Staff Reports
The scene at Indiana University was electric, ladies and gentlemen. Imagine 3,000 students rising to their feet, clapping and cheering, defying the endless chorus of mainstream media that’s been attempting to paint any questioning of the status quo in the harshest of colors. Tucker Carlson took center stage, participating in the Turning Point USA campus tour, basking in the collective admiration of those who are not just content to gobble down the usual media narrative like it’s the last Thanksgiving turkey. Instead, they’re questioning why America frequently seems more concerned with Israel’s issues than with its own—and they don’t seem too shy about demanding answers.
The event ruffled more than a few feathers, especially amongst the conservative elite who apparently would like us to think that supporting Israel should be as non-negotiable as dessert at a birthday party. It’s a delight to witness that neither Tucker Carlson nor the legacy of Charlie Kirk buckles under the pressure. Meanwhile, the predictable outrage machinery is cranked up to 11, with folks like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin seemingly morphing into self-appointed censors of free thought and speech—unless it’s their free thought and speech, naturally. And who could ignore the irony when Mark Levin, embracing his inner Brian Stelter, calls out anti-Semitic bugaboos faster than you can say “neocon?”
But don’t worry, dear readers. The hysteria didn’t end there. Why, it’s almost as if questioning Israel’s actions or its influence in American politics risks having someone immediately sharpen a pitchfork with the word “anti-semite” etched into its handle. Heaven forbid anyone brings up notions like countries prioritizing their own interests first! Yet, here we have American leaders, such as Ted Cruz, eager to tell us that supporting Israel is in our “national security interest.” One might wonder how this unconditional support squares with unpleasant historical footnotes—or blowback, as some intelligence frameworks call it.
Now, if you thought that was spicy, wait until you hear what ‘ol Billy Graham had nestled in the Nixon tapes. Graham, the reigning king of evangelical America, was privately grousing with Nixon about the “brilliance” and influence of certain groups. But, of course, he could never say these things openly. It’s a curious narrative puzzle: the public stance versus the private sentiments. It turns out that even America’s revered voices have, at times, skirted that oh-so-thin line in the sand—drawn and redrawn by those who seem to think opinions must come pre-packaged and pre-approved.
If Marjorie Taylor Greene and other outliers in Congress have anything to say, maybe it’s about time to air out these dusty tapes and tapestries of thought, lest the air of American discourse stagnate with silence and acquiescence. Yes, this ‘unconditional’ support seems more of a masquerade at times, a portrayal of support supposedly mandated by heaven and earth—and a cavalcade of political rhetoric.
So, as the cycle of outrage persists, maybe it’s high time we face the music. Here’s hoping more folks find the courage to ask the kind of uncomfortable questions that flip today’s Overton Window. Because if there’s one thing the Indiana University event revealed, it’s that the road to open discourse needn’t be paved by a fear of labels, but instead by a fervent pursuit of truths.
