risked their lives. remember the guys on the ball field when steve scalise was shot? those officers, they are pistols. we will always be fair and balanced. we are not the speed 25. let not your heart be troubled. she has a big, full hour up next. hi. >> laura: hi, hannity. you had a good show tonight. i watched some of it. you are really, really good. >> sean: were you drinking? you have never given me a compliment before. >> laura: do three general tonics count? or is that a food group? just kidding. thanks, sean. good evening from washington. i am laura ingraham. this is beating. we have a big show. we are going to reveal powerful forces in america that is keeping the illegal immigrant caravan at our border from falling apart. it's being disbanded. what happened? why do we allow individual lower court judges to upend our border security, our sovereignty, and the president's constitutional authority? i will offer my solution intimates angle.

plus the high cost of socialized medicine. little alfie evans parents have been trying to liberate the 2-year-old from a u.k. hospital. i want to let him go? kanye west blows up the internet supporting trump while the left goes into a volcanic meltdown. i will get it all in our seen and unseen segment with raymond arroyo. the media trying to spin a g.o.p. congressional victory in an off year special election as a loss for trump. we will expose the real agenda. and another untested social experiment is underway, as girls begin joining the boy scouts. but at what cost? an eagle scout response. but first, the tyranny of the judiciary. that's the focus of tonight's angle. yesterday a federal district court judge in d.c., jon d bates, overturned

president trump's decision to end the daca program. the judge was appointed by george w. bush. ruled that trump 'action was arbitrary because the department of homeland security failed adequately to slain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. well, this judge ordered the administration to continue to accept new daca act applicants. delaying the imitation for 90 days for the trump folks can rewrite their basis for ending daca. if this ruling stands, it could actually mean that tripling of the number of illegals ultimately protected by this obama air program. daca would then be open to an additional 1.2 million more people, according to an analysis by the migration policy institute. that is on top of the nearly 700,000 already protected by the program. the very idea that one unelected district court judge could have

this type of power should outrage every american. i don't think any serious legal scholar really thinks that president obama had the constitutional authority to waive his noble hand and grant 700,000 young people de facto citizenship. remember, he gave them the right to work here without fear of any deportation, all by this executive action. remember, when the democrats have a majority in congress, they failed to pass broad-based amnesty. so obama, through his homeland security secretary janet napolitano, decided he will do it on his own. this was done despite the misgivings of his own justice department. but nevertheless, obama pushed it as far as he could. >> the bill hasn't really changed. the need hasn't changed. it is still the right thing to do. the only thing that's changed apparently was the politics.

it makes no sense to expel talented young people who, for all intents and purposes, are americans. >> laura: the whole citizenship thing, millions who came here illegally to get citizenship, that's all a formality, mr. president. what president trump and his admin's ration did by rescinding daca was to actually restore the rule of law and return immigration decisions and the fate of those daca kids to the constitutionally appropriate branch of government, congress. yet district court judges from san francisco to brooklyn and now here in washington, d.c., have stymied this president at every turn. this is totally absurd and an abuse of power. now, you might be asking yourself how we got here. and how did we get to a point where people from foreign countries believe they can crash our borders, game our immigration system, and ultimately just wander freely in

our country? well, the answer, one out-of-control judge in california have a lot to do with it. her name is george dolly d. in 2014, we saw of the mass influx of illegals crossing our southwest border. remember the obama department of homeland security placed a lot of those illegal immigrant family units in detention facilities. well, in 2015, judge gee ruled that the government could not detain the children in center set up. although centers in texas because the judge ruled they were not safe and sanitary enough. she based that decision on this 1997 settlement agreement that was called the florez case, that required that unaccompanied alien minors be released into the country without delay. this judge gee went further, ruling that not only should the

minors be released into the united states once apprehended but their parents should be allowed to go free as well. so again, that one district judge in california is responsible for the release of an estimated 107,000 unaccompanied minors into the interior of this country since the year 2016. and then also most of the 167,000 apprehended family units released as well. again, think this through. one district court judge has forever changed our cultural, demographic, and economic, perhaps national security landscape. one judge. that is not what our founders intended. now let's face it. the runaway judiciary has become in effect a new flank of the resistance. they are taking away your power. come and it's time for congress to circumscribe the authority ad

the reach of these district court judges. think about national health care policy, immigration policy, national security. these matters are all beyond the scope and understanding frankly of a district court judge. it's like giving a local mirror control over u.s. foreign policy. it's ridiculous. remember, the constitution article three section one states the following. the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. it continues. what does that mean? it means congress can regulate the lower court jurisdiction. it's time they do. in fact, they have done so in the past. congress should immediately pass legislation that establishes any cases touching on important national security or national economic concerns should be referred to the appeals cour court. or the supreme court directly without delay.

or at the very least, constitutional determinations of the type we are seeing in this daca case. they should be referred to the appellate judges, three-judge panel or maybe an on banc panel of the whole court. they are far more knowledgeable on constitutional knowledgeable on constitutional and all these matters. the tyranny especially of the district court bench has to end. the people's will should no longer be held hostage to the capricious whims of one ill-equipped disgruntled life tenured jurist. that's the angle. joining me now for reaction are. rnc national committee woman. scott bolden. with me in washington, saul weissberg. cute and cuddly as always. deputy independent counsel. scott. i am teasing.

good to see all of you. let's start with you. when we see an entire federal program either struck down or in this case a decision invalidated in 90 days if the judge isn't satisfied, it will be invalidated. that's a lot of power for one unelected district court judge residing in washington, d.c. >> that's right. he isn't the first one. he's the third in the country, as you mentioned, in your opening. judge also in san francisco and a judge in brooklyn. what's interesting to note for your viewers is that there was a federal judge in maryland who ruled the opposite way. what's wrong with the whole scheme is that one district judge is now overruling basically another district judge. this nationwide junctions inviting litigants. they are running to the most liberal jurisdictions in

america. northern district of california, eastern district of new york, and district of columbia. that's not how our courts were meant to be. our courts were meant to have a hierarchy, as you mentioned. and only a superior court, not an equivalent court, should be allowed to do this. president trump has been subjective 22 nationwide injunctions. that's more than any other president in history. >> laura: district court judge, right? district court judge. >> >> an injunction that affects the whole country. that's wild. >> it didn't used to be a thing. 175 years of our country's history, there were no nationwide injunctions. it's recent and out-of-control. >> laura: scott, robert bork talked about the political seduction of the law. he had given lots of speeches over the years about, and he disagreed with justice scalia on this about limiting the federal courts jurisdiction because of the allure, the political allure that all of the charges and of

getting tangled up with. on the left and right. his view was, sadly you can't trust a lot of each judges to just apply the law faithfully in the constitution faithfully. they end up legislating from the bench. your take. >> my take is i don't know what you all are talking about. there are three branches of government. there is no federal district judge that overrules another federal district judge. checks and balances of the constitution which laura, you want to change because you disagree with their position. >> laura: change, i want to restore. >> you want to change it. here's the checks and balances. doj and anyone else who loses at the district court level, here's the thing, they can go to the court of appeals for the ninth circuit or whatever circuit. can go to the supreme court. you don't have to stay at the federal district court level. this idea that somehow issues of national importance are important have to go to qualified judges -- >> laura: scott, you know -- scott, you know a district court judge spends most of his or her

time figuring out the sentencing guidelines and how they apply. i clerked on the second circuit court of appeals. these are like sentencing guidelines cases, i want to go to you, saul. >> the majority comes from the federal district court. >> laura: we get that. congress could do away with all of these courts if they want to do. saul, you like fates. you know him because he worked for ken starr. in this case, he goes beyond the brooklyn judge or the ninth circuit ninth circuit district court judge by saying not only must you restore the current daca but you must start taking new applications. >> in actuality, it's a very narrow opinion. what judge bates did, and judge bates is not your normal district court judge. he was appointed to the fisa court by john roberts. he is respected throughout the judiciary. it doesn't mean his opinion is correct but is not one of these wacky california judges like

allsup who clerked for willy mo douglas. what he actually said was this under the administrative procedures act, the government did not adequately explain why they think obama lacked that -- >> laura: here is the explanation. obama was acting as a legislator. that's basically what cession said in his letter. obama was acting as the super legislator because his democrats couldn't do amnesty. so obama, contrary to what his own justice department told him to do, he decided i'm going to do this by executive -- created a de facto amnesty for 700,000. >> all judge bates said was you didn't, you got 90 days to come up with a better reason. >> laura: he wasn't just saying that. he talked about the people relying on daca and that -- >> that's because it's part of the law.

>> laura: it is all made up. he made it up. >> the d.c. circuit law. he's got to follow the d.c. circuit. >> laura: he made it up. you do not think we have a problem with runaway judges in this country? >> absolutely, and i'm not saying i agree with judge bates' decision but it's a mainstream decision and all he said -- if he had wanted to be like one of these california judges, he would've said i vacate it right away. you've got 90 days. you were sloppy, is what he sai said. >> permanent injunction. issued a permanent injunction. >> laura: her meet, then scott scott. >> conservative judge in texas. >> scott, you raise a good point. i think democrats should be very concerned about this as well because the tables will be turned one day and it's not the place of judges who are an equal branch, not a superior branch, to be issuing nationwide injunctions on the basis of two or three people in front of them. that's outrageous.

it's not president in our history. this judge did go further than the judge in california. he issued a partial summary judgment here with no trial. he sort of made up some of these rulings, they make no sense. finally president obama himself in 2012 when he signed the daca order, he said this is a temporary measure. this is a stopgap. this is to give hope to some people until congress acts. now it's being converted. >> laura: comey made a comment. i want to play this for all of you. scott, you can react. this is what he said tonight on cnn. >> after i was fired from i put together a legal team of three people, one of whom was professor dan richman at columbia university. after i had asked him to give this information to the media. i separately gave my legal team four memos which were unclassified. they included the ones that he had gone to give the substance of it to "the new york times."

the bottom line is i see no credible claim by any serious person that that violated the law. >> laura: scott, no problem? a couple memos were confidential. four of them were not. >> absolutely, and because they were not confidential or seen as sacred and what have you, no problem. i guarantee you this. under the trump administration, if they really thought he had leaked secret documents are classified documents, he would be prosecuted right now. what is the delay? you yelled and screamed about this for months about him leaking but what about the substance of those documents, which is the real issue. and why hasn't he been prosecuted if he has broken the law with the republican administration that he is at war with right now? why not? >> laura: sol. >> as a practical matter doesn't matter because the judgment proves in d.c., there is no d.c. jury that whatever convict jim comey. they are not going to convict anybody who is an enemy of trum

trump. >> because he has done nothing wrong, sol. >> laura: oh, yeah. come on. regulation. doj says you can't traffic trade or transfer property even if it's not -- >> government property. government property had no business giving -- >> laura: why wasn't hillary prosecuted? >> whether it was classified or not, he had no business whatsoever turning over to his buddy. he's done a lot of things wrong that aren't necessarily crimina criminal. he has really acted shamefully beginning with what he did -- >> laura: today we had the travel ban arguments. a quick sound bite. this is justice anthony kennedy, maybe think a swing vote on the court with the travel ban oral argument. >> suppose you have a local mayor is a candidate. he makes statements. he is elected, alan date two he takes acts consistent with those hateful statements.

whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant? >> laura: played both sides in the questioning. he seemed to indicate he was siding with those would strike down the travel ban. what's your take? >> well, laura, i think they did play both sides, several judges. most of the conservative judges seem to be siding with the administration on this. i think this case is up in the air. i would be foolish to make a prediction here. i think they thought about a very carefully. ultimately i think the trump administration should win this but obviously you know, there are politics and very strong feelings. we heard some rhetoric about flipping the tables and one of the candidate made anti-semitic remarks. i know they are thinking that way. if they look at the four corners of the law, hopefully should be -- >> laura: or the constitution. scott, prediction. upheld or struck down. >> i certainly hope it will be struck down. a tough case here. trump's biggest problem in doj's biggest problem is they do have

broad authority but trump's own statements, political and outside the courtroom, he's his own worst witness. the judges have to grapple with that. i don't think they can ignore his statements, whether they are inconsistent or not. >> laura: they can, depending depending -- >> they know -- >> laura: we've got to go. >> for once, scott is halfway right. the problem isn't what he said before the election. it's what president has said and tweeted since the election. he's got to watch that. we talked about that before. >> laura: fantastic segment. did i get any continuing legal education credit with that segment? when we return from i will reveal exclusive information tonight about how forces in america kept mexican authorities from fully disbanding the illegal immigrant caravan. you don't want to miss it. coming up.

>> laura: welcome back to "the ingraham angle." i can reveal to you exclusively tonight some blockbuster new information. about the caravan of illegal immigrants arriving at the southern border. a source close to the mexican government told me today that after mexico had effectively disbanded the caravan and deported many of its members, the american media outlets including cnn along with various ngos and the united states whipped up a lot of stuff that helped reconstitute the caravan and indeed recruit new members. it started chugging its way to tijuana. what happened is a narrative was created that helped, as i said, recruit new members and convince those already in the caravan to keep the party going. while, they sold these individuals as political refugees of course, when most are seeking a seven based on purely economic reasons because they want a better way of life.

this source told me that the caravan was basically finished until cnn reporter sympathetically focused on the plight almost exclusively of women and children in the caravan. >> many of them coming from honduras, telling us that they are fleeing violent political corruption as well as poverty, r way north. they say doesn't matter what president trump says or if president trump since the national guard to the u.s.-mexico border. they will find a way to get north. >> laura: women and children. you see that shot, they were almost all men. just one woman. what? what else do we know about who is in the caravan? and ms-13 gang member tried to sneak in the country pretending to be an unaccompanied minor. lastly, we exposed how american attorneys may try to use our lax asylum laws to force us to take

in hundreds of these illegal immigrants, conducting seminars and so forth. for reaction, we are joined by congressman steve king of iowa, member of an immigration and border security subcommittee and congress. it's good to see you, but this is disturbing. this is just wild what's happening. you have these lawyers, including this guy who was one of the lead lawyers in this effort, alex mensing, a project coordinator organizing this effort to help the caravan. the concern, congressmen, is that we have american lawyers and other nongovernmental organizations almost working hand in glove, de facto, with media outlets to push, mexican election coming up in a few months. put the political pressure on mexico and as i said, keep it all going. they make their way to tijuana and then walked? >> seeing this caravan make its way towards the united states endeavor towards tijuana and seeing the way they are

facilitating this with the media and with the immigration attorneys, i wish the immigration attorney organization has at least 15,000 members in the united states. of that organization. there is federal statutes that prohibit and are a felony for contributing and aiding and abetting illegal immigration. they better have their laws right if they're going to go to a foreign country and help facilitate an unarmed invasion into the united states. we are weak on our asylum laws. that is how the law was passed by voice in the middle of the night after everybody left for the airport for christmas vacation. a few years ago. several years, i don't have the exact year. i read the text of that and they were ready to gamble out and everybody headed to the airport and it was set up to be, this was during the pelosi era when she was the speaker and when harry reid -- >> laura: let me explain to people. you claim asylum when you say you have a credible fear of persecution for a variety of reasons. it's really lax. you can -- race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group. i don't even know what that means. and political opinion. some of us feel persecuted for having a political opinion here. on those grounds committee can claim asylum. overwhelmingly, the immigration judges have granted asylum or allowed people to be released. then they never come back for their hearing or deportation briefing. >> training them what to say so when they arrive -- >> laura: workshops. they are doing workshops with these migrants. >> i stood on a cliff outside of roma, texas, and watched them inflate the raft, bring a pregnant lady across. they brought it to the shore and the grass, helped her up, handed her bags of her possessions and she stood and waited for the border patrol to come along to claim credible fear. >> laura: why haven't republicans in congress done anything to change this law? you have been a staunch log strengthening immigration laws. noncontiguous countries, other

than mexico, guatemala, honduras, el salvador, central america and beyond. if they show up at our border and they throw themselves at a border patrol agent, they don't have to cross the border. just show up. they can get asylum in the united states very easily or at least be released into the united states easily. we must have a new law that says you can be expeditiously and immediately removed back to your country, like you are if you are a mexican. mexicans don't have that ability. only other than mexicans have that ability to be released back into the united states. that's nuts. we talked about this judge in d.c. part of the judicial tyranny. >> changing the credible fear language, we did a tour of the border last october with chairman bob goodlatte and others. we went through a support system. we saw a lot of what was going on. the simple changes written into the davis oliver act that's got a lot of enforcement provisions in it. he >> laura: where is that?

speak of this act is looking for a way to come to the floor. >> laura: paul ryan, he's not going to bring into the floor question ? >> some republicans insist on daca amnesty. >> laura: here we go. you cannot just do something that protects the american people. that protects our sovereignty, our borders, our health, our national security. you can't just do that for the american people without a big giveaway to illegal immigrants. is that correct? people watching this, they want to throw something. i do, and i am hosting the show. >> the president whom i support, promised he would end daca but he served up daca amnesty. >> laura: i don't talk about that. that drove me crazy. speak what i'm saying is we should make a deal between the rule of law and amnesty. >> laura: i can can lately agree 13,186. 13,186 uam, unaccompanied minors

under 17 have already been released this year in fiscal year 2018. >> i can guarantee they were driven to, bust to, or flow to all 50 states. records show -- >> laura: they go to sponsors. >> they made go to an address in las vegas. who knows. could be a coyote house. could be a drug smuggling house. ms-13. i was in arizona. they busted him for a pickup load of marijuana. 240 pounds. he had a tattoo on his arm. i saw with my eyes. we unloaded that marijuana. it's a stunning thing when you put your eyes on it you walk in the warehouses and going to those jails. about 81% male by the data i'm looking at. some of those youth have a little gray in their beard, laura. >> laura: i get it. they might not be 17, congressman? we have to get something done. think is much for your advocacy work. up next, the media focuses on the first ladies hat while

missing the real story. kanye west goes full "make america great again." stay there.

>> laura: time now for our seen and unseen segment. someone just ran behind the side. orson welles. this is fun. it's live tv. right? i think that's what makes it fun. you know it's live.

on taft made the orwellian nightmare of socialized medicine exposed by the plight of a dying child. kanye west strikes again, making liberal heads spin. to put it all in perspective, we are joined by fox news contributor raymond arroyo. the media coverage of the first lady yesterday, focused on her hat. >> her hat. stephen colbert kind of captured it in this clip. watch. >> today the two men addressed the crowd, and there was an awkward moment. trump goes for the kiss and oh! saved by the hack. that's more than a half. that's a defensive perimeter. their deal is either she gets to wear the hat or trump has to wear a cone. >> laura: we call it the cone of shame on my dog. >> there was mainstream coverage of this idea. the narrative is that the terms are distant.

they are loveless. here's the bottom line. >> laura: what are they supposed to do, make out in front of everybody question rex to go they are depriving melania of a really important moment. this moment yesterday. michelle obama when she was running the white house or laura bush before her, they had teams of people, hundreds, to organize. >> laura: professional party planners. desiree rogers screwed up at the state dinner and people snuck in. remember that? >> melania trump of this all on her own. she assembled a team of ten people, just her staff. it's her staff. she went over the protocol. >> laura: the video of her. >> she chose the flowers, lights, whole thing. she should be given credit for that, not maligned, not grabbing the hand when it was presented. she did hold his hand. she did indeed let him kiss her. this narrative, i am tired of this narrative. >> laura: they cannot give her one moment. this was an elegant, wonderful, beautiful presentation of america to france, and with the

french touch and the new orleans stuff. >> jambalaya. >> laura: i don't want to mention new orleans. i wave at everybody. >> don't wave it me. >> laura: i like that we are in double boxes. alfie evans, this is another infuriating case. national health service in britain is preventing parents from giving medical assistance to their child. this is so heartbreaking. speak of the subtle boy came in december of 2016. he was part of the hospital with an infection. he's been on a respirator. they say if you take the respirator out, he would die. he would be able to breathe on his own. well, it's been out since monday. his parents fought to keep the respirator. >> laura: they don't want to pay the money? they don't want to spend the money? >> national health service in britain, they look at an actuarial table and they say -- >> laura: not a human life. >> does the cost exceed the quality of life? in the case of visible baby who has a degenerative brain

disease, they say should be cut off. no more care. parents are fighting. they want them to have care. the father went to see the pope last week. in desperation. the pope not only blessed his efforts, he interceded. the pope said the head of a clinic in rome to liverpool, england. she is standing there, the doctors won't meet with her. there's a medical jet waiting to take this child to italy to get medical treatment. >> laura: the pope wants to take the baby and help the baby and the national health service won't let the pope and give him italian citizenship two. >> they won't let him free. why? i will tell you why. it's a shame. it would be a blight on the face of this national health care which has become its own religion. >> laura: dehumanized. >> to have a citizen go elsewhere for medical care. they would rather let the child died in hospital. >> laura: the child is suffering now because it's being denied food and hydration as well or food? sticker they are giving it some hydration. let me tell you, the networks in the united states to a 28 minutes of coverage of the royal birth.

none to alfie evans. >> laura: the queen made a statement. >> william and kate as well. lots of prayer services happening around the country. in new york tomorrow at noon at the u.n., also notre dame today and other schools. >> laura: well. let's pray for a miracle here. pray for a miracle. all right, this have the twitter sphere going crazy. i'm glad it's not focused on me. i'm glad when i am not trending. what is trending is kanye west who i had a problem with when he took taylor swift's award out of her hand. remember that ideal? it's kanye. >> he is a free -- >> laura: he was a pal of trump. >> he issued this week today which reads: of course "the mae america great" hat. he came out and said no mom is going to dissuade him from that love. he is being attacked, as you can imagine. >> laura: must have watched

our "defending the first" series because we've been defending people's rights to have a different opinion. >> i am of 2 minds. >> laura: you're a big hip-hop fan. right up with frank sinatra. >> here's the idea, i'm not sure if he's trying to promote his upcoming albums and his line, line of clothing or if it's truly a cry for freedom of speech and might be an opening in a community that's been monolithic. we'll see. chance the rapper came out and set up not all black people have to be democrats. taking a chance. there it is. we will see where it leads. hopefully it will start a conversation. why can't there be white liberals and white conservatives and black liberals and black conservative? >> laura: has to be monolithic monolithic. >> diversity is more fun. >> laura: prayers for baby alfie. raymond, thank you so much. you're gonna want to stick around to see the next segment. the media telling us that

congressional victory for the g.o.p. in arizona is actually a win for the democrats. isn't that cute? we are going to expand how they are wrong next.

>> laura: when is a win not a win? when the left doesn't like the results. deadly spinning begins. republican debbie lesko won a special election for congress in arizona last night but we were told it's really bad news for the president. >> tremendous shift in a essentially republican land. when he put the numbers together, just not good for the them. >> if that were translated across the country, the democrats would easily win the house. >> members of congress, there are a lot of canaries in this coal mine. stick with serious consideration that they may lose the united ss senate as well. >> not only is there a way but republicans are running for the hills at this point. >> laura: running for the hills? joined me now to analyze the

analysts are former secret service agent dan bongino and florida and in new york, croissant, democratic former eta seminar leader chuck schumer. okay, chris, let's start with you. both sides do this at times. when obama wins big in a district in their selection on the republican another democrat only wins by 7. then republicans might say something but this is kind of a weird deal, it's a special election. not our regularly scheduled election. it's always going to be fairly low voter turnout. i think the democrats were kind of hyping this little much. >> well, look, i think that the swing here were significant mostly because of the demographics of the district. let me explain. the average age of the voter there is 60 years old. and that is a voter that tends to be reliably republican. the fact that this race was as close as it was with those demographics is particularly

troubling to republicans why been talking to all day. there were other races around the country where there was swings last night including new york for a democrat took an assembly seat that would have been held by republicans for the last 40 years. took it by 18 points. so there is a mood among republicans that there might be some changes in the air, and they've got a lot of work to do. like one of the people quoted before said, you extrapolate that 15-point swing across the country and it's devastating. more importantly, if you look at the demographics here, mostly white, older. that's really bad especially given the fact that the candidate that the democrats put up there was pretty much a mainstream democrat, did not separate herself from washington democrats. there was nothing wrong with the republican candidate. she would not some crazy -- >> laura: okay, okay, okay we've got a go. >> listen, i have no doubt laura that the democrats are probably going to pick up some seats in

these midterms. what do you expect? that media has been on a 24-hour conspiracy news network tirade on a fake russian collusion ferry trail against donald trump or they've been calling him anything that ends in a -ist or a -phobe for the last year. yes there's probably going to be some good wins by the democrats for them, not for us. but if this turns out to be a blue puddle rather than a blue title wave they are in a lot of trouble. because they are solely invested in impeachment and they can't do it without taking the house. >> laura: another point i think we should think about is congress itself and republicans in congress have not done enough to enact the president's agenda.

i think that's part of the dash of republicans are kind of dispirited, it's not because the economy. the economy is doing really well. they are dispirited because the republicans aren't getting it done. they did repeal obamacare. the wall is not being built. they spent a lot of money on this omnibus. i mean, if you are a republican like this congress is lame. maybe debbie lesko is going to be better and hopefully she will be. we have to move on. we have another topic. >> i disagree. >> laura: quick, quick, quick. >> this election is good to be about trumpet nobody else. p rack. >> laura: okay, gentlemen, stay right. let's look at how the left and the media are portraying conservatives, republicans and the right. remember when then candidate obama made these famous remarks. >> cling to guns or religion nor antipathy towards people who aren't like them. >> laura: when hillary said this about trumpet voters. >> you could put half of trump supporters into what i call the basket of deplorables. right?

>> laura: now cnn's jim acosta is in trouble for saying this about trump supporters. >> people around the country don't know it's an act. they are not in on the act, they take what he says very seriously. they don't have all their faculties in some cases their elevator might not hit all floors. my concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days, somebody is going to get hurt. >> laura: after a backlash, acosta denied today he was referring to trump supporters and even mocking mental illness. what's really going on here? chris, let's get you on this. he really is echoing the refrain of the elites. they are dumb. they are troglodytes. they go around in ford f-150s. they have the gun rack on top. a book years ago called "power to the people," about how the elites looked down on the regular working class people in the country.

that's how they lost the last election. that's how they lost in 2010. they made fun of the tea party. they haven't learned anything. acosta is just a member of that crowd. doesn't surprise me at all. >> all i can say is wah. i don't know when cnn became a safe space for conservatives. i am sorry if their snowflake tendencies were disrupted by what he said but i am a liberal who goes on fox news. i've been called a lot worse than that. >> laura: that's why we love you. >> no sympathy for all of this. >> laura: i don't call all democrats mental or they don't have all -- that's a reporter, not a commentator. you are an analyst/commentator. he is supposed to be a reporter calling balls and strikes. at least that's what we are legibly. dan, hold on, hold on. have to get dan on this. he's been a rapid anti-trump reporter for cnn which i think it's one of the reasons why cnn again god bless them. i've lost so many viewers over the years.

there's no reporters. they are only opinion makers. >> i have to say, laura, for as much as i like chris. this is how i know we are winning a little bit the culture war on the right. chris has co-opted one of our terms. snowflakes. this is how i know we are fighting back and winning. it really bothers chris. here's what chris knows that he's not telling you. i know this. chris knows his party has zero agenda. here is their agenda: give us your money. give us your health care. by the way, send your kids to bunch of crappy schools. they have no good schools. chris is married to identity politics, deplorable politics. look, the minority communities, muslim communities. females, we are going to save you from those rapacious republicans. they have nothing else. >> dan, dan, dan or not married

to any of that. we are not married to impeachment. doesn't even matter with the democrats care about. this election is going to be about donald trump. >> laura: chris, you are making his point. hold on. hold on. chris. dan. chris is making your point. it's a most likely democrats have given up on offering solutions or ideas, proposals to raise the standard of living for the average american. all of you guys -- hold on. what i'm telling you, what i see a veteran washington for far too long. there's a lot of -- you are a xenophobic, anti-immigrant, antiblack, anti-lgbt. anti, anti, anti, bob mueller, impeachment, racist. that's what it is. where are the proposals about raising standard of living for average americans? >> there are tons of those proposals. >> laura: you say they are running on trump. that's all they are running on. >> no, they are not.

the people are voting on trump. i've been on campaigns my entire life and this guy has taken all the oxygen out of the debate. it's all about him. it's not about the republican what they may or may not want to do. it's not about the democrat what they may or may not want to do. it's about donald trump and what he's doing. >> laura: growing the economy, good. >> the margin of victory is not going to be about him. >> chris is making our point. while the elitist democrat snobs, they knocked the deplorables for being the uneducated ignoramus class. chris is saying that his party stands for nothing. they're only running on one thing. we are not the guy the white house. we have nothing to offer you. we have no economic plan. >> laura: there is no obama in the wing. >> that's not what i said, dan. not what i said. it doesn't matter what any candidate on either side of the debate says during the election. >> laura: all trump all the time. i will take that. he is growing the economy. we might have a deal with north korea and we're getting back on the trade track.

i love it. let's make that. all right, guys. the pc police don't seem to think boys deserve their own safe spaces. now the girls want to join the boy scouts and are joining. the fallout next.

>> laura: the boy scouts have begun admitting 3,000 girls into

their ranks. 170 troops nationwide have begun a soft launch program after the organization revised its rules in october. this may make the verdure similars feel good but at what cost? let's discuss it with charlie kirk, executive director of turning point usa, fabulous group. also an eagle scout. now i'm really impressed. i was impressed with turning point but now you're really cool. what is the problem with having girls in boy scouts other than it kind of messed up the description of the group name? >> i always said, laura, i said things are getting bad about what's next? are they going to let girls in the boy scouts? 's? social psychologists will say in the development phase of young men in particular, there is quite and quite important of being around other young boys. as soon as you put a singular young lady in that environment, their behavioral pattern changes

completely. they are trying to impress that young woman. the way they act, the way they interact totally changes. look, the boy scouts of an unbelievably successful over the last 100 years of turning boys into men and creating some of america's greatest leaders. weatherby neil armstrong or u.s. presidents are u.s. senators u.s. senators, i'm trying understand what was the motive behind this and the conclusion i've come to his the political correct virtue signaling left, they like to destroy things that work. they want to destroy core cultural -- >> laura: attacks on masculinity. toxic masculinity now. if you bring girls and commits less toxic. and what have you listened to a comment from a father about his daughter who wants to be an eagle scout. let's watch. >> to think that my daughter could be an eagle scout, i want that for my son's but yesterday i didn't know that my daughter could be an eagle scout.

today she could if she wants to. and that makes me incredibly proud. >> laura: so he said my daughter, it's fantastic. she gets to reach this pinnacle just like the boys. >> well, what do you say to the sons who want to join the girl scouts? is that okay now? why doesn't she just joined the girl scouts? by the way, there is a wonderful tradition that's been around just about as long as boy scouts and here's the real problem. this whole move by the boy scouts of america is going to destroy the girl scouts of america. there is an institution that's designed programmatically to try to have leadership development for young women. that's the real problem here. it's going to destroy this other organization just to try to increase membership for the boy scouts. >> laura: by the way, charlie. hold on, charlie. we have a statement. came out in october when this decision was first made before was implement it. this is patricia mallard's, ceo of the girl scouts. vermont, new hampshire. "to me a daughter is not a matter of convenience. you've made the transfers are based on what you thought was

best for him and the doctor should be getting a similar decision. we know facts prove that the girl scout program is better, is a better program for girls and young women we serve." goes on and on about how they are not happy, obviously because they think it's going to destroy the girl scouts. >> and it will. the girl scouts have already troubled pruning and trying to grow their membership and this is only going to obliterate that. the broader point is this kind you see this happening throughout our culture and this is an important cultural issue and politics are always downstream from culture. the postmodernists want to redefine truth and they want to destroy things that work. the boy scouts of america for hundred years has been a core cultural institution that's turned boys into men. now we are severely jeopardizing that by inserting young ladies into the boy scouts. look, i can't understand why we can't just try to improve the girl scouts and we have to try to put them into the boy scouts. as an eagle scout, someone who was benefited from this program

personally, i am so disappointed. unfortunately with the trend of the country, i am not surprised. >> laura: charlie kirk, think is much. we'll be right back with the tweets of the night. will yours be chosen?

>> laura: let's take a look at a few interesting tweets that came my way about tonight's show. from vicki "your angle hit the nail on the head with the district judges controlling our lives. congress should get this under control, drain the swamp." "i love raymond arroyo. he has interesting news stories each week." we all love her he meant. from lisa, "dude, a judge and callie shouldn't make decisions that negatively impact me in connecticut. abuse of power and charge for shopping at its worst." from sarah, "sick and tired of republicans doing nothing about illegal immigration." i love it. tweet me @ingrahamangle, steve

on radio tomorrow morning. that's all the time we have. guess what? you are lucky, very force fortunate, very blessed, you have shannon bream and the "fox news @ night" team, at the next with a very fantastic show, all the news of the day in the opinion that you need to get you through the rest of this day. see you tomorrow. >> shannon: who doesn't love raymond, by the way? >> laura: i know! [laughs] >> shannon: thank you so much. welcome to "fox news @ night." i'm shannon bream in washington. coming up, veterans affair nominee dr. ronny jackson under fire on numerous fronts as of several democrats say they are not even going to think about voting for him if he is for privatizing the system. g.o.p. congressman mark walker weighs in on jackson's troubles and how to fix the v.a. the president's travel ban 3.0 gets its day at the supreme court. it is the administration poised for a victory? our legal eagles will debate. first, this is a fox news alert. admiral ronny jackson facing explosive new allegations to night of drinking and driving and wrecking a government vehicle. the the presidents and battled effectively at the veterans affairs daren