hannity. i'm off for a few days. kimberly guilfoyle will be joining u you tomorrow. god bless america. in case you are returning from new zealand and misty. here's what he wrote. i heard poorly rated @morning_joe speaks badly of me " (don't watch anymore). then how come low i.q. crazy mika, along with psycho joe, came.. ...to mar-a-lago 3 nights in a row around new year's eve, and insisted on joining me. she was bleeding badly from a face-lift. i said no!

"that was it. chaos erupted. democrats in congress rushed to the nearest micro junta expressed shock and horror and call for the presidents reagan democrats ignition. >> i think it's plainly sexist, i don't know if there's question about it. i thought that that was going to be resolved in november, instead we have a person in the white house who not only doesn't happen to be a woman, but happens to disrespect women. it's too bad paired >> you spend your time in the morning dealing with attacking human beings that happen to be americans and happen to be the media. let me tell you something mr. president. we can't wait that long. it is time for you to resign. >> tucker: meanwhile, over at cnn, you would've thought a new ices torture tape had been

released, except worse, because it was trump. >> the man who in his life and in the campaign has acted like a misogynist, sexist, a sexual predator, he is just not a decent human being. this is objectively a statement from the highest office in the land from the president that objectifies women, it is a statement that is cruel, it attacks a woman's appearance. >> this disgusting dude is the president of the united states. listen, you crazy lunatic 70-year-old man baby, stop it. you are now the president of the united states. the commander in chief. and you need to stop acting like a mean girl. >> tucker: got that, because trump attacked one woman he attacked all women. he's a sexist because he's acting like "a mean girl." which is suddenly a feminist thing to say this but it's an attack on girls. what is this really about?

they suggest he's a mentally ill criminal, he calls them on their case lift pick. he's a brawler, and they're shocked by that. but they should be. there is something else going on. he doesn't play by the real spirit he's a threat to the people who make and enforce the rules. in this case, the immediate establishment here in washington. they hate them for that, and for good reason. he pretty much set so out loud today. >> i can tell you working overseas in war zones, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all out declaration of war on the media. >> there are people in the country who don't understand that this is a cynical reality tv game, and are going to hear over and over again from the president that the reporters, journalists are enemies of the state. someone, god forbid, but someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then i know where the fault lies. >> tucker: in other words, disagreement equals violence. if you criticize me, you are a

physical threat. i feel unsafe. you must be silenced. first they came from "morning joe." he'd seen this gambit on college campuses for his, it's how liberals silence dissent, by conflating contrary opinions with violence. if it's strange to see middle-age reporters in the studio in washington fighting about their own safety, it shouldn't be. passive-aggressive is the universal currency of the left. it won't be long before nbc's claim status. no surprise there. that is no defense of these tweets. they were stupid and they were counterproductive. they achieved no policy objective. they elevated eight televised sideshow to a cultural icon status. they brought joy to the left while embarrassing the president's supporters. they allowed liberals to crow about the degradation of public square even if they finance their campaigns with donations from hollywood. let's be right -- they don't hit

him because he's vulgar, they applauded -- they think lena dunham as an artist. the hired kathy griffin. they had to trump because he's a nationalist. he says the interests of america and its people ought to come first. that's fine. let them hate him for that. the rest of the country loves it. that's the real tragedy of today's tweets. there are a diversion. when the president talks about the people who elected him, he wins. when he talks about himself, the left does. the president was not elected to pick fights with tv host. he was elected to push his agenda that the country needs. but no one was offering. in some cases watching tonight, here's a quick recap of what the campaign was about. secure the border. take america out of pointless wars. replace obamacare with a system that expands affordable coverage for the middle class. bring jobs to the heartland. push back against the vultures on wall street. that's what people voted for donald trump. that's what he ought to do. the press doesn't like it, ignore the. the members of the staff try to divert his energies to other agendas, fire them.

rarely has a president been elected with a clear message, a clear mission. restore the middle class. if you stick to that, he will win. if he doesn't, won't. joining us now is former speaker of the house newt gingrich, author of "the new york times" number one bestseller understanding truck. thank you for joining us. i think you understand the president. i don't understand why he would get in the way of what is a successful and needed message. soft nationalism, soft populism. with a distraction like this. >> he is an instinctive leader, dealing with page six in new york, it is so deep in his psyche that you hit him he punches you. he doesn't think if it would be good to punch her, bad to punch her he punches you. i don't offend some of the stuff he does, i tell him to his face

that i think -- l of about 80% of his tweets, we negotiate up to 90%, but the last 10% is hopeless. it's just who he is. in many ways he is an extraordinary historic figure. in some ways you wonder why does he undercut himself. maybe eventually he will learn not to do it. but it's integral to his personality. he hits -- >> tucker: is there someone in the white house with authority with a clear list of the objectives here, particularly on the campaign. by the way, the other night when he spoke in iowa, keep the country out of pointless wars, restore the middle class, jobs. do you think they are focused on those things? >> i think 98% of the time president trump gets focused -- he wants to make america great again, it's not just a slogan. he wants to create jobs. he wants to reform regulations.

he wants to fix the health system. he wants to fix the tax system. and then about 2% of the time he is back to being the donald trump we use to be -- private businessman, saying what he wants to. the 2% in the media world blows up and takes up almost half of the space. >> tucker: there's no question about that. it's a disproportionate thing. people who aren't dumb, and have supported him, and here the policy dog whistle that he was omitting for the last few years are concerned about the number of goldman sachs people, for example, in the white house you don't seem to understand the agenda at all. and maybe working against it, is that a fair concern? >> share. it's fair to say, like every white house, there's tension. in the reagan white house, which is now romanticized, jim baker came from one direction, mike

dever came from another, the national security counselor came from another, reagan presided over the whole thing. and reagan in the end made the decisions. the same thing is happening here. they brought in a lot of really smart people from many different directions. people talk about goldman sachs, they've had a lot of alumni there. on the other hand, stephen bannon, and here is bannon, the nationalist, it's hardly -- it's a tribute to how good they are. it's the harvard of financial investing. in the end, it comes down to one person. like franklin delano roosevelt or evan lincoln or ronald reagan, that one person has a pretty good sense of where he wants to go. and trump routinely runs over everybody, routinely opposes them, gets them back on track. this is a very bold, very

dramatic and profoundly transformational direction. >> tucker: that's reassuring from a man who understands truck. thank you. journalists are saying tonight that trumps rhetoric is placing them in physical danger. time to give them special status? safe spaces? jeff mason writes for reuters, the current president of the correspondents association. i'm not making the case that journalists are like trump, he's a techno like him he doesn't like them, and says so. but i wonder if you are a straight news journalist covering the news, why you would assert yourself into the story? and that's what you see a lot of the other channels peer people that are -- nonopinion people talking about themselves, and basically showing their cards. showing their animus towards the present appeared how is that help a question >> what examples everything up? we want you sat on the clipper display from cnn. one of their correspondent said basically what trump said today makes our job more dangerous, it

towers ices. that's a ludicrous statement. they can't back that up. that's not reporting. that's a motion. >> but the president used in emotional tweets to criticize a working journalist. so i think that's probably what leads -- >> tucker: that might be strong, but a tv show host. >> she's a journalist, yeah. that leads to putting journalism in the crux of the story. there's no -- i would prefer to be writing about the news, ask about policy, writing about the substance of what a white house is doing. but the president creates news with his tweets. as you were just discussing. >> tucker: as i decide, he doesn't like journalists, but straight journalists probably shouldn't say publicly they don't like the president or give that impression because that undercuts the role as an objective observer of the news. and yet no one seems to be raining them in, and i think it's doing damage to the perception of the press is objective. >> you think it's doing damage when -- >> tucker: reporters show how

they really feel about a politician they are supposed be covering objectively. and they are. and nobody is saying anything about it. and i wonder why. >> you're not talking about this -- we talked about this before. know where you getting your news. if you are watching an opinion show or a commentary show like yours, or watching a show that is a straight news show. if you're watching television or if you're getting your news from a newspaper or a website or a news agency. i think that's very important. i think if you are a reporter who works for a news organization that is, or a shout, or a paper, whatever, that is a straight news organization, absolutely. he should be neutral and you should report the news. >> tucker: you think trumps tweets this morning put foreign kind despond danger? >> i can answer that. i don't know. the white house is asked about that. the president does not encourage violence, but i think that the world is watching. i think the world does watch and listen to the rhetoric that president trump uses. don't you think -- we kind of

like journalists before, but now we don't because trump doesn't like them? >> i am not qualified to speak on what isis is think about >> tucker: but would you agree that is one of the most ludicrous suggestions uttered on television? >> i'm not going to take an opinion on that. i think people are listening to what the president says and what he writes and what he does. he has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. that has an effect. >> tucker: what does that mean exactly? deeming that journalists would be physically imperiled because trump doesn't like them? >> i can answer that, tucker. i don't know what the effect is going to be. what i'm saying is that the president, when he criticizes journalists, others are watching and seeing that. whether it's the foreign labor in china, whether it's a person in a country who doesn't believe in press freedoms, they look at the united states as an example on how press freedom and they look and they see what the president does, and that has an impact. >> tucker: it's debatable, we don't know whether it has an impact that we don't know what

the chinese are saying, you know what, we're going to clamp down further. really quickly, do you think that the president says the press has personal animus, they don't like me and i makes me mad, does he have a point? >> i think any president is going to be unhappy with his coverage. going to think is making a fair point? >> i think when he says he's unhappy with his coverage, that that is a legitimate point to make. absolutely. >> done xp on things or join us. today, they passed "kate's law" to crackdown on illegal aliens who try to reenter. also, president trump's travel ban went into effect tonight. we will have a live update from the airport. stay you do all this research on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates... maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness,

liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance.

yeah, and i can watch thee bgame with directv now.? oh, sorry, most broadcast and sports channels aren't included. and you can only stream on two devices at once. this is fun, we're having fun. yeah, we are. no, you're not jimmy. don't let directv now limit your entertainment.

xfinity gives you more to stream to more screens. >> tucker: the house of representatives today voted to pass "kate's law," a bill that if enacted would stiffen penalties for deported illegal aliens who reenter the united states as so many do. the house also passed a bill that would cut off federal grants to sanctuary cities. area mendoza is the mother of brandon mendoza who was killed by a previously deported illegal alien. thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: is this what you wanted from a bill? >> more light needs to be shed on this problem in our country. for and seem to be educated about what's really happening behind the scenes.

politicians lie, the correct statistics are not coming up. >> tucker: what do they lie about? >> they lie about the fact that people like myself are anti-immigrant, which is the furthest thing from the truth. i am anti-illegal alien criminals in our country. i am tired of our politicians -- i don't know when the turn happened in this country, when politicians are now protecting illegal criminals in our country more than they're protecting you and i. >> tucker: so the man who killed your son had been deported before. >> had been deported, convicted of crimes in the state of colorado. he didn't show up for his court date, he was on the run. was cut at the border in 2012, taken back up to colorado, the courts showed leniency and let him go. 12 four years later he killed y son. >> tucker: he was nonsupport of the second time. >> this is what so maddening to me. the leniency that the courts

show criminals, illegal criminals. most of the time their felonies are reduced to misdemeanors. they spend half the time in jail that you and i would for the same crimes. they are released back out onto our streets. they run the sanctuary cities, because they know that they are protected. it's time that our politicians and that the american public is aware of the fact of what's happening in our court systems, what our politicians are hiding, and we are here to be truth tellers. we started our website, advocates for victims of illegal alien crimes. we want to bring to light not only the murders of americans, but people who are affected by rate, assault, identity theft. we want americans to come out of the shadows. let their fellow americans know what's happening to them. >> tucker: you've begun that. thank you very much for joining us. he opposes the law. alex, you heard the conversation we just had. with the mother or man killed by someone here illegally. he was deported, came back, was

not deported the second time for some reason. why in the world would you oppose a law that would deter tragedy like that? >> the law has as it's written right now, it's in response to kate steinle, the case that it's named after. in the case of kate steinle and sam sisco, murdered by an illegal imminent, this law would not have done anything to prevent that woman's murder. the murder in that case, illegal immigrant by the name of lopez sanchez had already spent 15 years in federal prison for violating u.s. immigration law by itself. that's about the maximum penalty, near the maximum penalty under this new law if it goes on to the books. so it's really unclear how this new law is actually going to prevent these type of tragedies happening good spirit because of some gets out of prison and

remains illegal in the status, and if they get -- again, they will go to prison. the principle is clear. we are going to enforce our laws and why wouldn't we? what the argument against enforcing our laws? >> that's already on the books right now. the big problem with kate steinle and all of these other cases as you have usually a bureaucratic snafu. in the case of kate steinle, this illegal immigrant was sent to san francisco for a $20 marijuana charge, there was 1520 years old, the city doesn't even prosecute it anymore. they held them for three weeks before releasing him. ice could've picked him up if they had a warrant, but they didn't do so. >> tucker: your making the point. >> it is not because of mandatory maximum -- it is nothing to do with her. >> tucker: you've done a marvelous job of illustrating the problem appeared we don't take it seriously. they're all kinds of people who

are clearly a threat to the border and because they have a questionable immigration status there granted some sort of holy status where you can't mess with them because they are protected group. this law starts to move that trend and the other direction. >> was a mechanic it was the exact opposite. they wanted to convict him of every single crime he was guilty of in the united states. they overreach by taking crimes that were being enforced anymore in california. and then the federal government government -- must be when i got that. the point is that they had an obligation to make sure he wasn't in our country, he didn't, he killed the girl, and here we are. >> and more laws and more bureaucracy is not going to fix that kind of problem. putting people in jail for an average of 15 years at enormous cost. we want to enforce the law against violent and property criminals, and not waste federal

resources on people, most of whom have not committed any violent and property crimes. wait, why do you want to waste more resources? >> tucker: let me say, alex, if you let me speak, i don't accept the premise that it's a waste of federal funds to enforce federal law. that's the whole freaking point. >> the whole freaking point -- >> tucker: you and have open borders say so. but this at some how responsible to enforce the law it is insane. >> the point of the law is to save american lives. prevent murders and crimes that actually hurt people, like the poor woman you had not. not to punish people for violating labor market regulations. every dollar you spend putting in illegal immigrant in jail, every dollar you spend, for a nonproperty crime is a dollar that could be spent on a real

criminal. >> tucker: we were to mean to protect kate steinle from this guy. okay, i get it. you're not in the borders. just say. >> but we should do is focus our resources on people who actually want to hurt people, not on -- >> tucker: we are out of time, sorry. the travel ban finally going into effect. following a court ruling, and we will take you like to dallas international airport. the only time you've gone there voluntarily, trust me. stay

>> tucker: this is a fox news alert good after months and months of legal battles, while chronicled on the show, president trump's travel ban which affects six countries, countries the obama administration labeled as terror threats, is finally gone into effect. for more where joined by cox chief national correspondent, the great ed henry, who is life force at dallas international airport. hey ed, what's going on? >> good to see you. as soon as i put it out on social media that we would be reporting in dallas for you, i started getting tweet saying that he was the media critics income like we saw week one of the trump administration when there was chaos at airports across the country. to the contrary, all we are doing is reporting the news straight, which is a win for the

trump administration tonight. so we simply are not seeing cass. instead we are seeing order. this is the international terminal where international arrivals come in right behind me. it's been very smooth so far. we are not seeing resist protesters here chanting like we saw week one. maybe not as juicy of a story. some of the problems from that first executive order, those problems were self-inflicted because the trump white house rushed it out there. now this one was more carefully crafted, and remember they got the green light this week from the supreme court on monday. there was a 72 hour waiting period to get all the changes in effect, and here are the changes that are implemented tonight. you are exempt from the travel ban coming in from iran, somalia, sudan, if you have a bona fide relationship with an american or u.s. entity. that's defined by the government as a parent, spouse, child, et cetera. you are not considered to have that relationship if you are a

grandparent, aunt, uncle, nephew, others more extended family members. what's interesting is that the supreme court still has to work out all the legalities in october, but that is not stopping liberal lawyers tonight from filing challenges. the state of hawaii just moments ago filed yet another court challenge to this latest executive order, even though the screen court already said they are dealing with this. >> tucker: yet, don't have anything else to worry about honolulu, like the biggest population homeless population repealed >> tucker: it opposes the travel ban, he joins us tonight. so it seems like the travel ban as first envisioned has been pared down by the supreme court, but it seems like it's getting pretty hard to argue that it's radical or it's excluding all muslims, or it's racist, what exactly is wrong with this law

at this point? >> you know, i think the point is that this ban was made in the interest of national security. but as we've seen by the way it's been revised and continued to be changed, this isn't really about national security. if this is about the president trying to make it good a campaign promise to "make a complete shutdown of muslims entering this country." this is really about politics and not national security. >> tucker: leaving aside the question of how you could know the president's motives or know what it's really about, and none of us knows that, if that is in fact the intent, not doing a very good job because the largest muslim countries in the world are not included in this. it's restricted to six countries that the obama administration designated as sources of terrorism. so how is the sump -- >> i agree with you that the president is doing a good job here. at trying to make good national security policy.

if he is trying to make good national security policy -- >> tucker: hold on. why isn't he banning -- >> i'm saying he try to make good on a campaign promise. mother's exley making good on that campaign promise or not, that's going to be up to his supporters and those who voted for him to say that. it would be naive to say that this, take this out of the context of what he said on the campaign, which was to shutdown immigration immigration of all muslims. >> tucker: these are six countries the previous administration designated as dangerous. so do you think that -- >> do you think that "the washington post" didn't analysis on at this benefit and effect over the last 20 years, would it have saved any lives from terrorism and the answer is no. >> tucker: any sentence that begins with "the washington post" immediately is discredited, a, b, -- >> no, it's not.

>> tucker: the question i asked was, if you'll answer answer, do you think that the obama administration -- >> i think -- >> tucker: do you think obama was wrong to say that this was six dangerous countries? >> these are six countries that do have poor infrastructure. but if we are doing this in the interest of national security -- >> tucker: what he mean by poor infrastructure question might >> a weak central government, people are leaving, especially refugees that are leaving these countries are coming here because they are desperate to live, tucker. >> tucker: i thought you needed they knew bridges or infrastructure, they said they were dangerous. were they wrong? >> they fed infrastructure in the sense that their central governments are weak. >> tucker: but lots of countries have weak central governments and fed infrastructure. and probably could use a superhighway or two. and they aren't a threat. >> i'm not talking about them,

talking about the systems in place to make procedure. the fact is that people from these countries are not coming here because they want to die. the president is saying that we need to ban people from these countries from coming here. they're coming here because they want opportunity. >> tucker: maybe they are, maybe they're not. i don't think you know their names, so it's hard to generalize to know what they want. i don't know their names either. really quickly, why does the unites its benefit from having tons of people from say, somalia, failed state with lots of tear, coming here? >> immigrants are an integral part of our economy, refugees, america has moral standing in the world because of its compassion for countries. this is part of our compassion, as americans, to bring in the most vulnerable from around the world. as other countries do as well. i if you are going to ban -- we

are losing our moral standing. >> tucker: i will speak for myself and say i don't think my moral standing tanks a hit. thanks for joining us. up next, radio talk show host dana loesch has come the new ad for the national rifle association. it's powerful. we are going to show you the whole thing, in fact. here it is. >> they use their media to assassinate real news. they use their schools to teach children that the president is another hitler. they use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. and then they use their ex-president to endorse -- to make the march, protest, make them scream racism in fees and an homophobia, to smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstate ten airports, bully and terrorized the law-abiding. until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs

and stop the madness. and when that happens, they will use it as an excuse for their outrage. the only way we stopped us, the only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist of truth. i'm the national rifle association of america. and i'm freedom safest place. >> tucker: that drove the left completely bonkers. we will have the meltdown and reaction from dana loesch herself after the breakoooo. you're searching for something. like the perfect deal... ...on the perfect hotel. so wouldn't it be perfect if there was a single site where you could find the right hotel for you at the best price? there is. because tripadvisor now compares prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to save you up to 30%... ...on the hotel you want. trust this bird's words.

tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

>> tucker: before the break we showed you dana loesch's nra ad. it is powerful. not everyone is impressed. for her efforts on behalf of the second moment she is being accused of trying to destroy the country. publications, including mother jones, saying she is calling for a civil war. cnn tweeted this, and add for the nra, dana loesch accuses the

left for violence and calls for hits back with a closed fist of truth. while meg. black lives matter activist was upset too, tweeting, this nra ad is an open call to violence to protect white supremacy. if i made a video like this, i'd be in jail. one of its followers, david dennis, jr., the use of a white woman as proxy for antiblack violence is a tale as old as america itself. okay. dana loesch joins us now. thanks for coming on. i didn't see any racial overtones in the spot, maybe he wasn't looking, i did see one of the cops who seems to be celebrating was an african-american police officer. but do you think is there racial subtext of this? somehow? >> no, there's not. i'm glad you're feeling better. no, there's no racial component in this. the reaction to this is insane. i'm talking over video clips that show actual leftist violence, rioting, property

damage, arson, physical assault, and apparently me condemning violence is what's inciting a dividing america. people like -- >> tucker: it's like a bunch of rich white kids setting fire to stuff. you're defending white supremacy for attacking rich white kids burning stuff? it's insane. >> it's the goofiest thing ever. it's incredibly clear when i say clenched fist of truth, i have this here, this is logo. i can't believe up to spell it out. i guess people don't look at pictures. it's just wordplay. i'm talking about finding violence with truth, because truth wins out all the time. currently that's bad. when you show the left, and some people in the left, not left, but when you show a mirror, show them the reflection, they freak out. that's what i've been dealing with all day. >> tucker: so senator chris murphy of connecticut wrote this. "i think the nra is telling

people to shoot us. now might be the right team to cancel your membership." i don't think he had a membership, but what you make of that? >> i think that's exactly my point. i've actually received a couple of death threats today that i had to refer to law enforcement. i think this is incredibly reckless and irresponsible of senator murphy to have this response. first of all, it's a lie. there was nowhere in this video, and explain in this video where i call for violence, i'm condemning it, where i call for anyone to move towards violence, to silence anyone, or where i call for anyone to even pick up a firearm and an act violence. it's reckless and irresponsible. and senator murphy needs to rethink his word choice here, because we just had a couple of weeks ago, due to some of this rhetoric like we see from senator murphy, had a crazy leftist lunatic ought an open fire on a bunch of republican congressional members after he double checked to make sure they were republican. this has to stop.

i'm not going to stop condemning violence, and it's a shame that other people on the left won't do the same. >> tucker: yeah, the core irony here, the spot that i saw which i think we are talking about the same commercial, you show video of people committing acts of political violence and you say if this keeps up, the police are going up to put it down, which would be the hope i think of every normal person pretty don't want stuff like that. you don't want violence like that. your condemning the violence. and i missing some the ? >> yes, absolutely. no, absolutely. there's a lawmaker in maryland saying i was exporting alexandria, and i went up points out that this was taped in april. this ad was uploaded online in april. the reaction to this came suddenly, swiftly, yesterday. it's an organized effort against not only gun rights, but against speech that talks about peace and truth, and this lawmaker was somehow suggesting that i was exploiting alexandria when in fact i was warning people, look,

stop. everybody chill out for a little bit. cool your jets. let's have a civil discussion, by some bad things are going to happen because there are crazy people out there. you never want anything to be prophetic, tucker, and unfortunately it was. >> tucker: thanks a lot for coming on tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you, tucker. thanks so much. >> tucker: nevada says that health insurance is telling patients to kill themselves rather to get treatment because it's cheaper. is this inevitable? we will la quinta presents "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business.

>> tucker: with assisted suicide becoming legal and more

u.s. states, the question is will health insurance, insurers reach a conclusion that it's cheaper to kill patients than to pay for their treatment? might be happening are ready pretty on nevada physician says he has two patients both in need of treatment, but the patients were from oregon and california, to go states with assisted suicide laws. according to him, the patient's insurance company said they wouldn't cover the treatments and instead only pay for their suicide drugs. charles krauthammer is a writer and columnist. he joins now. charles, this is all we know about it. we don't have proof this is true. he says it's true. but this does seem like something we might want to be worried about given the relative cost of killing someone and treating them. should we be concerned ? >> absolutely. there are a lot of arguments against assisted suicide. the main arguments come out of holland. holland is the pioneer for assisted suicide. they allow this to ten, 20 years

ago, and the slippery slope is terrifying. it starts out, they say, although try to do is alleviate the pain of terminal patients. and what you see happening, it starts out that way and holland, they end up on a yearly basis killing people who are not -- you are demented, who have no choice, without consent. old people's homes, because of quality of life. that's well known. also, the idea that it's only for terminal patients in pain is a famous case -- i wrote about it in my book, a woman who lost her two sons, was inconsolable, asked to be given assisted suicide. was. her doctor went on trial, because you're not supposed to do that, and of course it was acquitted. this is where it goes. we don't know how true the story is from this doctor. but it is clear that there will

be pressure to save money. a dead patient is a cheap patient. and that's a very fast way to get there is assisted suicide. and also, there's subtle ways in which a doctor can suggest what you ought to be doing. counseling you while you look at this, and people put a lot of steak, they really listen to their doctors as authority figures, particularly when they are in distress. they can have a huge effect on what the outcome is. absently, look, you understand the sympathy people have for those who are really dying, and that's what drives the movement. but the dangers are staggering. that's why think, even though i understand the push for it, it really should not be legalized. >> tucker: i certainly understand the push, too. you feel enormous compassion for

people who are terrified and in pain, of course you do. but shouldn't there be some legal mechanism to prevent insurance companies from pushing for this? >> i'm sure -- look, this sounds like a very unusual case. i've never heard of one like this before. i don't think it's an epidemic. that's why i think there are no legal restrictions. there are other things you want to look at first, which is the pressure of families basically wanting to get rid of, say you need restrictions on that, people who will benefit financially. if this becomes rampant, i think we ought to put in structures. i don't think it is. there are a lot more bad things that will come before it becomes an insurance company issue. >> tucker: that's reassuring. the minute we have left, there is a story in ohio or a councilman there has said that the city might want to put a three strikes rule into effect

for opiate ods. we are going to save you after the second time. what's your take on that? >> the councilman out to look for other work. i can understand the impulse. here are people that -- there being, the gratitude gets them, we save you twice and wait to come back and do a third time. look, you can't let people die. that's a rule. it doesn't matter how bad they are, how selfish they are, how irresponsible. you don't let them die. you have the antidote, you give it. what you could do is say if you are in your third time we're going to triple your committee service or will incarcerate you or will attach to your earnings, what you have, but you don't deny the treatment. >> tucker: can't let people die. >> that's the rule. the one that's a great role. charles, thank you. we'll be r

>> tucker: that is all for

tonight. the horrifying dog festival last week, we will talk about the efforts with those dogs. good night from washington. here is a "the five." >> dana: hello, everyone. i am dana perino. it is 9:00 in new york city and this is a "the five." we begin tonight with major developments on two of the president trumps big its promises. the house of representatives, getting tougher on illegal immigration. the sanctuary cities and kate's law. the bill is named after kate steinle, who was murdered by