Rep. Jordan: Census citizenship question is common sense

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," July 9, 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.” Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lecturing us about the weather again. Flash floods in D.C. on Monday, she said, "What an act of God." No, they were the fault of Republicans for not passing her Green New Deal and giving her full power over the American economy.

Just one problem with that though, actual scientists disagree with her read on that. We will talk to one just ahead. But first tonight quick. Here's a quiz for you. How many foreign nationals are living in the United States right now? Just kidding. It's a trick question. Nobody knows the answer. It could be 10 million, it could be 50 million. We'd just be guessing.

Pretty embarrassing for a supposedly advanced country not to know who lives within its borders. But honestly, we have no idea. For the last two years, the Trump administration has been trying to fix that by including a simple citizenship question on the 2020 census. Democrats hate the idea, of course.

If voters actually knew how many noncitizens lived in the United States, they might be less enthusiastic about giving free healthcare to illegal aliens.

So last month, liberals on the Supreme Court threw up roadblocks to adding the citizenship question to the census. The Attorney General though this week seem confident it's going to happen anyway. Watch.


WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We've been considering all the options, and I've been in constant discussions with the President ever since the Supreme Court decision came down. And I think over the next day or two, you'll see what approach we're taking. I think it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census.


CARLSON: A large majority of Americans agree with that so does the United Nations. There's nothing inherently weird or controversial about asking if someone is a citizen of a country, every nation has a right to know that.

Ten previous censuses in the United States have asked about citizenship, by the way, including the long form census in 2000, back when Bill Clinton was President. That was less than 20 years ago. Nobody at the time claimed it was unconstitutional to ask about citizenship, because it was not unconstitutional, and it still is not.

The Constitution hasn't changed. What has changed is the Democratic Party. Suddenly, they're telling us it's illegal for the government to ask if you're a citizen or not. Why? You know why. The same reason they give for objecting to everything. It's racist.


PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., MAYOR, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The citizen citizenship is motivated by racial and partisan reasons. It has no business in something that is supposed to be neutral, almost boring.

REP. RASHIDA TLAIB, D-MICH.: This is political motivation, mister. This is very racialized. This is because you don't want communities like mine being represented here in this chamber equally.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: This is not about whether or not I want to know who is a citizen in the United States or not. I want to know about the racism, and the very disturbing history that we're seeing here. That's what I want to know.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: This is about keeping, you know, make America, you know, the hat, make America white again.


CARLSON: They're such liars. At some point, words like these lose their power and their meaning for misuse. It's utterly absurd, of course, but it's also entirely fake, like most of their temper tantrums. "Do what I want, or I'll call you a racist." It's always their threat. How long will people fall for it? How long will Republicans in Congress be intimidated by it?

There's nothing racial about a citizenship question, obviously. A question like that would apply to everyone whether they're Honduran or Norwegian or Congolese or Korean. It doesn't matter. It's literally colorblind. Not that Democrats care.

The Democratic Party is not interested in stopping racism. What they want is power. "Shut up and obey," they're telling you. Don't ask questions about what's happening to your country. You're not allowed to know.

Congressman Jim Jordan is a Republican representing the State of Ohio and he joins us today. Congressman, thanks for coming on.

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: You bet. Good to be with you.

CARLSON: Is there a substantive argument against --


CARLSON: Asking the citizenship -- okay, so where does this idea that this is a racial attack come from? What does this have to do with race?

JORDAN: It comes from only Democrats in Congress. Judge Alito said it best. He says, "No one disagrees that it's important information to know how many inhabitants in your country are citizens. And the easiest way to get that information is to ask it on a census."

Tucker, you go to any small town, any big city in this country, walk up to a citizen, walk up to a person on the street and ask them, do you think on the census, we should ask a citizenship question? And their response will be, yes.

And then they'll be quickly followed up by, "Aren't we doing that already?" Of course, we would have to respond and say, "Yes, we've been doing it for 200 years," as you pointed out in your monologue. This is so common sense, but everyone gets it except Democrats in the United States Congress.

CARLSON: So the census is required in the Constitution and it's used to apportion congressional districts.


CARLSON: Every 10 years.


CARLSON: So what happens if you don't know how many noncitizens you have living in your country? Doesn't that distort the congressional districts?

JORDAN: Of course, it's done by apportionment of persons, apportionment of people. And to your point in your opening statement, we would like to know how many people of the 330 million, how many are citizens? How many aren't? It would be helpful information, useful information.

In fact, as you said, the UN says this is something that countries should do. Most other countries, in fact, do it. But the United States of America, if the Democrats in Congress have their way won't ask a simple question that everyone assumes is already being asked. And when they make that assumption, they are accurate, because in one form or another, it's been asked for 200 years going all the way back to 1820.

CARLSON: It's asked in Canada. No one is denouncing Canada as racist. So what is actually -- I mean, you work in politics, you're a sitting Member of Congress. What are the actual politics behind this decision by Democrats to tag this as racist? Why are they doing that?

JORDAN: Yes. Well, I mean, that's the line they use all the time when they want to accuse us of things that they disagree with, and they want a different policy. But this is -- this is, as I said before, so common sense. I think they're a little nervous about what the number may be.

We actually may find out how many people -- maybe it's not 11 million, the number we hear all the time, maybe it's a higher number of people who are here, who aren't citizens, or here in some illegal fashion.

I think they're afraid of that number. This is just simple. I would ask them, why don't you want to know? Why don't you want to know? I would ask them the question. I asked it in committee, they never seem to want to respond to that question when we bring it up in the committee hearings.

CARLSON: So the party of science is arguing against gathering data, and they have no real explanation for that is what you're saying.

JORDAN; Yes. And what we know what it is. It's just pure politics, when in fact, this is useful information that we need for how certain services are administered, how certain Federal dollars, how they flow to the respective states. Critical information that we need.

Everyone knows it is common sense. The American people want us to ask this question. But unfortunately, as I've said, the Democrats in Congress don't want to do what everyone knows just makes good common sense.

CARLSON: Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio. Thanks very much for joining us tonight.

JORDAN: You bet, Tucker, thank you.

CARLSON: Well, for more than a decade, virtually everyone in the left has repeated the same number. America has 11 million illegal aliens within its borders. Countless guests on this show have repeated that number.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of the 250 million undocumented people in the world today, the United States has 11 million.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 11 million undocumented immigrants already pay taxes.

CARLSON: I thought they're already paying taxes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So those are a lot of the 11 million people we're talking about.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have so many people that are living in this country, we have about 11 and 12 million people that are living in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, and deport the 11 million people. Is that what we want to do? Is that the solution?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eleven million undocumented people.

CARLSON: Okay, okay. Only 11 million.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is America, we're not going to go round up 11 million people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The undocumented population has remained stable at about 11 million for the last half a decade.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Negatively impacting not just 11 million people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have 11 million people here who are undocumented.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whenever we say comprehensive immigration reform that means legalizing 11 million people in this country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As an undocumented immigrant in this country, one of 11 million who are viewed as criminals.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will now have 11 million people paying more taxes, paying into Social Security, paying into Medicare. We have 11 million people, let's figure out a way to get them in to the country.

CARLSON: Let's make them Democratic voters.


CARLSON: Okay, so here's the useful rule of thumb going forward. Whenever everyone on television, particularly on the left is repeating the same factoid, it is almost by definition, totally untrue. And this is no exception.

How do they know it is 11 million? Of course, they have no idea it is 11 million. Nobody has counted the actual number of illegal immigrants in this country and Democrats want to make it illegal to try 11 million.

We'll be hearing that when your grandkids are old. Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joins us tonight. Professor, thanks very much for coming on. First, just a larger question. Democrats are claiming that this is racist, everything is racist. But the rhetoric on this citizenship question is particularly acidic and biting.

Nancy Pelosi make America white again. What happens to the social fabric of our country when trusted leaders like Nancy Pelosi make grotesque and untrue race-based claims like that? How badly does it hurt this country?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Yes, we're destroying the classical definition of the melting pot in which your superficial appearance was supposed to be incidental, not essential to who you are.

CARLSON: Exactly.

HANSON: And when she says, "Make America white," I live in a community with 90 percent Hispanics and I can guarantee you that I don't know if you were to tell me some were Italian or some were Southern European, I wouldn't know the difference.

So white is just a construct. Many people crossing the border are whiter than I am. And so this artificial binary is masking the problem. And that is, the Democratic Party wants to change the demography of the United States because they feel that their message doesn't resonate with the existing population.

So one of the strange things Tucker, it's not just that the analytic show there's more than 11 million people, we know that from a recent MIT and Yale study where it suggested the high number might be as high as 22 million and up, then that could be up to seven or eight to nine percent of the population.

But the Democrats know that because in 2006 to 2008, if you and I collated what Barack Obama said, what John Kerry said, what Hillary Clinton said, we would see that they were pretty much on record that they wanted legal, only immigration. So what changed from then until now? And what changes that they understand the numbers are so huge now that they see a potential constituency or actually an actual constituency.

So we shouldn't listen to what they say, but how they act and they pander to the illegal alien community, because they know the numbers in truth are huge.

CARLSON: So I mean, that suggests overwhelmingly that they believe at some point, the illegal aliens living here will be able to vote in elections. I mean, that has to be the plan or they wouldn't be pandering, correct?

HANSON: It is. And it is part of a -- I think it's even a Western globalized phenomenon that citizenship doesn't mean much anymore. That residency is all you need, that we blur the distinction. So we have local elections in which illegal aliens vote.

But if you come into the airport, or one of our viewers does without a passport, Tucker, he's in real trouble. Or if I use a fake identity or a fake social security number, I'm done at the Hoover Institution, that's a felony.

If I am in a community and I say Federal law does not apply to me on matters of hand gun registration or EPA, that's impossible. But with sanctuary cities and open borders, we've actually given the legal exemption to residents over citizens. And that's why there's this pushback. And I think the Democrats are, as your guest said, they're terrified that the actual number which they know to be true, if that gets out, people are going to say, "Wow, we've got a huge number of people."

Twenty seven percent in California, current residents are not native born. That's over one in four Californian, and people say we know what happened to California. That's what's behind this, flipping red states into blue states.

So it's pretty cynical when you look all around that the Mexican government that wants the $60 billion along with the Central American governments in remittances. The employers want cheap labor, the ethnic industry wants a constituency to fuel their agendas. The Democratic Party wants a new blue state Electoral College, it's pretty cynical.

And the only person that has no constituency is your average American middle class voter.

CARLSON: Right. Who is obeying the law and using his real name to pay his real taxes, we're suckers.

HANSON: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Professor, thank you. Good to see you tonight.

HANSON: Yes, tragic is that is. Thank you.

CARLSON: It is. Thank you. Russia interference in the 2016 election is supposed to be an accepted fact. One journalist though on the left, by the way, says the very text of the Mueller report undermines that assumption.

What do we really know about the degree to which the Russians interfered in our election? Hacked our democracy. Much less than they say we know. We will tell you after the break.


CARLSON: Ross Perot died this morning at the age of 89. Some people might remember him as the answer to a trivia question that guy ran for President in the 90s. But Perot, it turns out was not simply a novelty, a businessman in politics. In many ways he was prophetic. Don't believe it? Here's what Ross Perot had to say about American foreign policy 27 years ago, way back in 1982. Watch.


ROSS PEROT, AMERICAN POLITICIAN: I suggest now that our number one preoccupation is red ink in our country. And we've got to put our people back to work so that we can afford to do these things we want to do in Russia.

We cannot be the policeman for the world any longer. We spend $300 billion a year defending the world. Germany and Japan spend around $30 billion apiece. It's neat if I can get you to defend me and I can spend all my money building industry. That's a home run for me.


CARLSON: America ignored Ross Perot, some of us, including me, I'm embarrassed to admit, attacked him at the time. But he was right about that. Since he spoke those words America has spent hundreds of billions of dollars defending Europe while the Europeans do a little to defend themselves. They could but they don't.

We've also spent more than $5 trillion on wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia while continuing to provide free defense for Europe. We are not a lot safer for all of that money. We certainly aren't richer for it. Here's another Perot prediction, by the way. This is about NAFTA. Again from 1992. Watch.


PEROT: To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple. If you're paying $12.00, $13.00, $14.00 an hour for factory workers, and you can move your factory south of the border, pay $1.00 an hour for labor, hire young, 25 -- that's assuming you've been in business for a long time, you've got a mature workforce, pay $1.00 an hour for your labor. Have no healthcare. That's the most expensive single element making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement.

And you don't care about anything but making money. There will be a giant sucking sound going south.


CARLSON: So if you were around when Perot said that, you remember how mercilessly he was mocked, and yet again, he was right.

Since 1994, the United States has lost roughly four million manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of factories have closed since then. In 1992, our country had a $5 billion trade surplus with Mexico; today, it's $80 billion. Once again, Perot was right.

When NAFTA was being debated, supporters argued that it would fix illegal immigration over the U.S.-Mexico border, Perot called that a myth. He predicted that illegal immigration would rise maybe dramatically. And once again, he was absolutely right. Washington was absolutely wrong. More likely they were just lying.

In so many ways, America is a weaker, poorer, more divided, and more fractured country than it was when Perot first ran for President in 1992. We can't say Perot would have been a great President. Who knows? But if we'd listen to him a little more and not dismissed him, we'd probably be a stronger country today. Ross Perot, rest in peace.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller will be testifying before the Congress next week on his final report on the Russia investigation. But if Mueller's testimony tries to sway congressional Democrats toward impeachment, it will have to overcome the words of his team's own 400-page report.

Aaron Mate is a journalist with "The Nation" magazine. He just wrote a piece arguing that the Mueller report substance, in fact, undercuts its own claims about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Aaron Mate joins us tonight. Aaron, thanks a lot for coming on.

So you're arguing in this piece that the claims that the Mueller report makes about Russian interference are not substantiated by the report itself? Can you elaborate on that?

AARON MATE, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE NATION: They're not and in fact, a D.C. judge just agreed with that assessment rebuking Mueller for asserting that this Russian troll farm, the IRA was a part of what Mueller calls a systematic and sweeping Russian interference campaign, when Mueller actually never shows that this troll farm which put out juvenile clickbait that nobody saw and wasn't even about the election, Mueller never shows that that click bait troll factory was a part of the Russian government. And Mueller was rebuked by this judge for suggesting otherwise.

So right there, you have what Mueller called a central allegation of his indictment, this Russian interference campaign. The second aspect of that being this troll farm being shown to be -- have nothing to do with the Russian government.

And there are many more sort of disingenuous examples and glaring holes like that. There's also the fact that Robert Mueller never interviewed Julian Assange, which is very strange. Assange is a central figure in this whole thing. Assange released the stolen e-mails that are at the heart of Russiagate.


MATE: Yet mother had no interest in speaking to him. And that is a very curious decision.

CARLSON: What's so interesting is that the core claim that Russia had a meaningful effect on the election outcome, and that it was the Russian government, in fact, running this operation in order to aid Donald Trump. That claim has been bought completely, I would say, by both parties.

I mean, Republicans are mad about the Russia hoax and all that stuff. But they still repeat that line again and again, that we know that this happened. And you're saying, actually, we don't know really, that this happened.

MATE: Yes, and Mueller doesn't really know core details. There's vague language in his report, when he talks about how the e-mails were stolen from the DNC. He uses the qualifier that Russian officers appear to have stolen e-mails, not that they stole the e-mails, which I think is suspicious.

He also doesn't know how those e-mails made their way to WikiLeaks. So despite claiming to have such an invasive window into the operations of Russia, Mueller can't tell us actually how those e-mails got to WikiLeaks and Assange says that the Russians --

CARLSON: But wait a second. Wait, if he can't -- if he can't show how they got to WikiLeaks, then how does he know? I mean, that's like -- that's a central fact. I mean, if you can't know that, then you can't really know anything, can you?

MATE: No, I think it shows a real core flaw on his part, and he should be questioned on it when he appears before Congress next week.

And there's also -- I mean, he suggests that the e-mails were given to WikiLeaks via these Russian cutouts -- alleged Russian cutouts -- Guccifer 2.0, and DC leaks, but the timeline he presents for that makes no sense.

According to Mueller account, Assange would have announced that he had received those stolen e-mails from Guccifer 2.0 before Assange ever communicated with Guccifer 2.0 and well before those e-mails were supposedly transferred to him by Guccifer 2.0, which Robert Mueller can't even assert as for sure happened, so there's a lot of holes in his entire account.

CARLSON: He should be asked about it. You're, I think the only person asking these questions. Hopefully, Members of Congress are watching tonight and will follow your lead on this. Aaron Mate, thank you very much for coming on.

MATE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Beto O'Rourke's presidential bid looks doomed. Now, he is trying to save his campaign by attacking this country and humiliating himself. Will it work? You know the answer, but it's still fun to watch. We'll be right back.


CARLSON: Well, not to brag, but we predicted a few months ago that Beto O'Rourke's presidential campaign would be doomed. And in fact we were right. He bombed in the debates two weeks ago. Pete Buttigieg stole his youthful energy.

In the Democratic Party of 2019, Beto's sex and skin color and sexual orientation all work against him. Skateboard tricks and Nirvana references aren't enough to make up for it. His campaign is essentially over, even if he doesn't know it yet.

But O'Rourke has one card left to play before he leaves the race. On Monday, he met with a group of immigrants in Nashville and proceeded to trash his own country. Watch this.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This country was founded on white supremacy. And every single institution and structure that we have in our country still reflects the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and suppression even in our democracy.


CARLSON: Imagine saying that to people who just got here, immigrants who chose to move to America. More than a million people come to this country every year from around the world seeking a better life because they know that what O'Rourke said is untrue.

If it's a racist country, why are they streaming in from Africa? Because they know this is a tremendous country with limitless opportunity regardless of your background. It's not racist. It's not a white supremacist country. It's absurd to say that.

Beto O'Rourke won't be a presidential candidate for much longer, but he has already managed to disgrace himself before leaving. Good job, Beto.

Well, the School Board in San Francisco just voted to spend $600,000.00 to destroy historic murals of George Washington in a local high school.

At a recent School Board meeting, city residents said that destroying art is a matter of human rights.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is a racist mural. My history should not be racist, but it is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please help and stop. Paint it down. No cover ups.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a matter of human rights. The right to learn without hostile environments.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When I went to school, every day, I had to walk into the entrance and look at those murals. It did not speak to me. It was wrong. It was dehumanizing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want another student who doesn't have to see those murals to have to see them.


CARLSON: The images are so painful, they must be destroyed. Ethan Bearman is a California radio host and he joins us tonight. Ethan, thanks a lot for coming on.


CARLSON: So when did liberals decide it's okay to destroy art if politicians don't like it?

BEARMAN: Well, I don't know that that's exactly what was decided here. Actually, I wish it would have been able to be preserved --

CARLSON: Yes, that's exactly right.

BEARMAN: Sent to a museum or a gallery. But it wasn't. It's actually painted right on the wall itself, and therefore the only solution if it was decided, in this case, I think rightfully because if you just saw the upset in the face and the emotions of the students, there's a lot of science there behind that type of implication of it being in their face every day.

Look, it's really important to note, Tucker, one key thing here, science has shown --

CARLSON: There's no -- well, let me just correct you. There's no science -- the science of self-esteem is actually bogus. But hold on. You're saying, so people don't like it, so it must be destroyed.

So if I don't like a piece of art, can I petition my representative to destroy it as well? I mean, what --

BEARMAN: No, so the --

CARLSON: What's the rule?

BEARMAN: Come on, Tucker. So, here we have a picture that was historically accurate that showed President George Washington with his slaves, with dead Native Americans. And we have students at this school who are black Americans, who are Native American descent, who are Mesoamerican, and they see that every day when you walk into school to be in their face that this is who you are, you're a slave, you are to be murdered because you are standing up against, well, the Americans taking over your territory, that's Indian affairs.

CARLSON: First of all, Mesoamericans -- hold on. Mesoamericans have no role in the mural at all. I mean, that's a completely separate category. I don't know what that has to do with any of this actually.

But that's not what the mural says. The mural is not celebrating the murder of anyone actually, it was painted by, as you know, a communist who later move back to the Soviet Union, who was trying to highlight the downside, you know, the other side of Washington's legacy.

So he is trying to be historically accurate, which I think no one would dispute that it is. But the broader question is, it's art. It's being destroyed, because the left doesn't like the message. Why is this different from book burning?

BEARMAN: It is quite different from book burning and here is why.


BEARMAN: Because we study about George Washington in our history books. It's important -- there's a really important piece here that research has shown that black students before taking an exam when having to identify their ethnicity, score lower on tests. This is doing that to them every single day when they walk into school.

Do we not want to help the black community to do better on tests?

CARLSON: This is insane.

BEARMAN: Yes, we do.

CARLSON: This is insane.

BEARMAN: It is not insane. There is research behind that.

CARLSON: Okay, look, Ethan, this is one set of murals in one school in one city in America.


CARLSON: This is not responsible for the test gap, okay? But it's not changing the fact that you're endorsing the destruction of art, because you don't like it. So this is very different from book burning. It's very different from the Taliban destroying Buddha statues because why? I don't see any difference at all. And I'm a little surprised.

Do you think that your liberal self 30-years-ago would have been in favor of destroying art?

BEARMAN: So I don't like destroying art at all. And again to my point, which is one we have photographs of this. I don't. But this has a different place. This is a piece that we have pictures of. I wish it could have been moved. It couldn't.

We learn about George Washington in our history books. We're not deleting George Washington, we're removing one specific mural in one school where people are having a very strong reaction to it and again -- and there is evidence to support that that imagery --

CARLSON: Who cares what their reaction is. So if I walk in -- if people walk into a museum and say --

BEARMAN: That imagery can suppress test scores.

CARLSON: But that's of course completely bogus. That's like an absurd lie that nobody --

BEARMAN: It is not, Tucker.

CARLSON: There's not one person who believes -- come on.

BEARMAN: I'll provide you the information.

CARLSON: Nobody believes that. Nobody believes that's the problem.

BEARMAN: Absolutely. Have you taught in a black majority school?

CARLSON: Lastly, if people walk in -- come on. You've got to be kidding.

BEARMAN: I am not, Tucker.

CARLSON: Do you think that --

BEARMAN: I am not.

CARLSON: That given this standard -- given this standard, do you think any artist is safe? What would prevent anyone from walking into any museum and saying, "That image is so offensive to me, it's a physical injury upon me. It must be destroyed." By the Ethan Bearman standard, it must be destroyed.

BEARMAN: No, that's absolutely not what I said. So here in a museum, that is a place where we maintain art and we maintain historical artifacts, even if they're offensive.

So for example, I want to maintain our knowledge of what the Nazis did, for example, that doesn't mean when I walk into school, I want it in my face to find out what happened to the Jews. But I want to maintain that information. I want to maintain the pictures. I think the Auschwitz museum or the Holocaust Museum are very important. Those are different circumstances.

CARLSON: Ethan Bearman, thanks for joining us tonight. We're going to have to end it there.

BEARMAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Appreciate it. Well, the left's push to ban plastic straws is annoying, of course. But is it killing people? It sounds like we're making that up. It happened.

Plus, a meteorologist says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is distorting climate science to justify her political agenda. We will speak to him after the break.


CARLSON: The crusade to eliminate plastic straws in America is certainly annoying to ordinary people. But a new story suggests it could also be physically dangerous. Fox's Jonathan Hunt has more on this -- Jonathan.

JONATHAN HUNT, CORRESPONDENT: Tucker, it's a tragic story of a woman who suffered terrible injuries as a jockey, became addicted to painkillers and alcohol and then died in a freak accident involving a mason jar and a metal straw.

Elena Struthers-Gardner suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling while carrying a mason jar glass with a screw top lid and a metal straw inserted into it. When she fell the straw pierced her eye and went into her brain.

The coroner in the case said the straw was a danger because it was fixed in place and being metal had no flexibility. He told "The Sun" newspaper quote, "It seems the main problem here is if the lid hadn't been in place, the straw would have moved away." Falling on the things is of course not an uncommon cause of death or injury.

A cursory search by us tonight turned up instances of people being severely injured or killed by falling onto guns, falling onto knives, falling onto tent pegs, even in one case falling onto a set of deer antlers -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Those are dangerous, too. Jonathan Hunt, thank you for that.

Well, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has strong views on global warming, but they're not complicated. According to her it is the single worst crisis in human history.


CORTEZ: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. Like this is the war -- this is our World War II.


CARLSON: Ocasio-Cortez's confidence is made possible as it usually is by complete ignorance, not knowing anything helps.

For example, Washington D.C. was battered by flash floods on Monday morning. Half the city received about four inches of rain in barely two hours. Ocasio-Cortez quickly exploited the tragedy by tweeting that the flooding was the fault of Republicans for not implementing her Green New Deal.

But she was quickly rebuked by actual meteorologists. One of whom tweeted this quote, "First a tornado and now a flash flood. The Congresswoman does not miss an opportunity to turn a weather event she experiences into a political statement. A slow-moving thunderstorm is not quote 'climate.'"

Joe Bastardi is Chief Meteorologist at and author of "The Climate Chronicles." He joins us tonight. Joe thanks a lot for coming on. So does the Congresswoman have a grip on the science?

JOE BASTARDI, METEOROLOGIST, WEATHERBELL.COM: That's almost impossible to answer given the things that she does. She is weaponizing the weather, and you just mentioned my book.

The longest chapter in the book is on the weaponization of the weather. In fact, sometimes Tucker, I think they took that and after they burned the book, they decided well, let's just double down on weaponizing this.

Every single event is being used like this is going to continue to be used and I'll tell you why. Because people don't know what happened before and the weather. If you don't know what happened before, you know they all say, you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. You'll fall for this stuff and a lot of people say, "This is the worst thing I've ever seen."

Now, she is talking about that particular situation in Washington, D.C. and she is probably unaware of July 4th, 1969 in Northeast Ohio; July 1977 with the Johnstown flood in Pennsylvania; and this is going on across the board, and it's going to continue, we're going into hurricane season, right?

That is one of their favorite things. You just wait and watch what happens in the Gulf over the next few days, I guarantee you over the weekend, there'll be saying, "There it is, climate change."

CARLSON: But that's not a valid -- I mean, that's not a scientifically valid way to understand the weather, is it?

BASTARDI: Of course, it's not. Do you think -- do you think these folks know what the -- what's the perfect temperature of the planet? Does anyone know? What's the perfect level of CO2 since plants grow? We know we are greener than we've ever been. Plants grow better when there's more CO2. Maybe that's part of the design here that there's more food, people's prosperity is going up, you know, life expectancy is going up. Climate deaths are going down.

I just don't understand -- and look, I tell folks all the time, don't believe me, go look for yourself. I don't know what's happened to curiosity today. All right. There are a lot of honest people on the other side of the issue that I know. I see what they're looking at. I believe that they over attribute to CO2.

But there's a whole bunch of people here that are simply using this as an agenda driven idea. And it has very little to do with climate or weather. It has things to do with political ideas.

CARLSON: It does seem that way. Joe, thanks a lot for joining us tonight.

BASTARDI: It is right. Thank you for having me, anytime.

CARLSON: Thank you. Tammy Bruce, the President, the Independent Women's Voice and the host of "Get Tammy Bruce" on Fox Nation, which you should watch. She joins us tonight.

So Tammy, there was a study out recently that showed that if you wanted to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, the first thing you would do is you would plant trees, a lot of trees?


CARLSON: And it is a kind of plausible conclusion, I thought. You heard nothing about this from Democratic politicians, I noticed. And could it be that's because planting trees would not increase their political power? So they're not interested in that?

BRUCE: Yes, it's one of those things. Also, solutions, they're against solutions to things because if you solve problems -- if you really solve the problems, what are they going to run on? Right? What are they going to say to people?

If you're going to run on the economy, you've got to run on conservative values, and they can't do that. So they want to set up things that are going to make sure that you know, the general problems that are existential threats, and then you know, the economic and wage divide. Those things have to remain, Tucker.

And it's because of the politics of few people, they view us as expendable. And, you know, and so that they want their power and fun and votes and they think we're dumb. And they found out in 2016, that we're not, and we were, you know, we're the new woke. We're the ones who are tired of being lied to.

CARLSON: Very tired.


CARLSON: So I want to ask you about a piece that just ran in "The Atlantic," which at one point was a venerable magazine, and now it's obviously a joke, but the piece declared war on air conditioning. "The New York Times" published a big story in the history of AC. On Twitter, a writer called Taylor Lorenz responded by saying the air conditioning is, of course, a sexist tool of the patriarchy.

BRUCE: Of course.

CARLSON: She tweeted this, quote, "Air conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist. I can't explain how many times I've gotten sick over the summer because of an overzealous AC in offices. #BanAC." When people disagreed, she called them sexist, too.


CARLSON: So let me just say, I hate air conditioning. I'm kind of with her on that. But sexist? How is it sexist?

BRUCE: Well, you know, the patriarchy is so strong, Tucker, that they've all colluded and they've made it sure that so that every building in America is going to be too cold for women.

Now, when you've got that kind of power, I'm just wondering why they're allowing women on the offices at all. Right? How is it -- and then here's the other issue, if they're that powerful, Tucker, they're making too cold for women in the summer, but they're not doing it in the winter.

And I'm wondering wouldn't that be the best time to freeze women out of the office place? So it all -- it's very -- I'm very confused, because I'm just a simple woman. And it's embarrassing, of course.

Now we heard this first you'll recall, when Cynthia Nixon, the actress was running to be the Governor of New York. Wasn't that what she was running for and she obviously didn't win. But she brought it up that it was the most sexiest thing in the world.

And it's because look, women do dress differently than men. But there's a solution to this. First of all, it's not a plot, right? It's not some weird conspiracy plot that they keep, you know, accusing Republicans of and conservatives. It would require maybe putting on a cardigan.

And I'm thinking maybe that's why they don't get cold in the winter because they're wearing maybe heavier clothes. But the sexist thing here is this presumption, is this argument like this young woman made from "The Atlantic," that it's because she gets sick, and it just highlights how the left and especially if you're immersed in identity politics, you don't think of anybody but yourself, because air conditioning makes life worth living.

Charles Cooke over at "National Review" reminded us in 2003, the summer of 2003, almost 15,000 French people died because of the heat. And it affects, of course, the elderly, the infirm and here in America, the poor, of course, the Southern poor relying on air conditioning in order to actually live.

But that young woman because I guess, she didn't want to tell anybody to replace the filters in the air conditioning, maybe she wouldn't get sick. And God forbid, should we have to on occasion, wear a blazer so that we don't get nailed by the air conditioning.

It is worth thinking beyond ourselves when you're in a large office, not everyone is going to be happy. You're going to have to adapt and compromise sometimes, God forbid. But I think we can -- and this sexist argument though and behavior is in this presumption that you're a child, and everybody has got to listen to you and you've got to have everything exactly perfect for you. That's the sexist behavior.

And maybe some of these young women will realize that that being independent and taking care of your environment and adapting gives you more power and more control over your environment in the long run. Just a thought.

CARLSON: Malignant narcissism.

BRUCE: That's right.

CARLSON: It's a phrase you introduced me to and I think of it every day watching what's happening in this country.

BRUCE: That's exactly what it is.

CARLSON: Great to see you tonight.

BRUCE: Thank you, sir.

CARLSON: Thank you.

BRUCE: Great.

CARLSON: Probably no person in this country has benefited more from American generosity than Ilhan Omar. Instead of being grateful, though, she is bitter. She hates this country. It says a lot about our current immigration system and we will explain how after the break.

By the way, if you love what we talk about in the show, you can come see what it's all about live. There are tickets to special audience events in Maryland and Pennsylvania. You can find the tickets on the website We'll be right back.


CARLSON: The Democratic candidates for President are on the road this week telling voters that the United States is an awful country. "America's institutions are built on white supremacy," squeaked Beto O'Rourke in an event yesterday.

Of all the lies these people tell -- and there are many -- this is the most absurd. In fact, the United States is the kindest, most open-minded place on the planet. The U.S. has done more for other people and received less in return than any nation in history by far.

Americans like to help. It makes us feel good. Some of our deepest satisfaction as a country comes from watching penniless immigrants arrive on our shores, buy into our values and thrive. We call it the American dream and nothing makes us prouder.

It was in that spirit that in 1992, the United States welcomed 10-year-old Ilhan Omar and her family. Omar was born in Somalia, one of the world's poorest countries. It was then ruled by a Marxist military dictatorship. When Omar was six, she and her parents and their six siblings fled a worsening Civil War and wound up in a refugee camp in Kenya. They spent four years there until America offered the family asylum here and let them settle in Minneapolis.

Omar's father drove a taxi at first then got a job at the Post Office working for the government. Omar, meanwhile, grew up free in the world's richest country with all the bounty that that implies.

She became a citizen, then went to work for the State University. A few years later, she became a Member of Congress elected by voters who are proud to see an immigrant succeed.

Omar is now at the age of only 36, one of the most powerful women in America. It's an amazing story really. Only in this country could it have happened.

Ilhan Omar has an awful lot to be grateful for, but she isn't grateful. Not at all. After everything America has done for Omar and for her family, she hates this country more than ever.

In a recent piece in "The Washington Post," the reporter put it this way, quote, "In Omar's version, America isn't the big hearted country that saved her from a brutal war and a bleak refugee camp. It wasn't a meritocracy that helped her attend college or vaulted her into Congress. Instead, it was the country that had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a place that had disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees and minorities like her," end quote.

If anything, that's an understatement. Omar isn't disappointed in America, she is enraged by it. Virtually every public statement she makes accuses Americans of bigotry and racism.

"This is an immoral country," she says. She has undisguised contempt for the United States and for its people. That should worry you and not just because Omar is now a sitting Member of Congress.

Ilhan Omar is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country. A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. Some of the very people we try hardest to help have come to hate us passionately.

Maybe that's our fault for asking too little of our immigrants. We aren't self-confident enough to make them assimilate so they never feel fully American. Or maybe the problem is deeper than that. Maybe we're importing people from places whose values are simply in antithetical to ours. Who knows what the problem is, but there is a problem and whatever the cause, this cannot continue. It's not sustainable.

No country can import large numbers of people who hate it and expect to survive. The Romans were the last to try that with predictable results.

So be grateful for Ilhan Omar, annoying as she is. She's a living fire alarm, a warning to the rest of us we better change our immigration system immediately. Or else.

We want to end tonight with some good news. Last night we told you about Ed Henry and his decision to save his sister, Colleen's life by donating some of his liver. Tonight we're happy to report -- thrilled to report -- that the surgery has taken place. It was a success. They are both now recovering. Godspeed to both of them.

Ed and his sister, Colleen will be grateful when he's back here at Fox.

That's it for us tonight. We'll be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m. The show that's the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. Have a great night.

Sean Hannity is next.

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.