tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News May 5, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PDT
>> tucker: good evening andre welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." here is a simple question how many americans have died afterot taking the covid vaccine? some americans killed by the virus but how many americans have died after getting the vaccine designed to prevent the virus? do you know the answer to that question? do you anything about the downside? we know aps lot about the upsid" in favor of people taking the vaccine but what about the potential risk? you think you would know more about that than you do.
we talk a lot about vaccines -- constantly, not just on the show but in this country. joe biden was on tv yesterday talking about vaccines and want you to get one. everyone in authority want you to get one. in fact, you probably already had your shot, and good for you. if you haven't had your shot, you are under enormous pressure to get y your shot. you understand that soon you may not be able to fly on commercial airlines or go tota work at the office or send your children to school if you don't have the shot. meanwhile, the social pressure is enormous.. friends have informed you already that you are not welcome at their parties or their weddings if you haven't been vaccinated. so, there is a lot of pressure to comply. at some point, you probably will comply. it's just too difficult not to be vaccinated in this country. but before you do comply, ask yourself, do you know anything about the potential risks? probably you don't know much. you assume the risks are negligible. vaccines are not dangerous. that is not a guess, we know that pretty conclusively from the official numbers. every flu season, for example, we give influenza shots to more than 160 million americans.
every year, relatively small number of people seem to die after getting those shots. to be precise, in 2019, that number was 203 people. the year before that, 2018, it was 119 people. in 2017, it was a total of just 85 people who died after getting the flu shot. now, every death is tragic, obviously, but big picture, we do not consider those numbers to be disqualifying. we keep giving flu shotsis and very few people complain about it. so the question is, how do those numbers compare to the apparent death rate from the coronavirus vaccine now being distributed across the country?ar that is worth knowing. so we checked today, and here's the answer.
and theseed numbers come from te same set of government numbers that we just read to you from. here they are. between late december of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the covid vaccine in the united states. 3,362. that is an average of roughly 30 people every day. so, what does that add up to?
by the way, that reporting period ended on april 23, and we don't have numbers past that. not quite up to date, but we can assume another 360 people at that rate have died in the 12 days since. you put it altogether, that is a total of 3,722 deaths, almost 4,000 people who died after getting the covid vaccine. the actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that. the data we just cited comes from the vaccine adverse event reporting system. it is managed by the cdc and the fda. vaers has received a lot
of criticism over the years, some of it founded. some have argued a long time vaers under counts. a report concluded "fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported by the vaers system." fewer than 1%.m, so what is the real number of people who apparently have been
killed or injured by the vaccine? we don't know that number. nobody does, and we are not going to speculate about it on the show. but it is clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. it's not even close to what we see in previous years with previous vaccines. most vaccines are not accused of killing large numbers of people. vaccine, for example, was given to people around the world, often children, to prevent bacterial meningitis. in this country, only one person died from that vaccine in the entire period between 2010 and 2015. one. so, compare that to what is happening now with the coronavirus rollout. in just the first four months of this year, the u.s. government has recorded more deaths after covid vaccinationve and from all other vaccines administered in the united states between mid-1997 and the end a of 2013. that is a period of 15 and a half years. again, more people, according to vaers, have died after getting
the shot in four months during the single vaccination campaign, then from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half. chart that out. it's a stunning picture. now, the debate is over what it means. again, there is a lot of criticism of the reporting system. some people say, well, it is just a coincidence if someone gets a shot and then dies, possibly from other causes. no one really knows, is the truth. we spoke to one physician today who actively treats covid patients. he described what we are seeing now is the single mass vaccination event in modern history. whatever is causing it, it is happening as we speak. so you'd think that someone in authority might want to know what it is, what's going on. if the vaccine injury recording system is flawed, and clearly it is, why hasn't it been fixed? more to the point, why has there not an been independent vaccine safety board impaneled to assess what is happening? and reassure people who stumble
across official numbers on the internet? amazingly, none of that has been done. no one even mentions the numbers, and in fact, you are not allowed to. you will be pulled off the internet if you do. theou people in charge do not acknowledge themo. and said they won't ask about what might happen if we don't take the vaccine. here is joe biden. >> there is a lot of misinformation out a there, but there is one fact i want every american to know. people who are not vaccinated can still die every day from covid-19. this is your choice. it's lifell and death. >> tucker: people who are not fully vaccinated can still die every day from covid-19, joe biden says, and as a factual matter, that is true. but it is also misleading. not all americans are at similar risk of dying from covid-19. some are relatively high risk, the old and the sick. they might want to get vaccinated. mostel do. some are very low risk of dying, the young and healthy. others appear to be at
essentially no risk at all, that would include anyone who has had covid andot recovery. virtually all those people seem to be immune, and that is true for many viruses. so those second two categories, the young and healthy, and the previous infected, may add up if you combinetw them to hundreds f millions of people in this country. the funny thing is, the white house,e, the official poly makers who are designing the vaccine rollout, do not acknowledge that those categories even exist. health authorities are pretending that everyone's health and risk potential is exactly the same as everyone else's. and that is why joe biden has demanded that 70% of all american adults, regardless of age, regardless of health condition, regardless, critically, pre-existing antibodies from previous r infections, get the covid shot by the fourth of july, two months from now, or else. now, this might be an acceptable policy, it would never be an ethical policy, but as a practical matter it might be acceptable to the country of covid vaccines, we can show conclusively came with no risk.l
ande if we truly understood the long-term effects of those vaccines. but neither one of those things is true. we know that according to the government reporting system, thousands of people have died after getting the shot. that is true in this country, where it is highly debated, when it is talked about at all, but it is also true in european countries, whose record-keeping on this question is, if anything, more reliable than ours. many thousands of other people appear to have been injured after getting the vaccination. there's records nearly 900 nonfatal heart attacks in people who just received the shot. 2700 people reported unexplained chest pains. in all, the vaccine, according to a government reporting system, appears to have contributed to at least 8,000 hospitalizations. some of the side effects defy easy explanation. h researcher alex berenson has noted that coronavirus vaccines now account for almost one-third of all tinnitus reports in the vaers database. ringing in your ears. the american tinnitus association says itt has receivd many questions on that, and
there is concern about it. meanwhile, researchers at oxford and ucla have begun tracking coronavirus vaccine side effects across eight separate countries, what they have found, amonghe other things, women aged 18 to 34 years old had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men on the same age.34 they also found that heart attacks were "common in people 85 years and older" who had taken the vaccine. they found some serious potential side effects in some children. "anaphylaxis and appendicitis were more common in young people." now, vaccines are complicated, and as with any drug, it can take them on time to get exactly right, the dosage, for example, and this is not the first time people have been hurt during a vaccination campaign. that ise, bound to happen. what is different this time and so striking is the reaction to these numbers. here's a contrast for you. in 1976, u.s. government vaccinated 45 million people for the swine flu. a total of 53 people reportedly
died after getting that shot, and the u.s. government immediately halted the vaccination program. why? because authorities decided it was too risky. it wasn't worth it. contrast that with what is happening now.as this time, our health authorities have reserved their energy for anyone who dares to question vaccines. life site news, a nonprofit news organization, just found itself privately banned from facebook. why? because it reported government numbers from the vaers database, something we just did on thehe air. famously, one podcast or joe rogan asked whether healthy young people ought to be getting the covid vaccine, the media treated him like a war criminal. >> we know the anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory has beenna proliferating online, but it does not help that people with major platforms feed the beast, like spotify's $100 million man, joe rogan. >> dr. fauci, before i let you go, i want you to weigh in on joe rogan. how frustrating is it for you, for this misinformation to continue to spread about covid-19, especially when there are folks still out there saying
it is a hoax? >> disappointing. joe rogan is a hugely influential person with a massive audience. it is mystifying why he would give people such bad information that puts them in harm's way. >> joe rogan, who is one of the world's highest paid and most popular podcast host, giving air to anti-vaccine narratives. >> tucker: anti-vaccine narratives. he did nothing of the sort. almost everything you just heard was a lie that obscured a very simple and e potentially relevat question that he asked, which is should healthy young people receive the vaccine? we are not precisely sure what the risks are. it is a lie to say there are no risks. there are risks in everything, including inre getting a vaccin. so why not rationally weigh the risk-reward ratio, as we do with every decision that we make? for that, he was denounced as an anti-vaxxer kook. a danger to safety. yahoo! news wrote, "joe rogan, who is not a doctor, gives terrible vaccine advice."
this is the same yahoo! news that publish this piece, "five things bill gates wants you to know what covid-19 variants." one of the very few elected officials in the country who has said a word about any of this, who has asked the obvious questions, not attacking vaccines, wondering about their effects, which is a legitimate thing to do, is republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin. last week, johnson asked francis collins, the director of nih, why so many americans, according to the government's own numbers, appear to be dying after getting the shot. maybe there is a good expedition. instead, collins fretted the population focuses too much on the potential harm from vaccines.a people might be hesitant to get them.. "i challenged his use of the term vaccine hesitancy," ron johnson told us in a conversation today. "i told them that based on the vaers database on my conversations with people who have chosen not to get vaccinated, a better description would be people who are hesitant
to be t coerced into participatg the largest drug trial in history." why is that an unfair description, exactly? there is a reason that many states have more vaccine doses than they can use. some people just don't want the vaccine, and that is their right, period. and not all of them are crazy. health decisions used to be considered personal choices. we did not ask about them. they were considered personal, recently as last fall. in september of 2020, the height of the presidential campaign, a cnn reporter asked kamala harris whether she would be willing to take the coronavirus vaccinene once it became available. her response, "well, i think that's going to be an issue for all of us," harris responded. "i will say i would not trust donald trump." a month later, the vice presidential debate, harris was, if anything, more emphatic on the subject, "if donald trump tells us we should take the vaccine," she declared, "i'm not going to take it."i' kamala harris has come of
course, since change her mind. she is no longer skeptical of the vaccine. nor does she tolerate the skepticism of others. instead, she is an enthusiastic participant in covid theater, and that is really the only name for it. just today, kamala harris and her husband made a point of kissing each other in front of photographers while wearing masks. they did that despite the fact that they are married, that they live together, that they were standing outside at the time, and despite the fact both have been vaccinated. now, a number of crude jokesbe come to mind, but for once we are going to pass on that. what exactly are we watching here? we are watching the crudest type of propaganda designed by the cynical for the benefit of a population they consider stupid and weak and malleable. and it is not just kamala harris. everyone is in on it, even the corporate comedians. watch this before and do what we assume is an unpaid ad for moderna. >> oh, you read something on facebook? >> a friend from high school who
sells jewelry? she posted it? >> the one that builds dollhouses? >> on who's podcast? >> is p he a doctor? no? scientist? no? >> can you name one ingredient in it? >> can he point to his novella? >> then tell him to shut the [bleep] up. >> get the vaccine. >> get the vaccine. >> just get the vaccine. >> grow the [bleep] up and get the vaccine. >> and tell your friend on facebook to stick to -- jewelry. >> tucker: it doesn't make you laugh, and makes you nervous. why are they talking to you that way? why are they giving you the finger on tv? no matter how many fingers they give to you, it does not change what remains true for the country. with american citizens are going to be forced to take this vaccine, or any other medicine, they have an absolute right to know what it is and what it affects might be, and they have an absolute right to ask that question, without being silenced
or censored or mocked or given the finger. and no amount of happy talk or coercion or appeals to false patriotism can change that, period. martin kulldorff is a professor at harvard medical school and we are happy to have him. thanks for coming on.rf either releasable question. i know there is a vigorous debate over what the vaers numbers mean. they are dismissed by many. they are embraced by others. but it seems to me, if the system of reporting adverse effects in vaccines, this or any other, is flawed, and it's been that way for a long time, why hasn't it been fixed? and critically, why isn't there an independent panel of vaccine safety experts assessing what is going on and calling everyone down? >> well, thank you for having me.li well, the cdc vaers system is not a good system for looking at adverse events after vaccines. it is only useful for things that happen within an hour or sa after vaccinations because, like anaphylaxis, for example, but other things, you have the
number, but you do not have what is expected by chance. so, therefore, it's not a very useful system at all, and the vaers system, the cdc vaccine database system, fda has a system where they actually know how many people got the vaccine, how many w people had the advere reaction, and how many of those adverse reaction were expected by chance if they hadn't taken the vaccine. >> tucker: if you are going to tell the population, coerce the population into takingr:r: medicine -- and say you can't go to work, you can't fly, you can't educate your children if you don't take this -- why is it incumbent on you to make certain that you know exactly what the drug does,ta that you've tested for it, for example, people who have pre-existing antibodies, who have recovered from covid, were not included in the clinical trials,ov neither were pregnant women, why should the authorities expect the population to take a medicine
whose effects that we can't know because they were not in the clinical trials? i don't understand that. >> i think that is true. to use coercion in public health is a very bad thing. our health must be -- on trust. and coercion actually, i think, damages the confidence in vaccines. so, vaccine passport or to mandate student to take vaccines, i think is very, very bad public health policy. as a vaccine scientist, we have worked for many decades to increase the confidence in vaccines, and there are a few, anti-vaxxers who do not think anybody should get vaccines. the damage they have done is much less than the damage done by those people who are advocating for vaccine passports because if you try to force something down somebody, then they are very likely to say no, and not only for the covid vaccine, but for other vaccines, which are very important, like
measles or polio. these vaccine passports and mandates are very, very bad idea for public health, which is reducing the confidence in vaccines. it's very unfortunate. >> tucker: i think that is so well putut and true. you don't need to force things that are self-evidently good, so they shouldn't. i agree with that. professor, thank you for coming on tonight. s appreciate it. >> well, thank you. >> tucker: so, you just heard a professor from harvard university, of all places, say the obvious, which is that coercion is counterproductive when you are distributing vaccines. it makes people trust the medicine less. but it is not slowing down. vaccine passports are now being rolled out in the state of washington. the governor there, jay inslee, is not calling the vaccine passports. he does not matter what they call them, that is exactly what they are. jason rantz is a radio show host in seattle and joined us tonight to explain what exactly they are
doing. jason, thanks for coming on. what are they doing? >> governor inslee just released guidance on vaccinated-only sections, so vaccination segregation, at outdoor stadiums, at graduation ceremonies for schools, even your church, so now you get some of your freedoms back to pray and vaccinated-only sections. you still have to wear a mask outside started by people already vaccinated, which makes no sense. you get a separate entrance, but you have to show vaccine paperwork, literally have to show a vaccine passport to gain entrance into the sections, so you have to prove you have been vaccinated. you have to show your medical paperwork, your medical history. so no longer are we talking about your privacy, no longer, by the way, are we talking about i.d.s being racist or equity concerning access to the vaccines, you actually have to show this information. some people are saying, look, this is not the same thing as coercion, this is all optional. however, to go to washington state university or
the university of washington, students have to get vaccinated. it is a mandate. the staff at the university of washington do not, but the staff do, so. we're talking about college age students, many of whom have already had covid, who have literally the antibodies going through their system as we speak, have to get a vaccine, and they have no choice if they want to go back to campus. that is the state doing that. >> tucker: may i ask a question? there is evidence, compelling evidence, talk to physicians who treat covid who will tell you that people who have active antibodies, t cells are protected, recovered from covid, have more protection against the virus than people who have been vaccinated, but they still have to get the vaccine? it is not adequate to show proof of antibodies? >> no, every single person if you want to go onto campus as a student, you will have to get a vaccine.ud and i have asked questions as to why the more vulnerable folks like the staff members who are in that age demographic of 60
plus, don't have to at some of these schools, they won't really give me an answer. >> tucker: right. they don't give answers to any questions. like if you have been vaccinated, why do you care if other people have been? no one answers that, either. jason rantz, great to see you. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: so, among the many -- among the many country changing provisions in the coronavirus relief bill, there were $5 billion allocated to american farmers based on their skin color. right out of the jim crow south. that bill, by definition, denies funding to people who have the wrong skin color. now, one farmer is suing the administration over that law. he joins us next. ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ >> tucker: unnoticed by most people was the land reform provision in the democrats most recent coronavirus relief bill that allocatedpr billions to so-called farmerss of color. at the same time, that bill denies money to farmers who have the wrong skin color. that is, by definition, racism. what is clearly illegal under the law and the civil rights act. now, several farmers are suing over it, as they should, butt msnbc doesn't like that. msnbc ran a segment accusing most farmers of being white supremacists. >> and really, you know, his
group, america first legal, a more accurate name for it would be white men first legal, because it really is about attacking any efforts to make society more equitable for marginalized communities, and so far, all its doing and trying to do is to create hysteria around efforts to make society a more livable place for brown and black communities, for women, four, you know, for anyone who is not a white man. >> tucker: adam faust is not the picture of privilege. he runs a farm. he has lost both his feet. he isa one of the farmers suing over this racist law. he joins us tonight with his attorney, rick esenberg. adam and rick, thank you both for coming out tonight. adam, summarize for us why you are filing this suit, if you would? >> well, basically, just because racism -- i mean, racism against anybody is wrong.
we can't have a government picking and choosing who they are going to give any program to based solely on the color of their skin. >> tucker: so, you grew up in this country, i can tell by your accent. were you taught all along the way that is contrary to the constitution, martin luther king's vision of america.ar are you surprised by this? >> extremely. like you said, everything that we have all learned growing up his racism was wrong, and now, all of a sudden, the federal government seems to think that racism is acceptable in certain ways. >>bl tucker: yeah. >> should never be acceptable. >> tucker: no, it shouldn't be. and if you complain about it, you are a white supremacist. so, rick, how can this law be legal? i don't remember anyone pointing it out when it passed, but i thought there were federal laws that banned this type of discrimination.
>> it can't be. our courts have made clear for a number of years, tucker, that the right to be free of racial discrimination is an individual right that we all have. it is not a group right. there is no such thing as a nine discrimination. there is no such thing as a little makeup discrimination to even things out. you know, when msnbc commentator talks about equity, we are all for laws that prohibit discrimination, but those laws have to apply across the board, to people like adam, as well as to black and hispanic farmers. >> tucker: so, if the next administration said we are picking a different racial group and we are going to send them money because of how they were born, i mean, do you think that would make it through the courts? would that go unnoticed? >> no, it wouldn't. i mean, look, we fought a civil war. we had a lengthy civil rights movement to acknowledge the principal that was in our
founding documents, that we are all to be treated as individuals, and t this really disturbing mood we have about equity instead of equality of opportunity will not end well, it will lead, as i think you are pointing out, to a war against all, where we all are looking for our racial spoils, and that isin simply not what america is about, and i'm so glad that adam is willing to stand up and fight this now, before -- before it becomes far more acceptable than it is. this is immoral and it is tunconstitutional and illegal. >> tucker: well, it's totally immoral. adam, quick, are you surprised you are being attacked is a bad person for standing up against racism? >> yeah, it does surprise me, since what we are doing is antiracist. we are fighting racism for everybody in the country, not just one group, and yet some people seem to think that being antiracist is now racist.
>> tucker: yeah. you don't seem very privileged to me. i am rooting for you, and in the entire country, people of all colors. this is a principle we have to preserve, obviously. adam and rick, i appreciate you cominge out tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> tucker: so if you have lived in america last four months, you've heard a lot abous someone called marjorie taylor greene. have you ever heard from marjorie taylor greene? who is she, exactly, and what does she think? it seemed worth letting her talk for a minute, interviewing her. we are not allowed to, but we did anyway, and we are glad we did because it was interesting. you can make up your own mind about what you think of her after the break. ♪ ♪ after
often, you know that marjorie taylor greene is a conspiracy nut and a qanon -- and one thing atyou know if you are not allowd to talk to marjorie taylor greene, because that is abetting. that waso enough for us. you can't talk to someone, obviously we're going to talk to them because it is america. so we talked to her for about an hour for "tucker carlson today," and we are glad we did. we did it so you can assess for t yourself who marjorie taylor greene is and what she is about. it is worth watching. here's part of it. >> when i got to congress, i found out, here's why we are in trillions of dollars of debt. here's why our country feels like it is crumbling. here's why the business -- it's a business, that is what congress is, it runs the country -- this is why this business is failing, failing america, it's because most of the people that are there are not qualified to be there. there are people that can only succeed in government or academia, or maybe they are
attorneys that could not build their career big enough, so they decided to go into politics, or people that just pursued a political career because they love that life for what being a member of congress gives them, so when i got to congress, iat realized, this is a system that is severely failing the american people, and the american people have no idea how bad it is. >> tucker: they sound like losers. >> [laughs] i h think a lot of them are losers. >> tucker: [laughs] that's amazing. so what you discovered was not just that they are dishonest or intentionally subverting the system for lying to their constituents, they may be doing all those things, but they are just not impressive people? >> they are not impressive people and the other part is they cannot relate to real america because they have never efunctioned in it. they have never succeeded in it. they have never built something and been tested, like owning a business, a small business, where you literally don't know if you're going to survive the next month, and you are doing s everything you can to keep all of your employees on your
payroll, to meet your rent, to pay your bills, and also to serve your customers and do a good job so they come back the next day. most of those people have no idea what that is like, and that is why they don't appreciate the hard-earned tax dollars that people work so hard for and have to pay to the government. they don't appreciate these people's money because they waste it and throw it away. they spend it on frivolous programs that make them feel good about themselves so they can pat themselves on the back and go back to their districts, when they are running for congress again, and say "look at me. look at what i did. i funded this. i passedin a bill." as if passing a bill is why they should get reelected. as a matter of fact, most of the bills they passed is why we should not reelect them, so congress, to me, was a really big disappointment. and then, it just set into the point where i've been pretty disgusted with it, and i believe that congress needs to be held accountable for every single american, and i don't care if they are republican or democrat, but congress needs to be held
accountable to the american people. and republicans need to do what they say they are going to do instead of just continuing to say it, because the truth is, republican voters and donors are sick and tired and fed up with weak republicans that never accomplish what they claim they are going to do, and they vote for them, and they donate, and they vote, and they donate, but what i have been hearing over and over again from big donors, all the way down to the sweetest people that can't afford to donate but just vote because they know it is their civic duty, and they are just good people, is there very much upset and done with the republican party right now. and you want to know something? >> tucker: i think that's right. >> i wgh think that's tragic. i hate to lose. tucker, i hate to lose. i don't want to lose our country, and i don't want to see the party that i affiliate myself with fail people. and i don't want to see people be disappointed. and i don't want to see people lose their hopes and their
dreams and think that their children or their grandchildren or their great grandchildren have no chance. >> tucker: it went on. got even more interesting, i think. she said that the only democratic member of congress she has had any conversation with whatsoever isof alexandria ocasio-cortez. that is kind of an amazing exchange. than she described what it is like to be the most hated person in america. she doesn't seem to care much, but she explained it in a pretty interesting way. anyway, all in the new episode of "tucker carlson today" on foxnation.com. ♪ ♪ so, here is an amazing storym. that probably won't surprise you after everything you have seen in the last three months. i-called free-speech organizations areg now forming a coalition to end free-speech. [laughs]no they've come out for censorship, and they want to the biden administration to do it. they want the biden administration to shut you down. who is behind this exactly? charlie kirk has that answer for us straight ahead. ♪ ♪
not shock you but it is stillll♪ pretty amazing. a group of self-described free-speech organizations have now come out in favor of government censorship. this is happening in a lot of places. here is the latest example. the group pen america, which has been around for a while, fighting for the right of writers to speak their conscience in public from has now decided that is a bad idea so they sent a letter to the whitee house announcing they are forming a coalition of "human rights, free-speech, technology organization." all of those are false except for technology. they are not for democracy, free-speech, or human rights. they are for technology. that is why the coalition is urging the biden administration to "create a disinformation defense and free expression task force to target the crisis of disinformation that threatens our democracy." in other words, when you say things they don't like, when you utter for but in fact, that is against democracy.ut we thought democracy was the right of every person to be represented by a government. no. democracy is the right of a very small group of people to control
everything, just so you know. charlie kirk is the cofounder of turning point usa and a friend of ours, he joins us tonight. charlie, great to see you. you kind of lose track of all of the orwellian moments in the past couple years, but pen america coming out for censorship has got to be at the top of the list. >> yeah, tucker, i was meant to say, why don't they just call it the ministry of truth and get it over with. at this point, it's as if "1984" is just the instruction manual. this goes to a norm chomsky quote, i agree with him on veryn little politically, which is totally true, which is, "the way to have a population be opinion, is to guardrail the acceptable opinion." it's makes sense that these free-speech organizations are engaging in, not free-speech, but refereed speech. we believe and robust debate, as long as you allow us to be the ones in charge, the umpires, and there is this very vague term, intentionally, of disinformation.
they want to the federal government to now have the power to criminalize speech, and this is really what it is going after, of course it is aboutri control, of course it is about the totalitarianism. this playbook is now being used by these activists to pressure social media companies, you saw it happen with facebook, and to pressure the tech elites to pander t to the -- the most radical left-wing voices in the country. if republicans do not wake up to the student, we are not going to have a country. republicans have sat idly by while these activists have steamrolled our rights. >> tucker: you make such a smart point about guardrails. you can have any conversation you want, as long as it is within the parameters. that is why we spoke to marjorie taylor greene, because they said you can't. really? up yours, we are going to do what we want, it is america. that is one thing you can't talk about. really? why dori we play along?
>> and we are playing along because so many of us, we have something to lose. i think they're actually using our really nice lifestyle against us. so many people across america are saying, i would speak out, my kid might not get into t college.e. i would speak out, but i might lose my country club membership. i would speak out, but i might not get a bonus from some corporation. they are using are very comfortable lifestyle against us, and until americans start to realize that this is going to cost somethingng to actually spk your mind and have some courage, and again, t they want to limit the spectrum of acceptable political opinions, and in so far we play by their rules, we are always going to be playing catch-up.in that is why we must actually be the true ambassadors of free speech, not refereed speech. >> tucker: charlie kirk from who does not get the credit he deserves for thinking deeply about the stuff, i appreciate your coming on tonight. thank you. so, we have new cdc guidance on summer camps. summer camp. wait until you hear the
trace gallagher has that story for us tonight. hey, trace. >> hey, tucker. for context, we should note kids or three more times likely to drown in the die of covid, and yet cdc summer camp guidance says 6 feet of distance, not share toys, books, or games, close contact sports avoided altogether, and kids and staff, even if they are vaccinated, should wear a mask at all times, except swimming, napping, or eating, although the cdc did save kids are struggling to breathe or unconscious, they can take off their mask. and the white house says it's all good. watch. >> there is no question what the cdc is trying to do is provide guidance to the american public, to parents, to families, that they can trust, that they know is reliable, based on medical experts, doctors, based on data, on how they can feel safe. >> except doctors are not on
board. oy the editor in chief of the leading pediatrics journal, also an epidemiologist, called the guidelines unfairly draconian. an immunologist at columbia university calls them "senseless," and a doctor who works with anthony fauci says the guidance is "unfair and cruel." fauci himself had trouble playing the straight man. watch. >> i wouldn't call them excessive, savannah, but they certainly are conservative. [laughs] and i think what you are going to start to see in real time, continually reevaluating that for its practicality. >> and some worry this will actually lower the cdc's credibility. tucker? >> tucker: i can't get past the fact he called her savannah guthrie. i'm going to do that. trace gallagher, thank you so much for that. well that, amazingly, is it for us tonight. we will be back tomorrow and every weeknight at 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. new episode of "tucker carlson
today" on fox nation. marjorie taylor greene. have a great night. sean hannity taking over right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> sean: and welcome to "hannity." in just moments, california gubernatorial candidate caitlyn jenner will join us for her first exclusive interview, tonight from beautiful southern california, or some might say the united socialist states of california, where, by the way, once the land of american pioneers, ronald reagan was governor t out here, boundls possibilities, not really that long ago, republican presidential candidates could win back the great state of california. a lot has changed.d. c california's beautiful weather, abundant natural resources, it has attracted