This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 3, 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." Just a moment from now, we'll talk to the Vice President of the United States, and we'll ask him whether America is getting a Border wall in the end, and what the White House is willing to give in exchange for that. That's just ahead.

But first, Democrats have returned to power on one half of Capitol Hill, one Chamber. After eight years out, Nancy Pelosi is once again the Speaker of the House. What can we expect from this brand new Congress?

We don't have to speculate too much because they're already telling us. Pelosi has signaled her total opposition to securing America's border with Mexico, for example. Watch.


SAVANNAH CLARK GUTHRIE, CO-ANCHOR OF TODAY, NBC NEWS: Are you willing to come up and give him some of this money for the wall?


GUTHRIE: Because apparently that's the sticking point.

PELOSI: No. No, nothing for the wall. We're talking about border security. There is no amount of persuasion he can do to say to us, "We want you to do something that is not effective, that costs billions of dollars." That sends the wrong message about who we are.


CARLSON: OK. So there's that. What else can we expect?

Well Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now a Member of Congress from New York, finally, and she's pushing something called a Green New Deal. You may have heard the term. What does it mean? Well, among other things, it would close every fossil fuel plant apparently in the United States.

You'll remember, last summer, in the spirit of closing things, she vowed to abolish ICE.


ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEW YORK'S 14TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA MEMBER: I happen to believe that an agency that has repeatedly, systematically and violent - - and violently committed human rights abuses cannot be reformed.



CARLSON: OK. Keep in mind, the backdrop against which all of this is playing out is the slow but certain decline of America's middle-class. So, what's being done to address that, the single most pressing problem in this country?

Well, have no fear, Congressman Richard Neal says the Democratic Party will fight to dig up President Trump's tax returns, and why wouldn't they, and more, because according to his colleague, Hank Johnson of Atlanta, the President is literally like Hitler. Watch.


REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA: Americans elected an authoritarian, anti- immigrant, racist strongman to the nation's highest office.


JOHNSON: Donald Trump and his "Make America Great Again" followers who want to return America back to a time when White men and White privilege were unchallenged.

Much like Hitler took over the Nazi party, Trump has taken over the Republican Party.



CARLSON: Much like Hitler. Now, what would you do? Sincerely, think about it for a second. If you really thought Hitler was in the White House, well you'd stage a coup, obviously. You have no choice morally.

Democrats aren't saying that out loud, but they now are talking about impeachment out loud. Watch.


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: This deplorable, despicable human being that occupies the White House should not be there. We--

They say, "Maxine, please don't say impeachment anymore." And when they say that, I say, "Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment."


WATERS: When someone asked, "But what about Pence? If you were able to impeach, Pence -- Pence will be worse." And I said, "Look, one at a time. You knock one down, and then we'll be ready for Pence. We'll get him, too."



CARLSON: But keep in mind that Maxine Waters is suddenly more than just a very popular MSNBC guest. As of today, she's chairing the House Financial Services Committee. She has real power.

And she plans to use that power to push what she's calling "Diversity quotas" on the private sector. Hire the people Democratic Members of Congress want you to hire or else. So, that's a large part of the agenda. Should Americans be excited for that?

Richard Goodstein is a good barometer of that question. He's a lawyer. He advised both Clintons over the years and, of course, one of our favorite guests. Mr. Goodstein, thank you very much for coming.

Now, I'm not -- let me just say at the outset, I'm not going to ask you to account for Congressman Hank Johnson, who once suggested that Guam would capsize if too many American troops landed there because it's Hank Johnson.

But I do think it's fair to ask you about Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, who said that, "No. We cannot secure the border between the United States and Mexico. We cannot have a wall," and I'm quoting now, "Because it sends the wrong message about who we are."

What message would having a wall send that is not who we are?

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISER: First, Hank Johnson is Hank Aaron's brother-in-law, so he's deserving some credit--

CARLSON: Is he literally Hank Aaron's brother-in-law?

GOODSTEIN: --yes, yes.

CARLSON: But I'm not against Hank Johnson.


CARLSON: I think he's hilarious. But there's obviously something wrong with him (ph).

GOODSTEIN: Yes. So, what Nancy Pelosi is saying is what Democrats have been saying back when they, you know, passed that legislature in '06 about fencing and in 2013, $46 billion for border security, including $8 billion specifically for a structure along the border, and tens of thousands of personnel to monitor it, and all sorts of virtual walls.

CARLSON: Right, right.

GOODSTEIN: What they're saying is we don't support open borders. That's why Barack Obama was called by the largest Hispanic organization the, you know, the -- the Deporter-in-Chief. So--

CARLSON: Well, I'm -- now I'm even more confused. Listen to this. "Would you allocate any money for a wall?"


CARLSON: The new Speaker was asked. "No. No, it sends the wrong message about who we are." So, you're saying it's OK to have a virtual wall but not a real wall?

GOODSTEIN: I'm saying that Donald Trump defined the wall in the campaign -- first he said, why are we having this conversation? He said, "Mexico is going to pay for it." And now we know that taxpayer is going to. So, can we at least get him off that?

CARLSON: I don't know -- wait but hold on, he didn't -- I mean look--


CARLSON: --I don't think Mexico is going to pay for it. But just in point of fact, he didn't say Mexico was going to prepay for it. Mexico can pay for it later through remittances. But whatever, but that's really not the point.

GOODSTEIN: In a 100 years, they may pay for it? But I mean this is--

CARLSON: Look -- look, my job is not to defend all of his campaign promises.


CARLSON: My job is to ask about the country and why can't we have a wall. I'm serious.

GOODSTEIN: Yes. So, again, and Trump said, and here's why (ph) I think there's actually going to be a deal because Trump said, 25-foot concrete wall. That's what he kind of envisioned, that's what he sold his voters on.


GOODSTEIN: And I think even John Kelly said, to be honest, not something that we hear every day from the White House, it's not a wall, OK? So, what we're saying is that -- we're quibbling now between fencing and virtual this and that--

CARLSON: But I -- I get it. But what's the difference? So, Trump promises something that I hope he can deliver, which is a tall concrete barrier that actually--


CARLSON: --would slow down dramatically the inflow of illegals into our country. Nancy Pelosi says, "No, no, that's not the message we want to send," and I -- what does that mean?

What -- what message does it send that we care too much about our people, that we're serious about territorial integrity like what is the bad message that that would send?

GOODSTEIN: So, again, when Democrats held the White House, fewer people were coming into the country than now. There were more deportations than there are now. So, the suggestion that somehow Democrats are wanting--

CARLSON: But I'm -- I'm still confused.

GOODSTEIN: --open borders is a myth.

CARLSON: You're not going to address my question.

GOODSTEIN: No, I -- I will but--

CARLSON: Look, I don't want to be mean.

GOODSTEIN: No, no it's not mean.

CARLSON: You know--

GOODSTEIN: Look, the fact of the matter is what she's saying is what border experts say by and large--

CARLSON: That a virtual wall's good but a real wall is bad.

GOODSTEIN: --which is a 25-foot concrete wall is unnecessary. It's -- it's not necessary to spend that money--

CARLSON: So that's (ph) necessary.

GOODSTEIN: --and it's not going to work.

CARLSON: But wait a second. You just said that we have more people coming in than we did during the (ph) Democrats. But now you're telling me it's not necessary to secure the border with a big bad wall.

GOODSTEIN: That -- that is totally--

CARLSON: A virtual wall would be OK.

GOODSTEIN: No. It's -- it--

CARLSON: Because Democrats just want to save money. That's kind of their motto, right?

GOODSTEIN: Democrats--

CARLSON: How can we save taxpayers money?

GOODSTEIN: Democrats said in -- in 2013, a bill that passed the Senate with 14 Republicans and that John Boehner refused to bring up, but would have passed the House too--


GOODSTEIN: --and Barack Obama would have signed it, basically that would have said we're going to put all these resources in to judges, to Border Patrol, to, you know--


GOODSTEIN: --electronic monitoring.

CARLSON: OK. But the -- the -- look, I want to (ph) just say like thanks for history lesson. A lot of dynamics, there are a lot of Republicans oppose border security, I would never deny that. I'm just saying we have a chance to get a wall, and they don't want one because it works, and we all know that.

Let me ask you about the future. So, we're now hearing from the new Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters of L.A. that diversity quotas are coming to the private sector. Here's a quote from a Democrat to Politico.

"Now companies are focused like a laser on identifying top African-American talent with Congressional Black Caucus relationships to help them understand and mitigate the striking lack of diversity within their corporations."

So, what Democrats are saying is you need to hire our friends or else we're going to punish you. Why is that not corruption?

GOODSTEIN: In the same way that when Republicans came in, the word went -- I remember there was the K Street Project--

CARLSON: Yes. I hated it. I hated it.

GOODSTEIN: --been long enough to (ph) -- well but that's exactly what happened, which is--

CARLSON: Yes, it was disgusting.

GOODSTEIN: --you hire our friends, our former staffers, K Streeters, big corporations--


GOODSTEIN: --corporation and trade association to know us. So, I mean--

CARLSON: I don't think the Republicans pretended that it was racial justice when they did that. Did they?

GOODSTEIN: Well, they're--

CARLSON: Are you OK with Congress telling companies who they could hire--

GOODSTEIN: Well Congress is not telling--

CARLSON: --what talent (ph) -- yes, they are. They're--

GOODSTEIN: --well, well, legislatively, the only thing that I saw proposed was something that basically would require disclosure of the make-up of your board on gender grounds. I don't know that that's such a bad thing. It's frankly it's public. I mean presumably you list the names and you can probably intuit who's a male and who's a female--


GOODSTEIN: --so that's only (ph)--

CARLSON: Well -- well first of all, I -- I just want to officially disapprove of your rigid understanding of gender. OK? Just -- as -- as (ph)--

GOODSTEIN: I'm saying for the most part. I didn't say for the most part.

CARLSON: --for the most part, thank you. I was giving you an out, Richard, so you--

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: --wouldn't be hung by your own people.


CARLSON: Thank you so much.

GOODSTEIN: My pleasure, of course.

CARLSON: Good to see you. I'm very excited for this Congress.

GOODSTEIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Earlier tonight we had an interview with the Vice President. We asked about the Border wall, the shutdown, and what was going to happen, and here's what he said.


CARLSON: Will the deal that resolves the shutdown include any form of amnesty for people here illegally now?

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: Well, our focus is on border security.

CARLSON: Well, of course, but the Democrats' focus is on--

PENCE: Our focus--

CARLSON: --getting amnesty for people here illegally--

PENCE: Well--

CARLSON: --will you agree to that?

PENCE: What -- what we've completely focused on is keeping the President's promise, to build a wall, to pass legislation that provides other support for border security, that gives the people that are enforcing our laws at the border, and across the country enforcing our immigration laws, the resources and the tools--


PENCE: --that they need. There's a lot of people talking about a lot of different ideas. You know, frankly, the better part of a year ago, the President expressed a willingness to deal with the issue of DREAMers in a compassionate way for people who were brought here as children, and--


PENCE: --through no fault of their own. He's discussed that, it's being talked about.

CARLSON: But what about--

PENCE: But look, here's the part where the (ph) President and I are--

CARLSON: --people who -- who came here as adults?

PENCE: --ever since -- ever since the Christmas holiday, the President sent us to Capitol Hill. I met with Senator Schumer not once but twice. We engaged in good faith negotiations. The President and I canceled all of our Christmas vacation plans. We were here in Washington D.C.

Democrats broke off negotiations about a week ago, but the President's made it clear. We're here to make a deal, but it's a deal that's going to result in achieving real gains on border security. And you have no border security without a wall.


PENCE: We will have no deal without a wall.

CARLSON: If the deal in the end includes allowing people who came here as adults, intentionally to break our laws, to become citizens, then wouldn't the message to the rest of us be, why should we obey the law, if people who intentionally broke it are being rewarded for it? Can you see why that would be a perverse incentive for the rest of us?

PENCE: I absolutely can, and I've heard no discussion of that. I've heard no discussion of--


PENCE: --amnesty related to this. I -- I heard some Members of the Senate are talking about maybe including DREAMers in some sort of a negotiated settlement.


PENCE: And the President's posture on all this is, look, we're at 5.6 billion. We have engaged in good faith negotiations. We've made offers. There's been no counter-offers made. But, again, we -- we heard the Democrat leadership, the new Speaker of the House this morning again said, "No money for the wall."

Well the American people know walls work. And we heard from Border Agents today in the Oval Office that -- that in areas and sectors where they were assigned to deal with illegal immigration, the flow of narcotics, human trafficking, all the -- all the threats to our communities--


PENCE: --that we face at our border that once they build a wall, you saw illegal immigration, the flow of narcotics, drop precipitously. And--

CARLSON: So the bottom line is you will not accept a deal that does not include a wall, if I'm hearing this right?

PENCE: I think the President's made -- made it very clear.


PENCE: No wall, no deal. And -- but, look, we really are prepared to negotiate. We're prepared to talk. We're prepared to listen and--


PENCE: --and ultimately it all begins with the facts. I mean that's the reason why the President called the meeting in the Situation Room. We'll be meeting again tomorrow with Republican and Democrat leadership.

And I want the American people to know that that, you know, this is a real crisis at our border. We made progress last year. And it probably was a result of the fact that the American people elected a new president who delivered a very strong message about confronting illegal immigration.

We actually saw a decline in illegal immigration and incursions on our Southern border. But in the last 12 months, we've literally seen a dramatic increase in the number of people -- 2,000 people a day--

CARLSON: Yes, I've noticed.

PENCE: --apprehended at our border or found to be inadmissible, trying to enter our country.

I mean that represents -- as -- as much as we're all troubled in recent weeks about the caravans moving north, and there's talks about more caravans, literally, 2,000 people a day attempt to come into this country illegally by one means or another.

We -- we can agree on those facts, come together around solutions, but part of that solution means a wall. It means a barrier and -- and along our Southern border.


PENCE: And it also means technology, drones, the kind of support that our Border Agents know will assist them in doing their job. But -- but bottom line, if there's no wall, there's no deal.

CARLSON: The President, the other day, announced the withdrawal of the 2,000 American troops in Syria--

PENCE: Right.

CARLSON: --back to the United States. Nobody in Washington liked that, including some Republicans. Lindsey Graham said probably not going to happen. There was a pause on that withdrawal.

What is the state of that? Are those troops coming home? And if so, when?

PENCE: You know, President Trump as Commander-in-Chief and as a candidate made it clear that our -- our number one priority would be destroying ISIS.

The reality is we have defeated ISIS. We have defeated the Caliphate. And what the President announced just before Christmas is not that we're giving up on the fight on ISIS. We're going to continue to lean into the fight of ISIS. We're going to continue to take the actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests in the region.

But the President is determined, in consultation with military commanders, including in al-Asad Air Force Base when he was there just after Christmas that it's no longer necessary for us to have American forces in harm's way in Northeastern Syria to accomplish that.

CARLSON: Do you think we can expect in the next few months those troops to come back?

PENCE: Well I think the President's made it clear. We're -- we're going to do this and are doing this in an orderly way.

I heard him in dozens and dozens of speeches talk about bringing our troops home wherever we could around the world. This is not a -- a president that's interested--

CARLSON: So -- no, no he definitely said that, of course.

PENCE: --in seeing American forces all over the world. They accomplished -- they accomplished the task that we gave--

CARLSON: But what about Afghanistan? I'm just--

PENCE: --them to accomplish, defeating the Caliphate.

CARLSON: --right.

PENCE: And now we can bring them out of Syria.

CARLSON: Do you think that we're winning the conflict in Afghanistan? Do you think the United States benefits from the continued presence of such a large number of U.S. troops there?

PENCE: Well, the President is in the process of evaluating that, as we speak. I was in Afghanistan last year.


PENCE: In his speech in August, President Trump, basically through new rules of engagement, new resources, additional military personnel, gave our folks on the ground the ability to take the fight, be at the tip of the spear, supporting the Afghan National Army in the battle against the Taliban, ISIS Khorasan, Al-Qaeda, re-emerging in Afghanistan.

CARLSON: Is it working?

PENCE: And it's been a tough fight. I mean the President's been very clear about that. And now, I think the President's in the process of evaluating options about what has been, as you know, Tucker, we both lived through it in the last two decades, what has been a -- an 18-year conflict in Afghanistan--


PENCE: --and determining what our best options are, in terms of putting America first, protecting America's interests in the region, making sure that we can confront terrorism--


PENCE: --if it -- if it rears its head once again. But the President's looking at ways in Syria, and perhaps even in Afghanistan, where we can have less of a military commitment and see those resources and those troops coming home.

CARLSON: Mr. Vice President, thank you.

PENCE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: I appreciate it.

PENCE: Good to be with you.


CARLSON: Well on our first show of the year, which was last night, we highlighted and tried to explain the decline of men in Middle America, and how it's devastating this country. And it is.

That segment got a huge response from viewers. But some people hated it, the science parts, especially. That's no longer allowed. We'll explain after the break.


CARLSON: Well last night was our first show of the year. So, we decided to take a minute to talk about the biggest issue facing this country going forward.

No, it's not higher GDP growth despite what some think-tank people will tell you. It's not, definitely not, some obscure Middle-Eastern hellhole our leaders claim we should be policing forever. It's not even illegal immigration as big a problem as that is, and as much time as we have spent talking about it.

The real problem is families. America used to be the best country in the world for families. Americans could get married and afford to raise their own children. If your kids worked hard, you could expect they'd be a little more successful maybe than you were. That was called the American Dream.

And for a small group of affluent people, it still exists. They're still living like it's 1965, and good for them. But for everyone else, that Dream is dying. America's middle-class is in decline because middle-class American families are declining.

So, the question is why is that happening? Well there are a lot of reasons it's happening. But a major driver of family collapse, the one that nobody ever talks about for some reason is simple economics, and we explained it last night.


CARLSON: Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them. Now maybe they should want to marry them but they don't.

Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out-of- wedlock births and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow. More drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed to the next generation.


CARLSON: Now, let's be clear about that statement. First of all, it is factually true, and that's the essential test of anything. That's the test that we go by.

In 2015, a study by the decidedly non-Conservative Brookings Institution found that falling male wages caused about a quarter of the decline in marriage rates over the past 35 years.

Two years later, MIT researchers found that when factories close, marriage rates go down, and single parenthood becomes more common. And that, as you could guess, causes a higher proportion of children to wind up on drugs or in prison. So, it's not a small thing.

And, by the way, many other studies have reached the same conclusions over long periods of time. This is real. So, what we said is a statement of fact. We wish it weren't.

In an ideal world, none of this would matter. The marriage rate never would have declined when manufacturing died and everything in Middle America would be fine. But it's not. And we're not in charge of that. All we can do is tell the truth about what happened, which we did because it actually matters.

And that turned out to be too much for the people who believe it's their job to prevent you from knowing why your country is going down the tubes. Those people got very angry. Here's a selection.


JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST, THE VIEW: And strike it off (ph).


BEHAR: You know, it reminds me -- it reminds me of when they blamed women - - women for pregnancy as if he had nothing to do with it.

SUNNY HOSTIN, THE VIEW CO- HOST, ABC: There's a woman in the audience. She's like, "What? What?" She's over there (ph).


BEHAR: This -- this idea that, you know, to keep women down that's going on in the country--


ABIGAIL HAIGHT HUNTSMAN, THE VIEW CO-HOST, ABC: But Sunny, you said you had friends--

BEHAR: --and this is just another aspect of it.

HOSTIN: I don't know. It looked like Loony Town--


HOSTIN: --Town to me.



CARLSON: Yes, Loony Town. Notice that no one though contested the facts of what we said. In fact, later in the show, one of those same hosts admitted that, in fact, women do strongly prefer marrying men who make more than they do.

So, it's true but it's not on the list of approved talking points, so it can't ever be said out loud. Those are the rules. And anyone who violates those rules must be punished.

This is very common. And if you're wondering how we wound up in the Dark Age we're currently living through, this is how we did. This is why important science is no longer being conducted. This is why art isn't being made. This is why comedy is dying.

It's why people aren't thinking for themselves anymore, which means the end of creativity. It's why the rest of us stand by like cowards as the innocent are punished for crimes they didn't commit because we're all terrified.

We're terrified of being denounced by some mindless ideologue on TV, or shamed and ostracized on social media for stepping out of line, or silenced completely by some big tech firm. A mob of angry children is suddenly in charge of the country.

These aren't people seeking a revolution. They're fighting for the status quo to protect their own status. They are drunk on power. And they're looking for new people to hurt. Someday, we're going to look back on this moment with shame and horror.

But, in the meantime, we should remember that terror only works if we play along with it. So, what if we decided not to? What if all of us decided to tell the truth about something every day in public? What would happen then? What could they do about it?

They can't punish everybody. We're the majority. Let's try that.

We're starting tonight with Heather Mac Donald. She's a fearless person, a Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the Author of the book, The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture, and she joins us tonight.

Heather, thanks very much for coming on.


CARLSON: So, my theory is that when you say the true things, people get outraged. So, you know, hurt dog barks. But just to be clear, as a social scientist yourself, I hope you'll confirm for audience that this is not a controversial statement that male employment and wages directly affect the marriage rate. Do they not?

MAC DONALD: Well, first of all, Tucker, I want to commend you for making the breakdown of marriage a central focus of your show. There's no bigger social catastrophe of our age than the fact that more and more children are being raised without their fathers. And the elites understand that. Marriage has not disappeared from the elites.

CARLSON: That's for sure.

MAC DONALD: And yet, they are absolutely unwilling to send the message that fathers are as important to their children as mothers. Their tongues are tied. They refuse to say it. It's one of those truths that again is being completely denied by elite culture.

Why? Because it violates the feminist nostrum that strong women could do it all. Now, you're right that there's an economic component to this. And -- and, most famously, William Julius Wilson explained the drop in marriage among the Black community--


MAC DONALD: --as a result of jobs leaving the Midwest. And he said that the male unemployment decreases females' willingness to marry.

But I think you also have to look at a culture explanation -- explanation because I remember being taken around in a ride-along by a Chicago cop, a very handsome man, solid job, good pension to look forward to, he had fathered several children out of wedlock.

Why? Because the marriage norm had simply disappeared--


MAC DONALD: --from the Black community. So, I think this is a cultural matter as well. It's a product to a certain extent of the feminist attack on males.

We are living through a period where males are being constantly disparaged as simply the source of evil in our world. And they are responding tragically by withdrawing from competition, taking their marbles and going home. And that is leaving us all at greater risk.

CARLSON: And in some cases taking their own lives, I would say. I mean the suicide rate for American men--


CARLSON: --is higher that it's been in a long time. I would just note that the problems that William Julius Wilson chronicled, I thought, so well 30 or 40 years ago, are now the problems of rural America which, obviously, has a completely different racial demographic and political beliefs than inner-city America.

And it seems to me that when it happens to two different groups, the very same thing that would be the wake-up call for our policymakers to say, wait a second. Maybe we should get involved in thinking about how to fix this considering in our neighborhoods, where rich people live in -- my neighborhood, for example, there are no single mothers. Everyone's married because it works.

So, why aren't they doing their best to pass on the thing that is working for them? It just seems grotesque to me.

MAC DONALD: No, I -- I think we do have to look at Industrial Policy and make sure that there are good well-paying jobs there. I just wouldn't assume that that is going to be enough at this point--


MAC DONALD: --to turn around the culture.

Again, we need to valorize males. And -- and the culture needs to say males are not toxic. Masculinity is not toxic. There are male virtues of valor, courage, chivalry, heroism in war that are really uniquely male. They should not be disparaged. Females have complementary virtues and values that are also essential to children.

CARLSON: So, so wait. Can I ask where does the idea come from that when men fail, women win? I mean that really is the underlying assumption of like--


CARLSON: --the dumb people we always play from other shows. "You know, men are declining. This is great for us." But men and women are totally interconnected. So, how can the failure of one help the other? Doesn't it hurt all of us?

MAC DONALD: Yes. It's a preposterous zero-sum mentality. But there's a lot of females who are angry, angry for no reason at all. They have an axe on their -- to grind, a chip on their shoulder, and they're constantly looking for ways to feel offended, mostly by dredging up sexism from the past, because it's almost impossible to find today.

I mean you have females that are excelling in education. There's not a single mainstream institution that is not twisting itself into knots to hire and promote as many females as possible. And yet, females are still ringing their hands over the alleged sexism of the 50s, simply so they can feel like they're victims.

Preposterous! I am not a victim. I -- I don't know any female victims, frankly. But -- but there is a sense that in order for females to succeed, it has to be at the expense of males and--


MAC DONALD: --through a constant de-valorization--

CARLSON: That doesn't work.

MAC DONALD: --of masculinity.

CARLSON: It doesn't work. We -- we -- we don't win when some of us lose. I -- I don't believe that. It's not true. Heather, thank you very much.

MAC DONALD: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well they're coming after your drinking straws. Now they want to tax your meat. It's getting bad out here. Mark Steyn joins us after the break.


CARLSON: Well huge parts of this country, as you already know, are breathtakingly beautiful. Yellowstone, Big Sur, Yosemite, the vast forests of Maine, places like that are what make this a great country.

If being an environmentalist means anything, it means protecting those places and countless others across this continental nation, keeping them clean and protected. So, how are professional environmentalists doing with that?

Well, we know, this week, the federal government is shut down and that means the National Park Service is not cleaning up in our national parks. That means that trash is piling up. That is an environmental crisis.

So, we wanted to know how our environmental watchdogs were responding to it, so we contacted this country's four biggest environmental groups to see what they were doing about it, The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National -- Natural Resources Defense Council.

Go to their websites. They'll tell you how they're protecting the soil and water. By the way, they raise a lot of money on those claims. Combined, these four groups have an annual revenue of well over $1 billion.

Over The Nature Conservancy, their endowment is over $6 billion. So, they could easily help. Picking up trash is not expensive. They're certainly rich enough to do that. Are they doing it? We called it in (ph) to find out. None of them even responded.

And that, of course, means no. They're not doing it. They're not helping. Now, that may be sad to those of you who grow up -- grew up sending money to The Sierra Club, which used to concern itself with our physical environment and did virtuous work.

But if you've been paying attention for the past 10 years, you shouldn't be surprised. Actual garbage that's ruining nature? Well that seems small in importance compared to, I don't know, promoting carbon taxes or unlimited immigration or gender theory or the various other priorities of the Democratic Party, which is what these groups spend their time and money doing.

And, by the way, that's fine. Lots of groups in Washington do those exact things. They're political consultants. That's their job. But, at least, they're honorable enough to pretend they're not protecting the environment.

So, these groups may not care anymore about picking up garbage but they do like the idea of controlling your behavior. Across America, scolds (ph) are stamping out plastic straws, already banned here in Washington, but it won't stop with straws. Think it will? Huh.

Some groups are promoting taxes on meat. They're doing this in the name of promoting health and fighting climate change. Of course, these taxes would have the added benefit of punishing you.

Mark Steyn is an Author and Columnist. He joins us tonight. So, it does, am I sensing a theme here, Mark, where a certain sort of--


CARLSON: --upper-income person doesn't feel content until he's really taken away all the small comforts of those below him?

STEYN: Absolutely. The Councilman in Santa Barbara, where they introduced one of these bans on plastic straws, said, we have to regulate, we can't trust the common sense anymore, we have to regulate every aspect of people's lives. And after he got a bit of pushback on Twitter or whatever, he kind of walked that back.

But it's true. And it's actually the inverse of what you were talking about with Heather just now that the less anybody notices the vast amount of human rubble piling up around us, and the more we're prevented from talking about anything that matters, the moral, the clever people in our society obsess on peripheral things like plastic straws.

CARLSON: It's just so interesting though that all of it is aimed downward at people they believe is--


CARLSON: --are their social inferiors. I can't remember the last time The Sierra Club went after the Government of China. Some of these groups are taking money from the Government of China or went after--

STEYN: Right.

CARLSON: --Al Gore for flying privately or went after--


CARLSON: --private airports, the FBOs across the country. Why is it always aimed at people who make less than they do?

STEYN: Well I think -- I think it's because it is the pleasure it affords the elites at actually regulating the masses. You -- you mentioned China. Supposedly, we ban straws because straws are polluting the oceans--


STEYN: --as you mentioned, eight countries in Asia are responsible for two- thirds of the plastic waste that goes into the oceans, which means that a 192 countries or thereabouts are responsible for the other third.


STEYN: And America contributes less to plastic waste in the oceans. The Morocco or Burma or even North Korea, and I don't even know what they got to throw in the oceans in North Korea because that's not a--

CARLSON: Not much.

STEYN: --that's not a consumer society. But it -- it's on -- this is unglamorous work. Just as the most important aspect of human healthcare is hygiene, the most important aspect of environmental healthcare is -- is garbage disposal.

If -- if instead of the Paris Climate Accord, the -- the nations of the world got together and decided to raise these Asian countries' level of trash disposal to Euro-American--

CARLSON: Exactly.

STEYN: --standards, you would have a much better and -- but -- but if you say to The Sierra Club, do you want to be running on better garbage disposal, it's not glamorous enough for them.

CARLSON: It's just, on the meat tax, very quickly, it just seems like this is not -- this will only affect people who like burgers. And why not for--

STEYN: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: --all the problems that people in that income range have, why hassle them? Is global warming really their fault?

STEYN: Well they -- if we didn't eat burgers, we wouldn't have cows. And they take bovine flatulence more seriously than illegal immigration or anything. I mean the European Union--


STEYN: --was proposing offsets on that because the Irish Holstein emits more than the -- emits less than the BullGuard Jersey (ph). So, they were actually going to be having offsets in that particular sphere in the European Union.

I mean as I said, the -- the less we talk about anything that matters--

CARLSON: Right, exactly.

STEYN: --the more we obsess on these boutique niche issues.

CARLSON: That's -- that's such a deep point, as most of your points are. Mark Steyn, thank you very much.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Oh, ho, ho, ho, it is finally here after a week. Final Exam, can you beat the experts at remembering the final stories of 2018? How's your short-term memory? The test ahead.





CARLSON: Thank Heaven in a world gone crazy, there is still Final Exam. We've come to that time of the week where the news professionals compete with one another to be crowned the ultimate master of the news.

The defending champion this week is Fox -- Fox National Correspondent, Lauren Blanchard, who crushed it last week. Her challenger is a very accomplished man, former U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who is guest- hosting for Laura this evening, so don't miss that, and also works here at Fox Site (ph).

Great to see you both.


CARLSON: Congressman, are you familiar with what this requires?

JASON CHAFFETZ, CONTRIBUTOR: I'm -- I'm a rookie. But I got the coat off.

CARLSON: I like that.

CHAFFETZ: You know -- you know, at--

BLANCHARD: Right now.

CHAFFETZ: --home, when we play games, it's usually shirts -- shirts versus skins. But I'm going to go ahead and keep the tie on.

CARLSON: You know what? You can be who you are on this show.


CARLSON: If you want to go shirtless, it's up to you but--

CHAFFETZ: I'm a rookie.

CARLSON: --I'll let you decide.

CHAFFETZ: I'm a rookie.

CARLSON: OK, good. Well then let me read you the rules, the stringent rules. You know them, of course.


CARLSON: Hands on buzzers. I ask the questions. The first one to buzz in gets to answer the question. You must wait until I finish asking it before you answer.

You can answer once I acknowledge you by saying your name. Each correct answer is worth one point. Here's the trick. If you get it wrong, you lose a point, the cruel math of Final Exam. Best of five wins. Are you ready?

BLANCHARD: Let's do it. You're ready?


CARLSON: All right. All right.

CHAFFETZ: That's a trick. I know you seriously (ph).

CARLSON: She's good (ph). I know she's -- she's devastating.

OK. First question. After announcing that she does, in fact, plan to run for President, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts held a live stream Q&A session with supporters. And at one point, she stopped taking questions, so she could grab a beverage from the fridge. Some are saying it was an embarrassing gap. What kind of drink did she get?


CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard.

BLANCHARD: It was a beer.

CARLSON: A beer?

BLANCHARD: She popped open a beer.

CARLSON: Unbelievable. Was it a beer?


SEN. ELIZABETH ANN WARREN, D-MASS.: Hold on a sec. I'm going to get me a beer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But, for some, the moment falling flat, online critics calling her awkward attempt at drinking beer inauthentic pandering to young voters.


CARLSON: For some--

BLANCHARD: Could have been worse (ph).

CARLSON: --the moment falling flat. They -- they leave out verbs in network news for some reason. I mean it was a beer. It's exactly right.


CHAFFETZ: She also got her husband that she kept -- dragged into the shot as she--

CARLSON: She did?

CHAFFETZ: --that was very natural. Yes.

CARLSON: I even -- wasn't even aware of him. What kind of beer? Do you know?

BLANCHARD: I think it was something light but--

CARLSON: It was some sort of non-beer like your carb-free--

BLANCHARD: I don't--

CARLSON: --beer or something. I'm not a beer guy.

All right, question two. The Billboard R&B chart this week features a debut from an unexpected artist. He's a former U.S. President. He's featured on the number 22 song. What is his name?


CARLSON: Lauren.

BLANCHARD: It's President Obama.

CARLSON: Is that true? President Obama?


CARLSON: I didn't even know this. Is it President Obama? To the tape we go.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With a rising star in the R&B world, you guys are going to want to keep an eye on this one. His name, Barack Obama.

All right, let's listen in.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: With pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize the sweet enjoyment of partaking. In the midst of my fellow citizens--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It could be (ph).


CARLSON: Yes, he left Office to make the world better. And that's what he's doing.


CARLSON: You were right.

CHAFFETZ: --I -- I missed that.

CARLSON: Yes, I do. I--

CHAFFETZ: I would have -- you could have given me 20 minutes, I would have never gotten it.

CARLSON: I wouldn't have either.


CARLSON: Let's see if he gets (ph) this one.

Question three. It's a crowded Democratic field coming together for 2020, even Hollywood considering jumping in, or one member of it. Which award- winning actress, famous for wearing a vial of her husband's blood around her neck, is thinking about becoming a Democratic candidate?



BLANCHARD: OK. I don't know the story, but the only one who did that was Angelina Jolie. She was famous for wearing the blood. But I didn't hear that she was--

CARLSON: I can't. I can't imagine there's more than one--

BLANCHARD: --is Angelina getting in?

CARLSON: --actress in Hollywood--

BLANCHARD: I would hope not.

CARLSON: --even in Hollywood, who wears a vial--

BLANCHARD: I would hope not.

CARLSON: --of her husband's blood.


CARLSON: Was it Angelina Jolie?


STEYN: Another 2020 contender, Actress Angelina Jolie is hinting that even she might run for president in 2020. In an interview with the BBC--



CARLSON: I think.


STEYN: --Ms. Jolie said that she can work with both governments and militaries, so she may be worthy of high office.


CARLSON: Mark Steyn, ladies and gentlemen. So, I -- I think what our judges are saying -- congratulations, by the way--

BLANCHARD: Thank you.

CARLSON: --Congressman, is that speed is of the essence.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, yes.

CARLSON: And pressing perhaps rather than slapping might be more effective.



CARLSON: This is a two-point question.




CHAFFETZ: All right.


CARLSON: Question four. People in the City of New York believe their city was being invaded by aliens recently. Why did they think this? Because the night sky lit up in an electric blue. What was the cause of that?


CARLSON: Lauren.

BLANCHARD: It was a Con Ed transformer explosion. It was very weird.

CARLSON: Man, you are so on it, you're freaking me out. Is that true? Is Lauren right?

BLANCHARD: It's all over Twitter.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cause of the panic? A transformer explosion at a Con Edison utility substation. Then there was that low frequency hum. Worried residents fearing the worst called 9-1-1. Some thought it might be the beginning of an alien invasion.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was freaky. It was like Independence Day in the movie--


BLANCHARD: He did like compare to (ph)--


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --where you just look up and a -- a weird blue color that, you know, you haven't seen, lighting up the clouds in the sky.


CARLSON: As we've noted many times in this show that is just a matter of time. Right.

CHAFFETZ: She -- she is no doubt good. But can I get a lesson on buzzer like--

CARLSON: You know, the judges were just saying--

BLANCHARD: You got to really like this (ph) you got to--

CARLSON: --would you -- would you like to take a practice buzz right now?


CARLSON: OK. Just practice buzz.



CARLSON: It's working.

CHAFFETZ: All right.

CARLSON: I -- I think -- I think, actually -- I mean, obviously, she's deeply informed on the news.


CHAFFETZ: She would have kicked my butt no matter what.

CARLSON: But she's also lightning fast.

CHAFFETZ: Yes. No kidding.

CARLSON: You have a bunch of brothers, right?



BLANCHARD: Two brothers.

CARLSON: Right, so--


CHAFFETZ: All right, I--

BLANCHARD: Maybe quick (ph).

CHAFFETZ: --I've never been known for my cat quick reflexes.



CARLSON: I would say that (ph)--

CHAFFETZ: I get that. I get that. Yes.

CARLSON: OK. Final question, and per the mandate of the National Game Show Commission, this must be an animal question, and therefore it is.

Tension was high at Tuesday's Sugar Bowl between the Texas Longhorns and the Georgia Bulldogs. The mascot for the Texas team, a live 1,800 pounds steer charged the mascot for the Georgia team. What kind of animal is the Georgia mascot?


CARLSON: Holy smokes! Lauren.

BLANCHARD: It's a bull dog. The Georgia Bulldogs?

CARLSON: Was the answer in the question? To the tape.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Before the Sugar Bowl, the Texas Longhorns' 1,800 pound mascot, Bevo, charging Georgia's Bulldog, Uga, after breaking out of its pen.


CARLSON: Holy smokes!


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody was hurt though but that's a bit of a scary situation.



CARLSON: Lauren Blanchard--

BLANCHARD: I don't believe it (ph).

CARLSON: --highest score ever achieved on this show.


CARLSON: Congressman, I don't judge you for a second. I would have had the exact same score because she is absolutely unbeatable. She--

CHAFFETZ: Next time, I'm going to put the coat on.

CARLSON: I -- I don't know. I don't think that -- I don't--

CHAFFETZ: I can study enough.

CARLSON: --I'm not sure that any accessory could help because she's that good. OK. You get another Erik Wemple mug--


CARLSON: --which commemorates the now famous appearance of Mr. Wemple from the Washington Post website on our show.

BLANCHARD: I gave one to my parents for Christmas so--


BLANCHARD: --now they'll have two.

CARLSON: And you'll be hosting Laura Ingraham tonight.

CHAFFETZ: 10 o'clock.

CARLSON: It's going to be good?

CHAFFETZ: It'd be good.


CHAFFETZ: There's so much out there.

CARLSON: --I'll be sitting with my Erik Wemple mug watching you. Thank you both very much.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

CARLSON: That's it for Final Exam tonight. Pay attention, close attention, to the news, especially weird news, every week. Tune in next Thursday to see if you can beat our experts. We'll be right back.





CARLSON: Well this show is committed to taking a much closer look at big tech. Contrary to many people's expectations, technology companies have turned out to be the single biggest threat to your freedom of speech, to many of your rights and, in fact, your well-being, certainly to your privacy, as an American. So, we're always looking to know more.

Trace Gallagher joins us tonight with what he's found. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, Zhou Fengsuo was a Chinese Human Rights Activist, based in New York. But the professional networking site, LinkedIn, blocked his profile page in China, because of "Specific content," though the company did not say what specific content ran afoul of Chinese policy.

Instead, they wrote this, quoting, "While we strongly support freedom of expression, we recognized that when we launched that we would need to adhere to the requirements of the Chinese government in order to operate in China."

But Human Rights groups say this has nothing to do with violating Chinese laws and everything to do with trying to silence Chinese dissidents. Turns out, Zhou was a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square.

But breaking tonight, LinkedIn has now restored Mr. Zhou's page saying it made a mistake.

And separately, we thought you should know that documents filed by the Dutch Chamber of Commerce show that in 2017, Google shifted $23 billion to a tax shelter in Bermuda. The move is legal, but it does allow the company to avoid triggering U.S. income taxes and European withholding taxes. Google says it pays all its taxes and complies with all laws.


CARLSON: It is (ph) really shocking. Trace, thank you for that.

Well, back in this country, as major tech platforms continue to suppress free speech, people who seek to think for themselves will have to look for alternatives. And if those alternatives don't exist, they may need to be created.

Dave Rubin has reached that conclusion after years of thinking about it. He, of course, hosts The Rubin Report on YouTube. And, until recently, he raised money for his show on the crowd-funding site, Patreon. But now, after Patreon purged several dissenting voices from its service, Rubin and Professor Jordan Peterson have announced they will be leaving.

Dave Rubin joins us tonight to explain what he's doing. Dave, thanks a lot for coming on tonight. One of the reasons this was such an ex--

DAVID JOSHUA RUBIN, HOST, THE RUBIN REPORT: Always good to be with you, Tucker.

CARLSON: --exciting story to hear is that finally someone is opting out and creating an alternative. What -- what are you going to do now that you've left this service?

RUBIN: Yes. Well, I would say the headline here really is that I think the tech story of 2019 is that the people, the average person, watching your show, that watches my show, has to decide what kind of internet they want. And do we want--


RUBIN: --a free internet that respects dissenting opinion that allows for free expression and free speech and things of that nature? Or do we want a controlled internet that is basically controlled by the social justice mob that you did a segment on this show earlier?

I think, yes, you're right. The reason that Dr. Peterson and I are leaving Patreon on January 15th, despite it being something like 70 percent of my company's revenue, which I'm voluntarily giving up--


RUBIN: --is that it is time for someone to take a stand. It--


RUBIN: --we're just watching our freedoms erode away. We're just giving them up. We're letting these companies take people out.

We're letting these companies say, "No, you can't say this. You can't earn money. You can't make a living, etcetera, etcetera," and it's like, you know what, at some point, if -- if a couple of us that have some influence don't stand up, then nobody will. And then this whole -- this whole game, this whole -- this whole beautiful game about freedom on the internet, it'll all be over before we know it.

And that's why Jordan and I are doing this. And -- and there's a huge -- it's a Herculean effort to design a system that will truly respect freedom and not be destroyed when the mob comes to turn on it.


RUBIN: We've got a lot of technical issues to deal with, technological issues. We've got -- we've got free speech issues to deal with, legal issues to deal with, so we've got -- we've got work to do, but let's go ahead and do it.

CARLSON: The fact that you're putting 70 percent of your income on the line to do this, I think, is inspiring. And I hope it is literally an inspiration to other people. When will this service be up, do you think?

RUBIN: It -- it -- it's going to take a couple months, you know. We don't want to over-promise right now. Anyone that's watching your show that understands tech knows that this is not going to be easy--


RUBIN: --to be built out. But we just felt, look, let's get some of the middlemen out of the way. Patreon had just become a middleman. And, right now, people can go to, if they want to support what I'm doing.


RUBIN: They can go to Dr. Peterson's website if they want to support what he's doing. And I just believe that actually people have had enough. So, I'm taking a risk here.

But I -- I truly believe with no risk comes no reward. And we'll build something better. And, you know, we've got -- we've got allies, people like you that are on mainstream media that are helping--


RUBIN: --promote -- promote these stories and ideas. And it's, I think 2019 actually is the year that the people start fighting back.

CARLSON: Man, I hope that's true.

RUBIN: Enough of giving into the mobs -- yes.

CARLSON: God bless you--

RUBIN: I -- I do too.

CARLSON: --for taking the first step. Dave Rubin, we're rooting for you, obviously.

RUBIN: Thanks, brother.

CARLSON: Thank you.

Well we're out of time, sadly. Could go on forever, but we'll be back tomorrow night. The time is 8:00 P.M. The show is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink, cheerfully, we hope.

Good night from Washington D.C. Last night, we turned the show over 14 seconds early to Sean Hannity in New York. Now we're giving him three seconds. Sean Hannity, ladies and gentlemen.

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.