media. have a great night. night. think about that tonight. have a good night, though, and we'll see you back here tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to a special edition of "tucker carlson tonight." we spent a lot of time covering the saga of russia's alleged undermining of our democracy on the show. we frequently pointed out how shaky the election hacking narrative is at its core and that we have made some people very angry for saying that. consider ralph peters who suggested that are a skepticism of in league with nazi sympathizers. >> hard to see what he's up to us us. how many people can we be in opposition to at once? why not just except that bad people -- >> it sounds like charles lindbergh saying that hitler hasn't --

>> tucker: i am not -- you cannot compare me. >> i think putin is. >> tucker: is a gross overstatement. >> you can think is insane all you want. >> tucker: you just compared me to a nazi apologize because i asked a simple question for you down. american interests -- >> vladimir putin invaded his neighbors, broke in the long peace in europe, he assassinates dissidents and journalist, he bombs women and children on purpose and syria. he is as bad as hitler and i am sorry if you don't like the charles lindbergh then, i will retract that. let's just say, you sounds like someone in 1938 saint, what has hitler done to us? >> tucker: i would hate to go back and read your columns assuring america that taking out saddam hussein will make the region calm or, more peaceful, and america safer. in fact, it has done exactly the

opposite it has empowered russia and iran, the two countries you say you fear most. let's just be totally honest. you don't always know the outcomes. they are not entirely predictable. maybe we should well worth the moral a little bit. we can only make the decision day day by day. >> you made your career, and american conservative patriot. now you are suddenly cheering for vladimir putin? >> tucker: i am not at any sense cheering for vladimir putin. i am cheering for america as always. our interests are to come first. to the extent that making temporary alliances with other countries serve our -- comparing people to hitler advances the ball not 1 inch. >> m putin hates america and he wants to hurt us. i am sorry, all of this -- russia is evil. >> tucker: we cannot in any way do business or make common cause with a country whose leader is "evil," "a bad person."

that takes most people off the table. most countries are run by really bad people. because you are talking about alliance, anti-terror alliance. come on. >> tucker: the first step, cheering on any attacks made by russia against our moral enemy, a real enemy, isis. when i just say that's great? i don't like putin. i'm not living in russia. i'm not taking money from the guy. a good deed is a good deed no matter who commits that. >> putin isn't killing isis, he's attacking the anti-asada people by letting us fight isis. >> tucker: are you convinced -- do you speak arabic, by the way? >> no, i don't. how is your russian? >> tucker: is nonexistent and i would never come to be a russia expert. we are sitting here talking about -- i bet you were in that category in syria, saying they are freedom fighters, they are serving the interest of freedom or democracy or american interest when in fact, we know very little about these groups and some of them are truly bad people. >> we are not backing the truly bad people. >> tucker: how do we know that? >> is asada good guy?

>> tucker: i don't know? >> if we align with russia, we are aligning with iran. we are aligning with assad. >> tucker: that's bad for american interest because why? >> do you think iran is good for american interest? >> i think iran is a bad country and in a lot of ways against american interests. but within the context of syria, assad was much better for america than the people i believe you hope to replace it with. >> if the kurds? >> tucker: the kurds are going to run syria? >> they are going to have an independent -- i am not going to break it out. >> tucker: because it worked so well in iraq? >> the problem with iraq was in 2003, when we had the chance, we didn't break it up it up. >> tucker: we didn't break it up. last question, and would you -- knowing what you know now -- i hate to revisit this, knowing what you know now, deposing saddam, his subsequent death, empowered around dramatically and in fact we expressly helped

iran gain traction in iraq, i do think that was a wise idea? do you think there are any lessons going forward that when you take out a secular leader, the vacuum is filled by even worse people? >> i think that is a valid point, in 2003, we did a great thing in exclusively badly. killing the mp, a lot of reasons for it. we believed any iraqi émigre who spoke english with an ox board accented more a well tailored suit -- our intentions are great but if i had to do it over again, no, i would not get rid of saddam hussein because we hadn't thought it through. >> tucker: this wasn't the only russia hawk who became extremely agitated when asked obvious questions. just a day later, we had on someone who may have exceeded him and affected outrage. watch. >> let me ask you a question. if we were to follow the course of action you are suggesting we follow, you are demanding we

follow on moral grounds, having -- >> what course of action is that? >> tucker: get rid of the assad regime because you fear his presence will empower around, a major problem. what would happen? who would run to that country? ralph peters said the kurds. you think the kurds will run syria once we depose bashar al-assad? >> i think it will be very difficult to do in any case. i think it should have been done in 2011, 2012, free syrian army >> tucker: just sorry we didn't follow your advice. >> what is your advice, tucker? should we collaborate with with russia and committing war crimes in syria? is that your advice at the moment? >> tucker: i think you are not choosing -- >> i am very opposed to the trump policy. >> tucker: you specialize in moral outrage. i am a cheerleader for russia and iran. this is exactly the style of debate that prevents people from taking you seriously. >> tucker: am i wrong? >> tucker: cheerleading for

iran and russia? of course i'm not. i wouldn't live in -- >> you don't think we should make common cause with russia and syria? >> tucker: that's very different. let me ask you this, since i think you are also historian. the congress in 1941 voted for something that sent billions and billions of dollars to joseph stalin in armaments and food because the congress of the united states voted hitler was a greater threat. were they stalinists when they did that? >> you know, tucker, this is pierce... -- will you let me finish? will you let me answer your question, tucker? i will be the first to admit that sometimes you have to make common cause with repugnant regimes and that's what franklin delano roosevelt did with joseph stalin. we did not share common goals with russia. we do not share common goals with russia because russia is trying to further the murderous bashar al-assad regime, they are trying to -- that is not our

goal. iran believes in death to israel, death to america. we should not be cooperating. >> tucker: let me just ask you a factual question. >> russia, by the way has been undermining our electoral process, would you don't seem to carry about three when the moral preening is tiresome. >> your lack of judgment is tiresome to me. i find it to be offensive. >> tucker: this is why no one takes you seriously. i'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself. you say iran is a primary threat -- tell me how many americans in the united states have been murdered by a terrorist backed by since 9/11 9/11. >> so you are taking the pro-iranian line essentially? >> tucker: you were humiliating yourselves yoursel. >> hundreds of american troops have been murdered in in iran --

>> tucker: how did iran get so powerful in iraq? probably because they follow the advice -- >> do not care about the deaths, tucker? >> tucker: do i not care about the death? it's almost impossible to have a conversation with you because your responses are so childish. of course i care about the deaths. >> your responses are ridiculou ridiculous. we don't need to be worried about iran? >> tucker: i am not -- i'm not arguing a pro-iranian line. i'm not pro-iran, i am not pro-russia, i'm not arguing that iran is a good place or doesn't pose a threat the united states. i'm merely saying -- >> tucker: what are you arguing, tucker? >> tucker: in a world of threats, you create a hierarchy, you decide what is worst and you go down the list. >> and pressure is right up there? do you agree? russia as a threat to us? >> tucker: i think russia is in the top five is absurd and it makes me wonder about your judgment. i'm giving you a chance to answer the question, which is -- >> they are the only country that can destroy us with a nuclear strike. >> tucker: i'm beginning to think that your judgment has been clouded by ideology.

i don't fully understand where it's coming from but i will let our viewers aside. >> your judgment has been clouded by ratings. ratings of the fox news channel. >> tucker: that's pretty funny. i vehemently disagree with the air strikes in syria -- the president called for them and i'm against them. i'm arguing principle. more than anything, i'm arguing for the right -- >> allowing this bloodbath to continue? >> tucker: you are incapable of giving a factual answer. i think our viewers can see tha that. >> i did not attack -- >> tucker: i gave you a chance and you did not turn in, and any sense, an impressive performance. thanks for joining us anyway. i thought it was interesting. left-wing groups across the country are tearing down and vandalizing statues while some city governments are covering them up with burqas. to save our sensitive eyes. and up next, we'll talk to

someone who supports demolishing history. stay tuned. ♪ where the heart beats warm and true, that's texas. where we always welcome you, that's texas. where we always find a way, that's texas. ♪ to make something original... ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make. everything. which adds up to thousands of dollars back every year...

...and helps keep my passion growing... ...in every direction. what's in your wallet? my friend susie cracks and hello sensitive bladder. ring a bell? then you have to try always discreet. i didn't think protection this thin could work. but the super absorbent core turns liquid to gel. for incredible protection... ...that's surprisingly thin. so it's out of sight... ...and out of mind. always discreet. for bladder leaks. also in liners.

track your pack. set a curfew, or two. make dinner-time device free. [ music stops ] [ music plays again ] a smarter way to wifi is awesome. introducing xfinity xfi. amazing speed, coverage and control. change the way you wifi. xfinity. the future of awesome. >> tucker: the spasm of maoist cultural violence continues. recently we talk to someone who supports tearing down statues that offend delicate modern sensibilities. here's what happened. >> tucker: let me just say at the outset that i am kind of some pathetic to your point of view. i wouldn't want to see something that offended me every day, if there was an al sharpton monument on my street, a marionberry monument.

i wouldn't like it. if you are offended by these monuments, i get that. here is my -- >> is not that i'm offended, it's an offense -- to the united states of america to honor war criminals, to honor those -- they are traitors to our country. >> tucker: they certainly were traitors to our country, they started their own country. >> the combination is -- there is no country on the planet, no society that would honor those. people with credentials like that. >> tucker: except to ours because it was a civil war. i agree with your definition. they were traitors to america but then they came back into america, they reintegrated into america, and then it came back -- absolutely. think they did. it was a civil war. it was unlikely were invaded. it does a little more complicated than that. here is my question. is your view of this apply to all slaveholders or just a civil war figures? >> it is not just civil war

figures but civil war confederate heroes, leaders are not to be honored in any shape, manner, or form as a societal imperative. the fact that we are coming to our senses with the statues and with the stars and bars, the american swastika, they almost fell. we thought we had resolved this in charlotte a couple of years ago. it is still not resolved. we are moving expeditiously in every form and fashion to complete the task of eradicating these symbols of hatred and division. now, the issue of slaveholders slaveholders -- >> tucker: can i say one thing? just so you know, i am not even arguing, i'm just saying one of the reasons as hasn't been resolved is because the public is not for doing this. only a small minority, only about a quarter of a people pulled yesterday in united states that these monument should come down. over 60% so they should remain in the historical remnants of an earlier age you need to get the public on board before you

do this, do you agree? >> at the height of the civil rights movement, a lot of people said we need to go slow and take our time. now the people who they were saying that to our american heroes. sometimes heroes, just like the people at the boston tea party, if you had pulled boston, there would've been people who said, why are you throwing our tea in the harbor? >> tucker: because it was in a democracy yet. hold on. no, no. you have given up on the idea of representative government? >> i haven't given up on anything. >> tucker: yes, you have. >> but i am saying is, i understand that some people who champion social justice get it before the main society gets it. just as some people in the republican party were slow to get that their president is dysfunctional. >> tucker: okay. let's go back to the question of slaveholders, though. i think this is meaningful. you make a more defensible point on the civil war question. but what bothers me about the idea that all slaveholders need

to be erased from american history -- >> it's not an issue of them being erased from history. it's being not celebrated. if you are. your name on a building -- >> tucker: if you live in washington -- okay. the city i live in is named after the founder of the country, the first president, who is plantation, which was populated by slaves, is right on the road at mount vernon. so this is not a rhetorical question, the real question. should we change the name of the capital of the country? what should we do about george washington? >> george washington is not a confederate general. george washington is the founder of a country and put his life on the line in order to do so. he was a flawed human being but he created a great thing. he was part of a great creation that is self perpetuating a self-correcting way that is with the process is about. so the fact is that right now we can get to george washington in washington, d.c., but we need to take care of these confederate statues right now. >> tucker: let me just a come

i don't want to get to washington or washington, d.c. i don't want to rewrite history of our country. i like where you left off the last time. referent, thanks a lot for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> tucker: the left isn't just going after statues. they are trying to fleece or local governments, too. we recently talked to someone who supports an illegal immigrant who collected $200,000 from taxpayers after the city attempted to enforce the law. watch. >> tucker: so, here is someone who who is in this country illegally, sues because a country enforced its own laws against him legally, and gets paid by the taxpayers of this country. is there another place in the world where this happens? >> well, first of all, let's talk about the failure of this country to do immigration reform. >> tucker: no, no. let's talk about -- slow down. i don't want to lecture on an immigration. he does not happen anywhere

else? >> no. san francisco had to create its own sanctuary law because of the failure of the federal government. so can you imagine that a law is passed and for two months, you get incarcerated for showing up to the police department to reclaim your stolen car? because that is what he did. correct? >> tucker: he was in the country illegally. the theft of his car was one crime but he hadn't committed a crime -- he had committed a crime himself by being here illegally. the police turn him over to the feds who wanted him and other cities paying is paying him for enforcing american law. i'm just noting the obvious, that is insane. you shouldn't pay a criminal for breaking the law and that is what san francisco is doing. >> but san francisco has a sanctuary law, correct? that law was enacted because the federal government failed to do

reform for immigration. congress failed, the senate failed, clinton failed, bush failed, obama failed. san francisco, being san francisco, made sure that ed protected those immigrant populations. >> tucker: just so you know, they failed to pass laws that you like, but our current immigration laws were passed by democrats and republicans in the congress of the united states in washington, the system worked as it supposed to work, people voted in public on these laws. the republicans didn't do it, democrats are to come too. it's the law. if you don't like it, you elect people who will change it. but until you do that, you can't ignore the law. that is of a system works. why do you think that other countries don't do that? so if i go to mexico, for example, illegally, i get put in jail for a longer term than an illegal board here, why can't i sue the mexican government for being mean to me and expect mexican taxpayers to pay me for the indignity of having mexican law enforced? >> you want to go to mexico?

how many people live in mexico that are not legal citizens that are white that come from united states? check out those statistics. >> tucker: probably not very money. they actually believe in their own country. >> -- when they go to mexico. >> tucker: right. roberto, good luck out there. >> thank you. >> tucker: up next, we'll revisit our interview with bill neither television personality guy, the one where he said people who have questions about global warming are mentally ill. stay tuned. ♪ of hotel rooms.

i am kelly wright for you. ♪ >> tucker: bill nye's new show on netflix may be the worst cultural atrocity since the visigoths sacked rome 2,000 years ago. before that show launched, we had the so-called science guy on to discuss his claim that anyone who has questions about global warming must suffer from the psychological delusion of cognitive dissonance. it was a pretty interesting exchange. watch. >> tucker: that does not sound like science to become a bill nye the science guy. that sounds like something very different. >> cognitive dissonance is not a delusion, it's a feature, it's human nature. we in the science community are looking for an explanation why

climate change deniers or extreme skeptics do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change. the most reasonable explanation is that you have a worldview and then you have evidence and the evidence disagrees with your worldview so you deny the evidence at along with that, you deny the authorities that are providing the evidence. if you have a better hypothesis for why climate deniers denying the overwhelming scientific evidence, bring it on. >> tucker: i think most people are open to the idea that the climate is changing, it has always change, by the way, as you know. >> it's the rate, mr. carlson. >> tucker: slow down. the core question from what i can tell is why the change. is it part of the endless cycle of climate change orders human activity causing it? that seems to be the debate to me and it seems an open question, not a settled question, to what degree human activity is causing it. >> it's not an open question. it's a settled question. human activity is call causing climate change. >> tucker: to what degree? >> to the degree that it's very

serious problem in the next few decades -- >> tucker: stop. you said it's a settled point. i am asking you a signed question. if you listen, i would be grateful. to what degree is climate change caused by human activity? 100%? 74.3%? if it settled science, please tell us what percentage. >> the word degree is a word that you chose. the speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. instead of happening on timescales of millions of years or let's say 15,000 years, it is happening on a timescale of decades and now years. >> tucker: without human activity, how long would it have taken for us to reach this level of warmth in our climate? >> it's not clear that it would have happened. in other words, humans have change the climate so drastically that we almost certainly would have avoided another ice age. there would have been another ice age, for the editing could

happen because of you and me. >> tucker: do we know that -- when with that of happened? >> win with the next ice age have happened? is that your question? >> tucker: what would -- here is the point that i hope our viewers can understand. i'm not in any way denying that climate is changing, immoderately open to the possibility that the changes caused by means activity. i merely calling into question your claim that all of this is settled, that we know precisely what is happening and why and that anyone who asks pointed questions about it is a denier not to be in prison are shouted it off. >> that is your word. that is not my claim. >> tucker: would you like me to read your quote? people who disagree with you all to potentially go to jail? you said that. i'm just a saying -- >> i'm not sure that's what i said come mr. carlson. we can talk about that shortly. >> tucker: it is appropriate to jail the guys from enron? the cigarette industry who promised it wasn't addictive?

my only point is, shouldn't we be encouraging people to ask honest questions, which i am doing, and you don't seem to have the answers to those questions? >> i got to disagree with you. i claim i do have the answers. okay. let me ask you this. why aren't you concerned about it? going to have four children? why aren't you concerned about it? >> i am. that is why i'm having you on. you don't reach correct conclusions in science or politics or any other field unless you can ask honest answers without being shouted down by people like you. >> you asked how long it would be before -- what the climate would be like if humans weren't involved right now. is that right? >> tucker: yeah. that's exactly right. i am just saying, you don't actually know because as unknowable. why aren't you open to questions? >> takes quite a bit less than six seconds. the climate will be like it was in 1750 and the economics would be that you could not grow wine were the grapes in britain as you can today because the climate is changing.

the use of pesticides in the midwest would not be increasing because the parasites are showing up sooner, or the pests are showing up sooner and hanging around longer. >> tucker: i think that's probably all true -- >> the forests would not be overwhelmed by pine bark beetles as it is because of climate change. that is -- >> tucker: so much of this you don't know, you pretend that you know, but you don't know. >> i really have to disagree with you. i has meant a lifetime with the stuff. >> tucker: i am open minded. you are not. we are out of time, unfortunately. >> you guys are the mainstream media and i can tell you why they are leaks because the president has created two factions in his administration. they don't like each other. so they leak. it is not from the outside. it's from the inside. carreon, mr. carlson. i'm sure we'll cross paths again. again. >> tucker: [laughs] that is a very ominous thing to say. i don't know what it means. come back anytime. we are 17 years into a new century's of course it is time to quote primitive assumptions

about sex, gender, and signs aside and raise our kids gender neutral. that is what i guessed we are about to talk to thinks about. stay tuned for that. liberty mutual stood with me when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night. hold on dad... liberty did what? yeah, liberty mutual 24-hour roadside assistance helped him to fix his flat so he could get home safely. my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. don't worry - i know what a lug wrench is, dad. is this a lug wrench? maybe? you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer.

get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again. ♪ >> tucker: it's a boy, it's a girl. actually, it's neither. it's 2017, the year of the gender-neutral baby. if you disagree, you are a bad person. listen to this. these are questions that didn't exist, light, 18 months ago. homo sapiens have been around 300,000 years and for the most part, it was kind of obvious who the boys and girls were, but we've decided in a very short period of time that i know that it's real and we are changing it because why? >> to be honest with you, we believe that people who are considered intersex, people who are born with both sets of genitalia, have existed throughout human history. >> tucker: for sure.

>> the federal government released a study in 2016 at 1.4 million people now identify themselves as transgendered and canada isn't the only place that is doing this. legislation was just introduced in washington, d.c., and in new york over the past couple of months to also have people coming to have parents have the right on a child's birth certificate doctor say that the child is male or female but also x are identified. >> tucker: this case is about the idea that you can choose what you are its sex is, which is a denial of biology and it's also, i think is a psychotherapist, you'd agree, a cost of a child is. if you say to a little kid, i don't know if you are male or female, you decide, i don't think you're going to get a good outcome a lot of the time at all. that's why people have never done that in human history. >> the couple that -- the person who is deciding to do this with their child and canada, the point -- i spoke to them on the phone -- the point they are making is that this child is a spiritual being having human experience.

not a human being having a spiritual experience. it's actually a very spiritual endeavor. what it saying, let's just 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 i want to write as a girl. >> tucker: but you can't actually decide. i'm poor choice and for a lot of biological realities that i am sad about, that i would change about myself. i am not attacking anybody. but don't you think that biological reality matters and lying to kids and telling them, actually, you could be six or seven or you could have blue eyes instead of brown, or whatever, those are lies. it's never a good idea to lie to kids, is it? >> i don't think it's a lie. i think it's actually given children more information at a younger age than we traditionally have. it is like -- i will give a comparison. it is like raising a child to not assume that they are heterosexual. the way i raise my children is to say, i don't know what they are going to be in a batch is going to assume that they are gay or straight. i just give them lots of

information. >> 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 is that it begins at the chromosomal level. there is a science piece to that is being ignored by people i thought believed in science by that is why i'm a little bit confused. >> i don't think it's being ignored. i think what we are seeing, and the federal study, what has come out in terms of the census bureau, 1.4 million people don't identify with a gender marker that they were given at birth, we have to take note of that and say, what's going on? there is a fluidity about gender and it's not necessarily rooted in biology. >> tucker: what is on not extend to race? >> tell me what you mean by that. you will have to be -- >> tucker: if i say that i am a woman, why can't i say that i'm a chinese woman? i am not mocking you. i'm making a sincere question. what is the difference? >> is a great question. i think, as we progress in society, some of these labels that we are putting on things,

and i can't necessarily go to the race question, although, one of the things that i flopped about your program as of late is that you are really into this idea of having a more inclusive society and become a separatist, in terms of race, that we should be more inclusive. i think that is what we are saying, we are creating a space the table for people to be, to have option analogy in terms of how they want identify themselves. >> tucker: okay. as long as we are still science-based, -- >> it's not taking signs off the table. it is just looking at it from another perspective. >> tucker: okay. thanks for coming on. >> thank you so much for having me. i appreciate it. >> tucker: a park bench mentioned the word of god on it so a national atheist group singled out that bench for annihilation. up next to him our discussion with a group dedicated to perjuring god from the public square, literally, from the public square. stay tuned. ♪

♪ >> tucker: safe spaces are required on campus these days but some people still don't feel safe coming out until they have purged the word of god from the public square entirely. in this case, literally. we recently talked to an atheist group that went to war with a simple park bench because it had the word god on it. watch. a public park in oil city features a bench which was donated in 2003 by the local branch of the vfw. the punch bears the phrase "men who aren't governed by god will be governed by the tyrants right. aren't you the tyrant of the story? >> i think they are the folks that fight for equality for everyone. when this branch is the veterans memorial, it was demeaning to anyone who is a non-christian veteran. >> tucker: it's not just christians who believe in god. virtually everyone but u.n. buddhists believe in god. >> about 25% of military

enlistment either claim no religious preference or atheist or agnostic. >> tucker: the idea that the word god is offensive, the appearance of the word god -- >> not the word god but assuming that if you are not a religious person or a christian judeo person that you are going to be governed by tyrants dismisses the morality and compassion that many of our veterans and soldiers have. just because they don't believe in god doesn't mean that they are not good people. >> tucker: no one is expecting this. this is a park bench on a town that is down on the floor, sauce population for almost 50 years. it is not a rich place at all and you come in with a well-funded group and say, do what we want or we will crush you in court. >> that is not what we did. if you look at the first letter we sent, first of all, we got a complaint. it wasn't like we went looking for it. >> tucker: who was the complaint from? >> it was from a resident in the city. >> tucker: on the basis of an anonymous complaint, someone can come forward without saying your name -- >> we know their name.

>> tucker: you don't live -- >> if we had gone with litigation, they would have come forward. >> tucker: one guy who doesn't even have the courage to stand up and reveal his identity gets to control the entire existence of this park bench and the city of 10,000? that has nothing to do with this. >> this bench had nothing to do the veterans, either. >> tucker: was the bench establishing a state of religion? >> because it was on the city park and the city had put it in there and they were saying that anyone who is a veteran but doesn't believe in god's own who is ruled by tyrants, again, dismissing the compassion and the morality that comes -- >> tucker: this is something that you don't agree with, which is okay. a lot of things that the government says, i don't agree with. this is not an establishment of a state religion. >> according to the supreme court, when you don't open it up to all points of view -- >> tucker: the supreme court didn't say that and that is where currency continues to have "in god we trust" on it, that is

where the president, members of congress, federal judges are all sworn in invoking god. i'm just saying. we live in a country where the u.s. government uses the word god all the time. >> the supreme court has said that a ceremonial deism. we still fight that. we still think it is wrong because it dismisses -- >> tucker: why not pick on the currency? >> we have. >> tucker: debt basically, the point is, you come here and you crush the little guy. >> we are not crushing the little guy. >> what about the people who want to sit in the bench in the park? >> be offered to pay for a brand-new bench. we told them that if the vfw pick out another quote that was appropriate to veterans, we would pay for a brand-new bench. >> tucker: you wanted to put an american atheist? >> a little plaque that said, paid for by american atheists praise for when you are putting your religion on the bench. isn't that offensive to people who believe in god? they had the word god on it. >> not the word god. it was the phrasing --

>> tucker: it's a very old quote. >> you were just talking about ideas and things. you may feel that. but you were christian. people who aren't christian look at that and don't feel the same way. if you want to get your point. you are violating your own principles because you are saying you wanted to replace a bench that was a representative of christianity with a bench that has -- you said you wanted it donated by the american atheists. >> that is where does ron. we wouldn't have a problem with the vfw or someone else and be paid for it by the statement -- >> tucker: your name itself is a statement. what about the decoration of independence? contains the word god. >> no it does not. it's as creator. >> tucker: okay, that is a synonym for god. >> in your mind. >> tucker: in the minds of the people -- okay. it is a founding document that is part of our secular religion here in the united states. the declaration of independence is central to our history, something that all school children learn about showed.

and yet, it's got god all over it. why hassle people? let's just be real. in a country where every senator swears in on the bible, you are hassling some little town in pennsylvania -- >> not all members of congress where another bible. many use the constitution. >> tucker: okay. religious documents. why are you bothering these people and in this little town? >> because someone came to us and we thought they were the constitutional -- the city agreed because he removed it. >> tucker: i think it's awful the people anonymously can hurt other people without standing up and saying who they are and what they believe. >> the threats that we got when we did this -- >> tucker: whatever. you are coming on here and saying what you think but you are claiming that some anonymous guy hassle this little town and doesn't even have the courage to say it to the face of his neighbors. you think california is a badly run state and it is, what kind of country would it be? that is a question we may need to consider fairly soon. up next, we revisit our discussion with a california

independence activist. stay tuned. there's only one egg that gives you better taste and better nutrition in so many varieties. classic. cage free. and organic. only eggland's best. better taste. better nutrition. better eggs.

>> tucker: a lot of our weirdest stories on gas came out of the state of california. maybe it's not surprising that one of our strangest conversations ever took place with a supporter of california independence, the idea it can become its own country. he was honest, though. he admitted, first move, drive the middle class out of california. watch this. it sounds like you already don't think that you're part of the united states. >> [laughs] this is california, and tucker. we are not the united states. we have -- our values are different. we are fundamentally different in the way we act, we speak, and how we think about the world. whether it has to do with war, the claimant, environment, we are just a different state. i know you can understand it, you being from california, i'm not sure you haven't been here,

the climate, environment, we are but we are going to do things that it's going to be beneficial for our state and we disregard with unis things or even their laws. for example, our marijuana, sanctuary cities, if it's good for the state, we are going to do it, regardless of whether federal law is. >> tucker: there has been a massive exodus of middle-class californians to neighboring states. the numbers are there. you have lost hundreds of thousands of people making between $10,200,000 over the past ten years and they have enriched idaho and montana and even wyoming and washington state. if it is such a well-run place, why is the middle-class leaving? >> so, tucker. you have to look at the bigger picture here. the fifth largest economy in the world. if you have to repeat that, say it again. we are the fifth largest economy in the world. >> tucker: i mean, it's basically the economy of mexico. you've got a small number of rich people, the tech people, and you have a ton of poor people, and the middle-class is

leaving. that is a recipe for instability. you are aware of that, right? >> in regard to the middle-class leaving, that is a good thing. we need this to pots opened up for the new wave of immigrants. we are exporting a middle class to the united states. you should be thanking us for that. when our middle class does move to texas and colorado, they are taking our values out to the united states and to texas. if you look at taxes, all the major cities that californians are going to, they are turning blue. soon enough, texas will be a blue state and all of the red states -- >> tucker: duda. [laughs] i don't know -- i've never met you, i've never heard of you, i don't know if there is a parity segment, if you are plunking me or you are really high and you are just telling the truth because high people do, but you just said you are happy to be exporting the middle-class of your state. i happen to think your policymakers are happy that they are leaving but the fact that you are admitting that on live tv -- bottom line, are you being serious? >> i'm only admitting the truth, there is a middle class of

people that are leaving california and they are going to oregon and colorado and texas. yes, there is. >> tucker: and you're happy about that? >> well, i mean come if they want to move, there's nothing for me to stop them. i am sure they will find out how boring it is and they'll come back. >> tucker: i don't think so. okay. what an amazing interview. thank you. sincerely, thank you for telling the truth. i appreciate it. >> tucker: in the original version of that segment, we briefly showed mislabeled footage suggesting that an opposing group, the union unite here supported cal exit. they do not support her and we regret saying they did. no one would want to be falsely affiliated with that last guy we talked to. if that's it for the special show. the producers call it tucker takes on. it was fun. we hope it was for you, too. good night from washington. we'll see you tomorrow. ♪

♪ ♪ >> juan: happy labor day, everyone. i'm juan williams. along with kimberly guilfoyle, jesse watters, dana perino, and yes, it's greg gutfeld. it's 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." ♪ >> juan: 's labor day, the unofficial end to summer. it has been quite a busy one for us in the news business. usually, summers are a slow season. but this one was anything but. so, as a summer winds down, we thought we would have some fun tonight and turn the show over to you, again this holiday, with another facebook free for all. we'll answer questions