Tucker Carlson Warns Donald Trump Against War With Iran Despite Media Pressure and Netanyahu Push

Well, in between the Super Bowl halftime show and Epstein and the Winter Olympics, most Americans probably weren't aware that we are on the verge of a massive regional war in the Middle East, if not a third world war. We are the largest movement of American military hardware uh is since 2003, the Iraq invasion uh is now in or steaming toward the Persian Gulf off Iran. preparatory to what could be the affforementioned war. Now, most people once again probably didn't know this. Those who did know it weren't for it. The recent polls on this question, are you for a war with Iran? It's about one in five Americans support it. The rest are probably asking, "War Iran? Why would we have a war with Iran?" They said, "No idea." Um the president did address it last night in his State of the Union um and at a press conference and he said in public what he basically says in private. Trump being one of those rare public figures who's pretty much the same behind closed doors as he is on stage. Says pretty much the same stuff. He's a little funnier in private, but basically he's not a different guy. He's the same guy. And he's been saying the same thing about Iran for a long time. Really two things. One, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. they cannot have a nuclear weapon. He says it again and again. He really means it. That's not a talking point. It's completely sincere. And two, I would prefer a negotiated settlement. I would prefer peace rather than war. And that's obviously true. So to bottom line, where we are right now at the end of February 2026 on this looming Iran war seems likely have all those aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, planes ready, missiles ready, but it's not certain because the president hasn't decided to do it. And you may not get that impression either from watching the news. There is this sense that it's inevitable and that's kind of a scop actually designed to make you think there's nothing you can do about it. No, Trump has not decided to do this. Again, seems likely. All the momentum is in that direction, but the president's the sole decider on this question. He's the commander-in-chief, and he's showing no obvious signs of enthusiasm. And why would he? There are a lot of reasons not to do this. The first being the one just mentioned, which is most Americans don't want it. And though it's not a direct democracy, it's a form of democracy, and you probably shouldn't commit history changing acts without the support of your people. And Trump feels that way. This is someone who pays very close attention to say TV ratings. Why is that? Not just because he worked in TV, but because he thinks they're a pretty good measure of what people are interested and he cares about what people think and he's willing to listen to almost anybody. So that's a good reason not to do it. The public's not behind you. Maybe you've got great reasons to do it that they don't know about yet, but we haven't heard those and the president hasn't really explained them other than to say Iran is bad. Yes, that's been the official US position since 1979. Iran can have nukes. That's always been the president's position and we would like some kind of settlement. The reason he's not eager to start this war is because he in general isn't eager to start wars. Hasn't been anyway, but because this would be a particularly tough war. This is the largest buildup since the Iraq war. But Iran is not Iraq. It's much much much bigger and much more technologically advanced. Population of Iran's about 92 million. In 2003, almost exactly 23 years ago, when we rolled into Baghdad, the population of Iraq was 25 million. So Iran is more than three times bigger. The land mass of Iran is multiple six times bigger. It's huge. It's a huge, pretty advanced country compared to Iraq. So that's a problem right there. This is a serious thing to start a war with a real country. Are we in a position to do that? Well, there's some debate about that. The US military performs in a remarkable way under certain circumstances. But is the US military right now ready for a prolonged conflict with a big country? H no, it turns out, and these are facts taken from open-source material that have been published, they're on the internet. You can look it up. None of this is classified. This is all out there, but current estimates suggest that the United States is so low on some munitions, partly because we've used them in the defense of Israel already in the last 12 months. But whatever the cause, the United States is so low on certain kinds of munitions that were we to have even a brief but intense engagement with Iran, our military would not be ready for like 10 years to fight a real war against, you know, a peer or nearpeer adversary. So out the window would go any hope of defending Taiwan. on whether or not this is a good idea is kind of, you know, up to you to decide. But that would not even be on the table because we wouldn't be able to. We would be much weakened by this because we don't have the stock piles and we don't have the necessary industrial capacity to replace them quickly. So, we are not in a position to have a lengthy engagement and everyone at the Pentagon who's gaming this out understands that. And again, this has been reported publicly, though not necessarily in the New York Times or the Washington Post, at least not on the front page, but it's widely known. So, it' be a tough war. We're not in a great place to fight it right now, and the potential downsides are absolutely real. Lots of things could happen. There are tens of thousands of Americans in the region, of course, in uniform and out. They could be hurt or killed. There's Israel, our ally, which is probably a little more vulnerable than we pretend it is to conventional attacks from ballistic missiles. Do the math on how many missiles Iran is believed to have versus how many anti-bballistic missiles Israel has or we have to defend Israel. H they could be in trouble. And then there's a question of what happens to Iran? Like does it fall apart? Does it disintegrate as a country? To be clear, as of tonight, there is no Israeli plan for what comes a day after we depose the Ayatollah, knock out the leadership of the country. What happens then? Going to put in the former king's son or something? No one believes that's real. Will the country hang together with Palavi on the throne? Come on. No one is thinking this through because the people pushing this clearly don't care what happens after. The point is to take out Iran as a coherent country, not to protect Israel, but in order to sweep Iran aside as a regional rival. Once Iran is gone, there's no question as to who controls the Middle East. It of course would be the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East, Israel. Period. That's the reason. The problem is if the country were to disintegrate, the downstream effects would be profound for everybody else. You would likely have refugee crises. Where would they go? Well, Europe. [laughter] They haven't enough refugees. They might go right across the water to Qatar or UAE. Oh, that could be a huge, huge problem. So why would they push for this? Well, you have to think that the people pushing for this are not stupid. They've thought through the consequences. Let's say the United States attacks Iran. Maybe Iran just says, you know, you're absolutely right. We're evil. We're rolling over. Everybody in charge is going to retire, commit ritual suicide. we're going to turn it over to some Western Democrat who brings in pro-choice politics and gay marriage and like we're cool. We're going to join NATO at that point. That's great. But what if Iran decides better to die on your feet than on your knees and just unleashes its conventional arsenal against American assets in the region, against Israel, and critically against energy infrastructure in the Gulf. What would happen then? Well, you would see a global depression if they did that. If they were successful in doing that, if the extraction facilities and refineries and petrochemical plants in the Gulf were disabled, how expensive would oil be per barrel? How much would gasoline cost? What would steel go for? What would happen to liqufied natural gas, which goes to both Europe and China? What would happen to Europe if you disrupted the flow of LG from the Gulf to Europe? What would happen if you close the straits of Ramuz the choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf? I mean wouldn't destroy the world forever probably but it would tank the economy in the meantime for sure. And who would suffer most? Well, let's see. The Gulf States, Europe, and the United States. It's kind of weird that anybody, especially an ally, would push for a conflict that's almost guaranteed to hurt its so-called allies. Why would you do that? You can tell me you love me, but if you're encouraging me to commit suicide, you're probably lying. It's possible that we should judge people's intentions by the effects of what they do, not by their own description of their motive. Is it possible that there is some hostility toward the United States, the Gulf States, and Europe from the people pushing this war? Oh, there's a lot of hostility. And part of it makes sense. The Gulf States, the six Arab oil producing states called the GCC in the region are along with Iran one of the main impediments to Israel's regional hegemony. They are very rich. They produce something that the rest of the world needs. They're also very good at diplomacy, particularly Qatar. They settle a lot of disputes internationally. They've posited themselves as the Switzerland of the Middle East and they've done a good job at it actually. And so they are a rival to Israel. You hear on Fox News they're Hamas supporters. No, no, no. That's not their sin. Their sin is existing as a powerful independent country in potential rivalry with the regional hegeimon Israel. So shafting them would be a very good thing from the Israeli perspective. But what about the United States, Israel's benefactor, its closest ally? Hm. Why would they want that? Well, maybe if you're gaming this out a little bit, you've decided we need a new superpower. Public opinion in this country has swung against us so hard. This bipartisan consensus that we're its closest ally is disintegrating before our very eyes. And let's be honest with ourselves, this is not going to continue forever. We need another country to be aligned with. Now, how many big countries are there to choose from? It's got to be physically large, big population, nuclear armed. Not too many. In fact, the big ones would be China and India. But China, unfortunately, is a Hanthnostate. So, you can't really turn its population against itself in order to increase your own power. It's not going to work. It's resistant to this to manipulation. And that leaves India. And it was probably no coincidence that the prime minister of India, Prime Minister Modi, spoke to Knessa today about the ancient ties between Israel and India. Bottom line, yes, Israel is moving on from the United States at some point, probably sooner rather than later, to India. And so weakening the United States in a war with Iran is not all bad. In fact, it might be good because then there's no rivalry at all in your region. It's you, the only country with nuclear weapons and everybody else. So, you can kind of do whatever you want. You don't have to worry about hostile neighbors. You can expand the size of your territory, for example. You can move your borders in all directions. Who's going to stop you? No one. So, if you game this out for a minute, the things that from an American perspective seem horrifying, like real downsides, holy smokes, we could tank the US economy. We could wreck the energy sector, at least temporarily. Some of our key Arab allies could be disabled by this. Those all seem very bad from an American perspective. Are they so bad from an Israeli perspective? No, they're not. Actually, they may be the point long term. So where does this leave our president, President Trump? Well, it leaves him where he began, which is very resistant to start big new wars. He of course ran for president both times, all three times, on the promise that he wouldn't do that. And he very famously in the 2016 campaign attacked Jeb Bush because of his brother's invasion of Iraq. That was idiotic, he said. And of course, he was right. And 23 years later, we know exactly how right he was. That war, which lasted 20 years, waged on behalf of our ally, Israel, didn't help the United States. It helped to impoverish the United States and sink this country deeper into debt to weaken the dollar and destroy a generation of young men, mostly from the flyover states, the most decent and patriotic among us, destroyed. So from an American perspective, Iraq was a true disaster. And Trump was the first big political candidate to say that out loud. He knows this. He always has. So why would he even be considering a war with Iran? Well, one way to think about it is the United States may not have a choice about whether or not this war starts because of course the government of Benjamin Netanyahu could always act unilaterally preemptively against Iran and just do it. Just strike Iran. What would happen then? Well, most likely the Iranians would strike Israel and then potentially strike American assets in the Gulf and then potentially strike energy facilities in the Gulf and the United States would be by definition drawn in. So, it's possible that the US government, while not anxious to go to war with Iran, is trying to find a way to contain the behavior of its closest ally, Israel, rather than sit back and wait for BB to do something that we have to clean up that we're implicated in and then sucked into. It's possible that the US government is attempting to steer this in a less destructive direction. It's possible. None of this, of course, is filtered down to people paying attention because the few who are paying attention to this because all the noise has been about Iran's nuclear weapons. They're on the verge of building a nuclear weapon any day now. Now, if you're semi-awwake, you may remember that it was only about 8 months ago, back in June of last year during the short but hot 12-day war against Iran that the United States took out nuclear processing facilities deep underground and then announced, "We have ended the Iranian nuclear threat." And then without you noticing, well, you were on summer vacation or going to your kids' graduation or bringing them back to school or watching the Super Bowl halftime show with your jaw slack. Well, you were not tuned in. All of a sudden, that threat out of nowhere reemerged and there's Benjamin Netanyahu on television or at the White House for a seventh time in a single year making the case that we're right on the verge of a nuclear holocaust. Any day now, the Iranian government will have a nuclear weapon. And by the way, as noted, the president does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. That is one thing that he takes very, very seriously. And he said that to the Iranians. And unfortunately, turns out whatever side you're on, the current Iranian government is very hard to deal with. They're disorganized. The head guy is 87 years old. There's almost no communication directly between the governments. The supreme lead leader in Iran has never had a single phone call with the president of the United States. It's unclear exactly who's in charge. There all kinds of factions. I mean, it's it's a nightmare. So, the only people who've really been out there speaking in public about Iran's nuclear program basically are Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and his many accolades and paid shills in the United States. You may have seen this tape before, but in case you haven't, it's worth watching again because it reminds us that Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying exactly the same thing about Iran. They're about to have a nuclear weapon any minute since at least 1996. 30 years. Here it is. Now they're well into the second stage and by next spring at most by next summer at current enrichment rates they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. >> You talked about a network of terror. Uh, are there any other nations that you would recommend that the United States launch preemptive attacks upon at this point? >> No, the issue is not the issue is not first of all, are there other nations that are developing nuclear weapons? Yes. >> Should we should we launch any other preemptive attacks? >> First, let me say what they are and then let me make a suggestion. and how to proceed. >> Thank you. >> Uh the answer is categorically yes. Uh the uh the two nations that are vying competing with each other who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons uh is Iraq and Iran. And Iran by the way is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seabboard of the United States within 15 years. The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran that has wed a cruel desperatism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime or its despotic neighbor Iraq were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could preage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country and not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind. I believe that only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely is extremely close. >> You can see you can see why the government of Israel has such contempt for the United States while they're totally happy to tank our economy, stretch our military to its limit, degrade us in public. Why? Because our leaders put up with this. Some foreigner shows up in our capital every year for 30 years telling the same lies and everyone in there just nods along. All 535, oh really? Iran's about to get a nuclear weapon. I ran into a senator the other day. He was like, "Ran's about to get a nuclear weapon." I mean, they believe it. How could you ever expect for people who believe something that dumb? Well, you couldn't. And they don't. And by the way, it's not just the claim that Iran is seconds away from a nuclear weapon that they're recycling here. It's maybe the oldest lie in American foreign policy you heard in those clips, too, which is we need to do this because it's a despotic regime that is oppressing its own people. Now, this line is older than you may know. And the reason it's so distressing, it's so cynical, is because it plays upon Americans best quality, which is decency. Americans hate desperatism. They believe freedom is granted them and all people by God. And so a regime that oppresses its own people is inherently illegitimate. Americans are born believing that. And God willing, they always will believe that because it's true. So, if you're trying to sell an illegitimate war waged for reasons that had nothing to do with human rights at all, you would use that line, wouldn't you? Probably. Well, American policy makers have used that line and we pulled some. You want to hear some? This is I'm going to get my glasses, which I've dropped. Excuse me. We we pulled this and this actually made me laugh out loud. So, this goes back well 61 years. Here's Lynden Johnson 1965 in his speech at Johns Hopkins explained that the war in Vietnam which was just getting intense then just three years from Tet from the height. He said this tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. [laughter] So really we're doing this for the Vietnamese people. Okay. Now then Bush, George W. Bush, son of George HW Bush, said this right before the Iraq war started. We're quoting, "We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people." Right? We did that for human rights reasons. We just wanted democracy in Iraq. Did that happen? The Christian population was annihilated. Hundreds of thousands of people died and political control was turned over to the Ayatollas in Iran. Hm. No. But he said it anyway, and so did Dick Cheney, by the way. My belief, he said in the leadup to the Iraq war, is that we will be greeted as liberators. The vast majority of Iraqis would respond favorably to an effort to rid the country of Saddam's regime. Well, someone who happened to be in Baghdad in December of 2003, the day we caught Saddam at Decree, I can attest to what you already know, which is that's where the insurrection started. [laughter] But Barack Obama even 3 years after getting elected president, having been thoroughly briefed and had a lie in 2011 said this about the bombing of Libya and the murder of our sometime ally and CIA asset Mar Gaddafi. Quote, "This is a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. They're desperate for it. Regime change in Libya, said Barack Obama, would serve America's quote broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. [laughter] It's I mean, what can you do but laugh? It's so absurd. It's such an obvious lie. It's like BB Netanyahu saying they're minutes away. As long as people believe this or are so polite they pretend to believe it, politicians will keep telling the same lies. You have to make them pick a new lie. Now what's interesting is that the administration, I think to its credit, hasn't done a ton of this. There's been, you know, the oh, we feel bad for the billion Iranians murdered in the streets of Thyrron or some whatever. Who knows what the number is. You can't believe any number connected to any conflict in any country ever because everyone lies about them all the time. But some number of Iranians protesting the Iranian government apparently were killed by the government and we feel bad about that and we legitimately do feel bad about that. Is that a good reason to topple the existing power structure and just let the country devolve into whatever happens next? Probably not. And the administration hasn't really made that case or really any case other than they can't have nuclear weapons. So you can at least feel satisfied that they're not trying very hard to lie to you. They're basically just saying looks like we could have a war cuz everybody knows the only reason we're having this war is because Israel wants it. This is their last chance. They believe this presidency is the last presidency where they're going to have unequivocal bipartisan support. Period. You can't primary every Thomas Massie and there's a whole army of them coming at some point because everyone can see what's going on. And you can shut down X and you can just shut down the internet. You can be like Great Britain and arrest people who protest Israel, but attitudes are not going to revert to what they were 5 years ago. Sorry. And they know this. So this is their last chance. What's so amazing is that Israel, which at least is acting in what it perceives to be its own national interest, is joined by its shills in the United States, of course, but really its only other ally in this is the American news media, whose job it is to tell you the truth and inform you as to what's happening, to tell you, hey, wake up. The world could be changing and it's going to affect you and your family. That's their job. and instead they've been lulling you to sleep with the same variety of transparent lies and propaganda. And so just for fun, we decided we would pick a cross-section and not just from a liberal media or right-wing media, but from all media because it's not a leftight question. Chuck Schumer is every bit as much in favor of an invasion of Iran, a regime change war in Iran as I don't know, pick a brain dead Republican senator, which is almost all of them. They're all for it and so are all the Democrats. You don't see Alexandria Kaziocortez making a real case against a pro fora case because she knows that all of her constituents hate it. But is she really working to stop this? Of course not. Because they're all for it. because they're paid to be for it and so are the media. So, here's a here's a quick cross-section. Now, it goes without saying that the Wall Street Journal owned by the Murdoch family has been by far the most egregious and the most stealthy cuz starting new regime change wars on behalf of Israel is like the whole reason to have the Wall Street Journal now apparently. But here's just a few headlines. The diminishing risk of an Iran attack. Quote, "Two years ago, there was a strong possibility the region would spiral out of control. Not anymore." [laughter] Really? Oh, really? What is the plan? The day after we depose or kill the 87year-old Supreme Leader or President Peskian, what's the plan? Do you have a plan? No plan. But don't worry, it will not spiral out of control. The Wall Street Journal assures you of that. Here's another. A fractured Iran might not be so bad. Well, yeah, it could spiral out of control and break into different provinces and, you know, it could become Libya or Syria or Lebanon. That's not so bad cuz you know why? Quote, "Its borders are artificial. OH, THEY'RE FAKE and a breakup would frustrate the interests of China, Russia, and others." Okay, so our global rivals wouldn't like it, therefore it's good. And quote, "Its borders are artificial." As compared to whose borders? All borders are artificial. God didn't draw them. Sorry, my cuckabe. They're drawn by people. Artificial. [laughter] What? No, it's a country has been for a while. And if you blow it up into constituent parts and incite a civil war, there going to be downstream effects of that again like refugee crises into Europe and the Gulf States, probably the United States, too, since it is the iron law of American foreign policy that once you start bombing people, you have to let all their angry kids into your country. And that's how, by the way, we got the Boston Marathon bombing and many other acts of terror. Thanks, neocons. And then there's this. John Bolton still exists, writing for the Wall Street Journal. The Gaza ceasefire has diverted Western attention from THE REAL THREAT, THRRON AND ITS SURROGATES. [laughter] You'd really have to be John Bolton to think that Tyrron and its surrogates are even in the top hundred issues Americans are worried about at the moment. They're not. This is knowable. It's pulled all the time by Gallup and others. Thrron and its surrogates are admittedly an issue of concern to Israel and to its shills here, but they're not actually a problem for a continent-sized country separated from the world by two great oceans. Not a problem. As long as you don't like start a war with Iran or something. So, the new year is here, but that does not mean you've got to overhaul your whole life. Despite [snorts] claims to the contrary, you don't have to take drastic measures. Make a few changes here and there, and you'll be a lot better off. And you can start with the snacks in your pantry. Now, products from standard American chip brands are, let's be honest, pretty repulsive, filled with chemicals. They make you feel heavy and bloated. They don't even taste that good. They're not good for you. We recommend an upgrade with masa chips. Masa is the easiest way to eat clean without feeling like you're on a diet. The chips contain three ingredients. That's it. Organic corn, sea salt, 100% grass-fed beef tallow, and that is it. No seed oils, no mystery chemicals, just food. actual food and they're amazing and you feel great after. You don't feel weighed down. We particularly enjoyed the coinero flavor lately, but they're all great. You want to give them a try, visit masachips.com, masa chips.com/tucker. Use the code tucker for 25% off your first order. Or you can click the lick link in the video description or you can scan the QR code to claim this outstanding offer. But here is the greatest offender maybe of all and there'll be the New York Post, the scrappy New York tabloid famed for its rollicking crime headlines. Headless body and topless bar. It's a hilarious newspaper. Always has been up until two years ago when Lachland Murdoch took full control of it. And now it's like commentary. It's like any other publication from a neocon think tank in Washington. is just advocating for war and lying to you in order to get you to support it. So, here's just a quick selection from the New York Post. Memo to President Trump. Don't miss this historic moment to strike Iran and end its terror regime. [laughter] This historic moment. Iran's rulers plainly fear US strikes. Trump should prove them right. Mr. President, you're so strong and dangerous. You have a chance to prove that. They fear you. Memo to self. Never accept flattery uncritically because it is deeply subversive. Attacks are straightforward. Flattery is reptilian. Flattery is the true danger. Oh, President Trump, you're so strong. They're afraid of you. Prove them right by killing them. And then, if Trump doesn't strike Iran now, history will never forgive him. [laughter] If you don't have a war with Iran, history will never forgive you. probably depends on who writes that history, but hundreds of millions of Americans will forgive you. They'll be grateful to you for pulling us back from the brink of something we don't need and don't want. And then last, of course, Douglas Murray, the eminent historian everyone respects, Douglas Murray. He's got a British accent. He's not being paid to say this. Don't worry. Trump has a chance to end Kamini's reign of terror in Iran. HIS REIGN OF TERROR. Because if there's one thing Douglas is concerned about, it's human rights in Iran. He's been there. And now to the New York Times. And this is interesting if you're a right-winger because the New York Times is of course like the most liberal publication in the world. It's NPR on paper. It's totally different from say Fox News. It's like they're they're polls apart. They have nothing in common whatsoever except on a few questions like immigration and war and the basis of our economy which is finance and real estate the banks except on those issues there's some overlap. Okay, there there's vigorous consensus. In other words, except on the issues that actually matter that drive history that determine whether or not your children thrive in this country or not. On those issues they're one and the same. And so here's a section. We'll put this one up on the screen because it's so amusing. Here's Mr. Brett Stevens. Uh three different pieces he's written on this question. He's obviously uh a man with a great deal of credibility and authority on regime change wars, having advocated for all of them, none of which has worked. The case for striking Iran. Can we let Iran get away with mass murder? Israel had the courage to do what needed to be done. the case for overthrowing Maduro, the Syria opportunity. We absolutely need to escalate in Iran. And then my personal favorite from 2023, 20 years later, quote, "20 years on, I don't regret supporting the Iraq war." [laughter] Okay. Should you be admitting that 20 years later, I am not ashamed to wear women's underwear. Well, actually, you should be ashamed. You should be embarrassed. If you don't regret supporting the Iraq war, if that support occasioned no soulsearching in you, then you, my friend, have a spiritual problem. All of us make mistakes. All of us support dumb things. As someone who supported the Iraq war, I can attest to that personally. So, the acid test is not do you make mistakes. The acid test is do you admit that you did and do you apologize? But if you refuse to do either one of those things and instead 20 years later are still bragging about the greatest disaster in modern American history as if it's a badge of honor. Hard to know if we have anything in common as people because that's contemptable and scary. It's never occurred to you the Iraq war was a mistake. Really? On what basis was it a success? H So if that's really your view, maybe we shouldn't trust you when you tell us that we have a moral obligation to attack Iran. Just throwing that out there. So that's where the print media are. But let's be honest, it's not really the print media who are driving this because this is a Republican administration and as everyone knows, Republicans have one main news source and that's Fox News. I have some familiarity with the product and I can say that even as Fox News's reach and power and influence have diminished greatly, mostly due to technological changes. People go on the internet, they don't pay for cable, but as it has diminished, it has not broken the strangle hold that Fox has over Republicans in Washington. They watch Fox. They want to go on Fox. And so Fox has really driven this war. And if it occurs, you can thank Fox more than any other media organization, more than any other lobbyist, more honestly than any government, more than the government of Israel. Fox News has pushed for this war. Its owners personally have pushed for it personally. And of course, its employees on the channel have pushed for it with such aggression. and unonymity that as of tonight there is not a single on air Fox personality who is going to question going to war with Iran. There are some who may have reservations. There was one on a weekend show who very bravely spoke up and said, "Is this a good idea?" That was the last time this topic was discussed on that weekend show because the order has gone down to Fox employees. we are in favor of this war and that is very obvious if you watch it. Now, one of the main cheerleaders for an invasion of Iraq and every other invasion and every other instance of shedding of human blood or just a killing in general would of course be Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Now, if you don't watch Fox, you may have no idea what he actually says when he goes on Fox, which is all the time. So, we want to play you a short montage of Lindsey Graham. And watch as you watch this, his eyes. And you can see that he is maybe for the first time that day, feeling elevated and light and happy, but also tantalized. You can almost watch his mouth fill with saliva. Some people feel this way in strip bars, others in bakeries. Lindsey Graham is excited by killing. And if you think that's cruel, watch this. changes coming to Iran. It'll be the biggest change in the history of the Middle East to get rid of this Nazi regime. Hit Iran. They have oil fields out in the open. They have the U Revolutionary Guard headquarters. You can see from space. Blow it off the map. There's an opportunity to hit the Iran nuclear program in a fashion I haven't seen in decades. And I think it would be in the world's interest for us to decimate the Iranian nuclear threat while we can be allin, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations. So pray for our troops in harm harm's way. There are risk associated with any operation. They join the military to keep their country safe and to make the world a better place. and taking on the ayatollah does both. If I were you, Mr. President, I would kill the leadership that are killing the people. And to the ayatollas, you need to understand if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life, Donald J. Trump is going to kill you. [snorts] [laughter] I mean, now you can look at that and say, you know, this guy's risking his soul talking like this. This guy's wrong on the evidence. This guy's clearly a buffoon with some kind of psychosexual problems um that we're not qualified to diagnose but that are totally evident. But you should also keep in mind as you watch Lindsey Graham, he's taken very seriously by his colleagues in the Senate, not just the Republicans, but also the Democrats, and he's taken very seriously by Republicans in Washington more broadly. Of course, he is. He's taken very seriously. This has an effect. And that effect could get us into, you know, certainly the worst war uh in 23 years. So the idea is to flood the zone, the information zone, to make sure that no Republican in Washington hears anything but that. And the proponents of this war are very intent on that. They've made no effort to convince you it's a good idea. They are staying up night and day convincing the decision makers it's a good idea. And they're trying, by the way, to shout down and threaten and defame and slander and exclude anybody who has a contrary view, who might pipe up and say, "Wait a second. Are we sure this is a good idea? What would happen if the energy trade gets shut down in the Persian Gulf?" What would happen if Iran lobbed, successfully lobbed some sort of armament into a US aircraft carrier and Americans died? What would happen? What would happen if Israel felt threatened enough to use nuclear weapons against Iran, which is a possibility despite what they tell you. That's a possibility. What would happen? Once these things get going, you don't know where they wind up. And anyone who says he does know is lying, obviously. So, anyone who raises those questions must be called a Nazi and an anti-semite. And you want to kill Jews? No. Don't want to kill anybody. The game is to make sure that the only noise in the room comes from Graham and people like Graham, right? Until, of course, someone pushes play and it's too late to stop it. And at that point, we can all pretend we were never for this or they just did it wrong or whatever. We've seen this movie so many times. You know exactly what's going to happen if it goes south. And the truth is it works because people are intimidated. Donald Trump, to his great credit, listens to everybody. Everybody. And by the way, in his speeches when he starts rolling and adlibbing and all that, the weave as he calls it, he'll often say, "I talked to this guy." And like he actually kind of listens to people. But people around Donald Trump have been intimidated, understandably, by the level of pure aggression aimed at anybody who raises totally reasonable points about the downsides of a war with Iran. So they haven't said anything. So keep in mind, and by the way, this is a message anyone who knows Donald Trump, has a good relationship with him, likes him, loves the United States, now is the time to maybe call and say, "Whoa, whoa, wait a second. Have some concerns here. Now is the time, right now, because the decision has not yet been made." But it's not just aggression, it's also lying. So, I'm going to play one last clip before we go to Clayton Morris, who's spent many years in the US media, uh, and has a, I think, more tactile sense of what's going on here in information world. But, one last clip, and this is from, I think, two days ago, and this is from a man at Fox, a weekend show host called Mark Leavvin. And really nobody has elevated his own visibility to a greater extent or worked harder to get the United States into war with Iran than Mark Levvin has. And he's done it not through brilliant argument, incisive analysis, basically through screaming. But as we get closer and closer and closer to the time where this work could actually start, Leven has decided to just make stuff up. And the clip you're about to hear is from his podcast, I believe, and you can check it two days ago. And it is grounds for dismissal from Fox News, immediate grounds for dismissal. And it's also at the very least grounds for like questions to him like, "What are you doing? What are you doing saying something like this?" This is Mark Levin telling his listeners, such as they are, that Iran has nuclear tipped ICBMs aimed at the United States. Watch this. They'd slaughter a million of their own people if it meant retaining power. That's not a government of a country. Those are terrorists that control a country. It is a police state that's slaughtering its own people to stay in power so it can slaughter us. It believes as the seventh century primitive barbarians believed that they must destroy civilization. They believe today that they must destroy the West. Most prominently the United States of America. Those nuclear ICBMs aren't aimed for Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. They're aimed for New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and everywhere in between and around the United States of America. the enemies of civilization. If you wake up in a world where Mark Levvin is publicly identified with quote civilization, you are an upside down world. Civilization begins with the acknowledgment that human life is sacred, that God created each person as an individual, that identity politics is therefore wrong, and that telling the truth matters because truth is absolute. You may get it wrong, but the idea that nothing is true is a form of nihilism. And that attitude is the enemy of civilization. And yet that's exactly what you just saw. Iran does not have nuclear tipped ICBMs. And they're not aimed at the United States. That is a lie. It is a provable lie. Now, why is he saying that? Not because he hopes to win an argument, but because he hopes to whip his listeners into such a frenzy of fear and rage that they will support something that will hurt them. This will hurt the United States almost without question if it happens. This is not good for you. It's not good for our actual allies, the energy producing countries in the Middle East, which are our actual allies. Israel is in no sense or ally in this. And yet Mark Levin will not and none of these people will address that debate. Instead, they're just lying to scare people into supporting something that will hurt them. Mark Leven actually tweeted this. And if you're old enough to remember the Iraq war, this is going to make you laugh. Iran producing ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads. We mustn't delay any longer. [laughter] They have WMD. Where did that information come from? Well, it came from the free press. No, I beg your pardon. It did not come from the free press, though. They probably repeated it. It came from an al another aligned publication in Washington. Is there any evidence of that? No, of course there's no evidence of that. And I'd be willing to bet my house that that lie originated in the same place the original WMD lie originated in 20 in 2002 before the Iraq war in Israel. Of course, tell Americans, tell the Congress, tell the White House that the country we want you to spend your money and your lives to overthrow so we can have a greater degree of control or hgemony in our region. That that country is a threat to you because they have weapons of mass destruction. That was a lie then, it's a lie now, but they're saying it. And so if you followed Mark Leven's Twitter feed, which I didn't until today, but it's an amazing thing actually, you'll see that he's given up all argument, any attempt to win anyone over and instead repeating, "Kill Kamani, take out Kmeni, take out Kmeni every single day." Now, what is this? Well, it's really a kind of witchcraft, actually. It's the idea that if you repeat something enough that you can will it into existence. The words alone will make it real. And by the way, that works. Unfortunately, that works. If you repeat a lie enough, [snorts] it assumes substance. God isn't fooled, but people are. And so when you see somebody doing that, saying something that's totally untrue, that contradicts the observations of your eyes and ears, like I know that's not true. And you see that person brush off the fact that it's not true and continue to repeat it, you know that that person is trying to mesmerize you and put you under whatever kind of spell this is. And that person is scary. And that right now, ladies and gentlemen, is most of the American media and most of the US Congress. So, keep praying. In the meantime, Clayton Morris, who once had a seat on the fabled Fox News Morning Show, joins us now uh for an update on what he thinks going on with the media. Clayton Morris, thank you so much for doing this. If >> it was a dirty seat, Tim. >> It was a It [laughter] was So, are you I mean, tell me if you think it's fair to say that mo not all, but most traditional left-right media are aligned. They have disagreements of course on the trans issue, but on this issue, whether or not we go to war in Iran, it seems like there's complete agreement. >> And there always has been. There's no there to me there's no daylight at all between both of these parties. We call it a uni party. That term gets thrown around quite a bit. This idea of the uni party, but they are in lock step on this issue as far as I see it. Very few voices are speaking out about it. If they do, they get pushed out. I mean, look at Marjgery Taylor Green, Matt Gates, you know, questioning why we're in Syria. >> How dare you? How dare you ask why? Why are we in Syria? uh Congressman Massie, very few voices. Congress uh Senator Paul, but there's very few there's very little daylight uh in these parties on this issue at all. They desperately want war. I was sitting here thinking cuz you have the ideological push, right, from Mark Leavine. He he doesn't really care about the money. >> No, it's the you know, it's the Greater Israel project. That's what his big push is. But Lindsey Graham and these others, is it really about Israel or is it really about the money? And I think for most of these people, it's probably about the money. It's the massive military-industrial complex. You know, I got warned when I was on Fox. warn me about much, but that was one of the things, tread carefully when I was criticizing the massive buildup, the massive military-industrial complex. Um, the amount of money that we're spending on this um to go to war in Iran or or Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever other boogeyman of the week that you have, whether it's Russia through Ukraine, weapons that wind up in Mexico, shut up. Don't ask those questions. So, we're all just supposed to sit back and then when you question it, why are we giving so much money to Israel? Why do we give all of our money to these different places? Shut up. Because these weapons are made in our backyard. And so, if you, as you know it better than anybody, but the military-industrial complex sits in the neighborhoods of most members of Congress. >> Yep. Because whether you drive to Colorado Springs or you drive to Witchah, Kansas, inevitably there's going to be some arm of Northrup Grumman or Boeing or any name it name it. Honeywell, it doesn't really matter, who are all receiving trillions of dollars now as part of this massive boondoggle. So, heaven forbid that they would ever question the money that's flowing to the into the military-industrial complex. So, all of them are bought and paid for and they're all part of this big cabal. And I think you bring up a great point about they're all in lock step because they want us to be fighting here like in this narrow structure, right? have some culture war like you know whether it's funny stories on Fox News about HOAs telling people to remove like Christian symbol whatever it is right you just you fight in these like little in this little bubble you know but the real story is out here and they want us fighting in here so it looks like that they're really at odds with each other that AOC is really against Mike Johnson you know they're and and instead they're all in agreement they're all in agreement and they're all in lock app. When I I read very little on this because it's also misleading, but when I do read big media outlets on this question and Epstein for that matter, but Iran uh this week, I really get the feeling that the intel agencies have some hand I get the strong feeling, the overwhelming sense that some government intel agency had a hand in shaping this coverage. That's remarkable. That is a remarkable assessment. And uh you think you're on the right track. >> No, I think you'd definitely be on the right track. And of course, up until a few years ago, you would have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, right? This idea that wait a second, the intel community has a hand in shaping our narratives, our coverage. We only learned about it through the Church Committee. By the way, one of the great great Americans. Um but go back to the JFK assassination, right? and project mockingb bird before it ever became operation mockingb bird and the infiltration of reporters at the Washington Post and the the wiretapping of reporters to find out where information was coming. That was sort of like the clandestine CIA operations then. Then it morphs in the, you know, into the 1970s and late 1960s and 70s into Operation Mockingbird where they were installing members of the intelligence community in newsrooms, particularly the, you know, CBS News, the New York Times, and others. And then once that was exposed, it morphed into, well, now they're just on the payroll of these of of these uh of these networks. You have, you know, Mike Pompeo. They're not even hiding in the shadows anymore, like meeting you at the water cooler, like, "Hey, maybe you ought to not cover that story tonight, or maybe you ought to look at this angle of that story tonight." Wink wink, nudge nudge. Now you just have like people like Mike Pompeo on the payroll of of major networks. um or reporters who are embedded inside the Pentagon who are just adjacent to people like Jennifer Griffin who the other night literally on Fox News said it's not a matter of if we go to war with Iran, it's a matter of when. That's literally how she ended her toss back to >> Did she really say that? >> Yeah. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. >> That's not true, by the way. I mean, just in point of fact, that's not true. I I do think we're likely to go to war with Iran. I agree that. But in point of fact, Trump makes the decision and he hasn't made it. So that's just it's just a fact. So if you're reporting that we're going to war, you're lying. And it does feel like they're trying to create this sense of inevitability. I think her point was the military buildup is like you can't put that genie back in the bottle at this point that there's so much of a military buildup. We've moved so many expensive pieces of equipment to this region un not unlike the Gulf War. In fact, I've talked to sources in Tel Aviv who told me they haven't seen this type of buildup since the Gulf War. So, I think her point is, oh well, you know what, Mr. President, maybe you just sort of sit back and let let other people deal with this. We're going to build it up to such a degree where you just can't put this genie back in the bottle. And I wonder how much agency he has at this point to be able to tell we're not going we're not doing it. >> Yeah. >> We're not going to listen to what the Israeli government wants us to do and to launch this war, which would be absolutely brutal and devastating. >> Hate to brag, but we're pretty confident this show is the most vehemently pro- dog podcast you're ever going to see. We can take or leave some people, but dogs are non-negotiable. They are the best. They really are our best friends. And so for that reason, we're thrilled to have a new partner called Dutch Pet. It's the fastest growing pet teleaalth service. Dutch.com is on a mission to create what you need, what you actually need. Affordable quality veterinary care anytime, no matter where you are. They will get your dog or cat what you need immediately. It's offering an exclusive discount. Dutch is for our listeners. You get 50 bucks off your vet care per year. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code Tucker for $50 off. That is an unlimited vet visit. $82 a year. 82 bucks a year. We actually use this. Dutch has vets who can handle any pet under any circumstance in a 10-minute call. It's pretty amazing actually. You never have to leave your house. You don't have to throw the dog in the truck. No wasted time waiting for appointments. No wasted money on clinics or visit fees. Unlimited visits and follow-ups for no extra cost. Plus free shipping on all products for up to five pets. It sounds amazing like it couldn't be real, but it actually is real. Visit dutch.com/tucker to learn more. Use the code Tucker for 50 bucks off your veterinary care per year. Your dogs, your cats, and your wallet will thank you. >> What's interesting is that, excuse me, that kind of military buildup is kind of hard to hide. And and it wasn't hidden. It was taking place in in public and anyone who was interested could read about it, but I don't think most Americans had any idea it was happening. They sort of wake up and you have, you know, Venezuela taking out Maduro on January 3rd and then that moves into the Super Bowl and Winter Olympics and like people are just not really aware that this buildup is taking place. And you wake up one morning and holy smokes, the Gerald Ford is there. So, we're on its way. Isn't the media supposed to be telling us this is building? Well, you can if you talk to, you know, members of the military, and I do, I'm sure you do as well, and they were telling us, you know, in the weeks leading up to this that wow, the uh the the Abraham Lincoln is now on its I think third deployment. They've been extended. So they were supposed to come home and this is like the longest they've ever been out 10 months which is like unheard of. So they now been extended for like a third time and they're supposed to come home and see their spouses and sorry this has been extended because of what's about to happen. So like all of this information is like readily available. But of course there's no journalism actually happening anymore and if there is it's being pared from whatever the intelligence state wants to be pushed out into the mainstream media and people like Sean Hannity who sit there literally and wear a CIA lapel pin. I mean look at the look at it. Just Google Sean Hannity CIA lapel pin on the news is wearing a CIA lapel pin. I mean, so, uh, you know, this I just I I I feel like sometimes, Tucker, I wake up and I'm living in this like weird bizarro world because people are going about their business. They're going about their day and then you and I live in this world where we're seeing all of these things happening and it doesn't touch the American people necessarily, right? They're going to go about their day. The gas prices may go up. Depends on what happens in the streets of Hormuse, etc. Unless you're one of the families of the 50,000 Americans who are currently in the region and whom Joe Biden said without a doubt they're you know they will be it's not a matter of if it's a matter of when they are attacked. So he's expecting fully for them to be cannon fodder. So then these military families will have the loss of life but of course that'll be insulated and bubble wrapped from most of the American people anyway and won't affect people's day-to-day lives. So we we we pick these fights where we're doing these regime change wars over there and there's very little effect on the United States populace and the mainstream media tries to bury and cover it or spin a narrative. It's it's incredibly frustrating. And to see the mocking bird media like Fox News and others just pushing for this, it's it is infuriating. But it's not simply that they lie. It's that they work to exclude and discredit people who tell the truth. People who tell the truth are punished. I mean, this is like a principle in the gospels. The one guy who got tortured to death was the guy who was telling the truth, right? So, we shouldn't be surprised by it, but I I am every single time. I got a text today from, and I won't say this person's name, it's an editor at Barry Weiss's Gatekeeper publication who writes me this. I'm the features editor of the Free Press. We have a feature coming out about how the podcast business has leaned into conspiracy theories. [laughter] We'd love to include your voice. Let me know. I said, "Pretty funny. I don't think that line of attack works anymore, does it?" Um, and she didn't she didn't get back to me. But I love that the only people who are telling the truth are attacked by the liars. And that, by the way, your audience, you're in Natalie's audience, is way bigger than the free press, way bigger than CBS News. I mean, I do think that the people I'm accusing of lying have less of a grip on the American public than ever before. So maybe it doesn't matter, but it is infuriating, >> right? We we even I think we even sell a t-shirt on our store that says conspiracy knower, you know, and our pronouns are our pronouns are I told you so. So I I'm you know, like I'm fine, you know, I wear it as a badge of honor. it's fine. Whether it's COVID or what was going on in Ukraine, the child trafficking operations, whatever it is that we've been covering on our show, I have yet to have anyone come on our show and say, "You need to correct that mistake." Oh, okay. So, you know, conspiracy theories are just 6 months 6 month spoiler alerts, right, for what's to come. So, I I love leaning into conspiracy theories because no one else is doing the job. I mean, just look at the Epstein story. Where is the mainstream media? They're not covering it at all. And not even not covering it, they're refusing to have voices on their air who could actually provide real value, real source material. I'm speaking to a source today actually and who just who's recently been to Epstein Island and on Epstein Island there's still papers Jeffrey Epstein's papers scattered all over um his books materials everywhere just laying there not not gathered up by the FBI not gathered up and being investigated but where is this information in the mainstream media where are any deeper questions about Epstein 's murder and all of the inconsistencies that have that appeared that day at the prison. Where are these? They're not in the mainstream media at all. And even like Fox News coverage of Pam Bondi's hearing was mysteriously absent. I don't know if you noticed that, but no, they Fox News loves to go wallto-wall with, you know, whoever whatever member of the cabinet is going to be there. They love to go wall to wall coverage. Let's check in now with Cash Patel. You know, uh, he's testifying before Congress today about what the FBI is doing. Great. spend an hour, two hours, senators, members of uh, you know, h representatives asking questions, House Judiciary Committee, and otherwise. Pam Bondi coverage, shame on you. If you tuned into Fox News to see like deep coverage of Pam Bondi being grilled over the Epstein files, sorry, you weren't going to see it. MSNBC carried it, if I'm not mistaken. CNN carried it, but Fox News, like, why? Why do they why do they not want to show Pam Bondi being questioned about the Epstein files? And normally they'd be covering that wall to wall. So there is um a dereliction of duty happening in the mainstream media and I know from sources who have sent material to like News Nation and the New York Times and other major publications and they've ignored it. They've ignored it and won't publish it. So why um anyway there's a dereliction of duty in the mainstream media. >> So I think it's a it's a fair question why. In fact, it's the important question. Obviously Fox's audience is interested in Epstein. you know, the the guy who partied with Bill Gates and really was friends with Hillary Clinton. Like, why wouldn't they be interested? Of course, they're interested, but they're not getting the coverage from their network of choice. But that's also true of New York Times readers. So, it's a left right once again >> um collusion on this on this coverup. And it is a cover up. What What explains that? I've been wrestling with this a lot and and I you know is it because certain source sources who've told me that it is because how this hits just about everyone the major power players. I mean Marjorie Taylor Green admitted that President Trump called her and asked her to not vote for the uh um the the dis what am I the dispatch um >> discharge petition. >> I always get the discharge petition. Excuse me. And of course the Epstein transparency act in her her words quoting her she said president told me that too many of my friends would be hurt and I think that's at the heart of it and I think the and there's a reason also I think that we haven't seen any of the financial information yet. So, [clears throat] you know, when you and I spoke a few years ago on the show, we talked about like Operation Gladadio and NATO, and there's a strategy that they have, which is, you know, the strategy of tension that Colonel Towner Watkins, uh, she's very eloquent on this point, and it's a strategy to keep us in this chaos, right? And it's also like a drip feed of information. So, we get sort of desperate pieces of emails, but no financial information, no transactions that connect point A to point B. We get this person said this. Peter Aia said, "I can't tell everyone about you. You know, you're my friend, but man, you're kind of dirty." We get Russian Russian models with Bill Gates emails. We get we get random pieces of Pizzag gate and all of these other things. But do we get financial connections, financial transactions, which the DOJ is sitting on, by the way, like why don't we see any of that information? And you know, to your point with the New York Times or these different publications covering this up, I I you know, I don't know, but they were they were actively involved in this. I mean, you have Landon Thomas, for instance, right, whose name shows up as part of the Epstein investigation. He was writing about the Epstein from the New York Times, financial reporter, writing about Epstein back during his first arrest. Um, and then you have Nelly BS who is of course the partner of wife of Barry Weiss who gets assigned by the New York Times as a tech reporter to go and do a profile piece on Jeffrey Epstein and it's in the files where she claims oh my newsroom basically you know they told me it was or it later came out in her piece why she justified it that she could go and be with Epstein that I'd be safe. Like, so wait, the New York Times put you up to going to a known pedophile sex trafficker's house? Like, what kind of newsroom? Like, yeah, you should you you girl, you just run along to a known sex trafficking and pedophiles house and and write a profile piece as a tech reporter. Like, look, I covered technology for years. Love it. And I know all those people in the tech world. if you call like there's no way somebody from like The Verge or the tech reporter for the Wall Street Journal would be assigned to go do like a criminal profile piece like on financial crimes and sex trafficking or what it just wouldn't make any sense. It's like Bob Woodward being chosen to cover Watergate, you know, like as an as an as a CIA asset or intel uh you know adjacent asset. It just doesn't make any sense. Um, and then when you learn that she's cozy with Epstein and then Barry Weiss, it's just so bizarre. >> As Yeah, I know. Nelly BS. America's ranchers helped build this country. For over 250 years, ranchers fed America through droughts, wars, pandemics, every other kind of chaos. Our [music] friends at Good Ranchers built their company on that honorable legacy. Good Ranchers is a meat company. It's 100% committed to America. They raise every cut on local American soil. The entire packaging and fulfillment process takes [music] place in this country. Same with customer support. No dark basement in India. You when you call, you talk to real Americans and they donate a portion of their profit to veterans [music] organizations. We have Good Ranchers meat for dinner on our table. It is so good and it's easy to order. Just a few simple clicks. Support a company that honors this nation's past, present, and our future. Go to goodranchers.com today and if you subscribe to any of their boxes of 100% American meat, you save up to 500 bucks a year. And if you use the code Tucker, you get an additional 25% rather $25 off, maybe even better than 25% off your first order. That's code Tucker for an extra 25 bucks off the order on top of $500 you'll save this year for subscribing. Goodranchers.com. AmericanMat delivered. Has she explained this? >> Uh, Nelly Bol, she wrote a piece about how Yeah, I think I have it here actually. She wrote a piece. Um, Nelly BS, the journalist and the Epstein. She published this on the 3rd of February, actually. Um, Nelly BS, the journalist and the Epstein. I had the chance to profile one of the darkest, most interesting characters of our moment. Why didn't I grab it? Why didn't I grab it? So she writes this whole piece about regularly using him as a source because he was business adjacent. So I just thought it'd be good to write, you know, we're going to write a profile piece on this. So the media, it's remarkable how incurious they are or intentionally. I don't believe they're dumb. They're they're not allowing, for instance, Congressman Massie to appear on television. I know for a fact that he hasn't uh Fox News has not had him on in I think about a year. Um if I'm not mistaken, the guy respo