lou: good evening, everybody. illegal immigration is not only condoned but encouraged by the radical left and the rino right, the elites of this country's establishment don't want you to know how many illegal immigrants enter the country. they don't want you to know how many are in the country. those elites don't want you to know the cost that illegal immigrants bring to the nation and the economy and the number of crimes illegal immigrants commit. a shocking new report from three customs and border protection whistle-blowers on the agency's failure to comply with the federal law mandating dna

collection by criminal illegal immigrants, within hours of our reporting on that story last night, the department of homeland security announced it will be following the law and actively begin collecting dna and provide that information to the fbi and a cross-check against violent crimes on record. chief intelligence correspondent katherine herridge has the report. >> after your show last night, fox news received this statement from a homeland security official confirming that they would now comply with the law and provide samples from illegal immigrants to the fbi violent crimes database. under the direction of the acting secretary, dhs is working closely with the department of justice on a path forward for dna collection, for the combined dna index system. this is a major development after fox news first profiled the three border agency whistle-blowers, who brought the case against homeland security.

and a government watchdog sided with the whistle-blowers telling the president that customs and border protection violated the law for nearly a decade and compromised public safety. that letter to the president reads in part, quote, the agency's noncompliance with the law has allowed subjects subsequently accused of violent crimes including homicide and sexual assaults to elude detection even when detained multiple times by cbp, or immigration and customs enforcement. this is an unacceptable dereliction of the agency's law enforcement mandate. the program was put on hold under the obama administration citing resource issues. the goal was to identify and then remove or prosecute illegal migrants whose dna matched open cases, from sexual assault to even murder. but special counsel investigator saying the waiver was never meant to be permanent speaking to fox the whistle-blowers that past effort to implement the dna

program were set up to fail >> the folks in that conference call said there are places we can make it fail or we'll find a 79-year-old woman and we'll have the press taking her dna so we can garner public outrage. that was what spurred us to reach out to the office of special counsel. >> fox news will continue to report on this story to check whether homeland security makes meaningful changes, lou. lou: katherine, thank you. we appreciate it. katherine herridge. a new report from the department of justice's bureau of justice statistics highlights the rise in crimes by nonu.s. citizens in this country. the report shows in 2018, 64% of all federal arrests were of non-u.s. citizens. more than 40% of all suspects prosecuted in the federal courts were non-u.s. citizens. even though those non-u.s. citizens make up only 7% of our

population. over the past two decades, federal arrests of non-u.s. citizens has more than tripled, up 234%. and over that same two decade period, federal arrests of u.s. citizens rose only 10%. and just last year, there were more than 78,000 federal arrests of mexican citizens in that number, exceeding the number of federal arrests of u.s. citizens by 10%. north carolina's governor and radical dem roy cooper vetoed a bill requiring state sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigrations and customs enforcement. cooper said this, in vetoing the bill, this legislation is simply about scoring partisan political points and using fear to divide north carolina. this bill in addition to being unconstitutional weakens law

enforcement in north carolina by mandating sheriffs to do the job of federal agents. joining us tonight to take up all of these issues and more, acting customs and border protection cbp commissioner mark morgan. good to have you with us. and let's -- let's start with the dna match with violent crimes, records of the fbi. those whistle-blowers are basically indicting president obama and his administration for purposely violating u.s. law. >> so lou, what i can say, obviously i wasn't there at the time, but there was a waiver that was granted, but i agree, the waiver was never meant to be permanent, and now is the time. we need to take a look at this, and we need to make meaningful changes to address the issues that you just talked about. i can tell you, just a couple of hours ago, i had a team of leaders within cbp, and we're talking about what are the next steps we need to do to take a

look at this and actually make meaningful changes to start doing dna testing where it makes sense, and i guarantee you, we will. lou: you said where it makes sense and that you will do it. there hasn't been a decision to do it? >> so the decision has been made, lou, that yes, we are going to move forward -- lou: who made that decision? >> so collectively, the white house, make no mistake, when the white house became aware of this, they got all the agencies together that needed to be here and said hey look, we need to take a look at this and do better at this. let's get a team together and plan together to make meaningful changes to address it and start doing this where it makes sense. lou: it's troubling to me that a department -- department of homeland security has been in violation of law for nearly a decade. and that there is some conference that has to be held about whether or not to comport with federal law? >> no, lou, that's not what i'm

saying. lou: i'm trying to understand. >> yeah, so absolutely. let me make clear that you can disagree maybe with the waiver, but according to the law, the secretary actually had authority to waive compliance, and that was done under the obama administration. i think what is correct to say is that was really never meant to be permanent, and it should have been reviewed sooner. what i'm saying now is we are getting together, not to make the decision whether we should do it. we're getting together now to come up with a strategy to implement meaningful changes and start applying dna testing where it makes sense. lou: is there someplace that it doesn't make sense? that's what -- i'm really desperately trying to understand this. it is a law. it makes sense on its face, that you do not want serious criminals who could be discovered through a dna test escaping apprehension. >> and i think that's where it makes sense and that's exactly

where we're going to take a look at. from my position, i'm telling you lou and the american people, we need to do just that in the situation you just described. lou: okay. let's move on. these numbers we just look at from the bureau of justice statistics showing the number of arrests of non-u.s. citizens, and that means that our federal government is again -- even as it reveals these shocking numbers, but they have conflated illegal immigrants and legal immigrants in those statistics. we can infer, speculate and guess, but the reality is we have a serious serious problem here, and it's been hidden from the eyes of the american people for two decades, in lashlg measure. -- in large measure. >> that's exactly right. i'm so glad that you are bringing this topic up and you gave the statistics. this addresses the false narratives that's been out there for a long time.

this president, this administration, myself, and a whole lot of other experts at this have been saying for a very long time, this is a crisis, both a humanitarian crisis and a national security crisis. and those statistics that came out from the bureau of justice that you've just articulated tonight shows that, proves that. this is not just a humanitarian crisis. we have a national security crisis, and those statistics prove that. lou: it's stunning to me. >> it is. lou: the president of the united states declares a national emergency, and there's -- here we are in august. he did so in february, as i recall, i believe the 15th of february. and here we are at the end of august, and still there's a sense that i get from our federal government, i'm talking about the permanent bureaucracy. i'm talking about the full expanse of washington bureaucracy. i don't know whether it's -- and

i really don't. i don't know whether it's resistance on the part of deep state actors. i don't know if it's just simply an inability to manage a behemoth the size of these federal departments of this government. what are your thoughts? >> so i can tell you, lou, you and i have talked about this before. there are still areas that we can improve upon, absolutely. we're trying to do that every single day, but we are making progress. i tell you, and this is being driven by this president and this administration through multiple initiatives and in my opinion, it's being carried out by the men and women of cbp expertly. right now the government of mexico, we talked about this before, unprecedented, this president through his negotiations has gotten mexico to the table to recognize this is a regional crisis and step up, as true partners like they have never before. the migrant protection protocol, 36,000 individuals are now waiting in mexico instead of being in our holding facilities, being released in the united states, and we could go on with the new flores regulation.

so we're making tremendous progress, some game changers, but we still have a lot of work to do, lou, i agree with you. lou: all right. mark, there's another thing that is in public view, and i realize that you are not responsible for it, but it is part of dhs. why are we not seeing the arrests of the employers of illegal immigrants? what is the rationale for that in dhs? >> what i can tell you, i know the director, i'm telling you, he's absolutely committed, so are the men and women. this is part of it, they are suffering a little bit like we all are, right now i have 50% of the border patrol agents that pulled off the front lines doing the law enforcement work to do daycare providing, stuff that i referred to, you know, ordering baby formula, changing diapers and etc. that's the reality of this crisis. i have resources pulled away to handle humanitarian crisis. to some degree, i.c.e. is

suffering from the same issue because congress has failed to do their job, and i know, lou, i'm not expecting congress to do their job, but that's the fact, and because of this crisis, you know, i.c.e. is suffering the same thing. a lot of their resources are pulled off handling the humanitarian issue that's affecting their interior enforcement. lou: there's not much more you can say on this matter when you say because congress isn't doing their job, with the tremendous resources of the federal government, with the innovative and original thinking of this president and his leadership, he has succeeded and the government has succeeded in waying that were totally unexpected. -- has succeeded in ways that were totally unexpected. it is a shame that we have an entire party that doesn't seem to be concerned about securing a border that is the domain of the deadliest cartels in all of the world. and who are holding sway over

illegal immigration, holding sway over the smuggling of tens of billions of dollars in deadly drugs as well as sex trafficking across the border. that is a terrible terrible shame. mark morgan, we thank you for all you're doing. we appreciate it. and good talking with you. >> thank you, lou, thank you. lou: mark morgan, the head of cbp. illinois's radical dem governor signed a new law that will protect illegal immigrant tenants in the state. the immigrant tenant protection act prevents landlords from evicting or reporting illegal immigrant tenants to authorities. if the landlord were to violate that new law, they would have to pay a civil penalty of up to $2,000. up next, the left wing national media's latest conspiracy theory -- they call it a fact, but it's quite something really about this president. it has nothing to do with policy

and all to do with -- tonight we're going to be talking about the president's age and one cnn personalty has a difficult time handling the issue. we will take that up. also more lunacy from the city of san francisco. what would you expect? wait until you hear what they want to call convicted criminals. stay with us. we're coming right back. from the couldn't be prouders

to the wait did we just win-ners. everyone uses their phone differently. that's why xfinity mobile let's you design your own data. now you can share it between lines. mix with unlimited, and switch it up at anytime so you only pay for what you need. it's a different kind of wireless network designed to save you money. save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $250 back when you buy a new samsung note. click, call or visit a store today.

lou: the new york times reporting a lack of excitement about joe biden from his supporters in iowa. the article entitled "joe biden's poll numbers mask an enthusiasm gap". they had to find a gap and i guess that's where it is. featuring several biden supporters that the pollster talked to. the pollster was patrick murray from a university polling institute who said this quote, i did not meet one biden voter who was in any way, shape or form excited about voting for biden. biden by the way is about -- what is it -- about 10 points ahead in the worst poll. he's leading the pack by a considerable margin. at this point, he might say who

needs excitement? i've got the numbers. cnn's correspondent has outdone himself and maybe has outdone cnn himself. he has a new conspiracy theory about president trump. cuomo says that the president is not aging like other presidents. oh my gosh. how could that be? please listen. >> look at presidents when they come in and when they leave. i mean, come on, look at clinton's hair, white. george w. bush looks like he got a beatdown. obama looks like his own grand father. i mean look at it, this is a very hard job because of the stress they carry with them. let's look at the president. it's been almost three years since trump won the presidency. looks exactly the same. his hair -- i don't know what's going on with that. he may do things that presidents in the past haven't done to augment their physical reality, but it could also be that he doesn't care the way others

have. lou: he got to it, didn't he? augment his physical reality. what's wrong with those people over there? joining me now former reagan white house political director, fox business political analyst, the savant ed rollins. and new york post columnist, fox business contributor, great american, michael goodwin. gentlemen, good to have you with us. cuomo has a point there. he's managed to make a man's aging well a liability for him politically. >> the premise that he's not doing what's right for the country is absurd. the president is a very confident man. he has lived in an environment that's as tough as any environment in politics, in the business world. he's used to making tough decisions. and he makes tough decisions. he doesn't need much sleep. every one of those people that put up there didn't like making tough decisions. lou: they never really worked

before i think is the problem. >> and then you have biden who has all the plastic surgery and the hair transplants -- but the reality is trump does the job, just gets up and does it. lou: you didn't get the cuomo me memo, what was it augmentation of physical -- i mean, come on. this is amazing stuff even by cuomo's standards, cnn's standards. i just love the idea that they would find some sort evil, some negative in the fact that he doesn't age like, say, obama, which is interesting because he didn't have the reputation for working very hard. he may have worried, but he may have been worrying about not working very hard. and clinton. i mean, come on. >> well, the idea that he doesn't care. i mean, that that may be why he's not aging. i mean it's a ridiculous kind of

argument to be making. let's just say that -- lou: is that more ridiculous actually than the russia collusion nonsense? the recession nonsense? i mean, the list goes on. they have no problem -- >> it's another one of these in the long line of trying to explode the trump presidency. now he doesn't care because he's not aging. look at his hair. i mean we're back to the hair again. >> this would be the slogan of the democrats. vote against trump because he hasn't aged or he doesn't care about the job. lou: i think the problem is cuomo thinks he looks very good, too good. you look at that list, it is amazing to me to think of the nonsense. afl cio had richard trumpka warning the democrats they shouldn't take the afl cio's endorsement for granted. do you think they should be worried?

>> the reality is i don't know i've been around politics for 50 years i have never known them to endorse any republican and my expectation is the members, wherever they go, it doesn't matter because the members will be overwhelmingly i think for trump. he's done well among union workers because he's created jobs. >> my suspicion is trumpka is basically, you know, saying to the members i hear you and trying to get the democrats to focus on this issue of job creation, particularly among unionized manufacturing. lou: they are all socialists. why do they have to worry about a job? >> and i've argued for a while now, you know, biden's whole thing about he's middle class joe and working class joe is a bunch of hooey particularly when you look at the record of the obama biden administration on manufacturing jobs, lost 200,000 of them. trump creates 500,000 manufacturing jobs. how do you go to pennsylvania and say i'm on your side or any of those states when you're --

lou: that's why the democrats have nothing to run on. what are they going to run against? they have thrown everything in the world. they have invented every piece of nonsense, and much of it they've had it reinforced really all of it from the national left wing media and the voters say go away, this is silly and stupid and irrelevant. >> don't forget the afl cio has members from 2002 to 2018, pretty severe depletion of their leadership. lou: what do you make of the times, the enthusiasm gap they have discovered about joe biden? it's like they had to try to find something to take down the leader of the 2020 hopefuls? >> in this case i think they are accurate. there is no enthusiasm. the reality is as i have said on this show -- lou: mark this moment. >> i have never known a biden voter outside of his home state in delaware. i'm not surprised he's not

creating enthusiasm. if he doesn't have enthusiasm, he won't have the nomination. lou: right. >> we know how this worked out with hilary clinton. nobody is inevitable when it comes to this primary system. democrats have said change the rules on delegates. it is going to be very difficult. lou: very quickly, very quickly, you have hickenlooper pulling out. you have others pulling out. it's starting to look like this was just a charade. they got into it so they could run for the senate, they could run for governor, these marginal candidates. what do you think? >> he will be a strong candidate running for the senate. inslee is going to run for a third term. obviously they didn't get hurt by this. some of the others may. >> mayor de blasio -- lou: he's in it to win it.

>> i'm so proud. lou: that steadfast socialist. >> trying to break 1%, break 1%. lou: ed, thank you very much. michael, thank you. appreciate it, gentlemen. up next, why you can no longer say the word felon in the city of san francisco. i think the left has gone very near the abyss. stay with us. we're coming right back.

lou: tripping the light fantastic more absurdity out of left wing san francisco, city officials proposing convicted felon should be referred to by another name rather than a simple word like felon. try out formerly incarcerated person or just a returning resident. juvenile dedelinquent? they shouldn't be called that. they should be called a young person impacted by the juvenile

justice system. folks, this is absolutely serious. addicts would become, quote, a person, quote, with a history of substance abuse. now, that's just astonishing stuff. i mean, it really is. joining us tonight to take up this and more is the senior policy analyst at the independent women's forum. what do you think? it looks to me like san francisco is taking us places we have never dreamed we would be with the language. >> oh, yeah, lou, i agree with you. i mean, it's -- it's interesting. what's unique here is that san francisco is continuing the obama administration legacy, where under obama, the justice department tried to scrub some of these quote disparaging labels, like ex-convict, like former felon. lou: right. >> and there's a new twist here. san francisco is saying that

this is in part to fight the systemic racism and white supremacy apparently that's inherent in the justice system there. so, you know, i think it is laughable. i'm a wholehearted supporter of criminal justice reform and giving people who have served their time and their punishment a second chance. lou: absolutely. >> but this is going beyond that. this is trying to determine the difference between who have served their time and people with repeated criminals and lumping them together the same thing as they do with legal and illegal immigrants. lou: it is the left. they have had such success with homogenizing, sterilizing words and language, wringing the life from words and selecting latin derivatives and going pc, they control language, they control the mind, and they know that.

this is just an extension of that, it seems to me obviously. facebook pulling a trump presidential ad. facebook pulling a woman for trump saying it violated the platform's gender policies. what are your thoughts? >> facebook is at it again. i would like to believe that they are not targeting the trump campaign, particularly on a day when the campaign is really trying to reach out to women, by doing this women blitz, of having their effective surrogates hitting lots of different cities to mobilize female support. i think it is just potentially somebody at facebook who is trying to, you know, target the campaign. lou: they have a history of it for crying out loud. >> oh, yeah. lou: the bias is clear, within facebook. and next we're going to have a police force with a language police within facebook. are we headed do you think for a real collision here?

breaking up google? breaking up facebook? silicon valley on notice? attorneys general carrying out an investigation, antitrust. the department of justice doing the same? >> i think we're headed in that direction, but i don't think we're going to get there, honestly. and i worry. i hesitate when i hear about antitrust being thrown around and breaking up big tech because just because a company is big doesn't mean it's sinister. now are they living up to their -- are they harming consumers? that's another situation or that's another standard -- lou: they're doing what they want with user data, almost without exception. >> well -- lou: i'm sorry, go ahead. >> the challenge is this is their playground and we as users, we have agreed to abide by their rules, however they decide to put out their version of justice. i think we have kind of struck a bargain saying i want to share my family pictures and find a

community of conservative people across the world using social media -- lou: it is a bargain and that means it is an impact on consumers. by the way, being big is not in and of itself a defense against abuse of user data and violation of privacy. patrice, we're out of time. great to see you. come back soon. >> good to see you too, thank you. lou: we would like to hear your thoughts about all of this. share your comments. follow me on twitter @ lou dobbs, like me on facebook, follow me on instagram at lou dobbs tonight. up next the major connection between google and the radical dems' 2020 presidential candidates. there is some? say it isn't so. we will take that up after thiss

lou: a data firm supported by former alphabet chairman eric schmidt is now working for some of the top 2020 dem candidates. new records show joe biden, cory booker, kamala harris and bernie sanders, their campaigns paying thousands and thousands of dollars for research from schmidt's data firm. smith who helped run and fund hillary's 2016 campaign still serves as technical advisor to google's board, as far as i know. he's not on the payroll, but there it is. joining us tonight the new york

times best-selling author, president of the government accountability institute and host of a new investigative series entitled "the drilldown". great to have you with us, peter. >> good to be with you as always, lou. lou: i can't imagine that he would support, advise, counsel, a democratic candidate. it's just -- this is to me fascinating that there is not more of an inquiry into google itself and what they've done is just extraordinary in terms of all the visits their executives paid to president obama during his time in the white house. i believe they were the most represented of any firm or maybe entity, private entity in the country. >> you are exactly right. we are all familiar with the term revolving door and people think of it, you know, defense contractors going in and out of the pentagon. well, in the obama

administration, google was the number one company that had executives visiting the white house, and you had something like a couple hundred, i believe, google executives who left google, went to work in the obama administration and went back to google. look, people have the right to do these things. the problem is a company like google has the power and has the inclination to dramatically influence an election in a way that nobody can know about it. they can manipulate the algorithm. you've got whistle-blowers that say that they have done that. you have internal documents that have leaked that have done that. against conservatives and also against conservative candidates in favor of liberal democratic candidates. that's a campaign violation that needs to be investigated. lou: and do you think this administration will? certainly it would seem a republican administration should. i'm sure that the democrats would have returned the favor had it worked out the other way. >> yeah, i mean, imagine if you

had a big high-tech firm that was run by conservatives and that there had been allegations that they were helping certain political campaigns in certain ways. you can believe, and i think honestly they'd be right, you know, capable of doing this, is to send some department of justice prosecutors over there to start poking and looking around. i mean, you know, if we're concerned about campaign violations of, you know, people giving to a candidate by donating to their sister and having their sister give, straw donations like that are prosecuted. my goodness we ought to be looking and investigating one of the largest corporations in america, which has been charged by some of its own former employees of tipping the scales in favor of certain political candidates. it's a slam-dunk, and i hope the trump administration does that. lou: and facebook, a new police on language and intent, i suppose. i'm not quite sure how they plan

to carry that out. but we're looking at -- it seems to me -- a requirement for a new definition of public responsibility on the part of corporate america and an adherence to old ideas about anti-competitive monopoly, whether it be the -- at least de facto me -- de facto monopoly, when it comes to search, google is it. when it comes to social media, facebook is it. your thoughts? >> they are completely dominant. ted cruz has been sounding this alarm bell on capitol hill these tech companies are protected by the communications decency act in a section that basically says because and as long as they are neutral platforms, they don't have to worry about certain things related to monopoly or liability that media firms like fox news does. well, cruz's point is they're not neutral platforms anymore.

so let's stop fooling ourselves. if they're not going to be neutral platforms, why do they get the benefits of being a neutral platform. i think cruz is right. they ought to choose. they ought to be neutral platforms in the true sense of the word, and they can keep their current status of some of these legal protections they have, or if they want to continue in the path they are going, they're going to be treated as media companies, which means, you know, if a broadcasting company wants to buy a television station somewhere, that has to be approved. if you do something and somebody thinks you have libelled them as a media company, you can be sued. that should be applied to these tech companys if they are going to act like media companies. lou: where we are right now, it looks to me like some of these companies spending tens and tens of millions of dollars on lobbying and influencing policy, it looks to me like a lot of

lawmakers are outright intimidated by these companies. they're afraid to pursue a public policy responsibility that at least in my opinion that they should, and i'm just curious about, you know, how far this is going to go because cruz is amongst a very few who has had the guts to actually say something, and i don't know of a single committee that is prepared to do much of anything about what is an awesome economic consolidation of economic policy and political power. >> well, i think as lou you probably know even better than i do, profiles -- [inaudible] -- are not very prevalent on capitol hill. they want to get re-elected. as long as they don't think their constituents care or it's not that important to them, they are not going to address it. people need to let their elected

officials know they are concerned about this, concerned about these companies that are impacting elections in a hidden secretive way, profound level, also silencing certain voices. i think if these politicians realize that the voters who put them into office are concerned about these issues perhaps they will start showing more courage and start carrying the torch the way ted cruz and some other people are. lou: always good to see you. thank you, peter. we're in the fourth day of this week, and the fourth different view from the administration on tax cuts. monday, the trump white house denied reports they were looking at cutting payroll taxes. tuesday, the president said he was looking at the idea. wednesday, the president told reporters he couldn't see any reason for new tax cuts. today, national economic council director larry kudlow announced the new position. >> we're looking at what i sometimes call tax cuts 2.0. you might see that during the

campaign, to be perfectly honest. there's nothing in the near term. that's what the president was getting at. lou: and that leaves us another day in this week. another opportunity for discussion of tax cuts. up next, president trump just wrapped up a meeting on preventing mass shootings. what was discussed at the meeting? one of the country's leading experts on guns and gun laws joins us right after the break. stay with us.

lou: breaking news now, president trump holding a bipartisan meeting on gun legislation today. the president just tweeted this just moments ago: just concluded a very good meeting on preventing mass shootings. talks are ongoing with both republicans and democrats. we're likewise engaging with lawful gun owners, survivors, grieving family members, law enforcement, the nra, mental health professionals and school officials. i'm hopeful congress will engage with my team to pass meaningful legislation that will make a real difference and most importantly save lives. to sort this out, joining us tonight, the president of the crime prevention research center, a columnist for foxnews.com. john, good to see you.

first, background checks. >> right. lou: background checks on nearly all of the guns sold in this country. why aren't they -- why aren't they adequate? >> well, what they want to try to do is have what they call universal background checks, background checks on all private transfers. lou: uh-huh. >> they bring this up after each mass public shooting. president obama this was the one law that he kept on pushing but it wouldn't have stopped one of these mass public shootings these century. all the people obtained the guns either through a background check themselves or they stole them. lou: with that understanding, that reality, and by the way, what john said is exactly correct, what are we doing here? what is the purpose of the push for quote unquote universal background checks, when everyone acknowledges that in nearly every instance, what we're dealing with is a deeply disturbed mentally disturbed individual? >> i think the reason why they push this is that they want to make it costly for people to be

able to go and get guns. lou: they want to keep guns out of everyone's hands. >> so we're in new york city right now. it costs $125 at least to do a background check on privately transferring a gun. you know, you add that to the licensing and registration fee, it may not stop you or i from being able to buy a gun, but my research shows that poor people, poor minorities, blacks, who live in high crime urban areas, the people are most likely to be victims of violent crime that this to keep them from being able to defend themselves and their family. lou: what is the solution here? what is the intelligent thing to do? i personally believe the 2nd amendment -- i mean i'm an absolute supporter of the 2nd amendment. is there in any part of this is a reasonable solution? >> what's been frustrating that the solutions that the democrats put forward have nothing to do with these attacks. there's something we can do. lou: let's go. >> virtually all of these attacks, about 95% of them keep

on can you aring in places where guns -- keep on occurring in places where guns are banned. these killers aren't stupid. they want to kill as many people as possible because they know the more people they kill, the more publicity they can get. so they go to places where victims can't defend themselves. if you have one guard there who is in uniform, they have an almost impossible job. these killers have huge strategic advantages. if they are going to attack, that will be the one person they kill first. lou: what is the solution? >> to get rid of the gun-free zones. lou: do you get rid of the security guard too? >> you can have a security guard. having people with concealed carry actually makes the job for the security guard safer because if a terrorist is going to attack them, he veals his position. -- he reveals his position. now he has to worry about somebody behind him who may be able to stop him. lou: in so many of these cases, the disturbed individual, the school doesn't do anything, doesn't talk to authorities, the families do nothing or do too

little. we've got to have a different approach here and a mindset for the community, the neighborhood, and families. >> look, i mean, it would be great if we could go and identify these individuals beforehand. but you have to realize how difficult it is. lou: i'm not arguing how difficult it is. i'm arguing why in the world can't we have a campaign for people to pay attention and take responsibility for the mental health of all of us? >> right. look, it's easy to see these things monday morning quarterbacking. lou: i'm not -- john, i'm sorry, we've hit the absolute out here. john lott, great to see you. thank you very much. we'll be right back. stay with us.

lou: on wall street stocks mixed. volume on the big board slipping a bit to 2.9 billion shares. listen to my report coast to coast on the salem radio network. bob guzy received the presidential medal of freedom. president trump: he never forgot his first lesson. don't ever be predictable. i learned that lesson, too.

thanks for being with us tonight and good night from new lauren: it's 5:00 a.m. the stakes are high in jackson hole where jay powell is set to speak amid massive criticism. will the fed chair signal more rate cuts or keep his options open? cheryl: hong kong bracing for more he protests and a 20-mile long human chain. protesters joining hands across different districts to symbolize the 1988 soviet union protest that spread across those baltic states. lauren: a costly green new deal from bernie sanders. how his expensive push could impact you and your wallet. cheryl: and do you hope for a $50 living wage? what about a no tip vegan