All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2025 - Stew Peters Show
01:03:12
Millstone Report w Paul Harrell: Tucker & Ted Go Viral: Peace Unlikely as U.S. Preps for Strike
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Gentlemen, welcome to the show.
Thanks so much for being with us.
My name is Paul Carroll.
This is the Millstone Report.
As always, we can't do the program without you watching every single day.
I'm glad to be here.
This is a crazy news day.
Right now we are in the middle.
We've got reports that Donald Trump is, well, the most recent, the briefing may be over, but he was being briefed about the situation in Iran.
The reports from yesterday, people thinking that a strike, a U.S. strike, may be imminent on the nation of Iran with something like bunker-busting bombs that can actually penetrate deep into where this supposed nuclear facility is.
So that's what I can tell you right now, and we're basically awaiting to see what's going to happen.
We've got clips of President Trump basically saying, you know, look, I could do it.
Don't know if I'm going to.
I haven't made my decision or not.
We also have reports out of, I think, the Wall Street Journal thinking that Donald Trump's already been briefed on what the attack plan is going to be, exactly what it's going to be.
So we're going to dive into this, but what is an interesting curveball in all of this, I think, has to do with, it clearly is this Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz.
We covered a little bit of it, just what had been released the day before on the program, just little snippets.
We've got a lot more of that content to get into, but it's very interesting that that interview happened in the backdrop.
Of what is going on now, where the United States may in fact be getting involved in another foreign war, which is something that a lot of MAGA doesn't want.
There's also the polling that suggests that a lot of Republicans also don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
And we can see how the weapons of mass destruction playbook, I mean, we're seeing it in real time how difficult it is to compete with Iran.
I mean, in terms of looking back at Iraq, like, we are literally reliving the lead-up to the war with Iraq, I think, in a much shorter time frame.
And, you know, it's funny how it all happens.
Again, a month ago, you had Donald Trump who was saying...
Now, I'm sure the Trump administration, probably led by J.D. Vance, who's been out there posting a few days ago, was trying to nuance the situation.
That's what they're going to try to say is how, you know, this actually isn't.
What we're about to do or what we're currently doing isn't Iraq.
It's not what we did.
It's going to be different this time.
But call me skeptical.
Call me skeptical.
Because then you've got people like Lindsey Graham going on Fox News wanting boots on the ground or saying that the American soldier would gladly go back over there and put boots on the ground.
And that's, of course, what we don't want.
I certainly don't think Donald Trump wants that.
But here's the problem.
You can get yourself boxed in.
And it depends on who your advisors are.
It depends on who you surround yourself with.
It depends on who you listen to.
And you can get put in these catch-22 situations.
And again, reminder that all of this happened when Steve Witkoff was supposed to be negotiating peace with Iran on Sunday and the Friday before Israel attacks.
I think I agree with Steve Bannon on his take on all of this, is that Israel started this, and they knew that they would not be able to finish it without the United States' help.
And so now all of these favors are being called in.
It's very interesting to hear these issues hashed out by two intelligent guys, Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz.
And it was a back-and-forth debate, but we're going to dive into that first because I think it's very relevant.
Oh, and by the way, I do have a slight correction.
So two days ago on Monday, Me and Rob Spencer did an afternoon broadcast of the Paul Harrell program, and we did flash one tweet up there.
It was just a report.
We made it clear that it was just a report that claimed that Russia had abandoned support for Iran, and I put it up there.
From what I can tell, that report was not accurate.
Unless I'm missing something, that report was not accurate.
So you still have...
That's just something to think about as we keep all of this in mind.
But the question that's on everybody's minds, or at least theology experts or theologians or, I don't know, maybe armchair theologians, this was the pivotal moment, I think, in this was the biggest, like, aha moment, I think, in the Ted Cruz-Tucker Carlson interview, and that is when Cruz...
Because he had just cited a Bible verse.
We're actually going to open the show today.
I think that's a clear distinction,
as we're going to see here, the biblical nation of Israel versus the modern secular democracy that is Israel.
But we're going to start, I guess this is...
I normally use the ESV, but this is what I've got pulled up.
So this is the verse in question.
The Lord said to Abram, leave your country, your kindred, and your father's household and go to the land.
I will show you.
I will make you into a great nation.
I will bless you.
I will make your name great so that...
I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you, and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.
Now, the New Testament really shines a lot of light on what exactly this verse means, the Abraham Covenant, and it's why, as I said yesterday, children in Christian churches, in Protestant churches, or evangelical churches, and I know I wasn't raised Catholic, so I'm not really sure if they sing this song in Catholic school, but I bet you they do.
Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons have Father Abraham.
I am one of them, and so are you, so let's just praise the Lord.
This song is written based on the New Covenant, based on Christians being, and being able to claim that they are, in fact, children of Abraham and children of the promise.
So, that's number one.
We're going to move on now to the clip in question.
Here it was, Ted Cruz talking about how the United States, now this is the key thing, this is what's gotten everybody so worked up.
Cruz says that essentially it's commanded by God.
He believes it's commanded by God for him, and by extension, The United States, because he's one of 100 men in the United States Senate, that it's commanded by God that America support the modern, secular nation-state of Israel.
Watch.
Growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things.
Of those who bless the government of Israel?
Those who bless Israel is what it says.
It doesn't say the government of it, it says the nation of Israel.
So that's in the Bible.
As a Christian, I believe that.
Where is that?
I can find it to you.
I don't have the scripture off the tip of mine.
You pull out the phone and use it.
It's in Genesis.
So you're quoting a Bible phrase.
You don't have context for it.
You don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology?
I'm confused.
What does that even mean?
Tucker.
I'm a Christian.
I want to know what you're talking about.
This is fantastic.
Where does my support for Israel come from?
Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel.
But number two...
Hold on.
You're a senator, and now you're throwing out theology, and I am a Christian, and I am allowed to weigh in on this.
We are commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel?
We are commanded to support Israel.
What does that mean, Israel?
We're told those who bless Israel will be blessed.
Hold on.
Define Israel.
This is important.
Are you kidding?
This is a majority Christian country.
Define Israel?
Do you not know what Israel is?
That would be the country you'd have asked like 49 questions about.
So that's what...
The nation of Israel, yes.
So is that the current borders, the current leadership?
He's talking about the political entity called Israel?
He's talking about the nation of Israel.
Yeah, nations exist, and he's discussing a nation.
A nation was the people of Israel.
Is the nation God's referring to in Genesis, is that the same as the country run by Benjamin Netanyahu right now?
Yes, yes.
It is.
And by the way, it's not run by Benjamin Netanyahu as a dictator.
It's a democratic country that elected.
He's the prime minister, right?
Well, that's actually an interesting point because, I mean, I mean, if we're really talking about the biblical nation of Israel versus the modern nation-state of Israel, I mean, you know, as somebody's going to bring up in a tweet I've pulled up, like, where is the king?
Where are the priests?
Where's the temple?
But just like, you know, No, actually, the American people elected Donald Trump.
The same principle is there.
This is silly.
I'm talking about the political entity of modern Israel.
Yes, and that is Israel.
You believe that's what God was talking about in Genesis.
I do.
That country's existed since when?
For thousands of years.
Now, there was a time when it didn't exist and then it was recreated just over 70 years ago.
I'm saying I think most people understand that line in Genesis to refer to...
That's not what it says.
okay, Israel, but you don't even know where in...
So, I saw one move like, yeah, 4,000 years ago, Moses is generally, by the way, who we believe, Christians believe, wrote the book of Genesis.
So 4,000 years ago, Moses was talking about...
Obviously, I know I'm talking in extremes here, but let's actually talk about the theology, shall we?
Jason Whitlock writes, could you cite slash reference some scripture, Jenna Ellis is out there saying, I chimed in here and I just said kind of what I've already said.
The verse actually refers to Abraham.
that's who it's talking about and Abraham's descendants.
And I referenced the song, Father Abraham had many sons.
That's not replacement theology.
That's the gospel.
And exegeting this verse in Genesis, or the one in Numbers that the Jewish Insider publication is now trying to say, that's the real verse.
It's basically echoing the one from Genesis with slightly different imagery.
Exegeting that verse to mean BB's Israel is a misinterpretation of the text.
Covenant theology would like a word.
And then I quote Ephesians 3, 7-9.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed.
What is he talking about there?
He's talking about God.
So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Moving on, we could even go to this verse in Romans if we wanted to talk about this as well.
When it says, But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham.
Now that's a big claim.
What do you mean?
Not all are children of Abraham?
Because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named.
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Praise the Lord for that.
Steve Bannon taking issue with Ted Cruz's comments using theological, biblical conviction as a justification for support for the modern nation's state of Israel.
Listen to this.
For Ted Cruz, yo dude, I'm not exactly the churchiest guy in the world.
And I know you're, you know, Mr. Bible.
When you talk about the Genesis thing, isn't our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the new covenant?
Now, you know, I'm a Catholic, and the Catholics, as everyone knows, are not as intensely into the Bible.
I think that's changing now, but particularly when I was raised.
But in the Mass, the Catholic Mass, at the most solemn part, the new and everlasting covenant.
This whole thing, it was one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard in my life.
A grown man.
A grown man that professes to be a Christian.
The New Testament is obviously very important.
It's one of the foundational elements.
Well, it's really funny, actually, because he started his answer by saying, when I was growing up in Sunday school, that's what he was taught.
But in the same breath, I guarantee you, Ted Cruz knows the song.
Father Abraham had many sons, and many sons had Father Abraham.
I am one of them, and so are you.
Meaning Christians.
So let's just praise the Lord.
Right arm, left arm, right foot, left foot.
Turn around, sit down.
Next up, Oren McIntyre writes in response to this theological debate that's erupted on X. He says, The Bible says America must be loyal to the secular nation of Israel is now a thing that multiple very powerful politicians have said out loud as a justification.
For military action.
Let that sink in.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Because, honestly, I'm so glad that this exchange happened.
Because, look, I get it.
There are tons of Christians that agree with Ted Cruz.
Mainly, not across the world.
Honestly, not across the world.
But specifically, millions of evangelicals here in America.
That's this line of thinking that has been exegeted, I think, falsely, poorly, in error.
But I'm so glad it came out, because to actually hear it said, it doesn't make any sense.
It sounds crazy, actually, when you actually have this conversation and we're debating, like, real-world what's going on right now.
Matt Walsh chimes in, I've always liked Senator Ted Cruz and still do.
But Christians are not obligated to have any particular stance one way or another about the modern state of Israel, which is a political entity like any other country.
We also have Zachary Garris writing, Who are the heirs of God's promise to Abraham?
Abraham.
He cites Galatians 3.29.
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.
Christians are the, quote, Israel of God, Galatians 6.16.
I pulled that up.
That's actually from a benediction in the book of Galatians.
But I do think it's something that is relevant here.
So when Paul writes, The world has been crucified to me and I to the world, for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.
So in that context, it's talking about Christians being the Israel of God.
J.D. Hall, from Insight to Insight, I think has a really good take on this as well, just about culturally, this conversation and this question, what do you mean by that?
When you say Israel, what do you mean by that?
He writes, Carlson zeroed in on Cruz's evangelical boilerplate.
God blesses those who bless Israel.
When Cruz tied this to the 1948 nation-state, Carlson pounced.
The nation-state founded in 1948, Cruz nodded, oblivious to the trap.
Carlson's question, what is Israel?
Is a theological landmine.
Cruz's answer, equating Israel with a modern nation, is a dispensationalist reflex, not a biblical one, he writes.
And this is an interesting perspective that I've actually never heard articulated before.
Obviously, I've, you know, using, you know, the Old Testament is in the New Testament.
What does it say?
The New Testament is in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.
So using both testaments to confirm each other in the gospel messages.
I've done that.
But J.D. Hall writes this.
If Israel is the 1948 state, then God's promise was dormant for 1,900 years from Jerusalem's fall in 70 A.D. to Israel's founding.
That's absurd.
If it's the ancient Israel re-established, where's the king?
The temple?
The priest?
Modern Israel is a secular democracy, not a mosaic theocracy.
It doesn't follow the Torah's judicial code.
It's just a country with a familiar name and a zip code.
Cruz's flailing mirrors the left's response to the question, what is a woman?
A leftist mumbles, a woman is whoever identifies as one.
He says a dispensationalist says Israel is whatever claims to be Israel.
Both dodge reality.
Carlson, with his quasi-Catholic simplicity, he's Episcopalian, exposed this.
He didn't need a seminary degree to see that Cruz's theology was a house of cards.
Evangelicals like Owen Strayen or Locke, if pressed, would likely fare no better.
The question must be asked relentlessly, what is Israel?
So the theological debate continues.
Andrew Isker chiming in, who, by the way, was interviewed by Tucker Carlson a couple of months ago.
He writes, Ted Cruz, of course, knows nothing about the Bible besides Con Inc.
soundbites.
Genesis 12 is about Abraham and his seed being blessed, and those who bless him will be blessed by God, and those who curse him will be cursed by God.
Paul tells us explicitly in Galatians this seed is Jesus Christ and not Benjamin Netanyahu's country nor any ethno-religious diaspora.
Cruz and those like him seek to manipulate Christians who have been lied to about basic New Testament theology for a century, but those days are coming to an end.
pretty wild stuff and i just you know what i'm glad generally speaking i am glad for the debate uh that is taking place right now and not just the one focused specifically on this now the theological debate about the biblical nation of israel versus the the current modern day secular one or whether you know but i think generally
It really does.
It hurts the arguments of people like Mark Levin.
It really, truly does, and that's why you are seeing Mark Levin and others really circling the wagons here.
Based on that interview, that's why you have these allegations that, you know, Tucker Carlson is taking money from Qatar or Qatar, however you pronounce it.
And there's this huge back and forth, just trying to discredit, you know, within the MAGA movement, people are warring back and forth over this.
But we're going to continue with some of this, but I just want to remind you that this portion of the program is brought to you by Red Vive Health.
We'll tell you more about the great red light panels you can get at redvivehealth.org slash Paul here in just a moment.
The interview went on and moved on to specifically Iran and the Ayatollah and the entire government of Iran, specifically about whether or not they are trying to murder President Trump.
Or have they tried to murder President Trump?
This is something that I'm really interested in because I actually don't think that it makes any sense.
But I could be wrong.
In terms of I remember all of the talking points that I think are true about radical Islamic terrorism.
I get it.
I certainly remember all of that.
From 2001, you know, when I started my career in 2009, like, I get it, right?
I had plenty of people talking about, I remember Act for America.
Remember Act for America?
Is that even still a thing?
I don't know.
But this is an interesting point because my question is, as I've gotten older, I've wondered how much of...
It's not very high.
In a lot of cases, not high.
Not high IQ.
So I think it's easy for us to take that mentality and prescribe it to the leaders of a country like Iran.
And maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe they are, like, you know, genocidal, and maybe they are, like, obsessed with their own eschatology and want the world to burn so they can, you know, kind of trick the end times or kick off the end times.
Maybe that's the case.
But it kind of, what strikes me is that there's still, even in the midst of religious fanaticism, there's still something called human preservation instincts.
And so, just like when Bashar al-Assad was told not to use gas on his people, that that would be a red line, we were all led to believe that Bashar al-Assad would cross that red line, even after what he saw happen to Saddam Hussein, even after what he saw happen with the pipe to Muammar Gaddafi, that Bashar al-Assad was just so crazy, just such a nut job.
That he would come up against the United States red line and gas his own people.
Now, thanks to Seymour Hersh and, honestly, the Russian government testing the sarin gas, we now know, or at least I believe, based on that reporting, that Turkey set the whole thing up in a false flag operation to blame Bashar al-Assad.
And thankfully, we didn't actually go to war in Syria back in 2014, I think.
Somewhere around there.
So thankfully that didn't happen.
But that was my first wake-up call to say, hang on, why would he do that?
Why would he look around at all the dictators who've been disposed?
Bashar al-Assad was happy to have power.
Likewise, I think the people who are at the top of the heap in the government of Iran, we have to think they're living in the lap of luxury.
Like the people may be suffering, but they're perfectly happy in power.
So why would they do something like...
Again, maybe they are.
I'm not saying they're not religious fanatics, but does that have a point where it gives way to the flesh and self-preservation and wanting to keep your corrupt empire theocracy going?
This is why I just doubt...
You need to hate this person now.
You need to hate this person now.
Don't worry about the population.
They're altogether evil.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
At least this is how I'm thinking of it.
And I could be wrong, but...
And if it's true that Iran is trying to murder Trump, we need to move militarily against Iran immediately.
That's not isolationism.
That's a cult of violence, which I am calling for.
If we believe that Iran is trying to murder our president, we need to strike Iran.
Okay, but isolationists say things like, well, then just nuke them, which is what you just said.
Okay, because I'm upset.
You don't take your own statements seriously.
I take my statements very seriously.
So I've asked you, where's the evidence this is true?
And you've said, well, they're trying to assassinate Brian Hook or something.
Which I'm against, by the way.
I'm against hurting any American, period, no matter what.
So you dispute that they're trying to murder Hook, Pompeo, and Bolton?
I'm not disputing it at all.
I'm not disputing it at all.
They literally arrested the hitman with Bolton.
I'm not.
I don't know why.
That's even relevant.
I'm asking about the President of the United States.
Wait, it's not relevant that Iran hired hitmen to murder cabinet members in Trump's administration?
That doesn't go to how credible is it that they're willing to spend money to do that?
I'm totally opposed to that.
It's awful.
I am against killing anybody, actually.
Okay, I'm not.
And especially foreign government.
I'm asking about your allegation and the Prime Minister of Israel's allegation that- Killing terrorists is a good thing.
Killing people who are trying to murder Americans is a good thing.
Because if you're America first, you want to protect America.
But you don't really believe that they're trying to murder Trump.
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Then why aren't you calling?
So this calls into question something that is...
This doesn't make sense.
This actually creates more questions than not, right?
After Butler, okay, this is the way I see it.
It was right after Butler, Trump survives the assassination attempt, and it is patently obvious that at a bare minimum, the Secret Service was given a stand-down order.
At a bare minimum, that's what I believe.
I think there's probably more than one shooter, but...
Secret Service was obviously caught.
Right, the story they gave, the roof was sloped.
The roof was sloped so we can't...
All of that.
That was supposed to be the story in the wake of a successful assassination attempt, which would have sparked a civil war.
Because just like we don't buy the original story now, just like they took the body of Crooks and had him cremated immediately and took the van away and all of the other weird stuff that happened that day, that was still going to be the story.
But we would have had a dead President Donald Trump and it would have triggered a civil war because none of us would have believed it.
I think they would have canceled the election.
I honestly think that was the plan.
But in the wake of him surviving, miraculously, we still get the same bogus story that was planned to spark, but now they're caught with their pants down.
And so, like, a week after the failed assassination attempt, where, again, at a bare minimum, the Secret Service stood down, we get this story that Iran is trying to assassinate President Trump.
And so, to me, from the very beginning, it sounded like a red herring.
Doesn't make any sense.
Tucker Carlson's bringing up the valid point.
If that is true, then that would be cause.
That would be a just cause to go to war.
We can't have people trying to assassinate our presidents.
That's an actual, that's a thing that you could easily get Congress should, I mean with Trump probably not, to declare war on.
Formally.
I'm not the only one that has pointed this out.
Matt Walsh says, So it's strange.
That they tried to kill Trump is so often mentioned more as an aside than the primary justification for intervention.
Why are we even talking about nukes at all or weapons of mass destruction?
Why isn't that being presented as the primary reason to intervene?
And why haven't we already intervened if they have been trying to kill our president for years?
I think these are extremely valid questions.
And the fact that it's treated as just this aside, this little, this is just a little anecdotal, maybe not anecdotal, but this is just this little, it's just the icing on the cake or just...
It suggests that that's not really what's going on.
And again, from the self-preservation aspect of this, why would they do the one thing that would guarantee an end to their power and their civilization?
It just doesn't make sense from a human standpoint.
I could be wrong about that, but that's what it screams to me.
Absolutely screams.
Now, in all fairness and transparency, George Webb has posted that actually there were people wanted for assassinating Trump.
Listen to this.
Tucker Carlson interviewed tonight with Ted Cruz.
Tucker and Cruz.
Tucker and Cruz.
What did they both miss?
They both missed our reporting about the two Iranian assassins, Farahani and Ardistani.
We started reporting on this in Butler.
Plus there's Merchant, which is really a third assassination attempt with a million dollars.
So that's really three attempts.
They both, Cruz thought there was two.
There's really three with Merchant with a million dollars in blood money.
B.B. Netanyahu was right when he said there was two assassination attempts.
So, again, they both missed it.
We've reported about 10 or 12 times Farhani and Artistani.
Anybody who's read my sub-stack knows that.
Plus Merchant.
So three assassinations attempts.
So anyway, so George Webb, investigative journalist, he claims, no, it actually is true.
Okay, so in full disclosure, that is...
I'll tell you this, though.
If anything were to happen to President Trump right now, we would never know the truth.
We still don't know the truth about Butler.
And if anything happened to President Trump right now, we would never know the truth about it, and it would be used to go to war with Iran, 100%.
In the last 13 years, we saw every single neocon operation explode in our faces, writes Sean Davis, and make us poorer and less safe and less able to defend ourselves while making the rest of the world even more dangerous.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.
Arab Spring, Ukraine.
We forget about the old Arab Spring sometimes.
What changed?
Or he says that's what changed.
So because Tucker Carlson's interview has been so effective, so effective at bringing out what I think are issues that people really don't want to discuss and talk about, the elephants in the room.
We now have people bringing this up, like Ted Cruz.
Wonder what changed, citing this Atlantic article, Tucker Carlson, Iran deserves to be annihilated from February of 2012.
And I don't understand why people think this works.
And maybe it works on some people.
But it is actually so refreshing that somebody like Tucker Carlson once held these views.
Like, I used to hold some of these views, but over time have realized that the people in charge of this have failed us, and so you change your opinion.
You don't continue to do the same thing over and over again.
You now have the ability to say, you know what, I was wrong to think that.
And these American politicians, especially people like Ted Cruz, they hardly ever say they're wrong.
They never say that they were wrong.
It's always the same old, same old.
It's actually fantastic.
This is actually a good thing.
It shows self-reflection.
It shows humility.
No one likes to be wrong.
No one likes to admit they're wrong.
But they try to use this as some sort of bludgeon to make Tucker Carlson seem like he's not genuine when the idea that you go through your life and you never make mistakes and change your mind and apologize for it.
It's just, it's like, it's evil to go through life that way.
It's like self-worship to the max.
I just don't understand that.
So here it is, eventually, they're talking about Israel, the nation state, the biblical state.
And it was inevitably going to get to this.
Anti-Semitism.
Listen to this.
Now, and you began...
I don't know why you'd be embarrassed of it.
You've said that you are sincerely for Israel.
I believe you.
I don't think you have some weird agenda.
You seem to be sincere.
By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing.
The obsession with Israel.
When we're talking about foreign countries.
It's hardly an obsession.
You're not talking about Chinese.
You're not talking about Japanese.
You're not talking about the Brits.
You're not talking about the French.
The question, what about the Jews?
What about the Jews?
Oh, I'm an anti-Semite now.
Senator, you're asking the questions, Tucker.
You just told me.
You're asking, why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?
That's what you just asked.
Senator, I am hardly saying that.
That is exactly what you just said.
Well, actually, I can speak for myself and tell you what I am saying.
Good.
On behalf not simply of myself, but of my many Jewish friends who would have the same questions.
Which is to what extent, and it's interesting you're trying to derail my questions by calling me an anti-Semite, which you are.
I did not.
Of course you are.
And rather than be honorable enough to say it right to my face, you are in a sleazy, feline way implying it, or just asking questions about the Jews.
I'm not asking questions about the Jews.
It has to do with the foreign government.
Isn't Israel controlling our foreign policy?
That's not about the juice.
You said...
So let's be clear.
It's sleazy to imply that I'm an anti-Semite, which you just did.
No, I just said, why is that the only question you're asking?
You answer it.
Give me another reason.
If you're not an anti-Semite, give me another reason why the obsession is Israel.
I am in no sense obsessed with Israel.
We are on the brink of war with Iran.
And so these are valid questions.
If I can finish, you asked me why I'm obsessed with Israel.
Three minutes after telling me that when you first ran for Congress, you elucidated one of your main goals, which is to defend Israel.
And I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel.
I don't see a lawmaker's job as defending the interests of a foreign government.
Period.
Any government, including the ones that my ancestors come from.
So that's my position.
That does not make me an anti-Semite.
And shame on you for suggesting otherwise, and I mean that.
And that's low, and you know it's low.
So why don't you just answer my questions in a straightforward, rational way.
You certainly have the IQ to do it.
Shame on you is cute, by the way, Tucker.
It is.
It's not cute.
I'm offended.
I'm obsessed with the Jews.
You just told me.
It is sleazy to imply that I'm an anti-Semite for asking questions about how my government is wrong.
Do you want to count how many questions you asked about?
What about the Jews?
What about Israel?
What about Egypt?
I never asked about the Jews.
This has nothing to do with the Jews, whatever that means.
This has to do with the Jews.
With a foreign government.
And once again, shame on you for conflating the two.
So, yeah, sparks kind of flew there.
No question about that.
Then we have some back and forth about that.
Steve Dace writes, I don't think Tucker is an anti-Semite and his views on the state of Israel place in...
Nor is it fair to play back what Tucker thought of our post-911 Middle East foreign policy from years ago, before it was obvious it had collectively and systematically failed as some kind of gotcha.
He goes on and says, however, he has also shown way more willingness to be critical of Trump on matters involving Israel than literally anything else, which causes people to ask why, given the shady history of many who practice such singling out, especially after he spent last year deconstructing Churchill and Hitler while asking nary a critical question of those he gave a platform to do so, talking about a martyr maid, unlike he rightfully did Senator Cruz.
So this was in response to Brett Weinstein.
I hate to interrupt the march to war with a human observation, but I know Tucker well and detect no anti-Semitism from him.
It's grotesque to paint his or anyone's concern about neocon priorities or foreign influence on American politics as bigotry.
It's really just common sense.
To where Matt Walsh chimes in and says, But having spoken to Tucker about this personally and at length, I can say that he is legitimately very concerned about the U.S. getting sucked into a war with Iran.
He really genuinely believes that it could be catastrophic for us.
People can agree to disagree.
People can agree or disagree with that view, obviously.
But there's no doubt in my mind that this is why he's being unusually aggressive about this.
Flying out to D.C. to have a contentious interview with a politician is not something Tucker would ever do under normal circumstances.
He's doing it now because he sincerely believes that American lives are at stake.
Again, nobody has to agree with his opinion on the matter.
But that's what he thinks.
Anyone who knows him knows that he's deeply worried about this for a long time.
As are many other Americans.
That's exactly right.
So, anyway.
You've got another tweet there from Jeremy Sladen, a good friend of mine, going back and forth there with Matt Walsh.
Many of us are waking to the troops about Israel's founding that were hidden from us in school, in church, and in conservative media.
So, definitely check that one out.
I just now saw that, by the way, while we were doing the show here.
So, then, after that, we get into a back and forth over whether or not Tucker Carlson has the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter.
This is the most powerful country in the world.
If you're calling for toppling in government, it's incumbent on you to know something about the country and to think through the consequences of that.
And you haven't, and you don't.
And I'm saying that's reckless.
You engage in reckless rhetoric.
With no facts.
And to be clear, you put out a newsletter attacking Donald Trump and calling him complicit.
I've never attacked Donald Trump.
Yes, you have.
I campaigned for Donald Trump.
Apparently they made up.
According to Trump, Tucker called Trump and apologized.
I don't exactly know what for, but maybe it was the newsletter that Ted Cruz is referring to?
After anti-Semitism, this is the last refuge.
You're an anti-Semite and you hate Trump.
I love Trump.
I will read.
You put out a whole newsletter saying Trump has abandoned America first.
And here's what Trump said in response.
Well, considering that I'm the one that developed America first and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one who decides that.
For those people who say they want peace, you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.
So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon, that's not peace.
That was directed at you.
Busted!
No, I'm just saying.
I campaigned for Trump.
I know Trump.
I talked to him last night.
Not against Trump, and you know that.
But you're against this foreign policy.
I think that...
we should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don't help us when our country is dying.
When you say don't help us...
I'm all for it.
But but the naivete.
You don't know anything about the country whose government you want to overthrow.
And you're calling me reckless.
I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons that could kill millions of Americans.
You say, I can't see how that benefits America in any way.
That is bizarre.
And by the way, isolationism.
Your foreign policy is the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
And it doesn't work.
I'm a big leftist.
This is so silly.
Now I'm Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Okay.
Let me just say one last thing.
So how is your foreign policy different from Jimmy Carter's?
Seriously.
Please.
May I ask that question seriously?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Jimmy Carter?
What century is this?
I am the product of the last 25 years watching carefully, being involved in the periphery, and I see an unending string of foreign policy disasters that have impoverished and hurt our country.
An unending string.
An unending string.
They would include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and our inability to stop the Houthis, by the way, in Yemen, which exposes us as weak, and I grieve over that.
So these are failures.
You helped preside over some of them as a member of the Senate.
What failures, foreign policy failures, have I presided over?
Well, we were unable to beat Russia in the war that you supported against Russia.
You've been spending the last three years telling us that Vladimir Putin is evil and we're going to beat him with other people's children, and a million of those kids are now dead.
You've never apologized for that.
By the way, look.
Now, hang on.
Let's just stop right there.
To my previous point.
About reassessing things and apologizing for it.
Tucker bringing up there's a million people's children who are dead because of your support of the Ukraine war, and they never were going to win against Russia.
They were never going to beat Russia, and you've never apologized for it.
And in this interview, I don't believe he does apologize for it.
That's the kind of, that is just, it's heartless.
And I know people say, well, that's war.
Yeah, I know, but it could have been avoided, right?
It could have been avoided, especially to the degree that we did it.
I mean, regardless of how Russia invaded or whether they were provoked or not, I believe they were.
They did invade.
They invaded.
And they wouldn't have been able to do anything had we not given them.
But we knew that they weren't going to win.
The sheer size of Russia's population versus Ukraine's population makes that impossible, not to mention Russia's military capacity.
So he raises great points about this.
And it was good.
I think this is healthy.
I think we need to have way more of this.
And then we got into this part of the interview.
I think this was kind of before we had these questions of anti-Semitism.
I've never taken money from the Israel lobby.
Have you?
Taken money from the Israel?
From AIPAC.
So AIPAC raises a lot of money for me, but it's actually a misnomer because the people who raise money are individuals.
So it's not the PAC itself, but they're individual members who believe in the American-Israeli friendship and relationship.
Is AIPAC a foreign lobby?
No, it's an American lobby.
AIPAC stands for the America-Israeli Political Action Committee.
What is it lobby for?
So, to be honest, not a whole lot effectively.
What?
Not a whole lot effectively?
Oh my goodness.
Can you imagine what wars our country would be in if AIPAC was more effective?
13 years ago, with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate.
I've worked every day to do that.
AIPAC, a lot of times...
APEC, I wish, were much more effective.
Like, there are folks online who are in the fever swamp of terrified of APEC, and APEC...
You're the one who seems a little uncomfortable when I'm asking this.
No, not uncomfortable at all.
I'm just asking what AIPAC does.
My understanding, having known a lot of people who want AIPAC, is that it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government.
Oh, okay.
When was the last time AIPAC took a position that deviated from Prime Minister Netanyahu?
All the time.
Okay.
Let me go back and give a little history.
If you want to do a deep dive on AIPAC...
I want to do a shallow dive.
I want to get to the core question.
AIPAC is lobbying for a foreign government.
False.
It's not.
It's lobbying for the United States?
It is lobbying for a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Okay.
So it has nothing to do with the foreign government?
It wants America and Israel to be closely allied.
Okay, but it's lobbying on behalf of the interests of another country.
So that's not true at all.
It's not true.
No.
How much contact do you think APEC leaders I mean, that is like next-level gaslighting.
That's next-level gaslighting.
And as Tucker goes on to talk about here, you know, it's not as if other countries don't lobby Congress in the United States.
I mean, that happens everywhere.
I mean, all countries, you know, will pay lobbyists.
They have to register, you know, as foreign agents, which AIPAC does not.
But it's just wild to tell the American people.
That they're not lobbying on behalf of another government.
It's gaslighting.
No idea.
I imagine some.
I think the government of Israel is often frustrated with AIPAC because AIPAC is not nearly strong enough.
Do you think there's any coordination between the government of Israel and AIPAC?
Do they talk?
Sure.
If you're lobbying for more U.S.-Mexico trade, would you talk to people in the U.S. and Mexico and the government?
Sure.
I'm not mad about that.
There are a million countries that lobby Washington.
I like a lot of those countries, including Israel.
But APEC or Americans?
They're not Israelis.
Hold on.
There are tons of Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments.
I know them.
I'm related to some of them.
I know how it works.
I'm from here.
So my question is not, is it outrageous that foreign governments lobby the United States?
They all do, including Israel.
My only question is, why don't we admit that is what's happening?
You're denying it, but it's true.
And why aren't they registered as a foreign lobby?
Because they're not.
That's the answer.
Emerald Robinson writing, the Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz is a major turning point because the GOP senator admits that he basically works for Israel and that Israel spies on Americans and Cruz's, hey, that's just what friends do.
Manor is really an admission.
Congress is blackmailed is what Emerald Robinson says.
Wow.
And then we get into...
I think we already talked about that.
What I want to – and then we have another one about – Is this the one where Ted Cruz Pokes fun at Tucker Carlson for going to the Russian grocery store.
Okay, I do want to play this one.
No, no, but I was accused of being...
I think it's weird that you went to a Russian grocery store and said it was prosperous.
No, my point is...
It looked like a commercial.
Isn't this wonderful?
It was an argument against the efficacy of sanctions.
Sanctions against Russia, which you casually and enthusiastically imposed, scoring a little moral victory every time.
Had no material effect that helped the United States.
Russia is backstopped by China, and I recommend that you go there and see it.
It is way nicer than Washington, D.C. Way nicer.
To me, that's a tragedy.
I was horrified and angry at my leaders, including you.
It's like, I want to live in a country that's nice, with low food costs and no homeless people.
I don't understand why that's too much to ask.
So do I. Instead, I get worse with Iran.
No, I just want lower food costs.
How's that?
So, look, it's a weird argument that you do often, which is, listen, things are crappy in America.
Liberals have done bad things to America, so we shouldn't worry about any enemies around the world.
No, not liberals.
Republican senators, they don't care about us.
They're focused on other countries.
And our country is dying, and you don't care because you're focused on Iran or Putin.
So you believe that I don't care about America?
I guess you believe Donald Trump doesn't either, like nobody cares.
I believe that your focus...
It's way too focused outward.
The money that you send abroad could be used here and should be.
What money did I send abroad, by the way?
How much did you send to Ukraine?
You don't even know.
I emphatically agree.
Incredible.
And we're running out of time here today on the program, so I did say we were going to hear from President Trump.
And while I play this, I'm going to see if there's any new developments that are breaking right now.
Here's President Trump.
Charlie Kirk posted this.
Iran suggested that they come to the White House for talks.
This was yesterday.
Can you just answer questions about whether you are moving closer or you believe the U.S. is moving closer to striking Iranian nuclear facilities?
Where's your mindset on that?
I can't say that, right?
You don't seriously think I'm going to answer that question.
Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component?
And what time exactly, sir?
Sir, would you strike it?
Would you please inform us so we can be there and watch?
I mean, you don't know that I'm going to even do it.
You don't know.
I may do it.
I may not do it.
I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.
I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate.
And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction?
Why didn't you negotiate?
I said to the people, why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago?
You could have done fine.
You would have had a country.
It's very sad to watch this.
I mean, I've never seen anything like it.
Everyone thought it was going to be the reverse.
I didn't.
I didn't think so.
And I was telling them, you got to do something.
You got to negotiate.
And at the end, last minute, they said, no, we're not going to do that.
And they got hit.
Have the Iranians reached out to you?
Yes.
And what did they say?
I said, it's very late.
You know?
I said it's very late to be talking.
I don't know, there's a big difference between now and a week ago, right?
Huge difference, yeah.
I mean, Tel Aviv has been shelled.
Iran has been shelled.
This is just a little comedy here.
So Donald Trump's meeting the guys working on the new flagpoles at the White House.
Apparently.
So this is like the time, probably the time of this guy's life, you know, getting to have his photo taken with Donald Trump on the White House grounds.
But the guy in the crane in the background is passed out asleep, taking a nice little work nap.
You wonder if this guy, or maybe he's not, I don't know.
Looks like he's asleep to me.
He did move his head there a little bit.
Anyway, a guy missing out on an opportunity of a lifetime, but he doesn't care.
Here's more from Trump yesterday.
Some of the people in the base don't want a long-term war.
They're afraid that we're going to get into a long-term war.
We're not looking for a long-term war.
I only want one thing.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
That's it.
I'm not looking long-term, short-term.
And I've been saying that for 20 years.
I've been saying it as a civilian who got a lot of publicity.
People would cover it.
Very simply, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
It's not a question of anything else.
And if you did, you wouldn't have much of a country, because they would use it on us, and they'd use it on other people, and there'd be a terror all over the world.
So, this kind of goes with the reports that these strikes on Iran, U.S. strikes, direct attacks on Iran, appear to be imminent.
I would call everybody out there to just continue to pray for peace and pray for the president, pray that he has wisdom, true wisdom, because from where I can see, it looks like he is in a catch-22 situation.
You hear him say, yeah, we're not looking for a long-term thing, but here's the thing, and I know the president's got to know this, you can easily get boxed in.
You can get in a situation where you don't have a choice.
Or at least you can get in a situation where you think you don't have a choice.
So pray for the President to have wisdom and pray for peace and pray for the killing and the bloodshed to stop and no soldiers, no soldiers in the Middle East, no more dead bodies of American soldiers in the Middle East.
Here was more from President.
The destruction or the dismantling of the Fordow Nuclear Enrichment Center, is that a prerequisite for a deal?
Is that a red line for you?
No, it's just something that people talk about having.
We're the only ones that have the capability to do it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it at all.
Yeah, we have the best military equipment in the world.
You see that with this fight.
So what's interesting about this is a couple of...
A month or so ago, as we talked about this, a month or so ago, Donald Trump was on a Middle East tour.
You remember the Middle East tour?
Yesterday we played for you the speech from Saudi Arabia where Trump is rebuking neocon foreign policy and how it's a disaster.
It's based on hubris and pride.
And the idea that we can make these countries do what we want and ignore their culture and their history and all of that, right?
It was an incredible speech, an incredible rebuke.
Fast forward a month later, we're about to go to war in Iran, is what it looks like.
So, this clip from Richard Nixon was interesting.
It surfaced on X, who posted this, the Richard Nixon Foundation.
I guess they posted it on June 18th.
I want you to listen to this.
Their belief is that being for Israel first means that that does not mean you're putting America second.
They think it goes together.
An American president, however, has to approach it in a different way, in my opinion.
He's got always to think first of what is best for America.
Usually what is best for America is also best for Israel and vice versa.
On occasions, an American president must make a decision that does not in effect give the Israelis a blank check.
And one example of that is a decision that I made.
I decided early on in our administration that we were going to seek good relations with Egypt.
And others of Israel's neighbors.
Many of my Israeli friends didn't like that because they wanted a special relationship with Israel and Israel only.
But I have always said Israel's interests are better served to have the United States a friend of Israel's neighbors and potential enemies than to leave a vacuum which the Soviet Union would fill.
I still believe that, and I think that should be American policy today.
So Donald Trump, a month ago, goes to Qatar, goes to Saudi Arabia, goes to the United Arab Emirates, inks all of these deals, uses economic incentives and everything else under the sun to try to get peace in the region, talks about peace with Iran, talks about Iran could get in on some of this, too, if they wanted to.
We're in the midst of negotiations.
Look, I know the 60 days has expired, but they were supposed to meet in Oman on Sunday.
And the Friday before, a month after Donald Trump goes on his Middle East tour, which had people like Mark Levin screaming about it, a month later, right before the peace talks, another round of peace talks commence, Israel strikes Iran.
And that's why when Trump says, hey, look, Things were a lot different a week ago, weren't they?
And here we are, on the cusp of another war in the Middle East.
Folks, before we go, I do want to tell you about the great folks at redvivehealth.org and the incredible power, healing power of red light.
Folks, if you haven't researched this, I want you to research it.
Go to redvivehealth.org slash Paul.
That's redvivehealth.org slash Paul.
Do your research.
We're talking about near-infrared light, which penetrates the body.
It simulates the mitochondria of your cells.
And then at the same time, the panels also emit red light, which is great for collagen production and anti-aging properties.
And it truly does heal your body.
It truly does help.
So many different ways from hair loss to weight loss to vision, by the way, even vision.
It helps to cure inflammation, everything that you can think of.
They are incredible panels.
I have one myself.
So you can give them a call at 866-726-8483 and just mention my name, Paul, and you'll get the discount.
But now is the time to buy.
And because I just firmly believe that there's so many of us out there that are not as healthy as we could be, I think this is a technology that actually helps you.
I mean, this is, you know, I want to help this audience as much as I can, not just give you the news, but give you technology that the medical industrial complex can't stand.
Because it's in your interest.
And so I want you to look at their 0% interest financing, two-year warranty.
They also have a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So if you try it out and you hate it, you can send it right back.
But guess what?
Nobody ever does because once you start using it, you'll feel the benefits immediately.
So look into the 0% interest financing that they have available on their website, redvivehealth.org.
That's how you get the discount.
Or you can call 866-726-8483.
That's 866-726-8483.
That is all the time that we have for this edition of the Millstone Report.
My name is Paul Harrell.
Unless I'm providentially hindered, I'll be back here wishing you a happy Friday.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your Thursday.
Tomorrow on the program, I think what we're going to talk about is focus on the family apparently has softened their stance on whether the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.
A lot of people talking about that.
I'm going to weigh in.
▲
Export Selection