights. That may sound like hyperbole, but think about it. They figured out that the most important right is freedom of speech. Hamilton, Madison, and Adams said we put that in the First Amendment because all the other rights are dependent on it. I've said this to you before: darker than any government that has the power to silence its critics is license for any atrocity, and they knew that. So, they put it first.

We saw this dynamic during COVID. As soon as they realized they could silence us, they could censor doctors, scientists, and individuals who were injured. They could stop them from talking about their injuries and prevent parents from discussing their children's injuries. They did all these things to us, and we put up with it. The press went along with it very shamefully; they became vehicles and stenographers for government propaganda, and we all went along with it.

Then, what did they do? They immediately went after the other leg of the First Amendment, which is freedom of religion. They closed every church in this country for a year. Can you imagine? If someone told you five years ago that the government was going to close every church in this country, you would say, “there's no way that that's going to happen.” Yet, it happened. They also targeted the third leg of the First Amendment, which is freedom of assembly, with social distancing mandates that had no scientific basis.

Moreover, they attacked the Fifth Amendment, which protects property rights. They shut down 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation, no public hearing, no environmental impact statement, and no notice and comment rule-making. All of the procedures that guarantee democracy in the regulatory process were abandoned. You just had one guy, a 50-year bureaucrat who has never been elected to anything, saying, “shut down all your businesses.” They shut down small businesses but kept Target and Walmart open. They closed churches but kept liquor stores open, and they allowed Facebook and other companies cooperating with the government to remain operational while destroying our communities.

We put up with it. Then, they got rid of jury trials. The Seventh Amendment states that no American shall be denied the right of a trial before a jury of his peers in cases of controversies exceeding $25 in value. Well, there is no pandemic exception, and yet they said to shut down any corporation, hospital, or doctor who injured you negligently or recklessly while applying a countermeasure. They cannot be sued, no matter how grievous their behavior or how egregious your injury.

For the first time, these rights were abandoned. The Fourth Amendment, which guarantees against illegal searches and seizures, was completely disregarded with these track-and-trace surveillance measures that we were all subjected to. You had to give your medical records before you could leave your home. So, virtually all of the rights in the Constitution were compromised.

=> 01:17:41

In times of crisis, our rights shouldn't be the first thing we sacrifice; the Constitution was built for hard times, not just easy ones.

In the context of controversies exceeding $25 in value, it's important to note that there is no pandemic exception or epidemic exception in our legal framework. Despite this, authorities have enacted measures that effectively shut down any corporation, hospital, or doctor who may have negligently or recklessly caused injury. These entities cannot be sued, regardless of how grievous their behavior or how egregious your injury may be. This marks a significant shift in our rights.

Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees against illegal searches and seizures, has been largely abandoned due to the track and trace surveillance measures that we were subjected to. Individuals were required to provide their medical records before leaving their homes, leading to a situation where virtually all rights in the Constitution, except for the Second Amendment, were compromised. This is likely because the Second Amendment remains a critical safeguard.

If you are wondering what has changed, the answer lies in these alterations to our rights. Authorities have claimed that they would restore these rights, and while they have done so, they have also established a very dangerous precedent. In the event of another emergency—whether it be a pandemic, a war, or an economic collapse—we may again be asked to abandon our rights. Unfortunately, many people will likely comply with such demands.

When faced with the prospect of abandoning the Bill of Rights, our birthright, we must respond with resistance. The Constitution was crafted for hard times, not easy ones. Historically, during the American Revolution, there were significant epidemics, including a malaria epidemic that devastated the armies of Virginia and a smallpox epidemic that affected the New England troops. At that time, Benedict Arnold, our greatest military strategist, captured Montreal and Canada, but due to the smallpox epidemic, he lacked the manpower to hold the city and had to withdraw. Had he succeeded, Canada could have been part of the United States today.

The framers of the Constitution were aware of the epidemics that plagued the nation between the end of the Revolution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1792. During that decade, cities across the country faced malaria, smallpox, yellow fever, cholera, typhus, and typhoid, which killed tens of thousands. Despite this, they did not include an epidemic exception in the Constitution.

During the Civil War, Confederate agents provocateurs attempted to incite draft riots in Northern cities, threatening the structure of Union society. In response, President Abraham Lincoln began arresting these agents before they could act, a move that violated habeas corpus. He justified this by stating that it was vital for the survival of the nation, as over 600,000 Americans had already died in the conflict—an equivalent of 12 to 15 million people today. The nation was at a critical juncture, and Lincoln's actions were aimed at preserving it.

However, this suspension of habeas corpus was challenged in the Supreme Court, where Justice Roger Taney ruled that even in times of crisis, the Constitution cannot be set aside. He emphasized that there are no circumstances under which it can be waived. This historical context serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding our constitutional rights.

In light of these discussions, I ask: do you foresee a future where we must again resist? Growing up, I remember that nonviolent resistance in the name of civil liberties was regarded as a great virtue.

=> 01:22:37

In a world where technology invades our privacy, the fight for civil liberties and the Constitution is more crucial than ever.

During the Civil War, Americans had died, and it's the equivalent of 12 to 15 million people dying today. Our country was being torn apart, and we didn't know if it was going to survive; thus, the life of the nation was at stake. In that context, the case regarding the AB Corpus AB gorus Declaration was challenged in the Supreme Court. Justice Roger Taney stated, "you can't do it even if the life of the nation is at stake; even if tens of thousands of lives are at stake, you can't do it. It's the Constitution; it was written for hard times. There is no circumstance in which it can be waived."

Reflecting on the past, I remember growing up when nonviolent resistance in the name of civil liberties was considered a great virtue, the most American of all virtues. However, I don't hear that sentiment anymore. Is that what you foresee? I would say that we all have a duty to resist in whatever way is going to be most effective in resisting tyranny. Right now, it's more important than ever, and it will take more courage than ever. It will probably require more than we've ever given before.

The reason for this increased need for resistance is the emergence of all these new technologies for surveillance and control. We all know about them; the emergence of AI is going to allow intelligence agencies and powerful entities not only to control us but also to warp our vision and understanding of reality. Historically, it has been the ambition of every totalitarian system to control every aspect of human behavior: our interactions, relationships, communications, transactions, movements, and even the books we read. While they have never been able to do that fully, now they can look at everything.

I recall a personal experience: two years ago, my wife and I were discussing the fact that our mattress was becoming saggy in the privacy of our bedroom. The next morning, both of us received three mattress ads on our cell phones. That experience brought it home to me that they're listening to everything we say all the time. Did I replace the mattress? No, I replaced my cell phone instead.

We have all these devices; many of you wear GPS watches, and we have GPS in our cell phones that track us constantly. There are facial recognition systems, and permits have been issued for 45,000 low-altitude satellites that will circle the globe or remain stationary across the globe at all times. Bill Gates's company has 65,000 permits for satellites, claiming that his company alone will be able to monitor every square inch of the Earth 24 hours a day.

Moreover, we all have Siri and Alexa in our homes. While they seem convenient, it's important to remember that Siri is not working for you; Siri is working for Bill Gates and other companies that are monetizing our data. Every time you cough, sneeze, or your baby cries, Siri knows it, and that information is being logged somewhere. All our communications and conversations are being recorded. This isn't paranoia; corporations are mining our data to monetize it. The same companies that mine our data are also sharing it with the NSA, and all of it is stored somewhere.

For all the reasons that humans in democracies have historically been paranoid about government tracking their private conversations and personal interactions, we need to be worried about that today. All these technologies mean that it will be very difficult for us to hold on to our constitutional rights in the coming decades. I particularly worry about this if President Trump loses the election and Kamala Harris wins. I don't believe there is any consciousness in the Democratic Party that this is a bad thing. It seems that the Democratic Party now believes that they can no longer trust the public; they believe that the public needs to be controlled.

=> 01:27:08

In a world where misinformation thrives, the real threat is censorship, not the freedom to think for ourselves.

Throughout history, human beings have been paranoid about government keeping track of their private conversations and personal interactions. This concern remains relevant today. We need to be worried about the implications of modern technologies, which make it increasingly difficult for us to hold on to our constitutional rights in the coming decades. Particularly, I think if President Trump loses this election and Kamala Harris wins, there is a lack of awareness in the Democratic Party regarding the potential dangers of this scenario. The Democratic Party seems to believe that they can no longer trust the public; they feel that the public needs to be controlled, and that the information we receive must be censored. They perceive disinformation and misinformation as significant threats, but anyone who tells you that is lying to you and trying to manipulate you.

We are capable of discerning truth from falsehood. My children, for instance, know to fact-check dubious claims they encounter online. I often tell them to look at a ridiculous post on Instagram, like one where a dog is eating an alligator, and they immediately recognize the need for research. Louis Brandeis, our Chief Justice, famously stated that the remedy for bad information is more information; it is never censorship. Censorship is merely a means of control.

Speaking of President Trump, I have endorsed him for various reasons, one of which is Operation Warp Speed. However, I do hold him culpable for succumbing to the fear I have discussed. I absolutely hold him accountable for many things I disagreed with during his first administration. For instance, I was not pleased to see Scott Gottlieb cashing in at the FDA or Alex Azar running HHS. The oil lobby was running the Interior Department, and the coal lobby was in charge of the EPA. I spoke to President Trump at length about these issues, and he admitted that when he was elected in 2016, he was overwhelmed by lobbyists and business people urging him to appoint certain individuals. He expressed regret over those appointments, recognizing that Scott Gottlieb did a substantial favor for Pfizer before returning to work on their board of directors.

President Trump has assured me that this time will be different, which is why he launched the transition team five months before taking office. In contrast to his previous transition team, which began in January, this one includes individuals like myself, Tulsi Gabbard, and Donald Trump Jr. Initially, I had the impression that Donald Jr. was somewhat of a lightweight, but I have come to realize he is quite the opposite. He is very thoughtful, well-informed, and understands who the bad actors are. He does not support the neocons or constant wars; he wants to restore public health and protect our environment, including our rivers and waterways. I have nothing but respect for him, and there is a lot of positive energy within this transition team.

As for my role in a potential Trump administration, President Trump has specifically asked me to help unravel the capture of the agencies by corrupt influence, essentially to drain the swamp. I must say that President Trump possesses extraordinary gifts, one of which is his strong instincts. During his first term, he was publicly against lockdowns, supportive of hydroxychloroquine, and favored alternative medicines. However, he was surrounded by bureaucrats and so-called experts who pushed back against these views, leading to policies that I believe were detrimental to our country. He has indicated that he will not allow that to happen again. He also expressed a desire to end wars, stating that he would prefer to make a deal rather than engage in conflict.

President Trump has asked me to assist him in addressing the childhood disease and chronic disease epidemic and to make Americans healthy again. As for what I would do if given the power to do that, it remains unclear at this point. I am currently on the transition committee, but I do not have a specific post in mind. I know I will be deeply involved in selecting individuals who can run the FDA, NIH, and CDC in a manner that prioritizes public health. Can you imagine the reaction at the FDA or NIH if Bobby Kennedy suddenly took charge? They must be having nightmares about that possibility!

In closing, I want to thank Bobby Kennedy and Larry Elder for their contributions. The big tech companies continue to censor our content, and while I hate to say it, this issue persists into 2024. However, they cannot censor live events, which is why we are embarking on a fall tour throughout September. We will be visiting cities across the United States, including Rosenberg, Texas, with Jesse Kelly; Grand Rapids with Kid Rock; Hershey, Pennsylvania, with JD Vance; Reading, Pennsylvania, with Alex Jones; Fort Worth, Texas, with Roseanne Barr; Greenville, South Carolina, with Marjorie Taylor Greene; Sunrise, Florida, with John Rich; and Jacksonville, Florida, with Donald Trump Jr. You can get tickets at tuckercarlson.com. I hope to see you there!