Dana Loesch: Red flag laws assume you are somewhat guilty until proven innocent

close

Video

Dana Loesch: Red flag laws assume you are somewhat guilty until proven innocent

Democrats push for 'red flag' laws after mass shootings; radio host Dana Loesch reacts.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 10, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” National Security adviser John Bolton got fired this morning, as you no doubt have heard. It's a major personnel change, but it's more than that. It is great news for America, especially for the large number of young people who would have been killed in pointless wars if Bolton had stayed on the job. They may not be celebrating tonight, but they should be.

International oil prices by the way on the international market dropped immediately on the news. Investors knew for certain that Bolton planned on launching yet another Middle Eastern conflict. They would inevitably spike energy prices. No doubt some energy speculators were disappointed to see Bolton go.

Certainly many people in Washington were disappointed. Senator Chris Murphy who is a Democrat from Connecticut, a progressive one that that tweeted that he was quote, "legitimately shaken to see John Bolton leave the White House." Samantha Power, you remember her, she is the Obama official, primarily responsible, among other things for the historically catastrophic destruction of Libya, the move that flooded Europe with refugees, that official, Samantha Power told reporters today that the firing was a very troubling sign.

Believe it or not, a number of Republicans made similar noises. Senator Mitt Romney himself declared that he was quote, "very, very unhappy" that Bolton was leaving. Romney went on to describe the outgoing National Security adviser as quote, "a brilliant man with decades of experience in foreign policy."

Romney didn't say much about this experience. He wasn't specific about it. Why? Probably because none of Bolton's experience in the end helped America. Romney is right. Bolton has in fact been on the scene for decades. All of us are suffering the consequences of it. But whatever. Details like that make no difference at all in Washington.

In Washington, nobody cares what kind of job you did, only that you did the job. Nobody there learns from mistakes, because mistakes are never even acknowledged. Ever. John Bolton himself took this form of selective amnesia to an art form. Watch him perform it on this show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So you've cold for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran and Syria. In the first two countries, we've had regime change. And obviously, it's been, I'd say a disaster, I think we'd agree.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: No, I don't agree with that. And let me -- let me --

CARLSON: You don't think it's been a disaster?

BOLTON: No. I think you need to understand ...

CARLSON: Yes.

BOLTON: ... is that life is complicated in the Middle East and when you say, "Well, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a mistake is simplistic."

CARLSON: I would argue that I'm the one who understands how complicated it is, but just my view.

BOLTON: It's your long experience in foreign policy, I know.

CARLSON: Better record than yours, I would say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Did you catch that? Rather than just justify or even explain his own record, Bolton instead brags that he spent a lot of time on the job. If you're wondering why so many progressives are mourning Bolton's firing tonight, it's because Bolton himself fundamentally was a man of the left.

There was not a human problem, John Bolton wasn't totally convinced could be solved with the brute force of government. That's an assumption of the left, not the right. Don't let the mustache fool you. John Bolton was one of the most progressive people in the Trump administration.

And by the way, naturally, once he was the sconce there, Bolton promoted Obama loyalists within the National Security Council, that shouldn't surprise you either.

From the very first day, John Bolton operated as an in fact a fifth column within the Trump White House. We warned about him frequently on the show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: When the President calls for peace with a heavily armed nuclear power that is considered treason. When the National Security adviser calls for yet another pointless war, that's just elite consensus, and it's fine.

A lifelong neocons, Bolton repeatedly has called for toppling the Iranian government again and again, though tellingly, he has never suggested what might replace the Iranian government once it is toppled.

To this day, Max Boot takes a paycheck from "The Washington Post," Bill Kristol appears on MSNBC. John Bolton is this country's National Security adviser. There are no consequences to their foolishness and their dishonesty. None.

Yes, Mr. President, John Bolton does want to get you into a war. It's all he wants. It's what he dreams about. Many wars if possible, and if you're not careful, he'll do it.

In between administration, jobs are always cushy think tank posts, paid speaking gigs, cable news contracts. War maybe a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons, it is always good business.

We invited John Bolton on the show tonight. He did not respond to the invitation which is a shame, but he is always welcome here. That's a sincere invitation. But in some ways, the story isn't simply about John Bolton. It's about the countless John Bolton's who currently staff the Federal bureaucracy. Deeply mediocre lifers, drunk on hubris, protected by bulletproof job security. They're more likely to die on the job than be fired and they know it.

As a group, these people have done an awful lot to make this country poor and sadder and more divided. The actual John Bolton is gone likely forever. The question tonight is, will he be replaced by another John Bolton just like him? And unfortunately, there are signs that that's possible.

In fact in Washington, it's always possible. Change is not always for the better. Don't lie to yourself. Apparently on the shortlist tonight to replace Bolton is the President's Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook. Hook may be a good person, he is also an unapologetic neocon.

Sources say he has undisguised contempt for Donald Trump, as John Bolton did. And he particularly dislikes the President's nationalist foreign policy, which is one of the reasons people voted for Donald Trump in 2016. One administration official recalls Hook announcing that quote, "I think the President is reckless and doesn't understand policy."

Another source heard him directly say something very similar to foreign officials at a conference abroad. A choice like that -- and Hook by the way is not the only one, not even close -- a choice like that is really no choice at all. It's more John Bolton with the same predictable disastrous results.

At least Mitt Romney and the energy speculators will be happy, but the country won't be served.

Douglas MacGregor is a retired U.S. Army Colonel, author of the fantastic book, "Margin of Victory," and the first man we go to for clarity on questions like this. Colonel, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.

COLONEL DOUGLAS MACGREGOR, RET., U.S. ARMY: Sure.

CARLSON: Looking at the National Security apparatus in Washington post John Bolton, what are the things that need to be fixed first?

MACGREGOR: Well, I think the President has to go back to his first principles. He recognized two things, which is one of the reasons he was elected. First, it's been 75 years since the end of the Second World War. The war has changed, as has the interests of various countries in the world that once saw the world through a bipolar lens that now see a multipolar lens.

And then the second part of it is, we need to put an end to the global police missions. The use of military power to impose solutions on other people that other people don't want or need, put an end to the forever wars, if you will. Those are the two things. We've got to go back to that. Those have to be the lodestones, the guidelines, if you will, for whatever happens from now on.

CARLSON: So if you were giving the President advice, what are the first things you would do?

MACGREGOR: Well, let's look at the broad spectrum right now, what he's got in front of him. First of all, he's got to get out of Afghanistan. That has to happen as soon as possible as I think I explained pretty clearly last night.

Talking to the Taliban is unnecessary. They're not going to honor any agreements, it's time to get our forces out, get the Embassy out. The nations in the region have an interest in the place, they want to have to deal with it, let them deal with it.

We've got to take a similar approach in Syria. We have perhaps 2,000 men on the ground in Syria right now, a very vulnerable force. Iran, Russia, Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, Iraq, all of these countries have an interest in what's happening there. We really don't. But we do know that if we withdraw our force, they will come to an accommodation because all of them want to see the same thing and end to the fighting in the region.

So we've got to get them out, and then we need to listen very carefully to the Iranians privately, behind closed doors, find out what their interests are and look for areas where we can cooperate. And this is, after all, what President Trump set out to do with President Putin. He set out to do it with President Xi. We need to do the same thing with Iran.

And then beyond the Iran and Afghanistan in the Middle East, we have Korea. He's got to start with an End of War Declaration. President Xi, President Trump, President Moon and Premier Kim all need to come together, sign an End of War Declaration because it renounces the use of force to change anything on the peninsula. That's what Beijing wants. That's what Pyongyang wants.

Then he needs to turn the operational control of the Peninsula militarily over to President Moon and to the Koreans, make them a truly sovereign state, give them responsibility for their own country.

And then we can sit down and we can come up with a measured deliberate approach to dismantling the nuclear weapons, and at the same time linking that dismantlement to a troop withdrawal plan that moves our ground forces out of the Peninsula because there is no threat to us in South Korea or to our South Korean allies, or to Japan from North Korea.

President Trump was the first to recognize that North Korea was circling the drain. He was right. It's time for us to get out of the way and let the problems on the Peninsula be resolved peacefully and deliberately as I've outlined.

CARLSON: The poignant thing about everything --

MACGREGOR: And then when it comes to Venezuela -- one thing about Venezuela.

CARLSON: Yes.

MACGREGOR: We have been sanctioning everyone all over the world constantly. Venezuela has probably become the poster child for the damage that sanctions can do. We have sanctioned that country to the point where if we do not relieve the sanctions, we run the risk of eight million more people leaving that country. If that happens, then Maduro has no opposition in the country. That is a catastrophe.

CARLSON: That's right.

MACGREGOR: So you've got to go back to these sanctions, look at what makes sense and does not make sense from a humanitarian standpoint because the only thing sanctions have done is make the populations miserable. They do not change regimes.

CARLSON: Exactly. Very smart. And the implication -- and I know that you believe this -- is that immigration ultimately is a national security issue. The sad thing is that everything you outline is something that the President has either explicitly endorsed in public or suggested that he believes and it's been very hard to get any of it done because he's had the wrong people working for him. And I really hope that changes and I hope he -- I hope he listens to you. Colonel MacGregor. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

MACGREGOR: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, the departure of John Bolton is done. How it happened turns out to be more confusing. Chief Breaking News Correspondent, Trace Gallagher joins us tonight with all the details. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, CHIEF BREAKING NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker, what is crystal clear is that John Bolton and the President have strong disagreements on the handling of Syria, North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan and apparently, it all came to a head last night when Bolton and the President got into it over the Taliban and Afghanistan.

John Bolton says he offered to resign, but the President said, "Let's talk tomorrow." Then after sleeping on it, Bolton issued this letter quoting, "I hereby resigned effective immediately as the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Thank you for having afforded me this opportunity to serve our country."

But 28 minutes after the letter of resignation was delivered, the President tweeted that Bolton didn't quit, he was fired quote, "I asked John for his resignation, which was given to me this morning."

But in a message to Fox News, Bolton immediately fired back saying, there was no request for resignation. A person close to John Bolton wouldn't comment on the was-he-fired-or-wasn't-he controversy, but that person did sneak in the last word saying that since Bolton has been National Security adviser, there have been no bad deals on Iran, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The standoff on who fired who goes on -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Trace Gallagher, thanks for that. Well, seven years ago, CNN hired former Obama official Jim Sciutto, and he's been delivering for them ever since. On Monday, Sciutto appeared with what sounded like a blockbuster story. Here's what it was.

The CIA, he said had been forced to spirit an agent out of Russia because the President bungled handling of Intelligence and put that agent's life in danger. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Multiple Trump administration officials with direct knowledge tell me that in a previously undisclosed secret mission in 2017, the U.S. successfully extracted from Russia one of its highest level covert sources inside the Russian government.

A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven in part by concerns that President Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence, which could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Another bombshell from Jim Sciutto and the geniuses at CNN, just like the last 10 bombshells that are going to bring down and President. This one turned out to a little more complicated than it seemed. Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herridge has details on that. Hey, Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Tucker, based on two decades covering the Intelligence Community, there is no harder decision for the C.I.A. than pulling an Intelligence asset. It's a long and deliberate process. And the final call is based on multiple factors, not a single event or individual.

Responding to the CNN report blaming the President, the C.I.A. took the unusual step of issuing this statement, "Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive Intelligence -- which he has access to each and every day -- drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."

Some of the anonymous sources, CNN reported the President's May 2017 disclosure of classified information to the Russians about terrorism was a pivotal moment, renewing discussion among Intelligence officials about the assets risk of exposure.

But the Oval Office meeting was described to Fox News as quote, "irrelevant to the CIA's decision making." Fox News has learned that the Intelligence Community assessment about Russia's election interference, publicly released in 2017, as well as media attention about the source and their proximity to President Putin were major factors for the agency. And it's important to note the C.I.A. does not pull an asset based on a single factor because once the asset is pulled, they can't go back into play and significantly the

And it's important to note the CIA does not pull an asset based on a single factor. Because once the asset is pulled, they can't go back into play and significantly, the assets remaining network of contacts, in this case Russia, could be retaliated against -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Catherine Herridge, fascinating report. Thank you for that.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Well, there's a new strategy from the left in Washington for in effect ending the Second Amendment. It's called a Red Flag Law. Suddenly, a lot of Republicans are supporting the idea of a Red Flag Law. But what is it exactly? How does it work? Is it constitutional? Could it be misused? We will bring you the answers to all those questions, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Following the mass shootings last month in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, some Democrats are pushing hard for the adoption of a Federal Red Flag Law. You may have heard the phrase, what is that exactly?

Well, Red Flag Law would allow police to seize a person's guns without convicting or even charging that person with any crime. All they need to do is decide that that person is a threat to public safety. Beto O'Rourke is a big fan of Red Flag Laws. He says they will dovetail perfectly with his other big policy idea, which is seizing Americans guns outright.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Not only must we have universal background checks and Red Flag Laws, but we've also got to do this. We've got to stop selling weapons of war.

(Cheering and Applause)

O'ROURKE: And the millions weapons of war that are out there, we need to bring them off the streets, get them out of our lives.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Okay, so that kid is in annoying trustafarian idiot. But just because he said it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. It turns out a lot of Republicans are now saying they are open to Red Flag Laws.

They're upset about mass shootings, everybody is. Everyone is looking for a way to prevent them. But a Red Flag Law is the answer. If government can simply take away your constitutional rights by deciding you're dangerous and not proving it, then how are they constitutional rights in the first place? And if Red Flag Laws require no criminal charges at all, what will protect you from being abused for political reasons?

Last week in San Francisco, the City's Board of Supervisors -- remember -- designated the NRA and its five million members, quote, "a domestic terror organization." You think authorities in San Francisco we're going to do much to make certain your rights are protected? You think authorities in any big city will? Where is this going exactly? It's worth asking those questions.

Dana Loesch is an author, a nationally syndicated radio host. She's thought a lot about Red Flag Laws. She joins us tonight. Dana, thanks a lot for coming on.

DANA LOESCH, AUTHOR AND RADIO HOST: Of course, Tucker. Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So this is one of those ideas -- it is new. If you hear part of it, it kind of makes sense. You can sort of tell who the crazy people are, we think we can anyway. And some of them have guns, and that's obviously bad. And so why don't we just take the guns away?

If you summarize it that way, a lot of people support Red Flag Laws, including a lot of Republicans. You say it's worth thinking through the consequences, what are those consequences?

LOESCH: Well, Tucker those consequences are great indeed, and it's not just San Francisco, there are even elected Members of our House of Representatives that have referred to law-abiding gun owners as -- and I quote, "domestic terrorists." And these are the individuals that would be implementing this Red Flag System.

First off, the red flag proposals -- and I've read the language of the laws in the 17 states that have passed these, including the District of Columbia as well, there -- it's all an inversion of our due process where you are presumed guilty and then later on, you know, maybe, I think in Indiana, on average, it's about nine months, you have your day in court, and you can try to get your property back and clear your name if you have been falsely accused.

It is an absolute removal of a cornerstone of our Republic. And if Republicans right now under the Trump administration, if they support this, Tucker, if they support this, and if they go in with the universal background checks and everything else, they will have done more than Barack Obama when he was President to undermine our Second Amendment rights. Is that what they want their legacy to be?

CARLSON: You never go broke under estimating the dumbness of some elected Republicans, particularly in the Senate. But this seems like going pretty far. You think it's possible that you will get on the record Republicans supporting this?

LOESCH: I think so. I mean, there are a number already that have indicated that they will. I mean, Lindsey Graham says that he supports Red Flag Laws. We also have elected officials like Dan Crenshaw, who said he is open to the idea of discussing them.

And so there's a lot of concern here. What people need to realize is that the way that Red Flag Laws work and the way that they've already been outlined in 17 states is that, and the states differ as to who and how many and how close they are to you, who can petition who can report you.

But in some states, pretty much any Tom, Dick and Harry can report you and say that they think you're dangerous and that you have firearms, and then law enforcement have no -- they do not, they are not required to give advance notice. You're talking about serving, you know, no knock warrants and all of this other stuff.

This kind of goes along with that. They can show up with no advance morning. In fact, in Maryland, there was a man killed, Tucker, Gary Willis, a 61-year-old man who was killed when law enforcement showed up at his home before sunrise, knocking on his door, demanding to take his property.

He had no idea what was going on and see these laws put law enforcement in a very uncomfortable spot, which is why a lot of sheriffs in a lot of different states are saying that they will not uphold these Red Flag Laws also, but we have to think of these consequences.

First off, it's dangerous. Secondly, due process is inverted. In many instances, people who are accused, they are -- I mean, like I said, Indiana, the law stipulated a 14-day waiting period, but that's on average nine months. You assume the court costs for clearing your name.

There's a Florida man right now named Jonathan Carpenter, whose name was similar to that of a criminal and even though they know it's not the same person, he still, Tucker has to go through the court system, pay a lot of money, clear his name to get his property back. We are not thinking of the consequences.

CARLSON: No, we're not. We're not and we're also not remembering that for the left, this is not about public safety or reducing violence, please, it is about power. Let's not lie to ourselves.

LOESCH: Right.

CARLSON: Dana, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

LOESCH: Good to see you, Tucker. Thank you.

CARLSON: Andrew Pollack has thought a lot about firearms. He is unfortunately, the father of Parkland shooting victim, Meadow Pollack. He has a new book out called "Why Meadow Died: The People and Policies that Created the Parkland Shooter, and Endanger America's Students." He joins us now for his first interview about that book. Andrew, thanks a lot for coming on tonight.

So let me just ask you a question taken directly from the title of this new book, the people in policies that made this possible, who are they?

ANDREW POLLACK, PARKLAND VICTIM'S FATHER: Well, Tucker, there's nothing I could do to bring my daughter back. And I wish I could have taken those bullets that day, and I couldn't.

But what I can do is honor my daughter and expose what's in that book, "Why Meadow Died," and the policies are in it that made me so sick doing my investigation and uncovering all the multitude of failures that I owed it to all the parents to put this book, I even call it a manual now, Tucker.

A manual for parents to read, to see what happened to me in Parkland and my beautiful daughter, and make sure it's not happening to their kids in their schools. Because these policies introduced by the left, what you call them -- Obama-era policies have been putting our schools throughout the whole country and I had to expose it, and nothing is going to stop me from exposing these people that let my daughter down and all of the other 16 --

CARLSON: Well, good for you. You hear almost nothing about this, and I would encourage our audience, of course, to buy the book and see the whole story, but you could pull one of those policies out or hold it up to the light for us, give us one example, if you would.

POLLACK: One of the examples in Broward when my daughter was going to school, students were allowed four misdemeanors per school year without being introduced to the judicial system. And then, at the end of the year, Tucker, if you could believe this, so that was in ninth grade, you had a kid next to your kid in the classroom who commits four misdemeanors, and then next year in 10th grade, he resets at zero again and is allowed another four misdemeanors per school year. So that is one of them.

CARLSON: So that basically makes it impossible for school authorities to do anything about a threatening kid.

POLLACK: And the worst thing about it is, Tucker, they don't -- they don't make the parents aware of it. I found out recently that they actually had to frisk this kid before he went to school every morning. He wasn't allowed to school with a backpack. That's how dangerous he was and they put him in the school with my daughter.

And if parents think that it's only going on in Broward County, they're mistaken. Because these policies through Obama has been pushed throughout all the schools throughout America. And it's my job now because the left, they don't want to hear my story, they want to blame the big old black, scary gun. But that's what -- that didn't happen in Broward, and I know as facts and parents, they would be irresponsible not to read this book, and send their kid to a school and say --

You know, to me, Tucker, the book is to educate parents. I want to be the last father that could say, "I truly didn't know what was going on in the school." Now parents have no excuse.

CARLSON: And none of us do. I don't know where the rest of us were when all of these changes took place, but I'm glad that you're bringing them to light and I'm sorry about the circumstances that forced it. Andrew Pollack, thanks for joining us tonight.

POLLACK: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Pete Buttigieg isn't just running for President, no, he is auditioning as a holy man, as a Biblical scholar. His latest lesson using the Bible to justify abortion through the third trimester of pregnancy. Well, tonight, Mayor Pete's own brother-in-law says, "This is too much." An exclusive interview, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: On the campaign trail, Mayor Pete Buttigieg frequently uses religious rhetoric. He says American politics can be divided into good people, and then sinners and you can guess which side Republicans are on.

Now Mayor Pete is getting into Biblical scholarship as well. In a recent interview, he explained how actually the Bible says that unborn children are not alive, and so abortion is okay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When you go through the New Testament, for sure, and every other word that comes out of the mouth of Christ is about things like helping those in need and you've got a Republican Party dedicated to its opposite.

There will be a reckoning over that. Now, right now, they hold everybody in line with this one kind of piece of doctrine about abortion, right, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally.

Then again, you know, there's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Ryhan Glezman is Senior Pastor at Community Church of God in Clio, Michigan. He is also the brother-in-law of Mayor Buttigieg and called on his brother-in-law to repent after his latest remarks. Pastor Glezman joins us tonight. Pastor, thanks for coming on. You are by your own description, non-political, and you're not seeking to attack your brother-in-law, but I felt it would be worth getting your view of the theology involved in this explanation of abortion. What do you think of it?

RYHAN GLEZMAN, SENIOR PASTOR, COMMUNITY CHURCH OF GOD: Absolutely. Thank you, Tucker, for this opportunity to come on here. And I would like to make a plea to Pete Buttigieg, my brother-in-law that he would reconsider his position in the way he is misrepresenting Scripture to push this pro- abortion platform that he is pushing.

I like to make a plea with him that he would reconsider, and actually open his Bible, I actually ask all people to open up their Bibles as they're watching this and turn to Psalm 139, specifically, Verses 13 through 16. And how can you read those passages that talks about, "We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, intrinsically, you were woven together in the woman's womb." I don't know how you can read that, and come out of that with any other understanding that we -- that life begins at conception.

And what's even more alarming is that there's Christians who would stand like Mayor Pete would and say that God condones, that God says that abortion is okay according to Scripture. That's just absurd and outlandish to me.

CARLSON: So his contention as I am interpreting it, is that the New Testament says that abortion is fine until the child draws breath. In other words, really through the end of the third trimester. I just want to be absolutely clear on this. Is there any, in your view, Christian interpretation of the Bible that leads to that conclusion?

GLEZMAN: Absolutely not. You know, I would just encourage all people to look at scripture, again, back to Psalm 139, that we are created and life begins at conception. You know, we need to get away from -- you know, this isn't a political thing. To me, this is a spiritual thing to me. And this a denial dial of -- this is a God issue. This is a spiritual, not a political issue.

And to be honest with you, Tucker, this isn't even my opinion, or Pete's opinion, this is what does God say? What does the Word of God truly say and the Bible is just being misrepresented and just misused to push a pro- abortion agenda. And that is alarming. It's disgusting. It's frightening. And it just -- it needs to stop.

CARLSON: It is all of those things. I agree with you completely. Have you said this to your brother-in-law?

GLEZMAN: I have not spoken this directly. And I hope he sees this. I hope all people watch this and he will reconsider. He will change his position. He will actually open up the Bible and read through Scripture what Scripture actually says.

You know, we need to create a culture that speaks of human life and human beings who have value. We are commanded right by Christ Himself to uphold the dignity and respect of all human life. We need to stand for all born and all the unborn.

CARLSON: So you just said you would ask your brother and watch, open up Scripture and read this. I mean, his presidential campaign, as I've been watching it, is based on the idea that he is deeply versed in Scripture and that he is a deeply Christian man. He is running an explicitly, he says Christian campaign.

GLEZMAN: Well, I don't know how anyone -- I mean, what happens, we see in Second Peter Chapter 4 that there's a time coming where people will turn away from sound doctrine, and accumulate teaching that itch their ears. Basically what that verse reads, as people -- we're living in a time now, as we see with Mayor Pete that people are drifting away from sound doctrine, to make the Scriptures say whatever they want to do, to manipulate and distort Christianity and what the Word of God says to meet their own desires and own pleasure.

You know, it really boils down to this, Tucker, is what I believe, is people either seek power, or they're going to stand up for the powerless -- and people, the baby in the womb, in the mother's womb is powerless. It is the most vulnerable person, human life and so people have to make a decision, Pete has to make a decision, are you going to stand up for the most vulnerable? Or are you going to seek the power and distort scriptures to meet your own political agenda? And that's exactly what we're seeing, not just with Pete, with the whole Democratic Party right down the line.

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

GLEZMAN: Yes.

CARLSON: I think it's nicely put. Let me just end on this, so Pete Buttigieg is married to your brother, have you spoken him about this?

GLEZMAN; I am very open about all of this. And I hope all of them see this. I am very unashamed of the good news of Jesus. I am a Pastor. I share the Gospel. Politics is secondary to me. I'm about sharing the Good News of Christ, and I hope all people watching this that -- I really -- I challenge Americans, as these Democratic debates come up here in a couple of days, and I'm assuming this topic is going to be brought up that people would stop, actually think -- and actually think, what are we talking about here?

We're talking about human lives here. We're not talking about just a little blob of cells. We're talking about human life. And are we going to stand up for the dignity and respect, where people stop and really think, what do you really believe? Not what your party believes.

You know, it'd be wonderful to see a Democrat come out and say, "You know what, I am not going to go down the trail that all the Democrats are going down. I think that the life in the womb is valuable and has intrinsic value."

CARLSON: Yes.

GLEZMAN: I'd like to see someone stand up and do that.

CARLSON: You just saw Tulsi Gabbard today, a Democrat say she thought third trimester abortion was wrong. It's cruel, and most people know that. Anyway. Pastor, I am glad that you came on tonight. Thank you very much, and I hope that you get a chance to talk to your brother-in-law. Thanks.

GLEZMAN: Yes. Thank you.

CARLSON: In Montgomery County, Maryland, the toll of the illegal immigrant sex crimes keeps rising. We're now with eight -- eight reported in just the past six weeks. The local government is not protecting its citizens. Can the White House do better? A Trump administration official response to what's going on there, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Illegal immigration in the Montgomery County, Maryland continues unabated. In fact, authorities there are helping it, but the toll is rising dramatically. Oluwakayode Adebusuyi is an illegal immigrant from Nigeria. According to county authorities, Adebusuyi recently raped an intoxicated woman inside her car. That would make him the eighth illegal alien charged with a sex offense in Montgomery County in the last six weeks, since July 25th.

Amazingly, this man now charged with a sex crime has stayed in the United States, despite past very serious run-ins with the law, not minors stuff, major stuff. For example, in August 2018, this man was charged with second degree assault, false imprisonment and a fourth degree sex offense.

But somehow prosecutors dropped those charges. He was not deported. He stayed in America despite being here illegally. And these new charges are the results of that. Ken Cuccinelli is acting Director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, and he joins us tonight. Mr. Cuccinelli, thanks very much for joining us.

KEN CUCCINELLI, ACTING DIRECTOR OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES: Good to be with you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So we've been following horrified as the toll of sex offenses in Montgomery County, Maryland has risen by illegal aliens. Clearly, the county officials there are doing nothing about it. They're blaming neo- Nazis for complaining about it, et cetera. I mean, they're completely unwilling to protect their own citizens. Can the Federal government do anything to protect them?

CUCCINELLI: Well, of course, I.C.E. even though Montgomery County won't fully cooperate with I.C.E., I.C.E. still does its job of removals when criminals come to their attention. You noted this most recent illegal who was charged with sexual assault rape, most recently had previously been identified to law enforcement, well, they didn't let I.C.E. know last summer when they had this person in their custody. And they undoubtedly knew he was illegal, and yet did not notify Federal officials.

And so when they don't know that a criminal is present, I.C.E. doesn't know to even try to pick them up. So and of course, sadly, enough, Montgomery County is not alone in this, their neighbor, PG County here bordering Washington, D.C. and we've all been reading it in the last few days about North Carolina and the victims down there are almost 500 of these folks released without giving I.C.E. notice. And these are people that no American would want to keep in this country.

And oddly enough, it is many of these folks on the left who say, "Oh, we want to get rid of the criminal aliens," but they're the very same ones who enact these sanctuary policies that in fact harbor these exact illegals who are committing other crimes in the communities in this country.

CARLSON: What a tragedy this is.

CUCCINELLI: It is a tragedy.

CARLSON: Again, is there anything that the Feds can do? I mean Montgomery County, Maryland, all of these jurisdictions are in defiance, it seems to me of Federal law. Is there anything that can be done about it?

CUCCINELLI: Well, they're certainly not cooperating with Federal law, and I can tell you, as a former Attorney General, that it is a long, really nonpartisan history of law enforcement of cooperating across levels -- Federal, state and local law enforcement. This is a very recent phenomena, Tucker, where people see political advantage to playing games with law enforcement and public safety on the left, and it is having tragic, tragic consequences for these communities.

CARLSON: Yes. It's certainly is. Ken Cuccinelli, thanks so much for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

CUCCINELLI: Good to be with you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, for decades, conservatives for some reason have conceded the environmental issue to the left. Why? The left is dominated by climate extremists who want to ground airplanes and take away your plastic straws. People who know nothing about the natural world, who never even go outside. And yet they're in charge of the conversation on environmental issues. Huh?

What if conservatives actually tried to win over people who care about nature, preserving green spaces, natural beauty, ending litter, keeping this country clean? That's most people by the way? Certainly me. Chris Buskirk is Editor and Publisher of "American Greatness." He just wrote a fantastic new piece, which you should read called, "How conservatives can protect the environment and win voters, too." He joins us tonight. Chris, thanks so much for writing this piece, and for coming -- which is fantastic -- and for coming on tonight. Why have conservatives allowed this issue, love of nature, to be hijacked by the left?

CHRIS BUSKIRK, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, "AMERICAN GREATNESS": You know, I have no idea. I've got this -- I've got this theory that for the past 20 years there has been this -- everything has been sort of defined by the climate change debate. So the left says, "Climate change, climate change, climate change. If we don't do something extreme tomorrow, that allows the government to intrude all over every sort of personal liberty that you have, then the plan is going to be destroyed in five years, and the human race is going to go extinct." That's one side.

On the other side, conservatives have allowed themselves to do nothing more than trying to negate and say, "Nope, that we don't think that's true." And it's just another example of this ethic that conservatives -- American conservatives anyway seem to have, which is, our only job is to stand up for history yelling, "Stop, and it's stupid."

CARLSON: Right.

BUSKIRK: And it is just a loser philosophy, and we have to come up with something that's better than that. We have to be able to put forward good policies that actually promote and protect the environment that promote green spaces, as you were saying, to protect nature. These are things that should be uncontroversial, and yet climate change has become an excuse not to do anything.

CARLSON: That is it. And you make this point in your piece. That's exactly right. It's become an excuse to let the actual natural environment degrade. I mean, one of the great things in my opinion, maybe, the great thing about this country is its natural beauty, which really has no parallel in the world. And yet, it is getting dirtier. There's litter and graffiti everywhere, why wouldn't conservative spearhead efforts to clean up America?

BUSKIRK: This is -- I don't know. This is a huge pet peeve with me. I don't understand it. You're conservative, so we have this self-image, you know, we are the people who clean up our lawns, we are the people who, you know, just do that sort of do the right thing and we are people of personal responsibility. Why doesn't that apply to the country as a whole?

We would rather have beautiful cities. Go to New York, go to Los Angeles - - these are cities that are degrading quickly. And that is part of the environment, too. You know, there's a U.S. Fire Service study that I cite in the piece that says that the United States loses 36 million trees in urban areas every single year. That makes those urban areas less beautiful, it makes them less pleasant.

CARLSON: Exactly.

BUSKIRK: And by the way, it also makes them hotter and drier. Our reforestation program should be something that is totally uncontroversial. That'll be very popular, and yet conservative seem to lack the vocabulary to talk about these issues.

CARLSON: Well, I couldn't -- I absolutely couldn't agree more. And by the way, crowded places are ugly places. I mean, you could make a really strong case for restricting immigration on environmental grounds. We've made that case on the show. I believe it strongly.

And I hope conservatives will read your piece and reclaim their birthright given to them by Teddy Roosevelt, I would argue, as stewards of the environment because we should be that. Chris Buzkirk, thank you for beginning that conversation. Great to see you tonight.

BUSKIRK: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, Chick-fil-A has a lot of enemies, but it keeps getting bigger. There's a new protest against its growing influence around the world, in Canada. Wait until you see the video. Canadians are mad about Chick-fil-A. We've got Chadwick Moore to respond to their concerns, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Chick-fil-A has been offering tasty chicken sandwiches and great service in this country for many years, successfully. But finally this week, the company expanded its brand to the frozen North Canada. Not everyone is happy with this.

In Toronto, several dozen activists carried signs and held die-ins where they played dead on the floor. What were they mad about? Basically everything. Some didn't like eating meat. Some said the company is anti- gay, somehow. One activist claimed that Chick-fil-A's existence is an attack on Canada's indigenous people, somehow.

Chadwick Moore, is a journalist in New York City. He joins us tonight to explain what the heck just happened. Chadwick, what do you think this was about? What is -- what is the main problem people have with Chick-fil-A?

CHADWICK MOORE, JOURNALIST: Well, the Lord's chicken as you mentioned, is very, very popular. And it's come to Canada. What is the exact problem? Was it chicken lives matter? Was it gay lives matter? Was it gay chicken lives matter? The answer is yes. All of the above.

CARLSON: All of the above.

MOORE: All of the above and you know, the big issue that they seem to have with Chick-fil-A at this point, the attacks on Chick-fil-A and this comes from the media as well are so regular, you can set your watch by them.

And I've got this theory that the reason is that the CEO of the company who is a Christian and gives his own time and own money to Christian causes, has never apologized. He has never bowed down to the left. He's never gone through the LGBT reeducation camp that someone in his position is expected to do.

And this really throws it for a loop, they don't know how to handle it. And there's sort of a parenting allegory to be said here. You know, if you have a petulant obnoxious child throwing a temper tantrum, you can either run to it and coddle it and say, "What can you do? I just want you to be quiet, you know, please, let me -- just tell me what you want." And of course, that's reinforcing negative behavior.

Or you can ignore the child and let it scream and let it cry, and hopefully it will shut up eventually and learn a lesson. This seems to be the Chick- fil-A approach when dealing with these protesters.

CARLSON: Let them cry.

MOORE: The second parenting option. Let them cry. It's the tough love approach. But they're going to have a heck of a next two years because, Chick-fil-A has announced 15 new locations opening in the Toronto area in the next two years. So, hope those protesters have some strong lungs.

CARLSON: You know, that's our approach in this show. Let them cry. They want you to kiss the ring more than anything. They want you to bow down and acknowledge their authority. And I think people with dignity will never do that. Chadwick Moore, very smart, deep as always. It's great to see you tonight. Thank you.

MOORE: Great to see you. Thank you.

CARLSON: We're out of time, amazingly. We're celebrating John Bolton's departure so much, just a whole hour went by. We'll be back tomorrow night, 8:00 p.m. The show that is sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Hopefully, the cheerful enemy of all of those things. Have a great evening with the ones you love. Sean Hannity is next live from New York City.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.