Tucker: Elizabeth Warren vows to take down monopolies
Warren's campaign backed by the same wealthy donors she vows to take down.
This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 11, 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." One thing we know for sure about Elizabeth Warren above all else, is that on economic questions, she is a sincere populist. Warren is deeply distressed by income inequality. She profoundly distrusts Wall Street and big tech. She hates monopolies and massive multi-generational concentrations of wealth.
So if you're a private equity chieftain for example, or a weed smoking trustafarian living off family money in Jackson Hole, you've got to be terrified of Elizabeth Warren. How could you not be terrified? Listen to her talk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now they've got their fortunes and their money managers and their PR --
And they're getting richer, faster and faster and faster and everybody else is getting left behind.
The wealth tax, the two cent wealth tax. God I love that wealth tax, right?
I'm not willing to give up and let a handful of monopolists dominate our economy and our democracy. It's time to fight back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Oh, it's time to fight back against the monopolists who dominate our economy. Sound familiar? Actually, that's not too far from what Donald Trump ran on in 2016, back before Paul Ryan and the Ayn Rand people got ahold of this economic program.
But this time around, Elizabeth Warren plans to steal that message -- the Trump message really. Warren claims that she is the radical populist here.
She is the disruptor, but is she? Let's see.
Emily Tisch Sussman is a woke liberal who often appears in cable television who talk about Democratic politics. Nice person, but she is the daughter of two billionaires. So you'd think that Emily Tisch Sussman would hate Elizabeth Warren, but she doesn't.
Instead, she demands that you support Elizabeth Warren or else you're sexist. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMILY TISCH SUSSMAN, DEMOCRATIC ACTIVIST: I actually heard -- overheard someone saying that I thought was an interesting point that basically at this point, if you are still supporting Sanders as opposed to Warren, it's kind of showing your sexism because she has more detailed plans and her plans have evolved. I thought it was an interesting point. And I think there may be something to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Yes, there might be something to it. If you don't support Warren, you're a sexist. But keep in mind, you just saw one of the richest people on Planet Earth demanding that you support Elizabeth Warren for President. Surprising, right?
Well, actually, it turns out that some of Warren's most fervent supporters are the very people she claims she wants to fight. Well, that's weird.
So for example, in the third quarter of this year, Elizabeth Warren raised more money from Silicon Valley, from those monopolists she claims to hate than anybody else running for President.
Spotify's CEO is an Elizabeth Warren fan, so is Silicon Valley venture capitalist and billionaire, Chris Sacca? He has already maxed out to her campaign. Really? The billionaires supporting her.
Then last month, Charlie Gasparino over on Fox Business reported that Elizabeth Warren's campaign is making overtures to finance moguls on Wall Street seeking contributions, and some of them are responding.
But wait a second. Why would Elizabeth Warren's enemies -- and these have got to be her enemies, she attacks them all the time on the campaign trail -- why would your enemies fund her campaign?
We will give you five seconds to think about it, and the answer, of course is they're not really her enemies. They understand that Warren doesn't really mean what she says. They know that Warren's populism is a facade and underneath it all, she is really just this season's Hillary Clinton -- faithful party robot, stalwart defender of the prerogatives of the establishment. That's what it seems like she really is, is she?
Well, John MacArthur suspects she might be here. He is the publisher of "Harper's Magazine." He has been the publisher there for more than 35 years, so he has watched a few Democratic candidates in his time. He's got a new piece out for "The Spectator," in which he describes Elizabeth Warren this way. As quote, " ... a left wing populist for people who don't want left wing populism."
Warren, he writes, maybe quote, " ... more like Hillary than anyone dares to say out loud. When the two women talk on the phone, as they do, maybe it's more about power than about good government."
Mr. MacArthur joins us tonight live. Thanks so much for coming on tonight.
JOHN MACARTHUR, PUBLISHER, HARPER'S MAGAZINE: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: So you've watched this carefully. I think you sound by the piece, like you're sympathetic to the idea of an authentic economic populist running. But it sounds like you don't really buy what Elizabeth Warren is selling. Why?
MACARTHUR: Because she has already announced to the regular Democratic Party and I'm talking about the barons of the Democratic Party. The people who really run it day-to-day, the Clinton-Obama faction that lives off Wall Street that she will not poach on their turf in terms of patronage and fundraising.
She signed a pledge that was put out by the Association of State Democratic Committee saying, I won't argue with you. I will be a regular party liberal. I will respect the party protocols, and I won't poach on your turf.
I think she is being, to some extent promoted by the establishment party to kill off Sanders. Her job one is to kill off Sanders. So she's playing a double game. On the one hand, she mimics Sanders, she's copying him to a tee.
But on the other hand, she goes around loudly announcing that she is not going to rock the boat with the Democratic Party. So you've got to ask yourself the question, if you're a reform-minded Democrat ...
CARLSON: Right.
MACARTHUR: Can you reform the country without first reforming the Democratic Party? Which has been so corrupted by the Clintons, and to some extent by Obama and the big money that comes in via Wall Street? It no longer has much of anything to do with its labor base, the unions and the working class.
CARLSON: Right.
MACARTHUR: The people who used to count in the Democratic Party. Today, you know, these guys like Steve Ratner count much more to the Democrats and to the Clintonites than anybody, any union President.
CARLSON: So, I mean, what's interesting is that Elizabeth Warren gets up and says, for example, on tech, and I'm sympathetic to this point, you know, we need to bust up these monopolies.
MACARTHUR: Right.
CARLSON: They have too much influence in American, so she is absolutely right. And then on the other hand, you see people like, you know, these tech barons, the CFO I misspoke earlier. It's the CFO of Spotify, sending her money. So why would the CFO of Spotify send her money if he really thought she was going to break up Spotify?
MACARTHUR: I think they really believe they can water down her populism once they've knocked Sanders out. If she remains faithful to the Democratic Party, and that's what it appears to be the case right now, look, I'll give you a good example.
You notice the flap with Tulsi Gabbard recently where Hillary Clinton makes this wild accusation that she is a Russian agent or a Russian asset and that she is preparing for a third party run. That's a way to punish Sanders to hurt Sanders.
Sanders comes out and defends her. Warren keeps her mouth shut. She says nothing. I think they have a non-aggression pact. And that once you're in with the Clintons, once you're compromising yourself to that extent, it's very hard to stick to principle.
I'm worried that if she gets the nomination and right now she looks like the consensus choice. Biden is faltering badly. They're hoping that she can knock out Sanders.
If she gets the nomination, they can get her to water down her program and become a consensus Democrat who makes sure that the patronage and the fundraising continues operating the way it always has.
CARLSON: Is that why -- I mean, so Bernie Sanders ran as an economic populist in 2016, and didn't say a lot about identity politics. In fact, he criticized open borders as a Koch brothers initiative, which it is.
Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, is running as a kind of woke identity politics crusader and an economic populist, can you be both?
MACARTHUR: Well, you know, better than most that illegal immigration is a labor issue. It's a wage issue. I read your book.
CARLSON: Yes, that's right.
MACARTHUR: And a lot of illegal labor on the market drives down wages for everybody, especially at the bottom rung of the ladder.
So to simply say we have to be compassionate, which I think we should -- we should be.
CARLSON: Yes.
MACARTHUR: Completely skirts the issue of wages. This is something Trump hasn't addressed. He doesn't want to talk about it. I don't think he's interested. But it's also something that the mainstream Democratic Party is not addressing.
The minimum wage is still at $7.25 an hour and there are still a lot of illegal labor in the country working for $3.00 to $4.00 an hour.
Meanwhile, you've got NAFTA and the permanent normal trade relations with China still driving hundreds of thousands of jobs out of the country.
Factories closing, still moving to Mexico, still moving to China and nothing is being done.
You don't hear the Democrats talking about it at all. Sanders is talking about it because I think he is -- he is quite sincere. But you don't hear them talking about trade anymore.
CARLSON: No because they know where the money comes from.
MACARTHUR: Right.
CARLSON: The publisher of "Harper's," an old-fashioned liberal, one of the few left. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.
MACARTHUR: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: Well, newly minted presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has devoted much of his life to gun control. As the mayor of New York City, Bloomberg famously back the so called stop and frisk program. That program allowed police to search for illegal guns. They found a lot of them by the way. Bloomberg considered that program a success. He bragged about it often including here in 2013.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Today, we have fewer guns, fewer shootings and fewer homicides. In fact, murders are 50 percent below the level they were 12 years ago we came into office, something no one thought possible back then.
And there is just no question that stop, question, frisk has saved countless lives, and we know that most of those lives saved based on the statistics have been black and Hispanic young men.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So there's really not a lot of evidence that gun control programs have worked ever anywhere. Really, the only exception is stop and frisk, which has been New York for quite some time. And certainly a company that probably caused the massive drop in crime you saw on that city.
So you'd think that stop and frisk will be popular with the left.
Democrats have been more aggressive than ever in their gun control efforts and are promising to take your guns and enact mandatory buybacks for weapons of war.
Well, again, stop and frisk is really the only measure that's ever been proven to get so-called weapons of war off the street before they killed people, so Democrats would support it, right? No. They hate it. Why?
Because it's racist, of course.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, SPOKESWOMAN, MOVEON.ORG: This is a policy that overwhelmingly put black boys, black men and black -- and Latino men in prison, which was seen as a Civil Rights violations.
PHILLIP AGNEW, ORGANIZER: This is a mayor that provided over an administration that stopped and frisked every black, Latino and poor person that they could.
AISHA MOODIE-MILLS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: This is a man who actually ran New York City kind of like an oligarch and ultimately, supported and defended a stop and frisk policy that essentially mass incarcerated black and brown people.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR, PBS CORRESPONDENT: I have three words, stop and frisk - that will be the thing that will be the problem for Michael Bloomberg.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): He still defends his policy of stop and frisk which impacted families like mine. It was my cousins and my friends that were stopped on the New York City subway system and racially profiled and patted down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: So to straighten things out for us, because this is getting a little confusing, we're joined by former Clinton pollster Bernard Whitman.
Bernard, thanks so much for coming on.
BERNARD WHITMAN, FORMER CLINTON POLLSTER: Thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So I thought we were for -- all good liberals -- we were for gun control. I keep hearing that. But the one gun control program that's worked backed by a liberal Michael Bloomberg, we're now against? What do you make of this?
WHITMAN: Well, there's no question that Michael Bloomberg has done an extraordinary amount to get guns off the streets in America. He has invested tens of millions of dollars most recently in Virginia to flip both of the state legislature blue and enact gun control legislation.
CARLSON: He didn't guns off the street. He flipped the legislation.
WHITMAN: In the NRA's backyard.
CARLSON: Okay, so --
WHITMAN: But I think it's going to ultimately lead to gun safety laws in Virginia in the backyard of NRA.
CARLSON: Okay, but hold on. I am sorry -- we had a gun safety law. We had the only effective gun control law I've ever seen. Ask any criminologist. I wrote a whole book on this once. I'm not pulling this out of nowhere. Stop and frisk actually worked and everyone is against it now, but I thought they are for gun control because they want to make the streets safer.
WHITMAN: Well, there's --
CARLSON: Like how do you square this? I'm honestly confused.
WHITMAN: Yes, I mean, there's no question that he is going to face tremendous opposition from African-Americans, from progressives, from Latinos, because the policy without a doubt disproportionately affected communities of color.
At the end of the day, his intention was right, his head was in the right place, his heart was in the right place. Get guns off the street, save lives, and helped end gun violence.
The problem is stop and frisk disproportionately wound up blocking up tens of thousands -- let me finish, Tucker. Let me finish.
CARLSON: Wait a second -- hold on. Are you saying that it didn't take guns, illegal guns from, for example, gang members in New York? Because the numbers suggest otherwise.
WHITMAN: I do believe it did take illegal guns from gang members in New York, but the criticism is that the number of guns taken was small compared with the tens of thousands of people who were sort of caught up in the system.
And ultimately, it led to tens of thousands of young black and brown, typically men being incarcerated for sort of nonviolent crimes like marijuana possession or coming under suspicion of police activity, which can wreak havoc on communities and wreak havoc on people's lives.
CARLSON: And how many -- how many men -- wait, hold on. Wait, hold on.
Everyone is throwing this out. Do you know the numbers? So were there actually a lot of men in New York City who were incarcerated for marijuana possession because of stop and frisk?
WHITMAN: Tens of thousands.
CARLSON: No, actually there weren't.
WHITMAN: There's been --
CARLSON: No, there weren't.
WHITMAN: There's been dozens and dozens of ...
CARLSON: No, this is BS, all right.
WHITFIELD:
... about this issue. It's not BS, Tucker.
CARLSON: It is BS. It is BS. No. Then what's the number? How many -- how many you would say --
WHITMAN: I don't know the number offhand, but it's tens of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of people who were all totally stopped and frisk and put into a database. I mean, it was unfortunately --
CARLSON: Put in the database. But it's totally okay to go door to door and take people's rifles away at gunpoint.
WHITMAN: I don't agree with that.
CARLSON: Oh, you don't agree with that.
WHITMAN: I don't agree with mandatory buybacks.
CARLSON: But Democrats -- well, I don't know, you had I think the majority of the front runners for the Democratic nomination say that they were for mandatory gun buybacks. That's okay.
WHITMAN: Well, the key proponent of that was Beto O'Rourke who is no longer running for President.
CARLSON: No, okay. He was one -- he was the most famous, the dumbest.
Right? He is the one who said that most boldly, but the rest of them were asked, are you for mandatory buybacks? And I think the majority of them said yes. And that would include Joe Biden who is supposed to be moderate.
That's okay. But it's not okay to take illegal guns off the street because -- because why?
WHITMAN: I think the record of stop and frisk is quite mixed. I think that there are many people who believe that it disproportionately targeted young black men, young Latino men, and ultimately because of being caught up in the judicial system, placed under police suspicion, it ultimately caused a lot of harm and damage to people's lives, and it wasn't worthy --
CARLSON: But let me just say, the stand -- I just want to state this for the record.
WHITMAN: A lot of people believe this was --
CARLSON: Since this is a fact-based show, the line about how thousands of young people were put in prison for weed possession is a lie. That's not true. Stop and frisk did not have that effect.
WHITMAN: Well, I think it did actually.
CARLSON: There were -- thousands of people busted for illegal guns. So let me just ask you, does this make you rethink the other Democratic gun proposals, gun control proposals out there like mandatory gun buybacks, if we can't even get behind stop and frisk, are we really for criminalizing --
WHITMAN: You're seeking a moral equivalency that doesn't make any sense.
I mean, I don't believe in mandatory buybacks.
CARLSON: It's not a moral equivalency.
WHITMAN: I don't believe in mandatory buybacks, but I do believe in things like red flag laws. I do believe in things like not allowing people who are convicted of hate crimes to have guns. I do believe in things like limiting the size of magazines. I do believe in things like eliminating --
CARLSON: Okay, limiting the size of magazines. Hold on, wait.
WHITMAN: Eliminating the loopholes and background checks.
CARLSON: None of that. Hold on. Let's get very specific very fast.
Limiting the size of magazines. So in D.C. for example, it's ten rounds as maximum. It's a felony to have a mag with more than 10, a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Would you be in favor of sending someone to jail for having a magazine with the capacity for 11 rounds in it? Yes, I guess, right? Right.
WHITMAN: It depends with the laws.
CARLSON: But, well that is the law. That is the one D.C. for example where I'm sitting right now.
WHITMAN: Then it would be illegal.
CARLSON: But you're not okay with stopping someone who has got a gun visible on the street and taking the gun away?
WHITMAN: No, I think -- I think any sane person if someone has a gun visible on the street.
CARLSON: Well, that's what it is.
WHITMAN: And he does not have a conceal carry law, they should be arrested. Absolutely.
CARLSON: Okay. So you are for stop and frisk, I just want to be --
WHITMAN: Hundreds of thousands of people were stopped and discriminated.
That's the problem and that unfortunately --
CARLSON: And many -- and millions went away for having a joint and they were executed. I mean, it's just all a lie.
WHITMAN: No, they weren't executed, but being caught up in the legal system for people at a young age can wreak havoc on people's lives.
CARLSON: Look, if we are against carrying guns -- if we are against carrying illegal guns, let's go ahead and be against carrying illegal guns.
Okay, and let's just not just -- the one program that actually works, we call it racist, like we're not for that. Okay. I thought we were all for gun control here.
WHITMAN: The implementation of unintended consequences that a lot of people do consider racial profiling.
CARLSON: Oh, unintended consequences.
WHITMAN: Then I would agree with that.
CARLSON: Okay. Yes. Yes. Well, there might be a few of those if you try to, you know, criminalize an AR-15 or other deer rifles.
WHITMAN: That would be a good idea.
CARLSON: Yes. Mr. Whitman. Thank you.
WHITMAN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, a couple of years ago, Bernie Sanders described open borders as a Koch brothers proposal because it is literally a Koch brothers proposal. It's a libertarian idea. He was right.
Mass migration reduces wages for low skilled workers. But now Sanders has changed his mind. His campaign has released an immigration proposal that reads like something the Koch brothers would write.
It would halt deportation. It would abolish enforcement of our borders, abolish I.C.E. and create a new category for something called climate migrants.
Justin Haskins is a Research Fellow at the Heartland Institute. He joins us tonight to explain what a climate migrant might be and more pressingly, Justin, why would a climate migrant have a right to come to my country?
JUSTIN HASKINS, RESEARCH FELLOW, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: Well, apparently climate migrants, which I don't even think are a real thing, are essentially a category of people from third world countries, from developing nations who are so supposedly suffering as a result of climate change, man-caused climate change.
You know, I don't believe that anybody is actually suffering from man- caused climate change. But Bernie Sanders' proposal would have 50,000 people -- 50,000, at minimum -- come to the United States from around the world who are suffering from climate change, supposedly, in just the first year and over the course of his presidency, hundreds of thousands of people, because supposedly this is good for climate justice or something along those lines.
But the most bizarre part of all of this is that I thought, according to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and everybody else in the socialist left that human beings are causing climate change, that human CO2 emissions, that that's what's causing climate change, and it's going to be catastrophic.
Well, if that's true, then why are we bringing people from all over the world where they produce CO2 emissions less per person in places like Mexico and Guatemala and places like that? Why are we bringing them to the United States where we produce CO2 emissions per person at a much higher rate? And he says --
CARLSON: And he said also, if you cared about the environment, which I personally do emphatically care. I actually go outside once in a while, unlike most people on the left, why would you want a crowded country?
Isn't crowding your country the fastest way to despoil it? To pollute it?
To make it, you know, a place you wouldn't want to live?
HASKINS: Yes, absolutely. Look, the left is schizophrenic on a lot of issues, and this is one of those issues.
CARLSON: Yes, I've noticed.
HASKINS: It doesn't make any sense at all to have an open door -- open border policy where you're bringing people into the United States when people are supposedly destroying the planet, destroying the environment where we're talking about population control in some parts of the left right now.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez says that she stays up at night and she doesn't think she can have children because she is worried about the effect it is having on climate change. But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to bring in hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people from around the world into the United States? How does this make any sense, Tucker? It makes no sense.
CARLSON: It's sad and actually, and I mean this with sincerity, I feel sorry for her. Because I think she means it. I think the movement that was started to clean up the environment -- which most people again very much including me totally for that -- has morphed into this weird cluster of neuroses, where people actually think they can't have children because of climate.
And it's sad. I mean, it really is -- paging, Dr. Freud -- I mean, these people need help. I guess we all need help. Our society has gone going crazy. Justin, thank you for your part in making it a little bit less crazy. Good to see you.
HASKINS: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, the left has basically given up trying to hide its contempt for you and anyone who doesn't live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. When we come back the latest from a philosophy lecture at UC Berkeley on rural America. You'll be ashamed of yourself if you live outside Brooklyn.
That's the bottom line. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: The rideshare company Uber has fired more than a thousand workers since July, mostly Americans. That's about two percent of its workforce.
Meanwhile, during the same period, the Federal government has approved hundreds of new H-1B visas for Uber. And that means they can replace those workers with foreign scabs, who will work for less. It's like outsourcing but even easier because Uber doesn't even have to build a new building.
There's nothing unusual about what Uber is doing. There's bipartisan consensus in Washington that we desperately need smart people from overseas to do the jobs that Americans are too badly educated to do.
No reason to fix our schools or make sure higher education is serious and non-frivolous. We can just import people from countries that take education seriously. And that's what we do. That's why the U.S. government passes out foreign worker visas to allow corporations to replace people like you with people who live 6,000 miles away.
Now, you probably haven't even heard of the F1 Optional Practical Training Program. But just four years from 2009 to 2013 that program replaced nearly half a million American jobs. That program allows foreign students who study at American universities to stay in the country after they graduate. In other words, we're just going to staple a green card to their diploma, you probably heard that phrase recently.
And since employers you use F-1B visas are not required to pay payroll taxes, they get in effect a tax subsidy for hiring foreigners over U.S. citizens. How is that for America last? Maybe the program would make sense if Americans really couldn't fill all those jobs. But it turns out there are plenty who could. Just ask the thousands who were recently laid off by Uber.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, fully half of all American STEM majors -- that is people who study technology -- don't end up working in STEM jobs. Isn't that weird?
The only people who actually benefit from these visa programs are tech billionaires in Silicon Valley. They're getting richer no matter what.
And the foreign nationals who want to live in San Francisco and our U.S. government makes it easy for them to do that. Who gets hurt? Well, among others, the college graduates who took on huge amounts of student loan debt only to be dumped into a system where their foreign replacements get preference over them.
This is happening on a grand scale, and both parties are for it including many Republicans in Washington. It tells you a lot about where their priorities are.
Well, a philosophy lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley went on Twitter the other day and revealed his true feelings about everyone who lives outside the city.
The instructor was a graduate student called Jackson Kernion and described rural Americans and we're quoting now, " ... as bad people who have made bad life decisions." He encouraged his followers on Twitter to quote, "shame people" who weren't pro-city and argued that healthcare, gasoline and internet access ought to be much more expensive for rural Americans.
No that most people at Berkeley share his contempt.
Bestselling author Mark Steyn isn't originally from this country, but he moved here to rural America where he has lived for many years and he joins us tonight. So what do you think of this, Mark, as a rural American? Do you feel less good than your compatriots in Williamsburg, Brooklyn?
MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, I would not want to take a philosophy class from this alleged philosopher because you can say what you like about Karl Marx, but Karl Marx at least understood that poor people are not bad people who make bad decisions, and one of the consequences of being poor is that you don't really have the freedom to make decisions.
Rural America has a lot of problems. The fellow across the street in my broken down loser New Hampshire town, they paid $125,000.00 for their home.
When they sold it a decade later, they had to take 80 grand for it. The two other houses that were up for sale, nobody wanted to buy them. And in the end, they gave them to the town and the town demolished them.
So when you -- but when you sell a $125,000.00 house for 80 grand, you can't move to a city. You can't afford to live in a city. I would say three things about the problems with cities. The first thing is that some of them are murderous like Chicago. The second is that in California particularly where this guy is from, they are absolutely filthy.
NBC in Los Angeles is reporting tonight, showing video of a man on the streets of Los Angeles dumping a bucket of diarrhea over a woman as she is getting into her car.
You heard from your previous guests that had all these people who want to save the planet. Instead of being a narcissistic buffoon and trying to save the planet, why not do something achievable? Like try to save your city -- a city that can't even stop human waste in the street and putting human waste in the oceans and on its beaches?
And the third thing this guy doesn't appreciate because he is something like a hipster philosophy groover is that city -- the best cities in the world are bifurcating. The middle class is eliminated. They can't afford to live there. You have the mega rich and the immigrant servants who service their lifestyles whether it is domestic servants or the barista at Starbucks.
This guy's contempt -- I mean, even left wing philosophy, as I said, it was healthy under Karl Marx ...
CARLSON: Exactly.
STEYN:
... from the contempt this guy shows.
CARLSON: It was healthier when it was challenging power. Children like this kid on the screen are handmaidens to power.
STEYN: Right.
CARLSON: What they're saying is shut up America and obey your masters.
What does no one ever say that? They're not counterculture. They are the Pretorian Guard for billionaires.
STEYN: Right. And it's actually a class wolfing now. Poor Americans have outlived their usefulness. So the mega rich would rather have poor Hondurans and poor Sudanese, and poor Yemenis and poor Americans can go to hell.
CARLSON: That's right.
STEYN: And this philosopher's philosophy is fine with that.
CARLSON: It tells you everything. Mark Steyn, who actually lives in rural America. Good to see you tonight. Thank you.
Te Thanks a lot, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, corporate America has never been more woke as you've noticed. They've banned ammunition sales, bankrolling left-wing advocacy groups and of course they'll happily finance your sex change operation.
But when it comes to harassing pro-democracy protesters, well that's totally fine with them as long as their friends in the Chinese government are doing it, comma, and they are doing it. That story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: At some point in the last few weeks, Russians appeared to have landed by submarine in the city of San Francisco to wreak havoc on our culture. Working under the cover of darkness, the saboteurs left behind an enormous piece of visual propaganda. It was a mural of Dictator Vladimir Putin, 50 feet high in a major American city.
Tonight Comrade Putin stares out with flat Slavic eyes over Union Square below, just as in Soviet times. The portrait was painted so stealthily with such careful subversion that even now local leaders admittedly, not geniuses, appear to believe it depicts a climate protester from Sweden.
Of course the joke is on them. In the Kremlin tonight, they're clinking chilled glasses of vodka and laughing. They hack our elections. Now they've hacked our murals.
Corporate America is officially woke and getting woker by the day. The banks won't lend to gun makers. Gillette wants to end masculinity. Nike pulled shoes off the shelves because Colin Kaepernick got offended by the Betsy Ross flag. The commissars in Human Resources order you to declare your preferred pronoun. All of that is happening in plain sight and you're not allowed to complain about it.
But when the Chinese government murders protesters, no problem. We're cool with that
[VIDEO CLIP PLAYS]
CARLSON: Gordon Chang is author of the book "The Coming Collapse of China." He joins us tonight. Gordon, would it be too much to expect some leader of American industry that does business with China to call, publicly call on the Chinese government to maybe stop killing people?
GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR: Yes, we would certainly like that, Tucker, but we're not going to hear that. Unfortunately, we have American companies in what the Chinese call Xinjiang and what the local inhabitants call Chinese- occupied East Turkistan, and there, we have American companies involved in a region where there are crimes against humanity, the worst abuses on Earth. So yes, this is really distressing.
CARLSON: Wait, wait. So we have -- unpack this a little bit if you would -- we have American corporate presence near -- rounding up the internment in concentration camps of Muslim ethnic minorities? Is that what you're saying?
CHANG: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Also, you know, we've got a number of American companies that have just generally supported Beijing transferring technology to the Chinese, and we've got them involved in places where they shouldn't be including that part of the northwest of China, which is really horrible.
CARLSON: You've got to wonder, though, why investors aren't saying anything about this. So there are a series of activist hedge fund managers, for example, who will go to companies and say, we don't like the way you're doing business. We think you're operating inefficiently.
You're doing something we don't like, and we're going to force you to do what we want.
Why don't any of them ever push say Nike, for example, to stop supporting the fascist regime of Mainland China?
CHANG: You know, they should, Tucker. You know, and it's not just a question of morals. It's also a question of business because those places are risky from a business point of view, certainly from a reputational point of view, because countries are starting to change their attitudes towards China because of Xinjiang and a company that's involved there, especially an American company is going to run a risk that could affect the share value. So this should certainly be disclosed and talked about in prospectuses and other filings.
CARLSON: But it's not, and no one in corporate media mentions it. I mean, you never hear anyone on the other cable channels say a word about it. You don't hear presidential candidates, certainly on the Democratic side, mention it very often. Why is that?
CHANG: Well, I think it's because, you know, we've had this notion that we've got to integrate China into the international system. And also, I think that American companies are afraid of China.
So for instance, last month, Apple took down a police tracking app from its app store because Beijing demanded it and you know, this is just bad behavior. But I think it's because Tim Cook is really scared of what China might do to his market for Apple products.
And by the way, Tucker, last month, the same month, you had Tim Cook go on an Advisory Board of Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, so he is being sort of sweet talked into helping Beijing as well as being coerced.
CARLSON: It's just a little strange, because presumably, if the United States government rounded up hundreds of thousands of Muslims and put them in concentration camps, I bet some of the -- I'm just betting that some of the CEOs might notice and maybe tweet about it, at very least. No?
CHANG: Will I think they probably would say something, Tucker.
CARLSON: Yes.
CHANG: We know that for very minor infractions, what they think, you know, they won't do business with the Pentagon. You know, all sorts of issues that really just show a lack of American values and a lack of understanding of China's attack on our society.
CARLSON: Are there -- I mean, could there be a movement in Congress to force some of these companies to take a side? You know, either you're with the United States or are you with its mortal enemies?
CHANG: Yes. And also the President of the United States can use his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to force companies out of China or to stop certain activities of theirs in China, so the President can do that as well.
CARLSON: It would be nice to see a little executive power exercised once in a while. Gordon Chang, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
CHANG: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: Well, apparently ABC News executives killed internal reporting on Jeffrey Epstein. Okay. You knew that because that story broke last week.
But ever since it broke, CNN, which is not ABC has been covering up for ABC. Why is that? What's going on here exactly? We hope to get to the bottom of it after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Jeff Zucker runs a television network, CNN, but he doesn't actually go on television. He spends most of his time up in his layer screaming into the speakerphone into his various minions. One of whom, the creepiest of all the minions when Jeff Zucker has something to say, slithers forth and speaks for him like a ventriloquist dummy. So when he speaks you know, it's actually Zucker talking. And when he doesn't speak, you know, it's because Zucker told him not to.
And despite the fact that this kid is supposedly a media critic, one story he has assiduously ignored is the greatest media story of the month/year and that's ABC News anchor Amy Robach's claim that her network killed reporting on billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. That's a great story.
So why is CNN covering for Epstein and his allies in the media and refusing to bring news of that story to its viewers? Chadwick Moore is a journalist based in New York. He has kicked around the journalist business for long enough to know things as we say and he joins us tonight. Great, great to see you, Chadwick.
CHADWICK MOORE, CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST: Good to be here.
CARLSON: Why would CNN -- why would Jeff Zucker be covering up for ABC which was covering up for Jeffrey Epstein? I'm confused.
MOORE: Well, do they think that the American people are stupid? Do they think that there are people in this world --
CARLSON: Yes, they do.
MOORE: They do. And they think there are people in this world who only get their news from CNN and that they don't know what's going on. I hate to break it to Jeff Zucker, but people don't live in airports. Okay. They know what's going on. Your silence is deafening. And I think that you've mentioned the word cartel and I think that's right.
You know, I've been on this show before talking about when the media covers for their own whenever some scandal is broken, or there's someone in some hot water, which is increasingly basically every single day, and, you know, they are used to these sort of circle the wagons and protect their own.
I don't think that analogy works so much anymore. I think it's little too cutesy. This isn't the Oregon Trail. This is Juarez and Jeff Zucker is El Chapo.
I mean the level of corruption here is insane, and these are supposed to be competitors, we would assume that the news business would want to be, you know, maybe be delighting in one of their competitors having a tough time.
CARLSON: No, but it's bigger than that. Because it does tell you what -- like, so CNN is liberal, obviously, they've identified their audience as liberal and people stuck in airports as you noted. I get all of that.
That's totally fine.
But the Epstein story isn't political necessarily, so it really reveals the deeper agenda, which is basically covering up for the people in charge, however repulsive, corrupt and criminal they are. And that's really what it is, right?
MOORE: That's exactly right. The fact that they said that this story was squashed because they wanted an interview with Will and Kate, for what?
The 10,000 housewives that care about the Royal family?
I mean, and it said it's just powerful people, powerful and well-connected people and you're right to point out it wasn't necessarily political. And that is what makes it so disgusting and so corrupt.
CARLSON: But you've been in journalism a long time, is that what journalists are supposed to do? Cover up and protect powerful people?
MOORE: Of course not. You know I always thought the journalists are supposed to expose power and expose corruption and speak up like I did several years ago and was blacklisted by liberal media when I saw things -- very, very bad behavior.
And now what we're seeing is with Amy Robach being so obsessed with not the corruption, not the injustice, not that many people were probably continued to get victimized after this story -- after the story was spiked, but she's obsessed with the fact that she didn't get credit for breaking the story, this career defining story that she wanted her name on.
CARLSON: That's a good point.
MOORE: And it fulfills this impression people have of journalist as these spineless ego maniacs who don't care about anything but themselves and promote -- and working their way, climbing up the ranks.
Now, at ABC it worked for her. She became a co-anchor of "20/20: after she shut up and didn't fight this. That's a very prestigious job.
CARLSON: You're right. You're absolutely right. I defended Amy Robach on this show.
MOORE: I know.
CARLSON: Until I read your piece in "The Spectator." You've been writing for them recently, and I think you're doing an amazing job. And you won me over to your point of view. You're absolutely right. I mean, she should have spoken up right? Of course.
MOORE: At least called the police, you know?
CARLSON: Yes, no, you're right. You're totally right. Chadwick Moore.
Thank you. Great to see you tonight.
MOORE: Thank you. You too, thanks.
CARLSON: Two Democratic presidential candidates are engaged in a grievance battle, which politician is the bigger victim? Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar? Boohoo. Who worked for McKinsey? He is not the victim.
That's the hint. I'll tell you the answer after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARLSON: Be honest, nine months ago, had you ever heard of Pete Buttigieg, the unknown mayor of a small crime ridden Midwestern city? No. Now, he is a top tier presidential candidate. How do you do that exactly? Well, we're not sure. But his fellow presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar has a theory. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm the one from the Midwest. That's actually won in a statewide race over and over again.
And that's not true of Mayor Pete. That's just a fact.
The women on the stage, I'm focusing here on my fellow women, senators, Senator Harris, Senator Warren and myself. Do I think that we would be standing on that stage if we had the experience that he had? No, I don't.
Maybe we're held to a different standard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Sexism. Tammy Bruce is the host of "Get Tammy Bruce," one of the best things on Fox Nation, and you should subscribe to watch it. She joins us tonight.
TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NATION HOST: Thank you, sir.
CARLSON: Tammy, what do you make -- what do you make of Senator Klobuchar's explanation for this?
BRUCE: Well, she's a sexist. Here she is saying that a woman in his position would fail. And why would that be?
So either she is a sexist, would have a different expectation of a woman.
He is 37. He went to Harvard. He was a Rhodes Scholar in the military. I mean, it's a pretty impressive background for someone.
So let's say a woman has that background, I would expect her come out and you know, if she thinks she's going to run for President, you know, go ahead and do it and then fight for it, and that's what he's done.
I don't like him. I don't like any of the Democratic candidates, but you have to hand it to them. They're out there ruining their lives and saying dumb things, and she comes after him.
Now, either she is a sexist or even worse that she believes -- and remember, this is the voters -- that the voters would be treating a woman differently. This is the Democratic primary season. These are Democratic voters that she is accusing of being sexist.
I mean, this is such a habit that they have. She is not even considering what it is she is saying here.
CARLSON: Right. No. And of course Elizabeth Warren is doing just fine despite being a woman in this race. I hate to digress, but I can't control myself.
BRUCE: Yes.
CARLSON: I noticed that Amy Klobuchar's campaign poster has Amy with an exclamation point. I've covered politics, you know, I guess almost 30 years now. I've never seen a candidate with an exclamation point after his or her name win anything. Have you?
BRUCE: Well, no, no. I think wasn't the last one Jeb, right?
CARLSON: Yes, he was.
BRUCE: Jeb.
CARLSON: One point.
BRUCE: Yes, right.
CARLSON: It doesn't, does it?
BRUCE: It doesn't work. But when I was on the left, we realized and we did studies that in fact, for women to move forward, they should highlight being women and that would mean using their first name.
So she is doing well in the debates as is Mayor Pete, and so she is using that aspect, believing it to help her with the same electorate that she is accusing of sexism.
Now, maybe if Mayor Pete had ever eaten a salad with his comb maybe that would even out the playing field. I don't know. But it's an interesting argument and it is shameful because as women, we know that, look, we say we're equal, and that we're going to play by the same rules, expect the same dynamic and it's getting very old to say that your trouble is based on other people or it is other people's fault.
CARLSON: No, it is.
BRUCE: And I think that's not going to help her at all to say the least.
CARLSON: No, I think you're absolutely right. But I have a soft spot because I'm married to one from the Midwest and her accent --
BRUCE: Well, do you hear? That was whining, but really she was whining.
She says I'm the one from the Midwest. I think she is jealous that she probably does not view him as a serious person, can't really admit that.
CARLSON: That's right.
BRUCE: And she's jealous he is doing well because she has played by what she sees as the rules and maybe he didn't because he is gay, and she is jealous about not being the one category that can be victimized in this lineup. She has got another person who can be a victim in their point of view, where it's really in fact, neither one of them are. Wouldn't that be a lovely thing to be able to admit?
CARLSON: No, I mean, I think that's exactly how everyone in that party sees the world. You know, victims -- it's all so bizarre in inverted.
BRUCE: Yes.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, great to see you. Thank you for the clarity as always.
BRUCE: Thank you, sir. My pleasure.
CARLSON: That is it for us tonight. Sadly. We'll be back tomorrow night, Tuesday night and every weeknight at 8 p.m. The show that's the sworn and totally sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.
As the week begins, we would encourage you to figure out how to DVR it, if you can, an IQ test I fail, but you'll do better than that. We have full confidence.
Good night from Washington. Guess who's next? Live from New York City, taking over the 9 p.m. hour, ladies and gentlemen, Sean Hannity.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox