Tucker Carlson

Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

It’s not simply an explicit attack on the legitimacy of the third branch of government, the Court. It’s not just an attack on the right of people to govern themselves. It’s something bigger than that.

Published

9 months ago

June 27, 2022

Alan Rugger

Tucker calls the enraged response to Roe v Wade ending what it is, an attack on the institution of Family. Highlights include:

“’I do not view abortion as a choice,’ said Joe Biden as recently as 2006, ‘I think it’s always a tragedy.’ And, of course it always is a tragedy, even if you believe it should be legal, and democrats once said this out loud forthrightly. In fact, in 1997 as White House council, now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan urged her boss Bill Clinton to sign a ban on partial birth abortions. Elena Kagan has always been pro-choice, but ending the life of a child the week before birth was too much even for her, and of course for his part, Bill Clinton never spoke about abortion as anything but as a last resort. He famously described it as something that should be ‘safe, legal and rare.’ You don’t hear that on the left anymore, ever.”

“The hysteria is telling. It’s not the assault on bodily autonomy of the end of Roe vs. Wade. Those are the same people who demanded vaccine mandates. But this happened all over the country. In Arizona, thousands of enraged rioters tried to storm the state capitol. On Friday night they tore down security fencing around the building. They pounded on the senate’s glass doors and windows while the legislature was in session, police had to fire tear gas from the windows to protect the politicians inside.”

“Looks like insurrection to us, but no arrests were made at the Arizona state capitol on Friday when that footage was shot, there will be no FBI investigation. Democrats who called January 6 a racist insurrection said nothing this weekend about the violent siege at the state capitol of Arizona. Did you expect them to? No, of course not. In fact, instead, they justified it.”

“Because the Court did something they don’t like, they’re now telling us the third branch of government is ‘illegitimate’. The Supreme Court is ‘illegitimate’ because it’s allowing voters to decide what they want to do with abortion. Some would call that democracy, a system in which citizens choose their own form of government. They’re telling us it’s illegitimate.”

“It’s not simply an explicit attack on the legitimacy of the third branch of government, the Court. It’s not just an attack on the right of people to govern themselves. It’s something bigger than that. What you’re seeing is a coordinated attack on the family and on children. People at these protests are angered at the idea that children are being born. Watch what’s happening there, that’s hardly an overstatement.”

“What about the thought of having children makes these people so angry? Where does an attitude like that come from? Well, as it turns out, that attitude comes from the same place the democratic party now gets all of its attitudes, directly from corporate America. Corporate America wants you childless, and this is a big change.”

“A hundred years ago, big companies built housing for the families of their employees and then schools and libraries to educate them. It was the humane thing to do, but it also seemed to make good business sense at the time. If you wanted workers you could count on, you had to take care of them and their offspring. But over time, that arrangement got expensive. Employees with families demanded higher wages to support their children, and in many cases they formed unions to get those raises, so labor costs soared. So corporate America in response to this developed a new model: hire single women.”

“The one downside to hiring young women is they can get pregnant. If you’re running the HR department at Citibank, that is the last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more expensive.”

“What amazing is that in the face of this, so many Americans who ought to know better have fallen for it. So, some accountant at a soulless publicly traded corporation concludes that drones with no personal lives make cheaper workers, that’s what happened. But rather than question this or resist it, your average college-educated NPR listener nods in vigorous bovine agreement, and then becomes completely hysterical when someone suggests that maybe there’s another way to live, that it’s at least theoretically possible that raising your own children might be more rewarding as a life choice than commuting into a slum on public education in order to claw your way up into middle management.”

Watch the video below and tell us what you think in the comments:

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Up Next

Tucker: This is a manufactured disaster

Don't Miss

Tucker: Missouri becomes the first state to ban abortion

Tucker Carlson

This would give the government terrifying power

This isn’t about banning TikTok. This is about introducing flat out totalitarianism into our system.

Published

4 days ago

March 27, 2023

Alan Rugger

Tucker looks at what’s potentially bad about our government’s bipartisan effort to ban TikTok, a move many of us would be on board with…if it weren’t another crudely disguised attempt to rush through something that gives them more vague powers in the name of national security. Highlights include:

“Every day more than 2 billion people use the social media app called TikTok. Many of them are young people under the age of 24. If you had kids, you probably know already how TikTok works. TikTok lets users upload short videos, usually they’re under 30 seconds. What’s interesting is that the content of these videos varies a lot depending upon what country you’re in. If you’re in China, where TikTok is headquartered, you tend to get more educational content. But if you live in this country, you get an awful lot of filth and propaganda tailored for kids.”

“Can you see what’s going on here? Well, China does, they run TikTok and China knows if you want a productive society that extends beyond, say, next week, you teach your kids about hard work and creativity and personal responsibility, respect for authority. But if you want to destroy a society, you funnel a bunch of garbage to kids about gender ideology and ‘twerking’. As the account ‘Libs of TikTok’ has documented extensively, that’s exactly what TikTok is doing here. There’s a whole genre of videos of teachers boasting about indoctrinating kids.”

“Right now, in response to criticism of TikTok, China’s government and the company itself are doing the same thing they did when they responded to allegations of a lab leak in Wuhan. They’re saying anyone who raises questions is a racist, and they’re doing that everywhere across the media, and they can because a lot of the news that you consume is paid for by TikTok.”

“One of the bills that would ban TikTok is being pushed, as we said, by senators in both parties. It’s called the Restrict Act. Mark Warner of Virginia and John Thune of South Dakota, Democrat and Republican, introduced this legislation. Now, the bill is ostensibly protecting American national security and ending ‘foreign adversaries’ from interfering in our elections through apps like TikTok, because of course election interference by Twitter and Facebook is no problem at all, but election interference from TikTok is totally unacceptable, okay. But in reality, and you should know this if you’re opposed to TikTok, as we are, this bill isn’t really about banning TikTok, it’s never about what they say it is. Instead, this bill would give enormous and terrifying new powers to the federal government to punish American citizens and regulate how they communicate with one another. For example, the bill would regulate ‘certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries’. Now, what’s a foreign adversary and who gets to decide? Well, the Secretary of Commerce and the DNI, not the Congress, get to decide what foreign adversaries are.”

“So, if the Biden administration decides that you’re doing this, then the secretary of commerce can then enforce ‘any mitigation measure to address any risk arising from any covered transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’. These ‘covered transactions’ can involve ‘current, past, or potential future transactions’, and the mitigation measures include, but are not limited to throwing American citizens in prison for 20 years.”

“So, you would be allowing the executive branch, the Biden administration, to regulate speech on the internet, and if you are somehow involved with a ‘foreign adversary’, lets say you oppose the war against Russia, you got to prison for 20 years. So, this isn’t about banning TikTok, this is about introducing flat out totalitarianism into our system.”

Watch the video below and give us your thoughts in the comments:

Tucker Carlson

Tucker: This is malicious

In this country the prosecution has to, for Constitutional and moral reasons, turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. That did not happen. This is wrong.

Published

1 week ago

March 23, 2023

Alan Rugger

Tucker comments on the Biden administration’s wanting to arrest up to another 1200 people, not for committing crimes, but for showing their support for democracy, the left’s second favorite word since Biden took office. Highlights include:

“Here’s what we know, a Soros-funded prosecutor in New York, a man who ran on the promise to indict Trump, seems to be working hard to indict Trump, indicting him for a crime that no one even pretends is a crime, including the federal agency that has already investigated it and declared it not a crime.”

“So, in Manhattan tomorrow, what will certainly be an overwhelmingly liberal grand jury will meet, and unless something unexpected happens, Democrats will have taken the unprecedented step of using a corrupt justice system to take out the front runner in the Republican presidential field in a presidential race, and if that happens, America will never be the same.”

“As of tonight, it’s not just Trump who is the target of this, it’s Trump’s voters. The Biden administration is in the process of preparing yet another law enforcement dragnet of more than 1,000 non-violent January 6 protesters. These are not people who broke windows or tussled with cops, these are patriotic Americans who dared to question the official story of the 2020 election.”

“They watched with the rest of us as covid was used as a pretext to eliminate longstanding barriers to voter fraud. They saw a democratic partisan Mark Zuckerberg spend nearly half a billion dollars to influence the mechanics of voting, including in critical swing states. Nevertheless, as they watched the news on the night of November 3, Trump seemed to be winning reelection, and then they woke up and smug tv anchors are telling them that actually, a senile man who refused to campaign had won the biggest landslide in American history.”

“The Biden administration has identified 1,000 additional Trump voters for non-crimes that they claim took place on January 6, mostly walking as Jacob Chansley did. In recent months, according to a story in the Washington Post, US attorney Matthew Graves, a willing tool of the Biden administration , has written to court officials alerting them that an additional 700 to 1200 people may be charged stemming from January 6.”

“This dragnet is so vast that prosecutors are warning DC jails and prisons will be overrun with prisoners, prisoners you can at this point only describe as political prisoners. The Washington Post reports, ‘In recent months, law enforcement and judicial authorities have engaged in discussions to manage the huge volume of Jan. 6 cases without overwhelming the courthouse where pleas and trials are held.'”

“This is depraved and it’s malicious.”

“Now, whatever you think of Jacob Chansley or Donald Trump, if you cared about civil liberties, you would be outraged by this. This is as grave a Constitutional violation as you can have. In this country the prosecution has to, for Constitutional and moral reasons, turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. That did not happen. This is wrong. This man is rotting in prison, his life has ended for a crime he did not commit and that he was not allowed to fairly defend himself against, but liberals didn’t care. They no longer seem to have any interest in justice or civil rights.”

“What you just saw is a measure of the total moral corruption of our news media and the institutions they serve in Washington and it’s implications for you. If they’ll endorse the unjust destruction of one man, they have no limits. They will do anything, and now with these impending arrests, they’re showing you what they will do. So, if you support the wrong presidential candidate, you get arrested and don’t get to see exculpatory evidence in your trial. Apparently, those are the rules. But if you do vote the ‘right’ way, you get paid. Democrats raise money for your bail when you commit violent crimes, they’ll even force taxpayers to give you money after the fact.”

“What’s so interesting is how you never see these very same people fantasize about locking up, say, the murderers or rapists or armed robbers or people who push elderly women in front of subway cars who are making New York City unlivable. This is a city in which the homicide rate jumped more than 50% from 2019 to 2021 because of their policies. They don’t care about that. They’re not mad at the murderers who cause shootings to increase more than 100% in that same period. They’re not mad that Alvin Bragg, their new favorite prosecutor dropped 70% of actual criminal cases since taking office so that these same criminals can continue to terrorize poor people in neighborhoods where MSNBC anchors live.”

Watch the video and give us your thoughts in the comments: