This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 30, 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.” We want to begin this evening with a quiz. Quick. What does the Democratic Party stand for? That used to be an easy question to answer. For a hundred years, the answer was higher wages and better benefits. That was back when the Democratic Party was run by people who worked for a living. They cared about how much voters got paid at the end of the week. But that's not a subject that interests the decadent rich very much.
The private equity billionaires who fund today's Democratic Party could care less about other people's wages. What they care about most other than making themselves even richer, is feeling virtuous, feeling like a deeply good people, much better than you are.
And that's why they're so committed to something called diversity, a concept that nobody is willing to explain, but that nonetheless, we must celebrate enthusiastically and perpetually. Listen to Nancy Pelosi explain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Our diversity is our strength.
Diversity is our strength.
Our diversity is our strength.
I always say that diversity is our strength.
And I say to the caucus, our diversity is our strength.
And the fact is, is that our diversity is our strength.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Okay, got it? "Diversity is our strength." They made that part crystal clear. What is still unclear is what exactly diversity is. What is it?
Well, for one thing, diversity is the reason that Allison Jaslow was forced to resign her job in disgrace. Until 24 hours ago, Jaslow was the Executive Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then yesterday she quit in tears. She asked her colleagues to forgive her as she packed her things.
What did Jaslow do wrong? Well, nothing actually. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't say anything awful. She didn't mismanage the office. Nobody claimed she did. Jaslow's only sin was having the wrong skin color.
On Sunday, two congressional Democrats, Vicente Gonzalez and Filemon Vela demanded that Jaslow be fired from her job and replaced by a person of a different hue. Not a more competent person, they didn't mention that. That was irrelevant. Just a different colored person. That's all that mattered to them. So, they forced a person out of her job for having the wrong genes.
Apparently, none of this set off any alarm bells over at the Democratic Party HQ. Apparently, nobody could think of any other time in history where something like this had happened. It didn't seem ominous to them or creepy or racist, it just seemed like diversity, which we must celebrate because it's our strength. That actually happened.
The Democratic Party has gone insane. Now, you may think you already knew that, but even if you think you knew it, it's hard to appreciate just how real it is, just how crazy the party has become.
The party of ordinary Americans has become a poisonous identity cult obsessed with questions of racial purity. It's terrifying, but it's entirely real. How real is it?
Well, Al Sharpton is now a hero on the left. That kind of sums it up. For 40 years, Sharpton chased one hustle after another -- race pimp, F.B.I. informant, corporate shakedown artist, tax cheat. If you told Al Sharpton in 1995 that someday he'd be the moral conscience of the Democratic Party, he would have laughed in your face. And yet here we are, and here he is sermonizing on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: This is race baiting at its best. This is Donald Trump playing the race card, and it is a shame and it is a sham.
He is playing a race baiting crap.
But he's playing a race divisive card.
He should not continue to try and sell this racist behavior to try and make the country more divided for his own political gain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: There you have it. Al Sharpton, the man who wants to attack Jews and crackers as parasites, bemoaning our divided nation. Hilarious.
But leading Democrats don't appear to get the joke. Just today, poor old Joe Biden tweeted this quote, "The Reverend Al is a champion in the fight for Civil Rights." Sure, if the fight for Civil Rights is euphemism for buying more $10,000.00 suits, in which case, Al Sharpton is a legitimate hero in that fight.
The Democratic candidate seem to think he really is. Watch them kiss his ring at an event this spring.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The head of NAN who is truly right now the steward of the ongoing movement for Civil Rights and justice in our country, and that's the Reverend Al Sharpton.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Being on the forefront in the fight against racism and for social justice, Al, thank you so much for all that you're doing.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I know that Reverend Sharpton takes his platform seriously. This is not the place for talk. This is the place for action.
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, D-N.Y., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: People like Reverend Sharpton, who has never stopped fighting for social justice.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And Rev, I cannot thank you enough for your years of friendship, your years of leadership.
MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, D-NYC, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I want to say to Reverend Al Sharpton, thank you for leading; thank you for speaking out. Thank you for showing us a way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: There you have it, the modern Democratic Party so distorted by race guilt that Al Sharpton seems like a moral leader. This is nuts. It's also a recipe for an electoral wipeout.
There's a lot about the Democratic Party's economic platform that ordinary voters might like. But this kind of garbage, it's a deal killer, and not just conservative white voters. No normal person of any color will vote for stuff like this.
Whatever his many faults, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel does understand that. This week, Emanuel published a memo aimed at the party's presidential candidates. He begged them to return to reality immediately.
Here's part of it. Quote. "Before our party promises healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants -- a position not even Ted Kennedy took -- let's help the more than 30 million Americans who are a single illness away from financial ruin. Before we start worrying about whether the Boston Marathon bomber can vote, let's stop states that are actively trying to curtail voting rights of citizens. And before we promise a guaranteed minimum income to healthy adults who prefer to stay home and play video games, let's increase the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit to the benefit of the millions of people who still work hard and live near poverty." End quote.
There were times in the memo that Emmanuel sounded like Donald Trump in 2016. For example, quote, "American taxpayers has spent the last 20 years both in blood and treasure building roads, schools and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the while American wages continued to stagnate. People are tired of being treated as chumps. It's time to invest in America again."
It goes on like this. Emanuel's memo is full of good advice and not just good advice for Democrats. The man wasn't right about everything, obviously, but at least he focuses on the right things.
Most Americans actually aren't obsessed with race. They don't want to memorize 60 new genders, there aren't 60 new genders, there are two genders and everyone knows it.
They don't think it's their duty to give American citizenship to everyone on the planet, along with healthcare. Come on. Instead, they have a more basic hope, and it's the hope of people everywhere. They want to feel that the country they were born in is their home. They want leaders who put their interests first, leaders who actually care about their wellbeing.
And yet weirdly, for decades, Washington has refused to supply leaders like that. That's why Donald Trump won in 2016. It's why he could very easily win again in 2020. Because in the end, Americans will always pick a flawed leader over a leader who openly hates them -- every single time.
Luis Miranda is a former DNC Communications Director, and he joins us tonight. Luis, thanks a lot for coming on.
LUIS MIRANDA, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, I just think if I'm over at Democratic Party HQ, and I get the word that someone has to be fired from her job because of her race, I'm thinking to myself, "Wait a second, racial purity test?"
MIRANDA: Yes, I don't think that's what happened. Look, I worked with Allison at the White House.
CARLSON: Exactly -- no, it's exactly what happened.
MIRANDA: Tucker, I worked with Allison in the White House. She is a veteran.
CARLSON: She says that's what happened and now she is --
MIRANDA: She is a professional.
CARLSON: Well, it's what happened.
MIRANDA: I have the highest respect for her. I think she's going to be back and do great things. This was more about Cheri Bustos and her leadership because since she took over, there's been no effort at bringing in diversity among senior staff.
So, what they've created is sort of a junior level where they've tried to put in some diversity to sort of appease people, but they haven't brought people into senior leadership roles at the Democratic National Campaign Committee who are diverse, and that's been an ongoing problem, but --
CARLSON: But look, we're saying the same -- hey, but wait, hold on. You're saying that my characterization is incorrect, and now you're conceding that it is in fact correct.
MIRANDA: I am just saying that it's about --
CARLSON: This woman left her job because she is the wrong skin color.
MIRANDA: I am just saying that it is about Cheri's leadership. It's not about Allison Jaslow or her skin color. It's more about the problems that has been with the Chair.
CARLSON: Nobody is attacking -- nobody is attacking Allison Jaslow or the job she did. She was told by two members -- Democratic Members of Congress -- that she was the wrong color. And she had to -- she had to resign. I believe that's what the --
MIRANDA: This was a broader question over the Chair's leadership, not about Allison. This is not about Allison.
CARLSON: It was a very specific -- no, it was a very -- okay, it may not have been about her personally, but it was about her skin color. And I am just saying normal people of all races --
MIRANDA: And Allison is going to be very strong and continue to be a strong Democrat and continue be an operative that does a lot of good things.
CARLSON: Come on. Stop this -- is that okay? Is it okay to tell someone to resign because they have the wrong color? Like what country is this? Is that okay with you?
MIRANDA: Of course not. And again --
MIRANDA: I think the bigger problem here is just the lack of diversity at the top of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which I think needs to be dealt with in a constructive way because at the end of the day, to win across the country, to retain control of the House, Democrats are going to have to win in districts that are very white and districts that are very diverse, just as we did in 2018.
CARLSON: And firing people their skin color -- I mean, look in a functional country, the D.O.J., the Civil Rights Division would be on them so fast, it will make their head spin because it's illegal to do what they did.
But normal people are against it. So, I just want to know, if you think that Al Sharpton is a legitimate Civil Rights hero, as the Democratic candidates appear to believe he is.
MIRANDA: I think Al Sharpton has done a lot to bring attention to important Civil Rights issues throughout his career. And I think he has actually been a very strong voice for a diverse coalition of Americans over the last many years, particularly since he ran for President in 2004.
I've personally been impressed with the way that he became more of a national voice for a sensible discussion on so many different issues. Having been previously more of a New York centered operative, he became more of a national figure on Civil Rights. And I think he is a particularly legitimate voice. He is a perfectly legitimate voice.
CARLSON: Operative -- so when he egged on -- when he egged on a mob that ended up killing someone and burned down a store because -- and I'm quoting Sharpton, "They were white interlopers and Jews running the store." Is that the kind of diversity that the Democratic Party stands for?
MIRANDA: He has not been doing that since he became a national figure. He's been a much broader voice, trying to bring people together on the national stage.
CARLSON: Did he apologize for that?
MIRANDA: You know, I honestly don't know.
CARLSON: No, he hasn't.
MIRANDA: But I think the bigger conversation about race and diversity in the Democratic Party is an important one because what we have is Donald Trump trying to divide us based on race while he pushes out racist tweets and endorses white nationalist, white supremacist marching in Charlottesville. We need a conversation on the Democratic side that brings everyone together.
CARLSON: You need Al Sharpton who attacks the Jews and the white interlopers. That is just --
MIRANDA: I don't think it's just -- I don't think it's just Al Sharpton.
CARLSON: I get it. I get it.
MIRANDA: I think we need to bring people together from all sides, Tucker.
CARLSON: You're on that. Maybe he --
MIRANDA: So, this isn't a point of discussion. Definitely not. But I wouldn't put them in the same -- I wouldn't put them in the same box, but look, I think that that it is important for Democrats to do a better job here because one of the challenges that Democrats have had traditionally, Tucker, is that when they have hired minorities in previous cycles, they hire them often for roles that limit them to just a minority role.
So, hiring a Hispanic, for example, as this happened in the ...
CARLSON: It sounds like a racist party to me.
MIRANDA: ... in the Senate where, you know, you hire a Hispanic for just to talk to Hispanics, not for a broader role. So I do think the Democrats need to be pressured by the Black Caucus, by the Hispanic Caucus and others to have diversity at the top, and not just to bring in minorities to talk to other minorities and across the board, because that's what happened in 2018 and that's why we good effort to win races across the country.
CARLSON: I got it. I got it. It's okay to fire people who are the wrong skin color because that's not --
MIRANDA: That's -- that's absolutely not, not true. Not right.
CARLSON: Okay. Luis, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
MIRANDA: It's good to see you too, Tucker.
CARLSON: Howie Carr is a radio host and more than that, he is a man with a very long memory. He remembers when Al Sharpton was not necessarily a moral hero. How long ago was that by the way? Howie, it seems like just yesterday that Sharpton was an F.B.I. informant encouraging acts of violence against people. When did this change take place?
HOWIE CARR, RADIO SHOW HOST: Right. I observed with interest Bernie Sanders kissing his ring, which was in his back pocket at the time.
Bernie Sanders is Jewish originally from Brooklyn, at one point in another racially inflammatory statement, Al Sharpton referred to the Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights as diamond merchants, a young Jewish rabbinical student ended up stabbed to death.
He called Aristotle and Socrates Greek homos. You know, he said -- and he got his start with the first of the modern racial hoaxes, the Tawana Brawley scandal. This girl, teenage girl, stayed out past her curfew, decided to tell her angry father that she had been abducted and sexually assaulted by a white mob, including a young Assistant District Attorney.
It was a giant story in New York, and it was a total racial hoax. And there were two people involved, Sharpton and a black lawyer by the name of C. Vernon Mason, and he ended up getting disbarred.
But Tucker, as you well know, a man of God is protected by the First Amendment. They couldn't disbar Al Sharpton and he just went on his merry way. And that's when he had his radio show with the white interlopers remark, six people ended up dead on 125th Street up in Harlem, none of whom were white, by the way.
And, you know, he used to run around New York, in a Velour jumpsuit, jumping -- a running suit, he weighed 400 pounds, and he always spoke through a bullhorn.
And you know, as you said, he was he was a character in Tom Wolfe's famous novel, "The Bonfire of the Vanities." He was the race hustler. He was Reverend Bacon, he was into steam control. You know, if there was a pressure building up in the community, you could apply the valve through Reverend Bacon.
And the most famous incident of steam control with Al Sharpton was -- remember when Comcast was trying to buy NBC for billions of dollars and Al Sharpton said that was bad for the community. And you know, I -- remember that? And yes, he filed all of these complaints.
CARLSON: It's kind of weird that he wound up with his show on that channel. It's kind of funny how that works.
CARR: Isn't that amazing? He dropped all of his complaints of Brian Roberts, the white interloper, I guess you could call Brian Roberts and Comcast, they were allowed to buy NBC and he ends up with his own show and it was a laugh riot, remember that, Tucker. You know, we just stood --
CARLSON: That's never occurred to me, a long career in cable news. I've never even considered holding a protest outside corporate HQ to get a raise.
CARR: He had a --
CARLSON: Maybe I'll try that next time.
CARR: He had a quite a career. You know, there used to be famous slang in the 60s, "I fought the law, the law won." Well, Al Sharpton on MSNBC, he fought the teleprompter and the teleprompter won.
CARLSON: It's really an almost endless source of amusement. Howie Carr, great to see you tonight.
CARR: He is a classic celebrity famous for being famous. Thanks, Tucker. Bye-bye.
CARLSON: We've got a Fox News Alert for you tonight. A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the DNC against Members of the Trump 2016 campaign team. The lawsuit accused Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Donald Trump, Jr., and others of breaking the law by helping to hack DNC e-mails or spread them after they were stolen.
But a Federal judge, who by the way was a Bill Clinton appointee said the claim was quote "Entirely divorced from factual reality." The judge went on to say quote, "At no point does the DNC allege any facts to show that any of the defendants participated in the theft of the DNC's information."
The President just tweeted minutes ago that the ruling was quote, "Really big stuff, and yet another total and complete vindication and exoneration." End quote. We'll keep you up to date.
Well, billions of dollars -- Federal dollars -- have gone to improving the City of Baltimore, they don't seem to have helped that much. Where did the money go? We'll speak to an office holder in the City of Baltimore after the break.
CARLSON: No matter how much Twitter complains about it, the President's description of the City of Baltimore is basically accurate. Unfortunately, Baltimore is dirty and dangerous and many of its residents are poor. Why is that though? That's the real question. It's not entirely because the city has no money.
Over the past decade, for example, the City of Baltimore has received $2.3 billion in Federal assistance. Didn't seem to do much, though. Where did that money go? One answer might be corruption. Two of the city's mayors in the past decade have had to resign following corruption scandals.
Robert Stokes has seen a lot of this. He's a Baltimore City Councilman and he is nice enough to join us tonight. We're happy to have him. Mr. Stokes, thanks for coming on.
ROBERT STOKES, BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER: Thank you for inviting me.
CARLSON: So, this is not an attack on Baltimore. I live near Baltimore. And you know, I've always felt sorry for Baltimore. But you have to kind of wonder what did happen to the $2.3 billion the Fed sent Baltimore over the last 10 years? It's not evident when you drive through.
STOKES: Well, I'm actually not here to talk about what happened to the money, what happened and who didn't do what. I'm here to talk about how hard Baltimore City residents take care of their the neighborhoods clean up and those kind of things and talk about 400 years of structural racism, not just in Baltimore, but all over the country for black people.
CARLSON: Okay. That's okay. That's an interesting topic. But I mean, it doesn't quite get to the key question, which is, why have two mayors resigned? What happened to the money? Why is the murder rate higher than almost every country on the planet? What is the core problem in Baltimore, do you think?
STOKES: The murder rate comes from 400 years of structural racism, which leads to poverty, which leads to inadequate education, which leads to crime and now mental health for 400 years.
So, the money that we do get from the Federal government is just not going to reduce crime or people's need for adequate housing, for apprenticeships, to give a livable wage. It's just tough when it's been 400 years.
CARLSON: It does seem like though, when Marilyn Mosby, the prosecutor stopped prosecuting some crime and instead started going after police officers in the City of Baltimore, the murder rate went up.
So, racism may or may not be a factor. But this is a black-run city, and the murder rate went up when crime -- when the police stopped addressing crime in the way they had. You don't think that's a factor?
STOKES: Yes, but the murder rate went up again because of racism -- structural racism, again -- I'm going to keep saying it -- 400 years. At least in crime and poverty, inequity in education, and Marilyn Mosby talked about marijuana laws.
We had a Police Department that had some issues and problems. So Commissioner Harrison is working on it, put some structures in place and holding people accountable in the Police Department.
CARLSON: So, if 400 years of structural racism is the cause of the murder rate and the poverty and the filth on the street and the crumbling building, I mean, there's not really -- and you said that Federal money doesn't make a dent in it, what you're basically saying is there's no solution.
STOKES: There is a solution. The solution is to work with the Federal government to give us immediate Federal money for infrastructure, for housing for those persons who are working poor, and more technologies for our Police Department.
CARLSON: What do you mean? Baltimore has got more abandoned buildings than any city on the eastern seaboard. I mean, you've got more housing than you know what to do with it. They're knocking down housing because you don't have enough people, because people are fleeing the city. Why would you need more housing? It's the last thing you need.
STOKES: More housing because you have affordable housing, but you have working poor people that cannot afford homeownership? We need people to have some wealth. And if you can't afford a house, because you making $32,000.00 on a family of three --
CARLSON: No, but houses are free in Baltimore. They're knocking houses down. No, no, they're knocking houses down. You have too many houses. But you're saying the Fed government needs to buy more houses for you?
STOKES: No, I say the Federal government need to give us more money to create more housing opportunities, one, and we have some of the houses that are actually in the neighborhood, the ones they're knocking down because of the structure is gone. It's not worth the rehab. It is damaged and the structure is gone and create new housing.
CARLSON: Okay. Mr. Stokes, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Those don't seem like solutions to me, but it was nice of you to explain them anyway. I appreciate it. Thanks.
STOKES: Thank you.
CARLSON: A year ago, the President's remarks about Baltimore would be the conventional wisdom basically, even Mayor Catherine Pugh of Baltimore would agree with them. But now, his comments we are told are the latest evidence is not simply a bad President, he is literally just like Hitler.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: Anyway, President Trump has used the word "infested."
Infested, infested, infested. It's a word. It's vermin. It's a Hitlerian term. You go back and read gerbils and all that stuff. It's all about the Jews in that case. It was the use of the word vermin infested. He is obsessed with this thing about cities.
DONNA EDWARDS, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: Well, this is this is the Nazi playbook. Right? I mean, you dehumanize people. You say they're infested. It gives you the reason to -- I don't know --
MATTHEWS: Well, exterminate them.
EDWARDS: You know, to exterminate them.
MATTHEWS: Or something like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce is the President of Independent Women's Voice and hosts "Get Tammy Bruce" on Fox nation. We're always happy to have her on the show. Hey, Tammy.
TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NATION HOST: Thank you.
CARLSON: So, none of these people is interested in what's actually happening in Baltimore. They don't go to Baltimore.
CARLSON: They literally could care less about Baltimore. They're totally happy with the status quo in Baltimore.
BRUCE: That's right.
CARLSON: The murder rate -- the fact that kids learn nothing in schools, we just interviewed a city councilman from Baltimore. He seemed like a nice enough guy.
CARLSON: He has no idea ...
BRUCE: I saw that.
CARLSON: ... how to fix anything in Baltimore.
CARLSON: It was idiotic, what he has said.
CARLSON: Is there anybody who actually cares enough to think through like, how can you fix this once great American city? There's no reason that we should have a city like Baltimore in the United States?
BRUCE: Well, it's obviously a great American city with Americans living in it -- great American.
BRUCE: And yet, part of the reason why this city has declined so drastically is both the interview you had with that gentleman, but then also the media. The media also doesn't care about Baltimore. There they are still foaming at the mouth over Donald Trump, who's the only guy who seems interested in making a difference and is capable of doing so, and he is called Hitler, you know, 25 times a day. And he is the one guy who says, "Wait, this is unacceptable."
You know, what the racism is? They say, you know, this is him talking about vermin and that it's an attack on the city. The attack on the city is ignoring this condition. It is this passive racism of every one of all colors, who just look away, because it is the status quo and yet, some people somewhere are making money. A lot of people have power, they want to be in power, and anything that rocks the boat is disturbing, and that is the President's crime.
Now, in this case, you've got the media. If the media actually was interested in Baltimore, they would go there. We have Lawrence Jones of Fox Nation. And of course, Fox News, going there interviewing people on the street. And they agree with the President.
And they are shocked at the decline of this amazing, powerful American city, because politicians, the Democratic Party, of course, liberal policies, but also the Republicans, not just for Baltimore, but Detroit, and Flint, and Chicago and New York and Los Angeles and San Francisco, city after city that the Republicans have abandoned because they don't feel like explaining the conservative ideal to people who, I don't know, maybe they think won't understand it.
Americans regardless of the amount of melatonin in their skin want freedom, they want a future for their families and they've been abandoned by both parties.
In comes President Trump saying, "Wait, what is this going on over there?" And oh, my gosh, you can't have that. But this is the first step. Finally, some attention. People talking about an infestation of actual rats, of American citizens who probably mostly are Democrats, who deserve better, and who've been abandoned by their own people, because you want people to just be living paycheck to paycheck because otherwise they might actually want something more from government.
CARLSON: They keep voting the same people in to office who are morons, and they're not moving the ball at all.
BRUCE: But the Republicans don't -- no, you're right. But you see, they get lied to, but then also --
CARLSON: I agree.
BRUCE: Who is the alternative? The Republicans aren't running anybody. Let the Republicans begin to offer alternatives.
CARLSON: Well, exactly, and the left's whole deal is the other side is racist, so you have to vote for us.
BRUCE: Yes, exactly.
CARLSON: They are stuck with some of the worst -- the worst leaders ever.
BRUCE: Indeed. And that's a lie. That's a lie.
CARLSON: Tammy Bruce, great to see you.
BRUCE: Thank you, sir.
CARLSON: It is a lie.
CARLSON: Good to see you tonight.
BRUCE: Thank you.
CARLSON: Programming note, the 2020 field of Democratic candidates is on another channel right now at a debate. We're going to be keeping track of that, so you don't have to. If there is news or we need to hold someone to account, you will see it right here, right away.
So again, we're watching so you don't have to. That's our commitment to you.
Democrats are sure that the solution to all violence is to make Americans less free. Would their plan even work? How's knife control working in the U.K.? We will tell you after the break.
CARLSON: Following the horrifying mass shooting on Sunday in Gilroy, California, Democratic presidential candidates made their now routine calls to fix violence by making you less free. Permanently getting rid of constitutional rights in order to fix societal problems is always a bad idea. But will the Democratic plan even work?
In the U.K., for example, heavy gun restrictions failed to stop crime. Now, the country is trying to implement knife control. It's not working. Knife crime in England and Wales is up eight percent compared to last year, that should tell you something important.
Ryan Cleckner is a former Army Ranger and now writes at "The Federalist." He joins us tonight. Ryan, thanks a lot for coming on.
RYAN CLECKNER, FORMER SPECIAL OPS SNIPER: Thanks for having me on.
CARLSON: So what are the -- we always want to take policy prescriptions seriously because who knows, they could become law at some point. What are they prescribing? And would it have the effect they claim it would?
CLECKNER: No, if you're talking about the Democratic presidential candidates prescribing gun control, absolutely not. Now, there's a myriad of reasons why?
Well, one of the reasons is, I mean, how many laws did the shooter in California break? Murder, assault, vandalism, trespassing, possessing a firearm in California. I can't even count them on one hand, possessing the firearm in a gun free zone. None of those laws did anything to prevent that shooting.
So, if just the six I thought of right now, it didn't do anything to prevent the shooting, why do they think the seventh law would do anything to stop it?
CARLSON: Well, that's a great -- that's a great question. They have to know that. They have to know that nothing that they're proposing would stop a determined shooter. So why are they continuing to demand it?
CLECKNER: They want guns gone. So, you've asked me before, why I think that these gun control measures come up. And I've changed my mind as time goes on that I used to say, you know what, they're just misguided. That they want the same thing you and I want. They want kids safe, they want people safe. And they just don't understand that banning guns is going to have nothing to do to solve the problem and everything that it was infringing on people's rights. And we just need to educate them.
And as time has gone on, I've just been more and more convinced that they don't care that it's going to do nothing to stop mass shootings. And I can prove it.
In this Gilroy, California shooting, this horrible event. We already saw the call for gun control from every anti-gunner out there. They already called for gun control without first even knowing what gun the shooter had, how he got the gun, any of the details of the event, which means they were calling for gun control, well before they knew the efficacy of their current laws, or even what their proposal would even solve.
So, that right there was a clear, clear sign to me that they don't care anymore. They're calling for gun control with zero respect for what it would do to solve anything. They just want the guns gone.
CARLSON: So what you're saying is this is an attack on the autonomy of American citizens. They don't think your average person ought to be able to have guns because that's just too much personal freedom.
CLECKNER: The autonomy -- you're right -- more important, the safety and the livelihood. See, the problem is, you know this, Tucker, every single one of these shootings, maybe a couple have it, but the vast, vast majority of these mass shootings or even mass killings, we shouldn't just say shootings, they happen in gun free zones.
Back from Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, to high schools, to movie theaters, to shopping malls, to this Garlic Festival. They are have something in common and that is they're stripping the ability of the everyday American to defend themselves. That's exactly what happens.
We know what happens if you take guns away. People cannot defend themselves, and then other people, we call them criminals. You know, those that don't obey laws, no matter what the law is. The criminals, the ones that won't be affected by those gun laws, they take advantage of that. Why else would they only attack these gun free zones?
CARLSON: Excellent point. Great to see you, Ryan. Thank you for that.
CARLSON: America's higher education system is fundamentally a scam. How rotten is it? Well, some parents are giving up their children to help them afford a college education. A remarkable story. That's next.
CARLSON: Every year, higher education particularly in the Liberal Arts in this country gets less useful, more expensive and more prone to exploiting normal people. To get ahead in this totally rigged system, parents have paid bribes, cheated on tests, faked racial heritage. Now, some parents are going a step farther. They're literally giving up custody of their children to give them an advantage and college admissions.
Fox News Jonathan Hunt has more on this amazing story -- Jonathan.
JONATHAN HUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Tucker. It's the latest chapter in the national debate over the fairness of college admissions, and appears to be another example of wealthier parents gaming the system.
But this time, it's not about those parents paying for access, but trying to save themselves money by pretending their children are poor. "The Wall Street Journal" was the first to report that the Education Department is now looking into the scam in which parents transfer legal guardianship of their children to relatives or friends, thus enabling the kids to claim financial aid.
The WSJ reports the case of one Chicago area woman who said she and her husband lived in a home valued at $1.2 million, had a household income of more than $250,000.00 a year but had put little aside for their 17-year-old daughter's education, so they transferred guardianship to the woman's business partner.
As a result, the teenager only had to declare $4,200.00 in income from a summer job and ended up getting a $27,000.00 Merit Scholarship and $20,000.00 in need-based aid.
The case is being investigated, they are all in Illinois and the University of Illinois says it is looking into the practice saying it quote, "Takes away resources from middle and low-income students," and adding quote, "This is legal, but we question the ethics."
Some college consultant companies are allegedly advising parents on how to take advantage of this apparent loophole. And while all the cases so far uncovered are Illinois based, it seems if it's happening there, it is likely happening right across the country -- Tucker.
CARLSON: Jonathan, thanks for that. Americans continue to take drastic measures to help their children attend college because no matter how bad the scam gets, college still does matter.
America's elite universities have become the gatekeepers of success in this country. They decide who has access to our elite institutions, our highest paying jobs. They claim it's a meritocracy, but that's a crock and anyone who knows Chelsea Clinton knows it's fake. I mean, keep in mind, Chris Cuomo went to Yale. It's not a real meritocracy.
But it's made Harvard and schools like it very rich. Harvard's endowment is almost $40 billion. Princeton, Stanford and Yale are over $20 billion. These endowments currently go completely untaxed. Billionaire Peter Thiel says it's time for that to change.
In a recent speech, he said that Harvard and similar schools ought to lose their tax exempt status. We spoke to him shortly after that speech. Here's the conversation.
CARLSON: First of all, why do they enjoy tax exempt status? Why would Harvard --
PETER THIEL, BILLIONARE AND FACEBOOK BOARD MEMBER: Well, I think it used to be that education was seen as something charitable. It used to have a religious basis. It was linked to the exemption for churches. It -- so I think there was a history to this when these were seen as fundamentally, fundamentally charitable institutions.
And when they are educating, they are doing a public service. And I think what's changed, what is very different that you alluded to in your intro, is that today, it is -- it's not a positive. Somehow, you're imparting knowledge and you're growing the pie.
It is a zero sum tournament, where if you get into a top college, you've won this very exclusive tournament. If you don't, if you go to a lesser college, the diploma is often nothing more than a dunce hat in disguise or something like that.
And so the way to think of the -- you know, if the elite colleges were educating people; if Harvard or Stanford were educating people and giving them a great education, they should be just doubling or tripling the enrollment.
And what sort of business is doing something great for its customers, and doesn't increase the number of its customers? That's a really weird business. But the closest analogy to business I can come up with is that it's something like the Studio 54 nightclub. You have an incredibly long line outside, only a few people get in and the value comes from being exclusionary.
They're not inclusive, they're exclusionary, and that's where the value comes from.
CARLSON: And a highly self-satisfied bouncer --
THIEL: And then, if you think of it as the Stanford or Yale or Harvard, Studio 54 nightclub that you're running, it's perhaps good for the prestige and status of the students. Maybe it's bad for their morals, but it certainly doesn't deserve a tax exemption.
CARLSON: Why do you think -- it's such a smart point, which I have not heard articulated by anyone else? Why do you think they keep their enrollment limited? What's the point?
THIEL: Well, if it's -- the more it's limited, the more special it is to go there. The alumni like it. The fact it's more prestigious, and if you're not actually teaching people, you're not adding any value, then you have to do all the selecting up front. Right? If you let in way too many people, it might turn out that you're not actually educating people, and they're no better off than they were before.
If you select people who are, you know, incredibly talented up front, or, you know, will get through the gates up front, then you can do that on a smaller scale.
So, I think -- yes, I think the tournament does tell that they're not educating.
CARLSON: It certainly is. What would happen? They would yelp Of course if you yank their tax exemption, they would say you were against education, but what would the actual effect be?
THIEL: I don't -- I don't know if it would be that big in the short run, but I think, it would -- I think we need to have a broader debate about college and we have this runaway student debt problem that was $300 billion in 2000, it is now $1.6 trillion to $1.7 trillion today. Students can't pay off their debt, if they go to a lesser college especially, you can go bankrupt.
If you haven't paid off your college debt by the time you're 65, your Social Security wages are going to get garnished to pay it off. So, there is this big problem with student debt.
And, and so if we pretend that all the colleges are like Stanford or Harvard, we're feeding into this debt bubble. And we have to -- and that's why I think it's important for the integrity of the system as a whole to describe the elite colleges for what they are, exclusionary institutions where a few people win a tournament, but they're not sort of somehow representative of the health of the whole university.
CARLSON: Do you find it interesting that the very people who claim to be concerned about income inequality, something we should all be concerned about, in my view, but there's a certain class of people who always tell you about income inequality, never say word one about the role of these institutions in perpetuating that inequality, why is that?
THIEL: Well, it's always on, you know -- I think in sort of an upper and middle class elite left to center U.S. context, you know, one of the most important dimensions of your identity is what college you went to.
THIEL: And so to challenge that would be threatening your identity on the very core.
CARLSON: So you're saying that all of America is being held captive to the status anxiety of "New Yorker Magazine" subscribers.
THIEL: Yes, or the hope of what they think they have -- how they brag to their baby boomer peers about how they get their kids into the good colleges, all sorts of versions of that.
CARLSON: So, this is a sort of broad question, but has there ever been a less competent and more disgusting group in world history that you're aware of?
THIEL: Well, that's pretty -- that's pretty sweeping. But I think it's -- I think it's been very problematic in the history of the United States. I'll leave it at that.
CARLSON: You're a strange, precise man.
THIEL: It tells me the world is a big place.
CARLSON: It's a big place.
THIEL: You're hyperbolic. I understand that.
CARLSON: I can't get through it all myself. Peter Thiel, great to see you. Thank you.
THIEL: Thanks for having me.
CARLSON: By controlling what you're able to see online, Google controls what you're able to think. So, what would happen if Google, the powerful company in the world took orders directly from an MSNBC host? You don't have to guess because they did, this next.
CARLSON: Well, it's ominous enough that Google uses its power of the internet to control how people think. Now, it turns out the company's ideology is being influenced by -- and we're not making this up -- Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Google may be the only entity in the world influenced by Chris Hayes.
According to a new report from Breitbart, Google deliberately altered searches on YouTube to suppress certain ideas due to Hayes's complaints.
In the fall of 2018, Chris Hayes attacked Google on Twitter, because if you searched Federal Reserve on YouTube, it produce several videos critical of the Federal Reserve and criticizing the Federal Reserve is not allowed, according to Chris Hayes.
Well, somebody at Google took note. Soon, Federal Reserve went on YouTube's internal blacklist along with other terms like abortion. So the search algorithm would give priority to certain Google approved news outlets that Chris Hayes favored because again, you're not allowed to criticize the Federal Reserve Bank, according to Chris Hayes.
Allum Bokhari is a reporter at Breitbart. He broke this amazing story and joins us tonight. Thanks a lot for coming on. So, did I over simplify that? Google is taking its cues from Chris Hayes?
ALLUM BOKHARI, REPORTER, BREITBART: No, that's absolutely correct, Tucker. I mean, we've known for a long while now that Google wants to control what everyone thinks. We now know, thanks to this story, and others like it that left-wing media pundits control what Google thinks. And it's an insane standard they have here. It takes just two or three tweets from a journalist like Chris Hayes to get the most influential video hosting platform on the entire internet controlled by the most powerful company in the world to change its search results.
And you know, YouTube says they're just doing this to crack down on conspiracy theories. It's a word they like to use to describe content they don't like. But even if we -- even if we give them that and say that's true, and I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, imagine what that says about their users.
They're basically saying that their users are morons that can't tell the difference between legitimate news and conspiracy theories, that can't tell fact from fiction.
It just speaks of the broader problem of an elite that treats ordinary people with absolute contempt and thinks they are total morons.
CARLSON: Well, it's not even a left-right divide, it's any challenge to the status quo, whether it's what the Federal Reserve or vaccines -- that's another topic that they don't want you to think outside the lines on that question. It is not allowed at all. Why is YouTube, Google and Chris Hayes? Why are they suddenly guardians of the status quo?
BOKHARI: Well, it's a total reversal in what the internet was supposed to be. It was supposed to mean an end to gatekeepers. YouTube was supposed to be this platform, its old motto was "Broadcast Yourself." A platform where anyone, you know, just ordinary people had a voice.
Instead, it's evolving into this platform that's, you know, run by Chris Hayes and run by left wing journalists, who get to decide what you can see and ultimately, what you can think.
You know, this isn't the only search results they've done this on. Back in January, Breitbart News reported that they did exactly the same thing in search results for abortion, another mainstream political debate in American politics. And again, it was exactly the same thing. First, a left-wing journalist from Slate complained to Google and within a few hours, they had gone into their search results and remove all pro-life videos from the top 10 results. It's amazing.
CARLSON: Exactly. So the unhappiest, the dumbest, most banal people become the most powerful. There's got to be a word for that. Allum, thanks very much for joining us tonight. Appreciate it.
BOKHARI: Thanks, Tucker.
CARLSON: We are out of time. Back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.
Guess who's next? You know the answer. Sean Hannity takes it away.
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.