remember, it's now worse than we've ever thought. unpeeling layers of an onion. we are not stopping it. i promise you it's getting worse. we will get to the bottom of it. always fair and balanced. not the destroy-trump media. let not your heart be troubled. here is laura ingraham. >> laura: welcome to washington. i am laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle." i want to start tonight by addressing my commentary at the top of last night's show. a message to those distorting my views, including all white nationalist and especially one racist freak whose name i won't even mention. you do not have my support. you don't represent my views and you are antithetical to the beliefs i hold dear. the purpose of last night's angle was to point out the rule of law, meaning secure borders, is something that used to bind our country together. despite what some may be

contending, i made explicitly clear that my commentary had nothing to do with race or ethnicity. but rather a shared goal of keeping america safe and her citizens safe and prosperous. furthermore, as i have said repeatedly on the show, merit-based immigration does wonders for our country's economy, our way of life, and how we define our country. i even said that in my opening thoughts last night. i want to make it really clear that my concern will continue to remain with the families who have suffered the tragic result of illegal immigration. the children put in dangerous and unfair situations at the border, and all those border agents around the country who work to keep our country safe. and now could the expert class be possibly wrong again? that is the focus of tonight's angle.

the prevailing wisdom among the professional political prognosticators is that it's all gloom and doom for republicans come the november mid-terms. >> 89 days away from the mid-term election that is already a steeper than steep hill for the republican party. >> if the best they can do is a tie or a slight win, that is not good news at all for republicans come fall. >> the turnout lessons, the money lessons suggest this is going to be a good election for democrats. that's not a debate. i think the debate is how big does the wave get? >> laura: the debate is over. and they're already busy writing the president's political obit for 2020. >> we are going to tell you about unlucky seven. the average number of false, misleading statements president trump has made per day since inauguration. it's also how much he's losing to a certain democrat in a 2020 match.

>> i feel very good about the prospects of taking back the house and senate in the midterms. very good about the prospects of staking the white house. >> while it's true republicans have an uphill climb in the house, let's not forget that those same experts who are gleefully forecasting the g.o.p.'s demise, they are the same ones who had egg on their faces on election night. first, in its latest iteration, the real clear politics average of polls about the country's direction finds that more americans, 41.3%, find that trump is setting us on the right track that at any other moment since december 2012. second, the idea that trump's base is shrinking, there is ample evidence to refute that. a brand-new pew research poll finds that for most trump voters, the warm feelings for him -- i love that, the warm feelings for him over the past couple years have endured.

furthermore, trump has many more converts, people who voted for him but didn't like him, however since formed than those who liked him in 2016 and have "cooled." i love the warm/cool. despite the near daily barrage of negative coverage about mueller, tariffs, immigration, his approval ratings have remained pretty consistent. they have even improved with his rural base despite the stories were told about farmers who would turn on him over his aggressive trade policies. >> in 19 farm states surveyed for cnbc, ten states sought president trump rural approval rating improved between may and the end of july. seven saw it stay the same in that period. and just one, idaho, saw a decline. >> i am a big believer if you are in a bad deal, a lease, an agreement with the business partner, you owe it to yourself to step up and try to make it better for both parties. and negotiate it. but for sure, it needs to be better for yourself. i think simply that's what this

administration is attempting to do. >> we are going to trust that the president will have at least some success in negotiating a trade deal that will support corn, soybeans, and actually everything that the u.s. exports. >> laura: despite the positive trends, there's a few areas of concern. first, polling trouble spots. a recent npr, pbs news marist poll reveals not only do most female voters prefer democrats this fall but nearly six in ten suburban women strongly disapprove of trump. and that same pew poll mentioned above also found that women with a college degree are the most likely trump voters to have soured on him since the election. finally, a recent "wall street journal"-nbc poll found 36% of independents approve of trump's

job, down seven points from a month earlier. also distractions. the president must, let's face it, keep his eyes on the prize. check out the complaint of this former trump supporter. >> my issue with this president whom i voted for is the fact that he has something negative to say about every other leader. try saying one comment that's negative about trump himself, he jumps into a fit and he has a twitter tirade. >> laura: don't women think men have thin skins anyway, come on. most of us do. the more the president, i think, veers off his message -- i said this on monday -- and waste time reacting to every distraction, whether it's russia or stormy daniels, these other things, michael cohen, avenatti, the more he risks losing more voters like mary. the economy is good. it's a period of peace and prosperity. women like trump the protector, the strong guy. they like that. but for the swing voters, he

might not seem as charming when it seems like he's fighting everyone at once. they want things to calm down a little. for president trump, the message is simple. be the happy warrior we see at a lot of these rallies touting the economic resurgence. pat yourself on the back a little. the meade -- media's not going to do it. the renaissance and manufacturing and talk about how you want the economy to benefit all people, forgotten americans of all backgrounds, races, ethnicities, like you did this afternoon. >> one of the single most important things we're doing is help former in mates in creating jobs. we're creating so many jobs that former in mates for the first time are getting a shot at it. our unemployment rate is so historically low. 50 years. the economy is booming. businesses are hiring, and recruiting workers that were previously overlooked, they are being hired. it's a great feeling. it's a great thing we have all accomplished. >> laura: prison reform, job training, that's vital. it's a vital issue to this country.

recidivism. we want to decrease it if we can. and it's an issue that the president is desperately trying to get to yes on and it might also have the added benefit of helping with some of those discontented voters who are on the fence as well. finally, mr. president, don't ignore the right track reading at the top. as "the washington post" wrote ahead of the 2016 election, "the nation's mood is intrinsically important, providing a basic gauge of how americans think the country is doing and whether people are more optimistic or pessimistic than in the past. presidents can succeed or fail regardless of the public's mood, but the public's overall outlook sets the stage for political debate." sets the stage for political debate. that final line is most important for trump and republicans. yoout that -- use that data point. draft off the economic success. be positive about america's current economic standings.

it's a great time to be an american. america, we have problems but my goodness, other than the early years of reagan, i can't think of a better economy. set the terms of the debate yourself. do not be defined by others. we are already on the right track, mr. president. all you need to do now is not let the wrong track get you sidetracked. and that is "the angle." joining us now with the reaction is garland nixon, a radio talk show host. matt schlapp, american conservative union chair, and candace owens, of turning point usa. garland. your react? >> initially, and i predicted trump would win. here's what i will say. i think the republicans will have some losses. they will definitely have losses in the midterm because it is kind of like yelp reviews. the people who are happy tend to mellow out and the people who are really angry are the most motivated. those are the ones that are going to show up and the democrats are definitely going to have an advantage as far as people who show up at the polls, the question is how much. >> laura: some of the trends in

the last election, in the 12th district of ohio, yeah, pull out a victory may be barely by the skin of his teeth. the turnout for democrats was very strong. >> you're right. >> laura: it was stronger, i believe than the presidential turnout in the same district where trump won big. his approval rating is high. you can say that candidate made mistakes. a couple of verbal gaffes that were really unfortunate. does it portend other problems? they're jacked up. i don't blame the democrats. we were excited in 2010. they're excited now. >> i think the right track, wrong track is important. let's look at what happened in the special election. you're exactly right. in the last week or ten days, his lead collapse. he said some stupid things. he might need to go to candidate training school which a lot of candidates need to do. it also shows the motivation and the energy is definitely on the left. for trump supporters out there in the country, what they have to understand is the house is very losable. and they can't be cavalier about this idea that i am for trump

and i will skip the mid-term. if they do, the house could be lost. if it is lost, so much of the trump agenda stops. >> laura: the president addressed the issue of chicago and he talked about how it is so important that have good leadership, deliver results for people on the ground. should he go to chicago? >> absolutely. >> laura: tell us your thoughts. some republicans say it will be a disaster. he was going to go during the campaign and they had to call about because of protests. could he go, listen to the people in the ground in chicago and hear what they have to say? >> now is absolutely the time frame to make an appearance in chicago. first and foremost, i want to thank you for this coverage of last weekend. you did so much coverage from chicago. i didn't see it across the networks but i saw it on your show. such an important issue that is facing the black community. that is not spoken enough about. he should send the national guard to chicago. it's unbelievable, incompetence -- thinking that 71 people were shot over the weekend and they

haven't even caught anyone for these crimes. it's the perfect time. polling is up in the black community. the rasmussen poll two weeks ago said his support doubled since this time last year which means black people are paying attention to the results of this administration, not so much the rhetoric of the left, accusing him of racism and sexism at every turn. now the time for him to appear in chicago. president, please do it. >> laura: we had obama do my brother's keeper initiative. we had al sharpton moved there temporarily. there weren't -- you had a murder rate declined but that's only after the really high average of the last few years. something has to be done in chicago. i completely agree with candace. let's talk about the democrats. the republicans have head winds but it's not peachy in the democrat side, either. this was the new it girl for socialism, alexandria ocasio-cortez who said this yesterday when she was asked by chris cuomo about whether nancy pelosi is really the leader of the party or will be. let's watch. >> do you recognize her as the leader? >> i think absolutely right now.

she is the leader. of -- i mean, yeah -- speaker -- or leader pelosi, hopefully, will see -- she's the current leader of the party and i think the party absolutely does have its leadership in the house. we have our leadership in the senate as well. >> laura: i think she was more favorable to capitalism the other day and her comments. than to nancy pelosi. what's going on with this revulsion toward nancy pelosi? >> the democrats have been losing for the last eight years and it's not unreasonable to question the people of lead them to little big horn. >> laura: also got a lot done as speaker. they did obamacare. they push the big stimulus. >> the other issue with her is that the democratic party has understand that their millennial base, which will be the largest voting bloc in 2018 and 2020,

they have a different concept. they weren't around for the soviet union. the word socialism, words like that. it doesn't mean anything to them. they're listening to policy. the democratic party needs to understand that because if they get the millennial vote out, they are in really good shape. if they continue doing what they are doing, and they don't engage the millennial vote and understand, they just beat them up and say -- >> the midterm isn't about millennials. republicans have faults, of course. the best thing republicans have going for them is when people see their dead center heart and soul of the democratic party and its radical and it's left and it's social. >> laura: they are going to shut down deportation. candace, this was anderson cooper with spike lee. let's watch. >> would you want to sit down with donald trump and have a conversation? >> no. i don't use his name either. agent orange. >> do you consider him your president? >> no. might be putin.

>> laura: candace. >> here's what i will say about that network. what they do all the time is employ black athletes and black stars. we saw this we will brown james the other week. it's a mechanism of control of the black community. they say i found some of your idols, people who are prominent in your community and they are saying they hate trump and they are hoping they're going to be able to drum up the heat. it hasn't been successful. this isn't work. they need to switch strategies altogether. as i said, it's not going to matter if they keep doing this. they can bring out any black person they want that's going to speak out against trump. the black community cares at this moment about results and we are getting the results that we have finally -- we've been begging for these results. we are finally seeing them. black unemployment at an all-time low. there are jobs. spike lee, cnn, it makes sense but it's not coming i'm too concerned about. it's not going to impact the black vote. >> laura: i can't imagine what the left would do, what democrats would say if someone said something again to what he

just said about president trump. he called him agent orange. he won't use his name. they went after that joe wilson from screaming "you lie" during the state of the union. they crucified joe wilson. agent orange? an athlete went on television and called him, he's not my president? not treated like. that there would be a follow up. what about unemployment? what about the fact that democratic led cities are coming with crime and gang violence. what about the fact that his numbers among black people have gone up? they'd hit him with all these things if the shoe was on the other foot. you don't speak like that. i know you wouldn't speak like that. >> i understand. for eight years, i heard that. there was a big "not my president" kind of movement. >> laura: never would i never say that. i would never say that. someone as prominent as spike lee who was such a talented filmmaker. his wife was in my class at uva law school.

she's a lovely person. >> i think what it reflects, it's not good for the democratic party. the democratic party, one angle is to get your people so angry to try to get them to show up. >> laura: what are they angry about? what are the democrats angry about except pelosi? >> what they need to do is they need to develop a platform that is attractive to the working class. they may have some success in 2018 with what they are doing because people are upset, but 2020 is a whole different story. if they don't get a platform together then, then they're toast. >> laura: this is one of the two socialists approved candidates who ocasio-cortez endorsed who won the other night, michigan congressional candidate. let's watch. >> when you are elected formally in november, you will have a vote as part of the democratic caucus as to who will be the next leader, whether it be minority leader or speaker of

the house. will you vote for nancy pelosi? >> probably not. that's my answer. no, probably not. >> laura: so the party moves kind of hard left. nancy pelosi is no conservative democrat. >> if they pick up a lot of seats, there is no question she's going to have competition. think about this. nancy pelosi is one of the most unpopular politicians we've seen in the modern age. it could be nancy pelosi or worse. >> laura: republicans clean house. republicans got tired of john boehner. the republicans got tired of boehner. they got tired of him, god bless him. he's now lobbying for pot. they got tired of him and he's gone. so what if the democrats want to get rid of pelosi? it's probably smart. >> we are seeing a split in the democratic party. we're seeing people like nancy pelosi and maxine waters, they

are just driven by hate and animosity for this president. people like alexandria ocasio-cortez, i don't think she is driven by hate. i think she believes this platform could work, that socialism could work. the hard left, they are driven by lack of understanding for mathematics and the utopian concept for the world might work. unfortunately, it's going to be problematic for them if they can figure out and get this party together, just the people that hate trump versus the people who don't understand math. it's going to be externally problematic for them heading into the midterms must i'm interested to see was going to take place. >> laura: candace, have you been attacked at breakfast lately? what were you eating, candace? that got them all upset? pancakes? >> i had chicken and waffles. it was a really good meal. what's really funny, the manager said, i thought for a moment that outside there were vegan protests to my chick en and waffles. >> laura: i think by the looks of the protesters, you could have taken most of them. no problem. great panel, guys. i love having you on. it sounds like common sense.

permanently deploy more police in chicago and its most ravaged areas. that new pushes sparking a huge uproar in the windy city. details after this. a huge uproar in the windy city.

are you ready to take your wifi to the next level? then you need xfinity xfi. a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. >> laura: as violence flares in chicago, city officials and

residents are locking horns over a solution about how to stop it. one chicago alderman, anthony beale from the far south side is leading the charge on what sounds like a common sense solution. permanently reassigning officers to the city's most gaining -- gang-ravaged areas. but the proposal is generating huge blowback. why? over fears that it could generate a surge in crime in some of the safer districts of chicago. but is this just another excuse to avoid badly needed radical solutions to stop this carnage. to stop this carnage? joining us now to analyze is the cochair of project 21, along with anthony, a criminal defense attorney. neither of you are with me in the studio. we'll have to deal with that. i wish you were here. let's start with you, anthony. something has to be done in chicago. the residents are crying out for solutions. this is one resident. we'll play her first -- excuse

me, this is a young man. this is one resident today talking with charlie kirk. let's watch. >> taking care of certain parts of town as they should. they are taking care of downtown. they take care of the north side. south and west sides are left. >> laura: he was young to me. but he said, you basically take care of the rich areas but basically our areas aren't getting help. we have a lot of police being reassigned today through the weekend these bad areas. what about the idea of permanently reassigning officers to the worst of the worst areas? why is that controversial? >> well, i think it's controversial, laura, because what we have been a lot of high policed areas or areas that are police, particularly communities of african-american and hispanics, we have over policing where a lot of innocent people end up getting tagged or pulled aside or stopped

unconstitutionally against their fourth amendment rights. remember, i've represented gang members in l.a. i represented gang members who, and they have a whole community afraid of them. so what we don't need is police coming in, doubling the fear if it's not going to be strategically placed and constitutional provisions are not going to be there. there is nothing wrong with permanent policing, but it needs to be constitutional provisions to protect the 98% of the community that is not causing the trouble. >> laura: the problem is a small percentage of people are turning those areas upside down. the carnage over the weekend was unacceptable. horace, there's great concern in the black community about aggressive policing that turns innocent people into feeling like criminals. and these comments are heart felt.

they're made. you hear them over and over and over again. yet residents of the south and west sides of chicago, on camera over the last several days, saying we need help. there's two competing views. where you come down? >> these people are living literally in war zones. it is unbelievable that the conversation is being held that grandma can't go and get her prescription filled. her granddaughter can't get to school without a drive-by shooting. that jobs won't locate in those communities, perpetuating poverty because investors will not go where there is this elevated level of crime. what you need is a common sense idea, the same thing that happens when you are on the interstate, when the officer puts his car prominently on the side of the road, all of a

sudden, everybody slows down, even people who are law-abiding take notice. what we need to do is have an elevated presence of law enforcement in these communities. it doesn't need to be for a weekend. it doesn't need to be for a few weeks. it needs to be a year, two or three if necessary. that's the way that you can make it safer, and that's the way that this war zone mentality can go away. >> laura: this is what donald trump -- hold on. we're going to play a sound bite from president trump. this was today addressing issues such as prison reform. they touched on sentencing reform and chicago. let's watch. >> we must strengthen community bonds with law enforcement including cities like chicago that have been an absolute and total disaster. 63 incidents last weekend and 12 deaths. that's bad stuff happening.

probably i guess you have to take from the leadership. it's called bad leadership. there is no reason in a million years that something like that should be happening in chicago. >> laura: anthony, he is obviously dinging rahm emanuel's leadership in chicago. given your background, do you think rahm emanuel has done a good job? >> no, i don't. i think rahm emanuel has done a horrible job. that's not really the point. i want to ask horace, does he really think with the statistics we have, where african-americans are pulled over more without reasonable cause or without probable cause or where they are arrested more often or where they are sentenced harsher. with all of these statistics, do you really want a permanent police force there that's not strategic and that's not following fourth amendment rules? what are you going to do to make sure those rules are set?

that fourth amendment reasonable standard that the founders put in there will be followed? i think it's very important. >> you can hide behind the fourth amendment all you want. here are the facts. black americans, particularly in chicago, are dying as a result of the failure of law enforcement to be welcomed in and to let them play the role they are capable of doing. here's what needs to happen. with the mayor needs to do, what the governor of the state needs to do, is create a joint task force where they immediately allow for the state law-enforcement officers to come in. they also need to work with the department of justice and they allow for new prosecution teams to come in. you absolutely are going to have -- >> okay. >> laura: the goal. the goal, hold on. >> here's the problem with that. >> laura: go ahead real quick. >> here's the problem with that. there's white people dying in appalachia, in kentucky. why aren't you so concerned

about them? they are dying by numbers. i will tell you why. when the police come there, they are not going to be over policed. >> laura: anthony. hold on, hold on, hold on. anthony. anthony. anthony. hold on. anthony, we are concerned about all people here on this show. the chicago murder rate is high. it's higher than new york. it's higher than los angeles. it has to change. i think we all want that. we differ on how to get there, but we all want it to chaung. we don't want people pulled over unnecessarily. we don't want people's constitutional rights violated. sometimes the police will pull someone over and it will be fair. i understand that happens, and it's terrible. if you can save lives this weekend and every weekend this summer and beyond with smarter policing, smarter community involvement, may be president trump can offer some solutions with other faith-based leaders, that's a good thing.

i think we all have to get out of our corners and come together and get back to basics in all parts of the country where we are having problems. whether it's opioids, chicago, burlington, vermont, where they have a huge drug trade. we have to get together as a country and solve it. otherwise we're going to keep losing americans unnecessarily. anthony. >> yes, i agree with all that. i don't want the environment of police being there to create more criminals anding incarcerate more people. community and create more crime. >> those talking points are killing people. there is a small number of people in these communities that are creating a nightmarish existence. >> laura: guys. >> these people need to be pulled out of the community. >> laura: they need to be incarcerated. if not, we are going to see kids on bicycles killed again as we did last weekend.

all right, guys, great segment. thank you. jeff sessions is taking on one of conservative speech's biggest enemies. we will tell you what it is when we come back. onservative speecht enemies. we will tell you what it

>> laura: in an important speech that garnered very little attention, attorney general jeff sessions condemned one of the biggest foes of conservative speech. the southern poverty law center. the far left organization is notorious for labeling those not aligned with its radical agenda as a hate group. in a very, very important address to the alliance defending freedom organization yesterday, the attorney general did not mince words. >> when i spoke to adf last year, i learned the southern poverty law center had classified adf as a hate group.

many in the media simply parroted that is a fact. they've used this designation as a weapon, and they have wielded it against conservative organizations, others than adf, who refused to accept their orthodoxy and choose instead to speak for their conscience. i wanted to come back here tonight partially because i wanted to say this. you are not a hate group. >> laura: joining us now with reaction, harmeet dhillon, an attorney and rnc committee woman for california, does a lot of civil-rights representation. along with joe, a civil rights attorney. great to see you both. joe, let's start with you. >> sure. >> laura: the southern poverty law center is cited by the main stream media as an unbiassed organization that is a national treasure because it, you know, it points out the bad people. there are a lot of bad people.

white nationalist, nazi groups, that type of person. but then they also label with the hate label people like ben carson, who was put on an extremist watch list. the israeli ambassador. they urge the israeli ambassador not to attend a dinner hosted by frank gaffney who has views on islamism and so forth. center for immigration studies done enormous research on immigration. of course the alliance defending freedom, a group i have spoken to before, that has litigated cases. most recently i think it's a wedding cake case of the supreme court involving the baker and the gay couple. what's going on here? if you disagree with the southern poverty law center, you are a hater? >> i wouldn't agree with the fact that they are unbiased. of course they are biased to their own position but that's what's so great about the first amendment. they are allowed to do that.

the problem here is that the attorney general is using the office of the attorney general to suppress first amendment rights of these organizations in the name of religious freedom which is yet another constitutional right. that's a real problem because people look at the attorney general as an office that should instill confidence in the government allowing you to enjoy your constitutional rights. he's using one constitutional right against the other and basically starting political wildfires. >> laura: i think it is the opposite. i think he is saying religious freedom which is defended by the alliance defending freedom is a sacrosanct right. just for defending religious freedom, labeling someone as a hater and a hate group, that probably hurts their fund-raising. it probably hurts any corporate association they have. the label is meant to demonetize

individuals, corporations pulling back and association. you see it on big tech, what they are doing with the suppression of conservative speech. this is a different way to do it. >> absolutely. i like my friend joe but he's upside down. what's been happening in the government is that the government has been using in partnering with southern poverty law center's list to suppress speech. it's only recently that the attorney general called it out. the fbi is continuing to partner with the national organization of women, southern poverty law center, naacp and other groups. splc is about as objective as antifa. they are far left organization and it's a disgrace that they are silencing speech. the real effect of this, laura are for example, earlier a couple years ago, the family research council was actually shot up in d.c. by an attacker trying to kill people there

because that group was on the splc list. >> laura: that's right. i forgot that. >> in silicon valley, like you mentioned, the effect is that matching programs and corporations where corporations will say if you give money to a charity like alliance defending freedom, an outstanding christian first member law firm. they will not match it if the organization is on that list. on top of that, amazon will not match contributions in their smile program if the splc has put it on their hate list. who made these people, the soros funded in the far left organization the arbiter of what is far left speech in america and what is not. it's fine for them to have their viewpoint but it's also fine for us to fight back. it's not fine for the government to use their false list as a weapon to attack citizens. >> laura: they have a half a billion dollar budget. they get a lot of money from a lot of rich people. joe, my point is they would rather label people haters then have a debate about the underlying subject.

i live that every day. people don't want to debate you because they lose on the facts, so they want to label you things. that's not american. have the debate. have the debate vigorously. don't label people haters expect the ones who should be labeled haters like white nationalists and nazis. >> labeling people haters as part of their first amendment right. there are far right groups who have a half billion dollars as well. the real problem here is that the attorney general is using his office to pit one constitutional right against the other. where does that end? you could look at a lot of religions and make the claim that they have some sort of hate speech. we shouldn't be doing this. the attorney general should be uniting people here in the united states. but the reality is, he's a darling of the confederacy. >> laura: what does that mean? >> that is not fair. >> laura: that is poisonous. joe.

>> i don't think so. if you look to his voting record, there are views there that are anti- lgbt, anti-immigrant. this is known stuff. >> laura: once again, if you believe in border enforcement and legal immigration reforms, you are anti-immigrant. people just rejected that in 2016. >> i don't believe that, either. >> laura: people rejected that in 2008. they don't like being called that because when you say that, that means the trump voters are anti-immigrant, and they are not. they are good people. there are always bad elements in groups but they are overwhelmingly good people. great segment. an atlanta school facing an uproar after trying to ditch the pledge of allegiance. we have some breaking news on the story. stay there. an atlanta school facing an uproar after trying to ditch t

>> to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> laura: well, well. and atlantic charter school is reeling tonight after having announced it was going to ditch the pledge of allegiance from the morning agenda. according to the atlanta neighborhood charter school, it made its decision due to the more and more students and staff choosing not to recite or stand during the pledge in recent years. the announcement sparked a storm of controversy, as you can imagine. tonight the school announced it is backtracking on its decision. but could we see more schools across the country trying the same move? joining us and with reaction, university of maryland professor jason nichols, back by popular demand. along with writer and clinical analyst carrie sheffield. jason, they are backtracking. saying that you can see that pledge or the school cheer or something. what does it say about us that this is a controversy?

i am almost wanting to treat this as something hilarious. i think those kids reciting the pledge is so cute and i remember doing it as a kid. it wasn't controversial. it was what you do. why are we here? >> i think it's controversial because they want to unify the kids at the beginning of the morning. and they feel the pledge -- many kids opt out. when i was a kid, there were kids who were jehovah's witnesses and they didn't recite the pledge. sometimes they would go to a separate room. they really want to build community in they think this is getting in the way of that. i have to throw my dig in there and say that if you are against this and if you have a problem with this, then you probably have a problem with betsy devos and the secretary of education, trying to move more towards charter schools where we get to take public funding but make their own rules. >> laura: do you find, you find saying the pledge, requiring

that, your view is that it's divisive? >> i'm not saying it's divisive but i do think there are many people who opt out. that is their first amendment rights. >> laura: they can do that. but they can say one nation, and they don't have to say under god. a lot of people don't say under god and they go on. i don't remember this being a controversy. they just say one nation. indivisible with liberty and justice. apparently people still do believe in liberty and justice for all, or is that all controversial? >> some people feel it's better if they're not -- >> i have to take issue with what you said about charter schools. if anything that shows how responsive charter schools are. imagine if a public school sector, public union backed teachers, when they try to make changes and there's public accountability, public outcry, nothing happens. so this is actually a case in point, showing the agility of charters. i applaud that. also i am pro-charter.

seeing something that something that was a charter school that was antifreedom because to me it equals freedom. i'm glad to see they've done the right thing. i think this speaks to the broader issue of trying to turn people against each other, trying to tear in our social fabric against things that represent the united states of america. and no one, including martin luther king jr., would sit here and tell you if you were alive today, he knew that our country wasn't perfect but we are working toward a more perfect union. when you try to shut down the pledge of allegiance, that's the opposite of building a union. >> laura: i think we should just do jumping jacks, push-ups. can we say drop and give me 50. wouldn't that be better? michelle obama is about let's move. i am all for that. i would like to use the exercise of the beginning of the day. i want to get your thoughts on this. this is something, i have teachers in my family. just recently retired public school. should cell phones be allowed or banned from school classrooms? countries like france are

putting government mandated bans on cell phones for elementary and middle school students on their campuses. more u.s. cities like boise, idaho, are doing the exact opposite and lifting cell phone bans from their students. jason? >> you know, this is a tough one for me. >> laura: come on, professor. do you want them to be on their phone? it's annoying. >> it is totally annoying and it can be disruptive. at the same time, as we have seen with some of the school shootings and things have been going on from a cell phones have really helped in those situations to call the police in an emergency. i understand why they would want to have those cell phones there but also cell phones have encouraged a lot of bullying and fights and things like that. nobody -- >> laura: how about cheating? have you caught anybody cheating using a cell phone? >> i haven't. maybe i'm just bad at catching people. >> laura: how many times during average class to see student

looking down at a phone checking facebook? >> i can't even count. >> laura: they could be listening to your lecture, following, taking notes. instead, they are on their phone. it's not good for learning. it's fun and you can play games. but during the class, focus on the professor. >> i agree. during class, they shouldn't be on it. >> laura: have it in your locker. have it in your locker. >> have it in your bag. >> i am inclined, whatever the french say to do, we should do the opposite. for that fact alone, i say embrace the cell phone. and also in cases of emergency, absolutely. laura, you said take notes. i take notes on my cell phone. >> laura: okay, carrie. you are a young woman. do you remember or not being 14 and you've got the boys in the first row. they are texting each other. in high school and junior high, do you remember? >> i am a little older. >> laura: do you remember?

>> the difference that it's updated. you would send paper notes. >> laura: less distracting. >> i think it's more distracting. >> laura: yes, no, i will think about it. >> if you have your laptop out, you probably don't need your cell phone as well to take notes. >> laura: fantastic conversation. but i think it happens more than you are even admitting in your classes. they are all on their phones. >> definitely. i agree. >> laura: do tell them to put them down? >> it says in the syllabus to silence your phone, keep it in your bag. >> laura: they are on their laps. you are making important point. it's like in the movies. put them away. >> that's what i'm more worried about. teachers not enforcing it, teachers trying to be buddy buddy with the students rather than enforcing it the discipline. that's what i'm worried about. >> laura: thank you so much. the media and liberals attempt to understand trump supporters,

it kind of fails a lot. one professor may have finally discovered why. he joins us next. a lot of professors tonight. he joins us next. he joins us next. a lot of professors i get it all the time. "have you lost weight?" of course i have- ever since i started renting from national. because national lets me lose the wait at the counter... ...and choose any car in the aisle. and i don't wait when i return, thanks to drop & go. at national, i can lose the wait...and keep it off. looking good, patrick. i know. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome.

are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. >> laura: no matter how how hard they try, liberals can't seem to

figure out trump supporters and their loyalty to the present. a sociology professor at columbia university may have figured out why they keep getting it's all wrong. he was on radio this morning, and now he joins us with more. professor, good to see you. thanks for being on in the morning and at night. doing double duty. appreciate it. what's going on here with some of the polling and some of the research you've been able to cull through? >> there is a few things we see in a lot of studies intended to understand that 2016 election. the main problems seem to be things like prejudicial study design. a survey will ask what motivated trump supporters, are they more racist or ignorant or sexist, rather than any more positive motivators. of course there is no surveys

about why would someone vote for hillary clinton? is it because they are anti-american? so there's this sort of prejudicial study design is a big problem. sometimes there are glaring errors, statistical errors that somehow get through by people who know better and by editors who know better. they are cited by other people who know better. not on purpose. i don't think it's a cynical thing. i think for the most part it's just an issue where the studies are confirming something. a view of the world they strongly believe and want to believe. these kinds of errors creep in and get unnoticed. >> laura: once one study is published or one poll, it just gets repeated, paraphrased in another website and another and another. i want to show for our viewers what we are talking about. specifically, one particular question which illustrates your point. you're not a fan of the president, we should say. you're not a trump supporter. in fact the opposite.

question, this is a cnn poll. question: which of the following do you think is more important? imposing tariffs on imports from foreign countries to protect certain u.s. industries. 25%. maintaining good relations with countries that have been close allies of the u.s. for many years. of course people are going to say that from 63%. both equally, no opinion. so that's a problem because, professor? >> absolutely. the result there was probably the result of what we call framing effect. for instance, if they rephrased the question something like do you support -- like maintaining, like protecting the u.s. economy or u.s. services, critical u.s. manufacturing. >> laura: it's a phrasing issue. classic prejudicial framing issue. when you say maintaining good relations, countries that have been close.

it's a biased way to frame it. it's so obvious. also something we want to get too quickly, the pairing of donald trump with racism on the google searches. donald trump white supremacy. donald trump xenophobia. 10,000 results. 2300 results. 3,000 results. why is that a problem? >> what's astonishing is it takes a long time to publish anything in an academic journal. half a year, a year. so the fact that just since 2016, there were these tens of thousands of studies that were published, all of them having the same -- if you survey the abstracts and titles of these words, they all tell the same story. trump voters were racist.

>> laura: tomorrow night, we have a fantastic show. u.s. attorney in philadelphia will join us. telling us why these cities sanctuary policies are so dangerous and what he says is also un-american. you don't want to miss that. thanks for watching tonight. as always, our loyal viewers.

catch me on the radio tomorrow morning. until tomorr thanks for watching tonight, our loyal viewers. catch me on the radio tomorrow morning and stay safe, check me out on twitter and facebook, i love reading your comments. shannon bream and the fox news at night team coming up. shannon: i will set my alarm otherwise i would sleep all day. house oversight chairman trey gowdy is here, weighing in on the breaking news about potential subpoenas for people connected to the steel dossier and his views on the potential interview with robert mueller and more in the white house ambitious plans for the future of war fighting. we break down the news in a militarized case tonight. one of the formal ohio state rutgers recanting statements accusing jim