thank you for being with us. this show always fair and balanced especially against all the establishment media. we'll see you back here tomorrow night. night. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." crime doesn't pay, that's what they tell you in school, though there is increasing evidence that maybe it does in fact pay. consider all the career politicians who somehow wind up rich in the end and then there's omar landau, if if he lived on your street he would be the richest guy in a neighborhood, he joined the telegrams during a firefight with u.s. soldiers in 2002 he threw killed a delta force medic named christopher speer. after he went to guantanamo bay he later pleaded guilty to murder there. lucky for khadr he was born a canadian citizen so after being released from gitmo he sue the

government of canada for his impediment. here is the remarkable thing, canada settled with him. this month just in trudeau's government awarded him more than $10 million and issued an official apology for being mean to him. prime minister trudeau later said that he had not bothered to talk to the widow and he decided to defend the settlement as a win for human rights. >> i can understand canadian's concerns about settlement. in fact i share those concerns about the money, that's why we settled. the measure of a society, of a just society is not whether we stand up for people's rights when it's easy or popular to do so, it's whether we recognize rights when it's difficult, when it's unpopular. >> tucker: michelle is a member of the canadian parliament and she joins us tonight. thank you for coming on.

>> thank you for having me. his >> tucker: is this a measure of the justness of canadian society? >> i want you to know that most canadians are outraged about this. they are outraged because of the payment itself, how the payment happened in the fact that the way that it happened has probably preempted and prevented tabitha spear from seizing any of those assets. >> tucker: the assets belonging to the father of this man? >> that's correct. i think with a lot of your viewers have just seen the statement, they should also know that most canadians i think are quite outraged and quite disappointed by the state of affairs. >> tucker: it doesn't seem just. probably a lot of people in canada, including some who have been legitimately mistreated by the government who could use ten and a half million dollars. >> this was a settlement, it wasn't any sort of payment that was awarded by a canadian court. this lawsuit that mr. khadr had

filed was being litigated and there was no court ruling. this is something the government decided. what was disappointing for me as a legislator and many of my colleagues that this decision happened after our house of commons, similar to your congress rose for the summer. right now we are not sitting, usually have an opportunity to ask questions like why did this happen, what was the government's motivation. that didn't happen. i think that's where there's a lot of concern about this particular decision, that it's been made in a bit of a vacuum. now we are just getting grips and grabs. >> tucker: so why did the prime minister do this? >> that's really a question for him. i think many canadians would have preferred to have seen this play out in a court of law. the prime minister had said that this was done for some sort of financial reasons to save money, but the reality is that this was a decision that was made by his government and not by a court of law. i think that's quite confusing and quite outrageous for many

canadians. >> tucker: so there's an effort online in canada to raise money for the family of christopher speer, tabitha speer. but also for the other soldier. >> speerkids.ca. . you have to understand is that this is not a partisan political issue, this is something that people who actually voted for this government are saying i'm not comfortable with. you have to understand that canada values the relationships that we have in terms of our men and women in uniform serving shoulder to shoulder with each other. i think there's a lot of people going how did this happen and why? is a question for our prime minister to answer. >> tucker: why wouldn't he call the widow of christopher speer? >> again, i'm sure that something he should answer for, but i know that our former prime minister stephen harper has reached out to her. i can't imagine being her right now and listening to all of this coverage and having to have

those wounds we opened. i think we have to be cognizant about her and compassionate to her and her family in the first instance here and to me that's at the core of canadian outrage over this. >> tucker: again, as long as we're passing out $10 million checks to people who say they have been wronged, he would not even be on the first hundred on that list. you have to wonder was this a way to getting the finger to the united states? >> i think this should have played out in a court of law. mr. khadr has a computer will tell mike appeal to his conviction, he said this case in front of the canadian government. this is a very serious situation all around. our supreme court has said that his human rights are violated. as a legislator, i want the judiciary to make a decision on this. that's what hasn't happened here. i want to be perfect clear, i think that's where that sense of wrong this is coming from. >> tucker: lets the let the king decide over summer vacation. thank you for joining us.

>> thank you for having me. >> tucker: sergeant morris was the other soldier we alluded to who was wounded in that firefight or christopher speer was killed. he will be joining us tomorrow night for his take on the settlement we were just talking about. we hope you had a relaxing weekend because our political class in washington did not. instead of barbecuing with their children, taking some time to solve the many problems this country faces, they were back on television writing about the russian takeover of america. >> what are the russians have politically, financially, or personally on donald trump that he funds over putin. the american people have a right to know. >> i do not want to see our democracy underlined by having the president of the united states colluding or his officials colluding with russia. >> this love of putin that this president is showing in this defensive putin that this president has done and all of the other things that i just alluded to is unseemly.

>> we can also say that donald trump, jr., what he did was a threat to our democracy and borderline treason. >> tucker: borderline treason. max blumenthal is an author, a journalist and a lifelong man of the left. he's become skeptical of the russian collusion narrative which he has called destructive and dangerous. last month he took a camera to an anti-russia protest on the national mall here in washington to find out what the people there actually know about the topic. here's part of the conversation, an amazing conversation he had with an aggressive congressman. >> you saw that roger stone host show. >> roger stone hosted a series on the russian propaganda network. >> do believe that we need roger stone -- that he did not host a show? that he didn't host a show. >> you can go after any details you want but i don't see why it would be your interest and support an autocratic authoritarian government which is jailing journalist and fighting freedom. >> i think we should tell the

people the truth. when max joins us in studio. i love that exchange because it similar to so many i've had on the show or if you call into question the facts being asserted you are immediately accused of being a handmaiden to vladimir putin. let me ask in the broadest question you are not a trump support up, a lifelong man of the left and yet you don't think that this russia story is helpful to the left or makes sense, why? >> with a talk about the issue of efficacy in addition to the fact that i haven't seen any concrete evidence and rachel maddow's dots may never connect. someone on the left was actually gone out and protested trump, i didn't expect the hysteria to completely take over, but now i see what the point is of it. i see trump is the apotheosis of a failed political establishment both from the democrats and the republican pushing corporate trade, pushing permanent war and i thought the democrats should have responded with a big narrative against permanent war.

for economic equality. instead they are pushing russia mongering nonstop, it has subsumed all of the progressive grassroots movements i believed in and it's basically buried the left and a militaristic narrative that ambitious figures are advancing. mark my words, when trump is gone, this narrative, this russia hysteria will be repurposed by the political establishment to attack the left and anyone on the left, bernie sanders, politicians who step out of line on issues like permanent war or corporate free trade, things like that will be painted as russia puppets. this is very dangerous and people who are progressive who are falling into it need to know what the long-term consequences of this cynical narrative are. >> tucker: it seems virtually everyone among them left in washington with some exceptions. who seemed to really believe

that vladimir putin was in control of the last election. do you think they believe it? >> i don't know, i can't speak for other people, i'm not a mind reader, but this definitely an political clash in washington that sees russia scandal mongering as a silver bullet to take out trump and then you have the democrats were basically -- the democratic establishment that came in and took out keith ellison, the corporate sellout establishment that can't agree on a economic message that doesn't favor single-payer. this is just convenient because it gives them a way of opposing trump without having to do anything remotely progressive. >> tucker: it's a little bit surprising from a perspective of someone in the media to see big news organizations full of smart people who i thought were pretty skeptical in a good way refuse to ask any of the basic questions and instead when you press them safe some number of intelligence agency said so. i haven't seen the evidence but i believe in. when did that change, what is that about? >> the boot looking press and a

boot licking liberal opposition that believes all intelligence agencies and doesn't ask questions from these anonymous officials. you will see on cnn a segment, u.s. officials say russian spine is ramping up. i don't know, our russian spies taking adderall now? there's never any clear sourcing. never any sources on the record and then we see erased. it was burlington, vermont,'s electricity grid, then they retracted the story. it's very hard to keep track of it, but what they've done with the scandal mongering in addition to kind of pushing away a progressive narrative is create the sense among a lot of people who don't have time to pay attention that there is russian collusion, that we were attacked by russia and that actually have to respond if not with expanded sanctions, which i think is very dangerous and harms average people, but with military response. we just saw paul on cnn calling for blowing up the russian

intelligence. >> tucker: you see members of congress call this an act of war. you are pretty fairly well-know well-known. what kind of response have you received after saying things like this in public? >> i will probably get called a putin puppet after the show. that's pretty much all they can say but i would like to have a debate about the evidence. i would like to talk about the evidence behind this. but i also want to talk about whether it's a good idea to support democrats like ben for saying this is a political pearl harbor and we should respond. whether it's a good idea to expand nato into little countries like montenegro. whether it's a good idea to be funding jihadist proxies in syria to hurt russia. supporting territorial isis in syria to hurt russia and iran. that's where this narrative is leading. it seems to be from a purely progressive antiwar, anti-imperial position, a disastrous narrative that will have long-term consequences for the left.

>> tucker: my son will be required to give his life to defend the territorial integrity of montenegro. maybe it's a good idea, maybe we should debate it, but we are no not. thanks for coming on, that was super interesting. >> tucker: trump administration now approaching its six month mark. congress trying to hammer out a placement of obamacare. what is in the current replacement of the bill? we will sit down with the hhs secretary tom price in just a second. refugee resettlement programs have a tech: when you schedule with safelite autoglass, you get a text when we're on our way. you can see exactly when we'll arrive. i'm micah with safelite. customer: thanks for coming, it's right over here. tech: giving you a few more minutes for what matters most. take care. kids singing: safelite® repair, safelite® replace.

>> tucker: republicans spent many years failing to immediately repeal and replace obamacare if voters would turn them the power. it may be voted for them for that reason. when barack obama was still president the house of representative repeatedly classed for placement bills knowing they would never become law but now republicans do have the power to do all of that, to replace obamacare, and they're having a hard time. the senate still has never passed a repeal bill and that baby a good thing according to polls which show that only 17% of americans approve of the pla plan. five points lower than the approve relating in this country for vladimir putin. what would this plan do for americans? some confusion about that still, tom price joins us tonight to clear it up. thank you very much for coming on. >> good to be with you. >> tucker: you are trying to sell this to the public but also to the congress, and it's hard, it's always hard with the stuff. if you were too narrow it down,

tell me with the chief aim of this bill is. is it to improve health outcomes, to control prices, or to expand coverage? >> sticking to the principles of health care, making it affordable and accessible of the highest quality and providing choices for patients. protects patients, provides more choices, lowers costs and it strengthens medicaid. that's it in a nutshell. >> tucker: but you didn't add to that expanded coverage? >> coverage comes when people have something that they want to purchase. coverage doesn't come when washington tells you what to buy. the way that you get people to get health coverage and that you provide them with a product that they actually want. if that's purpose of this bill is. >> tucker: i don't know the answer to this because i haven't seen the polling, but is there evidence that people in the last election voted to replace democratic leadership with donald trump because they wanted more choices? and health care? >> they certainly wanted obamacare to go away. >> tucker: for sure. never broke 50%, now it's

actually about 50% now that we are debating. >> they wanted to go away and it's important to know why. they want to go away because prices are up, choices are down, folks don't have the kind of coverage they want. they may have a card but they don't have care because they can afford the deductible. there are all sorts of an array of things that are wrong with obamacare, with the aca and that's what we're trying to fix. it's not just through this bill, that's what's important for people to appreciate as well. if it's an isolated activity, it's an important one. it's vital to have it but it's only one isolated activity that's going in place with his administration to make it -- >> tucker: i think it's worth paying attention to. how would trump voters be affected by? >> west virginia for example, 68% of west virginia voted for donald trump. about 30% of the whole state is on medicaid. this legislation i think would reduce payments, i think that's fair to say. how would they fare under this. >> for those individuals on

medicaid who are eligible previously. there's essentially no change whatsoever. over a period of time those individuals that were on medicaid but were able-bodied adults, they would transition to a personal market, a private insurance market that would be more responsive to them and allow them to purchase the kind of coverage they want. everybody's prices will come down for the premiums that they pay for their coverage and a look at coverage more responsive to them. if we strengthen the medicaid system, we drive prices down, increased choices. that's what it's about. >> tucker: if this bill passed tomorrow in its current form, i know it still being formulated. there would be no net loss of medicaid dollars for people on medicaid and the state of west virginia? >> for the next two years there would be no change at all, the changes began in 2020 and at that time medicaid would grow, the amount of money for medicaid would grow at a rate that's equivalent to the consumer price index for the medical services that are provided in this country. that would be a rate that would

actually cover the cost of the increased growth in the medicaid system. over the period of seven or eight years that drops down to just cpi. over that period of time the individuals that would transition from medicaid to the private market would then be able to have the coverage that they want. and if they needed it because of their low income would be subsidized by what's called a split stability fund. making it so we can have patient-centered health care in the system. >> tucker: 's are not fewer people covered by health insurance. >> i believe, there's no way to predict it, cba has a terrible record on predicting how much coverage, but i believe that there would be more people, more individuals being able to be covered with the system currently being contemplated in the senate and currently. >> tucker: who loses? you've described who wins, but someone always loses, who loses? >> the folks who want government to run your health care, they lose. >> tucker: who are they? >> they are the folks in this town right now who are opposing

by march, the individuals -- >> tucker: who loses money on this? >> the money gets spread differently and the amount of money is actually more because as i said the increase in medicaid is upping consumer price index in individuals are able to select the kind of coverage they want. choices make it so that the market of health coverage, if you will, response to patients, not to insurance companies and not to government. that's the key. >> tucker: how far are we for single payer nationally from catastrophic coverage. honestly. i'm hearing conservatives who have always been against -- single-payer for catastrophic coverage? >> i think the consequences of that actually reduce the ability for you to get the kind of coverage you want for the services. >> tucker: 's that may be right, this is a political question. >> i think the answer has to wait until the outcome of this debate. if the congress and the president are able -- the congress is able to pass a bill

and put it on the president's desk and i think that you will be a long way away from a single-payer -- >> tucker: but if you don't we are closer to it, and would you before it or know? >> the devil is in the details. i'm not for something with the government decides what is covered for individuals. because i know that when that happens, it happens in every other system that has it, the government decides what equals health care. >> tucker: they get rich, i've noticed that. >> that may be a byproduct. >> tucker: thank you for joining us. if a small town in pennsylvania trying to cope. covered with human feces and headless chickens after immigration officials settle with roma, they call them gypsies. the need to just grow up and start appreciating diversity. we will talk to an whoooo.

i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

>> tucker: in the last two months several thousand roma, more commonly known as gypsies have been settled in california pennsylvania by the federal government. they are seeking asylum saying they suffered racism in their native romania. integration is not going well. they have little regard either for the law or public decency. citizens say they defecate in public, chop the heads off chickens, leaf trash everywhere and more. if they are upset, some of them are. george eli is an author,

activist and an american roma. if he made movie about the community. he joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. >> thank you for inviting me, i appreciate it. i don't may tell him i think i would be able to get out of this, my mother would kill me century such a huge fan. >> tucker: nice open, i like that! say high to your mom for me. because i didn't even tell her, she's probably screaming right now, just so you know. >> tucker: i'm not anti-roma, but i am pro-american citizen. >> tucker: and so are american roma. >> tucker: i know that you are, but the group that is settled in california pennsylvania doesn't seem interested at all and integrating, so why wouldn't american citizens have a right to be upset about that? >> american citizens have the right to be of anybody coming into their towns. i can't comment on what exactly is happening in the town because i just learned of it through your producers.

i can say that the roma people, the majority of them are nonviolent. they are nonviolent people. as far as the town -- i'm starting to be concerned. i think both parties are suffering right now from a little bit of culture shock. so i can't -- we can't discard, as a roma person i can't discard with happening in the town. for them to be fearful of what's happening here, because immigration and immigrants are one thing, but these people seem to be a little bit of not following the law. >> tucker: i agree with you. i've spent time on the roma and i've never heard anybody say they were violent, so that seems right to me. but i have heard a lot of people mention, and i hate to say, public defecation, there are a lot of new stories around -- i'm serious. going back a long time in the u.k. and here where groups of roma settle in a new community

and defecate on playgrounds or sidewalks or on the front steps. that seems to me a hostile act. basically what you're saying -- there are options. when you do that you are saying we reject you. what's that about? >> to respond to your question, i cannot respond to, because i've never witnessed it and i've been roma all my life and my family has been. we as bathrooms and i've been to europe many times. it's kind of like i can't respond to something that had never seen as a roma person. i've never witnessed any of my family do such a thing. in the way you're making it sound with all due respect, or more negative papers are making it sound like they are doing it in protest. if it's happening. >> tucker: lots of people over a number of different years, there are photographs of it actually online. what is that about, it's not something that you need to do, so you have to assume it's a statement of deeply offensive.

>> i can't respond on something so vague and vast, -- >> tucker: there's nothing vague about it, there's pictures. >> what i can say is this, what i can say is that a lot of these romanian roma are coming from romania where there's not a lot of running water and you can look at my film and see that this happens, there's not a lot of electricity, these are very rural areas. if the people in pennsylvania think this is in protest -- this is just a people adjusting to a new culture. that's what this is. >> tucker: i wonder if that's true. i'm interested in the subject so i'm sure most of our viewers know this is a distinct ethnic group originally from the indian subcontinent. >> it's important to understand that was over a thousand years ago in the roma people are inherently european. when i'm not discounting that i merely saying this has been a distinct group for a thousand

years, it actually hasn't assimilated for the most part into the cultures in which it has been hosted. i wonder why we think they will assimilate into pennsylvania. >> that statement that you have is not exactly true. first of all, there are over 1 million roma in north america and you never hear any reports of that. in eastern europe where they are the majority they are treated very badly, it's worse than the african-american plate here in the 50s because there's no economy, and again, these are rural areas they are coming from. the roma that are in western european countries, great britain, france and spain, the ones that were born there and are basically spanish and french natives, that doesn't happen in the more progressive countries. >> tucker: we can agree that when you come to pennsylvania you can't go on the sidewalk or the playground. do you think that we are secure

enough with our own mores that we can just say knock it off? >> yes. roma, they can adapt, but we have to understand, they're coming from a culture that hates them. they're not going to -- even though they are great things about america, i think america is the best country in the world and i wouldn't be able to become what i've become if it wasn't for this country. they don't understand that yet. again, we cannot discard the people of pennsylvania. i'm not going to say that they just defecate in the streets because i've never seen reports of that, there's pictures that you were telling me that i have not seen. what i can say is that when you say that there are basically roma and they are not romanian immigrants, that is like putting an emphasis on the roma people and a stereotype that is not fair. >> tucker: i'm not trying to be unfair, i just think -- >> i don't think you are. >> tucker: we are out of time but i want you to say high to your mom for me. >> hey mom, high, i'm on the

show, and i don't think he's going to marry you. >> tucker: thank you. >> thank you, have a great one. >> tucker: moore, evergreen state college in the state of washington. the student says she is being silenced due to her skin color as well as a professor at that school who s

>> tucker: time now for campus craziness. the news out of evergreen state college in washington really is a metaphor for what happening on the left more broadly. it's bizarre. so bizarre it feels like a twilight zone episode where up is down, black is white and howling mobs represent free speech and tolerance. sadly of course this is not television. this week the student told trustees how she is vilified and silenced solely because of her race. keep in mind this is happening in america.

meanwhile professor claimed that evergreen isn't extreme enough, that the real problem, watch. >> i'm a current student at evergreen. i have been to several meetings to speak, i've been told several times that i'm not allowed to speak because i'm white. the school seems to focus so much on race that it's actually becoming more racist because i choose not to focus on race i've actually been labeled a racist and a white supremacist. if anyone took the time to actually know me, it's not true at all. >> the work towards equity and inclusion was and is not proceeding fast enough for our students and frustrates them and staff and faculty as well. i want to advocate that each of us, all of us strategically and thoughtfully choose to listen, find, and tell the stories of what happened, stories that understand social change to be messy and righteous. difficult and necessary. >> tucker: 's that's what fascism looks like in 2017. don daniel davidson is a senior

correspondent at the federalist and he joins us now. part of me feels guilty to giving so much airtime to this college in the northwest. i think it's a much broader about what's happening to the american left. this is a pretty familiar series of steps we are watching. do you recognize this? >> absolutely. this corresponds to a pattern we've seen playing out all over the country over the last couple of years in berkeley, in maine. coast-to-coast, even at missouri a couple years back i started with lives matter protest. evergreen is a special case. it's kind of a canary in the coal mine, it's been kind of a kooky liberal college for decades. what's happening there is kind of the logical consequence of left-wing radical theory playing out on college campuses all over the country. >> tucker: so i think one thing that that professor, the

one who described violent threats as "righteous." one thing she said i think does point to the truth. she said in effect our students have been told to expect that things are going to change much faster than it actually changed. isn't that part of it, students have been taught that the country is irredeemably racist and that they have a responsibility to make everything perfect immediately. if you tell kids that, why should you be surprised when they write? >> exactly. i think it's also a consequence of the students being very sheltered. it's not just college, they've gone through high school in most cases without ever really being challenged. their biases have been confirmed by their teachers from a very young age. college, which is supposed to be a time when you expand your horizons, when you challenge your assumptions, has never really happened for them in that way. they've had their biases confirmed and reinforced and as you say they've been told that change needs to happen really

fast and a specific kind of change. and we encounter people they disagree with that kind of lose their minds. and that's what we see in evergreen, that's what we've seen at middlebury college, that's what we've seen at uc berkeley. it's a big problem and it comes from kind of the shelter this and college students today. >> tucker: for sure, but i think we've reached the stage of the revolution where it started to consume itself, the snake is eating its own tail. there are no conservatives at evergreen, the guy they are mad at is a totally sincere progressive comic is not a right winger in any sense and now they're trying to kick him off campus. you're struck by how this is kind of the left versus liberals? >> it's exactly as you say. this is sort of the left eating its own tail, as we say before, a canary in the coal mine, this is the logical consequence of this kind of rhetoric. if you are taught that speech is violent and you will resort to

violence to suppress speech you don't like. >> tucker: exactly. >> that's what's happening here. it's very anti-enlightenment. we spent centuries getting to the point where we don't burn people at the stake for the things they say and that's exactly what happening here. >> tucker: really nicely put, how would you like to run the democratic party with all of these people in it? they've unleashed forces that can't control and i would be afraid if i were them. thank you for that, that was insightful. >> thanks. >> tucker: a baby in canada has been born without -- the first one born without any official

>> tucker: for all of our lives we've lived in the world of boys and girl, but that is changing along with everything else in 2017. in canada, that country directly to our north, the parents of a baby successfully petitioned for the child to have no sex listed on the i.d. card. things may not stop there. they probably won't. the gender free i.d. coalition is calling on the government to eliminate sex and gender classifications for all children throughout the country. are we ready for a world here were baby boys and girls are baby something far less. psychotherapist joins us now. thanks for coming on. >> thank you so much for coming on. >> tucker: these are questions that didn't exist like 18 months ago. homo sapiens have been around 300,000 years and for the most part, it's kind of obvious will boys and girls were but we decided in a very short period of time that none of that is real and we are it because why? >> to be honest with you, we believe that people who are

considered enter sex, people who were born with both sets of genitalia or have existed throughout human history. >> tucker: for sure. the federal government released a study in 2016 about 1.4 million people now identify themselves as transgender and canada isn't the only place that's doing this. legislation was just introduced in washington, d.c., and new york over the last couple of months to also have people that have parents who have the right to, on the child's birth certificate, not just say the child is male or female, but also x, or unidentified. >> tucker: i think you may be conflating two things. the number of intersex births in this country where a child has both sets, partially or fully phoned of genitalia, a little over 700 per year of about 4 million births. very small numbers, tiny number numbers. probably we can assume that's been consistent through time,

and nobody is suggesting that you force a sex onto a child whose sex is not clear, but for most kids, overwhelming number of kids it is clear, so why should we pretend it's not clear, i guess that's the question? >> a great question. if i had trouble finding accurate numbers as to how many children are born in this country who are intersex. i got numbers that say 1 out of every 1500 births, also 1 out of every hundred births. >> tucker: hold on, 1 out of every hundred births there is separate sets of genitalia? i don't think that's right. >> it doesn't have to go that far. there could be some sort of genetic -- i don't want to say abnormality, but an anomaly. like a chromosomal anomaly. meaning that gender is not necessarily based on genitalia. think your other question is should we give people the right

to say we are going to raise a child as nonbinary, meaning we are not going to raise a child as male or female, which is something that the couple in canada is doing. >> tucker: there are legitimate i think medical situations and you just describe some of them. there's an open question and i would never deny that and you want to respond compassionately but that's not what this case is about. this case is about the idea that you get to choose what your sex's, which is a denial of biology and also i think is a psychotherapist he would agree, a cost to a child. if you say to a little kid i don't know if you're male or female, you decide, i don't think you are going to get a good outcome a lot of the time at all. that's what people have never done that in human history. >> nell: the person who is deciding to do this with their child up in canada, i spoke to them on the phone, the point that they are making is that this child is a spiritual being having a human experience, not a human being having a spiritual

experience. it's actually a very spiritual and devil and what it's saying is let's let the child be a child and eventually the child will decide what it wants to be, how much it wants to identify as a boy or how much as a girl. this person is also saying that it's not that i'm not going to raise the trial as a girl or boy, i'm just going to say to the child, you just be a child, just be an individual for a while, i have a government interfere with who you are, let's not put a set of preconceived notions about who you are unto you, let's just let you develop as a human being and eventually you can decide whether you want to be a boy, a girl or nonbinary. >> tucker: yeah, but you can actually decide and i for choic choice, there are a lot of biological reality is that i'm sad about that i would change -- i'm sincere that i would change about myself. i'm not attacking anybody. don't you think that biological reality matters and lying to kids and telling them actually you could be 6'7" or you could have blue eyes instead of brown, or whatever, those are lies and it's never a good idea to lie to

kids, is a? >> nell: i don't think it's a lie, it's actually giving more information at a younger age than we traditionally have. i'm going to give a comparison. it's like raising a child to not assume that their heterosexual the way i raise my children is to say i don't know what they're going to be and i'm not just going to assume that they are gay or straight. >> tucker: there's a difference here because whereas we don't know a lot about the biology of homosexuality we know a lot about the biology of sex because we know it begins in the chromosomal level. there's a science piece to this that's being ignored by people fight people who i thought believed in science so that's why i'm a little bit confused. >> nell: i don't think it's being ignored but i think what we are seeing in the federal study and what's come out in terms of the census bureau is that 1.4 million people don't identify with the gender marker they were given at first. we have to take note of that and say what's going on, that there's a fluidity about gender and it's not necessarily rooted in biology. >> tucker: why does that not extend to raise?

>> nell: tell me what you mean by that. >> tucker: ike and sam woman why can i say i'm a chinese woman and be taken every bit as seriously. i'm not mocking you, i'm making a sincere point. what's the difference. >> nell: it's a great question. i think as we progress as a society some of these labels that we are putting on things, and i can't necessarily go to the race question, but one of the things i loved about your program as of late is that you are really into this idea of having a more inclusive society and being less separatist in terms of race, that we should be more inclusive. i think that's what we are saying, we are creating a space at the table for people to be -- to have option malady in terms of how they want to identify themselves. >> tucker: okay well as long as we are still science-based. as a child of the enlightenment i'm for it. nell, thanks for coming on today. >> nell: think so much for having me, i appreciate it. >> tucker: a u.s. veteran try >> tucker: a u.s. veteran try to stop thieves at home what's n mountain coffee and fair trade?

let's take a flight to colombia. this is boris calvo. boris grows mind-blowing coffee. and because we pay him a fair price, he improves his farm and invest in his community to make even better coffee. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee.

>> tucker: we told you at the start of the show how crime is starting to pay as demonstrated by a canadian terrorist and countless members of congress. you know what doesn't pay, being an honest person who tries to stop crime. 70-year-old veteran has been fired by home depot because he dared to confront shoplifters at his store. until last month he worked in pearl land texas in home depot. he saw two men rubbing off with thousands of dollars with tools. he threw a paint roller at them. they got away with their crime and rather than defending film for store's merchandise and honor home depot fired him he violated a strict policy to not chase shoplifters. at 70 he is struggling to

find another job. bitter. that's it for us tonight. good night from washington. our friends at the "the five" in new york are ready to go. see you tom ♪ ♪ >> kimberly: hello, everyone, i'm kimberly guilfoyle along juan williams, dana perino, eric bolling and greg gutfeld. this is the five. it is the hearing that everyone will be watching. oj simpson is up for parole this week. will one of america's most infamous prisoners be set free. it's a crime saga that dan more than 23 years ago. 1994, los angeles police in hot pursuit of a fugitive from justice. nfl legend orenthal james simpson wanted for the murders of his ex-wife nicole brown and her friend ron goldman it