are going to call the authorities. And then what do you do with your rooster? Do you kill it? Well that's not legal. No, because it's a pet. You can't kill your pet and they're protected. You cannot kill a male, you know a rooster. So well at least you can give it away, right? You can find somebody who wants to take it. Nope. There are zero places that will take a rooster. Can't give it away, can't sell it, can't lose it, can't kill it. But you might have to move. So if you get a rooster you're going to have to sell your house. Your neighbors will make you move. Don't get a chicken. It's going to lead to a rooster. You're going to have to move. And none of that's a joke by the way. And it's guaranteed that that chain of events, that's guaranteed. Chicken, rooster, gotta leave your house. Don't do it. Best advice I'll ever give you because I've seen it. I'm speaking from direct close experience.

All right. Tucker is talking to Marjorie Taylor Greene and she's not too keen on Speaker Johnson and him trying to get money to Ukraine. And there was speculation that Speaker Johnson is being blackmailed by somebody. Does he act like somebody who's being blackmailed? If you're just observing and you see that the top Republican is just gung-ho about Ukraine support and you notice that he replaced Mitch McConnell who's going to remain as a senator. And Mitch McConnell said his number one goal as he remains a senator is funding Ukraine. So the ex-speaker of the house was in favor of it. The new speaker of the house is in favor of it. But Republicans by majority are not in favor. Now is that true? The Republicans by a majority are not in favor in the House? Is that true right now? I think that's true.

So why would the leaders be doing something that their base does not favor by a majority? I'll need a fact check on that. I think it's not a majority. And the only reason I can think of is that our intelligence people threaten them. So I think they're coerced. I think McConnell either has some financial gain or he's being blackmailed. And I think that Speaker Johnson is probably just being blackmailed. I think he's being blackmailed. I think we have a blackmail apparatus that our entire government is some basically collection of blackmailed people that the intelligence people can control. They prefer blackmailable people because that's how they control them. So that's what it looks like. I don't have any proof of that but I would say observationally they look like captives. They act like prisoners basically. If you act like a prisoner long enough I'm going to think you're a prisoner. And these guys are acting like prisoners. They don't act like these are their opinions at all.

And I think Mitch McConnell calls it an isolationist movement to give up on Ukraine. Is it an isolationist movement or is it just a bad idea? An isolationist. And of course CNN and MSNBC have been telling us forever that Ukraine is winning which is apparently absurd. And so why would the leaders of the Republican party of all things want to support all this money for war when they know it's not going to make a difference? What's going on? The only thing I can assume is it's exactly what it looks like. The industrial military complex can make a lot of money out of that $60 billion and they want their cut. And they have blackmail or bribery or something on the leaders.

Now if you've got a Republican like MTG questioning whether the leader of her own group is being blackmailed, he has to step down. It doesn't matter if you can prove it. If you're acting in a way that your own base can't tell if you've been blackmailed or you're under duress and you can't explain why you're acting the way you're acting without obvious, I feel like that loss of confidence should be enough to get you out of the job. You know the appearance of being blackmailed seems like that should be enough to take somebody out of that kind of a job anyway.

The French are making noise about maybe sending troops on the ground to Ukraine. So Russia called the French defense minister to say it will create problems for France itself. I don't want to say what kind of problems but France, you might have some problems. That's ominous.

So what do you think? Are the French going to break the seal and then it will be easier for America to add some troops? Because at that point, well it's just a NATO action and we're part of NATO and we got to protect our French allies. So of course we're sending some advisers, just a few advisers. No, we're just going to train them to use the weapons. Well while they're there they shot a few things. Well as long as we're over there and everybody knows we're over there and shooting we might as well send some more people over there. And pretty soon the military-industrial complex is making even more money than before.

More people are speaking out about Israel's treatment of Gaza. I will remind you that my opinion of what Israel is doing there is irrelevant as is yours because they're going to do what they're going to do. Now there are a lot of cases where your opinion actually could make a difference. I think in American politics if you press hard enough and complain hard enough and enough people pick up the same complaint it probably makes a difference. But this is a really special case. It's a one-off situation you hope. It's one-off. And Israel's just going to do what they're going to do. And I think they're going to burn their international reputation but they've decided it's worth the cost. And I don't know that they're wrong from a purely, let's say, national interest point of view. Are they wrong to burn their Holocaust goodwill? If you can ironically call it that. But they're torching it. The whole Holocaust thing is gone I think. It's gone already.

Imagine this conversation. Israeli says blah blah blah Holocaust. Now where does the conversation go after that every time for the rest of eternity? Gaza. Right, Gaza. Now erases the Holocaust as an asset. Their greatest asset. It's gone. But is it a good investment? I'm going to say again that in 200 years if Israel essentially controls Gaza and pacified it and maybe made it economically successful it's going to look like they made the right decisions in the war. At the moment it never looks like a good decision, does it? Like nothing looks smart when the bullets are flying. Everybody looks dumb in that situation. You're like really? You couldn't find any way to prevent somebody from shooting at you for a year? There was nothing you could do to make that not happen? You know, so we just automatically think if the bullets are flying probably both sides are being a little, right, a little bit like every situation's different but you just automatically have that bias.

So anyway Paul Graham had an interesting comment about a situation that I don't know if it's true at all because you know everything out of the war zone is fake. But he says that there's some evidence from some military person who says it's true that the Israelis preferred to wait for the Hamas high-level person to come home then they would take out the whole home with the family and the wife. And that they preferred doing it that way I guess because they knew where it was then. You know they didn't have to wonder if they were getting them. Now that might have been one person and it's the fog of war. I'd be surprised if that's the official policy. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody's commander told them to do it. I'd be a little surprised if it was coming from the top. But it's war.

Do I think that it is moral or ethical to kill the entire family when you're just going after the Hamas leader who is married to them? Well it's war and I don't believe in making moral and ethical judgments during a war because it's all bad. Like making some little ranking of oh this is a little bit worse than this other thing. No it's just all bad. Like everything is just bad both sides just all the time all bad. But certainly self-defense is the motivating factor here for Israel.

So I'm going to ask the question a different way and this is just to make you expand your thinking about it. All right, so analogies are never the same as the situation so I'm going to give you an analogy just to expand your thinking but analogies are not arguments. So I don't win the argument with this. I might expand your thinking. Imagine there was a situation where somebody kidnapped a child, did surgery on him and put a bomb inside their torso, sewed him up and then said all right kid your parents are here and maybe the real goal is to blow up wherever the parents work. So here, get out of the car and run toward your parents. Now let's say that our intelligence people had learned in advance that the kid had a bomb in it and as soon as he went through the doorway the building would blow up and the kid would be dead. Would it be ethical and moral to shoot the child before he reached the door? Murder the innocent child to avoid the further death? Ethical? Moral?

Well I'm going to take a page out of Dana Perino's book. She split the baby on TV yesterday in a way that I thought was clever. Totally immoral, which is you know separate from the question of whether you need to do it. You know the question of morality you can allow yourself a luxury belief. So a luxury belief is one you don't have to operate on. It's like somebody else's problem. Oh yeah killing people, totally immoral. I'm totally against it. Which I can say because nobody slaughtered my people on October 7th. Pretty easy for me to say. War is immoral. But if you slaughtered my people I might feel a little differently about that. So we want to be good people in public. So if anybody asks you what do you think about the situation you should say oh it's terrible. It's a terrible situation and it's all immoral and unethical and I'm not going to change my vote. It's all immoral and unethical.