Disabled farmer fights White House for equality

close

Video

Disabled farmer fights White House for equality

Adam Faust joins 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' to discuss the administration focusing on 'socially disadvantaged' farmers

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," May 5, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening, and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT.

Here's a very simple question. How many Americans have died after taking the COVID vaccines? That's not Americans who have been killed by the virus? That's a huge number. It is how many Americans have died after getting the vaccines designed to prevent the virus? Do you know the answer to that question? Do you know anything about the downside? We know a lot about the upside of vaccines, we've been completely in favor of vulnerable people taking vaccines.

But what about the potential risks? You think you would know more about that than you do? We talk a lot about vaccines constantly, not just on this show, but in this country. Joe Biden was on TV yesterday talking about vaccines. He wants you to get one. Everyone in authority wants you to get one.

In fact, you probably already had your shot and good for you.

If you haven't had your shot, you're under enormous pressure to get your shot. You understand that soon, you may not be able to fly on commercial airlines or go to work at the office or send your children to school if you don't have the shot.

Meanwhile, the social pressure is enormous. Friends may have informed you already that you are not welcome at their parties or their weddings, if you haven't been vaccinated. So there's 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. We assume the risks are negligible.

Vaccines are not dangerous. That's not a guess, we know that pretty conclusively from the official numbers. Every flu season, for example, we give influenza shots to more than 116 million Americans. Every year, a 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 disqualified. And we keep giving flu shots and very few people complain about it.

So the question is, how do those numbers compare to the apparent death rate from the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed across the country? That's worth knowing.

So we checked today and here's the answer and these numbers come from the 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's 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 that another 360 people at that rate have died in the 12 days since. You put it all together and that is a total of 3,722 deaths. That's almost 4,000 people who died after getting the COVID vaccines. The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that.

The data we just cited come from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, VAERS.

VAERS is managed by the C.D.C. and the F.D.A. VAERS has received a lot of criticism over the years, some of it founded. Some critics have argued for a long time that VAERS undercounts vaccine injuries.

Report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluded that, quote, "Fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAER System." Fewer than one percent.

So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccines? Well, we don't know that number. Nobody does and we are not going to speculate about it on this show.

But it's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It is not even close to what we see in previous years with previous vaccines. Most vaccines are not accused of killing large numbers of people. The MENVEO vaccine, for example, is 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 vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end 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 a single vaccination campaign than 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's a lot of criticism of the reporting system. Some people say, well, it's just a coincidence that 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're seeing now as the single deadliest 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 reporting system is flawed, and clearly it is flawed, why hasn't it been fixed? And more to the point? Why has there not been an independent vaccine safety board impaneled to assess what is happening, and reassure people who stumble across official government numbers on the internet.

But amazingly, none of that has been done. No one even mentions the numbers. And in fact, you're not allowed to, you'll be pulled off the internet if you do.

The people in charge do not acknowledge them. Instead, they warn us about what might happen if we don't take the vaccine. Here's Joe Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I know there's a lot of misinformation out there, but there's one fact I want every American to know. People who are not fully vaccinated can still die every day from COVID-19.

This is your choice. It is life and death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: "People who are not fully vaccinated can still die every day from COVID-19," Joe Biden said, 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 at relatively high risk, the old in the sick, they might want to get vaccinated, most do. Some are very low risk of dying, the young and the healthy.

Others appear to be essentially no risk at all. That would include anyone who's had COVID and recovered. Virtually all of those people seem to be immune and that's true for many viruses.

So those second two categories, the young and the healthy and the previously infected may add up if you combine them to hundreds of millions of people in this country. The funny thing is, the White House, the official policymakers 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's why Joe Biden has demanded that 70 percent of all American adults regardless of age, regardless of health condition, regardless critically of pre-existing antibodies from previous 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 ever be an ethical policy, but as a practical matter, it might be acceptable to the country if COVID vaccines we could show conclusively came with no risk and 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 hotly 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. VAERS records nearly 900 nonfatal heart attacks in people who just received the shot, 2,700 people reported unexplained chest pains.

In all, the vaccine, according to the government reporting system appears to have contributed to at least 8,000 hospitalizations. Some of the side effects defy easy explanation.

Researcher Alex Berenson has noted that coronavirus vaccines now account for almost one-third of all tinnitus reports in the various database, tinnitus, the ringing in your ears.

The American Tinnitus Association says it has received many questions on that link. It is still not known if there is a link, but there is concern about it.

Meanwhile, researchers at Oxford and UCLA began tracking coronavirus vaccine side effects across eight separate countries. What have they found, among other things, quote, "Women aged 18 to 34 years old had a higher rate of deep vein thrombosis than men of the same age." They also found that heart attacks were quote, "common in people 85 years and older who had taken the vaccine."

They found some serious potential side effects in some children, quote, "anaphylaxis and appendicitis were more common in young people."

Now vaccines are complicated medicines and as with any drug, it can take a long time to get it precisely right, the dosage for example, and this is not the first time that people have been hurt during a vaccination campaign. That is bound to happen. What's different this time and so striking is the reaction to these numbers.

Here's a contrast for you. In 1976, the 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 the authorities decided it was too risky, it wasn't worth it.

Contrast that with what's happening now. This time, our health authorities have reserved their energy for anyone who dares to question vaccines. Lifesite News, it's a nonprofit news organization just found itself permanently banned from Facebook. Why? Because it reported government numbers from the various database, something that we just did on the air.

Famously, when podcaster Joe Rogan asked whether healthy young people ought to be getting the COVID vaccine, the media treated him like a war criminal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: We know the anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories have been proliferating online, but it doesn't help, but when people with major platforms feed that beast, like Spotify's $100 Million Man, Joe Rogan.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Dr. Fauci before I let you go, I do 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's a hoax?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's disappointing. Joe Rogan is a hugely influential person with a massive audience. It's mystifying why he would give people such bad information that puts them in harm's way.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Joe Rogan, who is one of the world's highest paid and most popular podcast host is giving air to anti-vaccine narratives/

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Anti-vaccine narratives. He did nothing of the sort. Almost everything you just heard was a lie that obscured a very simple and potentially relevant question that he asked which is, should healthy young people receive the vaccine? We're not precisely sure what the risks are, it is a lie to say there are no risks. There are risks in everything, including in getting a vaccine.

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 public safety. Yahoo News published a piece entitled, "Joe Rogan, who's not a doctor, (in contrast to the Yahoo News reporters) gives terrible vaccine advice."

Keep in mind, this is the same Yahoo News that published this piece, quote, "Five things Bill Gates wants you to know about 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 N.I.H., why so many Americans, according to the government's own numbers appear to be dying after getting the shot.

Maybe there's a good answer for that, Collins wouldn't even acknowledge that was happening. Instead, Collins fretted that if the population focuses too much on the potential harm from vaccines, 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 him that based on the various deaths and my conversations with people who have chosen not to get vaccinated, a better description would be people who are hesitant to be coerced into participating in the largest drug trial in history," end quote.

Why is that an unfair description exactly? There's 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 didn't ask about them. They were considered personal as recently by the way as last fall. It was in September of 2020, at the height of the presidential campaign that a CNN reporter asked Kamala Harris, whether she would be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine once it became available. Her response quote, "Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us." Harris responded, "I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump."

A month later at the vice presidential debate, Harris was if anything more emphatic on the subject, quote, "If Donald Trump tells us we should take the vaccine," she declared, "I'm not going to take it."

Kamala Harris has, of course since changed your 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's 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 that both have been vaccinated.

Now a number of crude jokes come to mind, but for once we're going to pass on that. What exactly are we watching here? We're watching the crudest kind of propaganda designed by the cynical for the benefit of a population they consider stupid and weak and malleable.

And such as Kamala Harris, everyone is in on it, even the corporate comedians. Watch this buffoon do what we assume is an unpaid ad for Moderna.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, but you read something On Facebook.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your friend from high school who sells jewelry, she posted it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The one who is 53 and still builds doll houses?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You heard what? On whose podcast?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is he a doctor? No. Scientist? No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can he name one of the ingredients in the vaccine?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can he point to his glabella?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then tell him to shut the [bleep] up. The glabella is right here, by the way.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the vaccine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the vaccine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just get the vaccine.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll the [bleep] up and get the vaccine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And tell your friend on Facebook just stick to jewelry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It doesn't make you laugh, it 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 you, it doesn't change what remains true for the country. If 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 its effects 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. We're happy to have him. Professor, thanks so much for coming. I have a really simple question. I know that there is a vigorous debate over what the various numbers mean. They are dismissed by many. They are embraced by others.

But it seems to me if the system of reporting adverse effects of vaccines, this or any other is flawed and it has 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 calming everyone down?

MARTIN KULLDORFF, PROFESSOR, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Well, thank you for having me. Well, the C.D.C. VAER System is not a good system for looking at adverse events after vaccines. It's only useful for things that happen within like an hour or so after vaccinations because like anaphylaxis, for example.

But other things, you have the number of events, but you don't have what's expected under the -- expected by chance. So therefore, it's not a very useful system at all. And the two better systems is the C.D.C. Vaccine Safety Datalink System, as well as F.D.A., it has a system called BEST, where they actually know how many people got the vaccine, how many people had the adverse reaction and how many of those adverse reactions would you have expected by chance if they hadn't taken vaccines?

CARLSON: If you're going to tell the population, force, coerce the population into taking a medicine and say, you know, you can't go to work, you can't fly, you can't educate your children if you don't take this, why isn't it incumbent on you to make certain that you know exactly what the drug does that you've tested for it, for example, people who have preexisting antibodies who have recovered from COVID, were not included in the clinical trials. Now they are pregnant women.

Why should the authorities expect a population to take a medicine whose effects that we can't know because they weren't in the clinical trials? I don't understand that.

KULLDORFF: I think that's true, I think to use coercion in public health is a very bad thing. Public health must be based on trust. And coercion, actually, I think damages the confidence in vaccines.

So vaccine passport or to mandate students to take vaccines, I think is a very, very bad public health policy and as a vaccine scientist, we have really worked for many decades to increase the confidence in vaccines and there are a few anti-vaxxers who don't think anybody should get vaccines, but the damage that they have done is much less than the damage that are done by those people who are advocating for vaccine passports because if you try to force something down somebody, then they're very, very likely to say no, and not only for the COVID vaccine, so but for other childhood vaccines which are very important, like measles, or polio.

So this vaccine passports and vaccine mandates are very, very bad idea for public health, which is reducing the confidence in vaccines. So it's very unfortunate.

CARLSON: I think that is so well put and true. You know, you don't need to force things that are self-evidently good. So they shouldn't, and I agree with that.

Professor, thank you for coming on tonight. Appreciate it.

KULLDORFF: Well, thank you.

CARLSON: So you just heard a Professor from Harvard University, of all places, say the obvious, which is that coercion is counterproductive when you're distributing vaccines, it makes people trust the medicine less. But it's not slowing down, vaccine passports are now being rolled out in the State of Washington.

The Governor there, Jay Inslee is not calling them vaccine passports, but it doesn't matter what they call them. That's exactly what they are.

Jason Rantz is radio show host in Seattle. He joins us tonight to explain what exactly they're doing. Jason, thanks for coming on. What are they doing?

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RADIO SHOW HOST: Yes, so Governor Inslee just released some guidance allowing vaccinated only sections, so vaccination segregations at outdoor stadiums, at graduation ceremonies for schools, even church. So now we get some of your freedoms back to pray in vaccinated only sections.

Now, you still have to wear a mask outside surrounded by people who are vaccinated, which obviously makes no sense. You get a separate entrance to go into some of these sections, but you have to show your vaccine paperwork. You literally have to show them a vaccine passport to gain entrance into these sections.

So you have to prove that you've 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 IDs being racist or equity concerning access to the vaccines. You actually have to show this information.

Now, 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 this.

CARLSON: May I ask you a question? So there is evidence and compelling evidence, talk to physicians who treat COVID who will tell you that people who have active antibodies, T-cells protected -- who 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?

RANTZ: No. Every single person if you want to go onto campus as a student, you will have to get a vaccine. And I've 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.

CARLSON: Right. They don't give answers to any questions, like if you've been vaccinated, why do you care if other people have been? But no one answers that either.

Jason Rantz, it's great to see you. Thank you.

RANTZ: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: So among the many -- among the many country changing provisions in the Coronavirus Relief Bill where $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.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Unnoticed by most people was the land reform provision in the Democrats' most recent Coronavirus Relief Bill. It allocated billions to so-called farmers of color.

At the same time, that bill denies money to farmers who have the wrong skin color, that is by definition racism. It's clearly illegal under the law and the Civil Rights Act.

Now several farmers are suing over it as they should, but MSNBC doesn't like that. MSNBC just ran the segment accusing those farmers of being white supremacists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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 it is 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, for you know -- not -- for anyone who is not a white man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Adam Faust is not the picture of privilege. He runs a farm. He has lost both his feet. He's one of the farmers suing over this racist law. He joins us with his attorney, Rick Esenberg.

Adam and Rick, thanks both for coming on tonight. Adam, just summarize for us why you're filing the suit, if you would?

ADAM FAUST, FARMER: Oh, well, basically, just because racism -- I mean, racism against anybody is wrong. And we can't have a government that's picking and choosing who they're going to give any program to based solely on the color of their skin.

CARLSON: So you grew up in this country? I can tell by your accent, weren't you taught all along the way that that was contrary to the Constitution to Federal law to Martin Luther King's vision of America? Are you surprised by this?

FAUST: Extremely, I mean, like you said, everything that we've all learned growing up is racism was wrong. And now all of a sudden, the Federal government seems to think that racism is acceptable in certain ways and it should never be acceptable.

CARLSON: No, it shouldn't. And if you complain about it, you're a white supremacist.

So Rick, how can this law be legal? I don't remember anyone pointing that out when it passed, but I thought there were plenty of Federal laws that banned this kind of discrimination.

RICK ESENBERG, ATTORNEY: Now, 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's not a group right. There is no such thing as benign discrimination. There is no such thing as a little makeup discrimination to even things out.

You know, when the MSNBC commentator talks about equity, I mean, 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.

CARLSON: So if the next administration said, you know, we're picking a different racial group, and we're just going to send the money because of how they were born. I mean, do you think that would make it through the courts? Would that -- would that go unnoticed?

ESENBERG: No, it wouldn't. I mean, look, we fought a Civil War. We had a lengthy Civil Rights movement to acknowledge the principle that was in our founding documents, that we are all to be treated as individuals and this really disturbing move that we have now towards equity, instead of equality of opportunity will not end well.

It will lead, as I think you're pointing out to a war against all against all, where we all are looking for our racial spoils and that is simply not what America is about and I'm so glad that Adam is willing to stand up and fight this now before it becomes far more acceptable than it is.

This is immoral, and it is unconstitutional and illegal.

CARLSON: Well, it is totally immoral. Adam, really quick. Are you surprised that you're being attacked as a bad person for standing up against racism?

FAUST: Yes, it does surprise me since what we're doing is anti-racist. I mean, we're fighting racism for everybody in the country, not just one group. And yet some people seem to think that being anti-racist is now racist.

CARLSON: Yes, you don't seem very privileged to me. I'm rooting for you here, and for the entire country, people of all colors. This is a principle that we have to preserve, obviously. Adam and Rick, I appreciate you coming on tonight. Thank you.

FAUST: Thank you.

ESENBERG: Thank you.

CARLSON: So if you've lived in America for the past four months, you've heard a lot about 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.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Member of Congress from the State of Georgia. She just got elected last fall. She has only been there a minute and she is already one of most famous people in the country and one of the most hated.

If you watch television very often, you know that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a conspiracy nut and a QAnon adherent. And one thing you know is, you're not allowed to talk to Marjorie Taylor Greene because that's abetting extremism.

Well, that was enough for us. Remember, when they say you can't talk to someone, obviously, we're going to talk to them because you don't get to make that decision for us. It's America.

So we talked to her for about an hour for "Tucker Carlson Today" and we're glad we did.

We did it so you could assess for yourself who Marjorie Taylor Greene is and what she is about. It's worth watching. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): When I got to Congress, I found out here is why we're 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's what Congress is -- it runs the country. This is why this business is failing and failing America, it is because most of the people that are there are not qualified to be there.

They are people that can only succeed in government or academia. Or maybe they are attorneys that couldn't build their career big enough, so they decided to go into politics, or they are people that just pursued a political career because they love that life or what being a Member of Congress gives them.

And so when I got into Congress, I realized this is a system that is severely failing the American people and the American people have no idea how bad it is.

CARLSON: They sound like losers.

GREENE: I think a lot of them are losers.

CARLSON: That's amazing. So what you discovered wasn't just that they were dishonest or intentionally subverting the system or lying to their constituents, so they may be doing all of those things, but they're just not impressive people.

GREENE: They're not impressive people. And the other part is, is they can't relate to real America because they've never functioned in it. They've never succeeded in it -- succeeded in it. They've 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, but you're doing 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 customer and do a good job so that they just come back the next day.

Most of those people have no idea what that is like and that's 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 makes them feel good about themselves so they can pat themselves on the back and go back to their district when they're running for Congress again and say, look at me, look at what I did, I funded this, I passed a bill -- as if passing a bill is why they should get re-elected.

As a matter of fact, most of the bills that they pass is why we should not re-elect them. So Congress, to me was a really big disappointment and then it just set in to 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're Republican or Democrat, but Congress needs to be held accountable to the American people.

And Republicans need to do what they say they're 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're going to do and they vote for them and they donate and they vote, and they donate.

But what I've 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's their civic duty and they are just good people, is they are very much upset and done with the Republican Party right now.

CARLSON: Yes.

GREENE: And you want to know something?

CARLSON: I think that's right.

GREENE: I think that's tragic, because 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: It went on. It got even more interesting, I think. She said that the only Democratic Member of Congress she has had any conversation with whatsoever is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that was kind of an amazing exchange, and then she described what it's 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, it's all in the new episode of "Tucker Carlson Today." It's on foxnation.com.

So here's an amazing story that probably won't surprise you after everything you've seen in the last three months, so-called free speech organizations are now forming a coalition to end free speech.

They've come out for censorship and they want the Biden administration to do it. They want the Biden administration to shut you down, these free speech people. Who is behind this exactly? Charlie Kirk has that answer for us. Straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, if you're a hip to the ironic nature of the moment we're living in, then this will not shock you, but it's still 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's 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 has now decided that's a bad idea, so they sent a letter to the White House announcing they're forming a coalition of quote "human rights, free speech, democracy and technology organizations." All of those are false except technology. They're not for democracy, free speech or human rights. They are for technology.

And that's why the coalition is urging the by the administration to quote, " ... 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 forbidden facts. That's against democracy. You 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 U.S.A. and a friend of ours. He joins us tonight,

Charlie, great to see you. So, you know, you kind of lose track of all the Orwellian moments in the past couple years, but the Pen America coming out for censorship, it's got to be at the top of the list.

CHARLIE KIRK, FOUNDER, TURNING POINT USA: Yes, Tucker, I was actually going to say why don't they just call it the Ministry of Truth and just get it over? At this point, it is as if 1984 is just the instruction manual.

This goes to a Noam Chomsky quote that I obviously agree with him on very little politically, which is totally true, which is, "The way to have a population be obedient is to guard rail the acceptable opinion." So it actually makes sense that these free speech organizations are the ones that are engaging and not free speech, but instead refereed speech, which is that we believe in robust debate, as long as you allow us to be the ones in charge, to be the umpires of what you can say and not say.

And then there's this very vague term intentionally, of disinformation. And so then they want the Federal government to now have the power to criminalize speech and this really what it is going after. Of course, it's about control. Of course, it's about totalitarianism.

But this playbook has now been used by these activists to pressure social media companies. You saw what happened today with Facebook, and to pressure the tech elites to then pander to the most radical left-wing voices in our country.

And I've got to say, if Republicans don't wake up to this sometime soon, we are not going to have a Republic or a country, because Republicans have just sat idly by while these activists have steamrolled our rights over the last three years.

CARLSON: Well, that's right. You make such a smart point about guardrails. You can have any conversation you want, as long as it is within the parameters that we set. This is why we just interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene, because they said, you can't. Really? Up yours. Of course, we can do whatever we want, we're journalists, it is America.

But so many people fall for this, like you -- that's one thing you can't talk about. Really? Why do we play along?

KIRK: Well, and we're playing along, because so many of us, we have something to lose. So I think they are actually using our really nice lifestyle against us. So many people across America are saying, you know, I would speak out, my kid might not get into college.

I would speak up, but I might lose my country club membership. I would speak out, but I might not get the bonus from some corporation.

So they are using our very comfortable lifestyle against us and until Americans start to realize that this is going to cost you something to actually speak your mind and have some courage and again, 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. That's why we must actually be the true ambassadors of free speech. Not refereed speech.

CARLSON: Charlie Kirk, who does not get the credit he deserves for thinking deeply about this stuff. I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank you.

KIRK: Thank you.

CARLSON: So we have new C.D.C. guidance on summer camps -- summer camps -- wait until you hear the regulations. At least one physician says they don't make any sense. That physician is the very last person you would expect to say that. We will tell you who it is after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are out with some pretty remarkable new guidance on what kids have to do at summer camp. It's so over the top that even Tony Fauci seems a little bothered by it.

Our Trace Gallagher has that story for us tonight. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. For context, we should note kids are three times more likely to drown than die of COVID and twice as likely to die from the flu. In other words, the COVID risk is minuscule and yet the C.D.C. Summer Camp Guidance says kids should maintain six feet of distance, not share toys, books or games, close contact sports should be avoided all together. And kids and staff even if they're vaccinated should wear a mask at all times except swimming, napping or eating.

Though the C.D.C. did say if kids are struggling to breathe or unconscious, they can take off their mask.

And the White House says, it's all good. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There's no question what the C.D.C. 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Except doctors are not on board. The editor-in-chief of the leading pediatrics journal also an epidemiologist calls the guidelines unfairly draconian. An immunologist at Columbia University calls them quote, "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.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: I wouldn't call them excessive, Savannah, but they certainly are conservative and I think what you're going to start to see is really in real time, continually reevaluating that for its practicality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: And some worry, this will actually lower the C.D.C.'s credibility -- Tucker.

CARLSON: I can't get past the fact he just called her Savannah Guthrie. I'm going to do that. You should do that. Trace Gallagher, thanks so much for that.

GALLAGHER: You bet.

CARLSON: Well, that amazingly is it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow and every week night 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 takes over now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.