n't have time for a cracked windshield. that's why we show you exactly when we'll be there. saving you time, so you can keep saving the world. >> kids: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ we'll see you tomorrow. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight" ." in a televised address to the country last night, as you know, the president made his case for why america needs of all our southern border, and why that while it is so important and it's worth shutting down the nafederal government to get it where democrats remain unmoved by the address. leaders in congress and the democratic side, chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, deliver their party's initial response. their words were then echoed with mechanical precision by democrats up and down theni cha, from sitting members of congress all the way down to the left-wing lady muttering in your local dog park. talking points doesn't really do justice to the rhetorical discipline here.

it was really like watching a 3d printer at work, turning out carbon copies of stilted propaganda one after the other after the other. a miracle of replication. you might even call the democratic response manufactured manufactured. >> this is a manufacturedhi crisis, and a crisis that manufactured by the term administration. a speaker this is a manufactured crisis. >> how he manufactures crises, like immigrants seeking legal refuge for you what the president is doing is manufacturing a crisis. >> president trump must stop altering america's people hostage, stop manufacturing this crisis. to speak of this president usede backdrop of the oval office to manufacture a crisis. >> tucker: so they brought back manufacturing. what about the press? one thing to know about the national media, as the democratic leaders are saying i, reporters aret, saying it, too. no matter what it is, you often hear conservatives complain that the mediaha are liberal, that is giving the party would credit.

what they really are is obedien obedient, like shoulds who is begging for a snack. if nancy pelosi calls for invading canada tomorrow, all b the news anchors are we telling ottawa is a real threat. they are flunkies, humorless little functionaries doing their sad little jobs. watch them at work. >> the president has manufactured one heck ofof a political crisis for himself. >> donald trump is manufacturing a national security crisis. you will hear him say this is a manufactured crisis, it's not a national security crisis. >> from nancy pelosi down to debbie wasserman schultz or anybody else who will give him a dime for this project. >> is manufactured. >> it's a manufactured crisis for the president to get a political won. >> we have a president to go on tv tonight and lie and lie and lie some more. a manufactured crisis. >> tucker: they are so dumb. they have no self respect. so we showed you the mindless life they are telling you. what are democrats actually

proposing as an alternative to the border wall? we can answer that question wita some authority because last week on january 3rd, house democrats passed their own proposal they say would secure our southern border. what didn't? what i what to do?o? nothing that is not being done already. the democratic bill provides the same funding for a partial fencing, border security technology, hiring more customs officers and so forth, that we already have. in other words, the democratic border security plan is the status quo. democrats argument is that things were just fine right now. instead of spending another dollar to secure the border, democrats in congress have, for example, proposed spending another $12 million to investigate reparations for slavery, just to give you some proportion and methods of their priorities. to democrats, everything is more important than border security. that would be fine if a recurrent security was working. it's not. in fact, it's likely that more than 20 million people already live illegally in our country right now.th that is more than two and a half

times the entire population of new york city. the actual number may be bigger than that. we don't really know, and that is the point. it's totally out ofot control. there probably is, the border patrol does not have the right technology to do their job. the i problem is, the politicias don't care to fix it. if they did, they could solve the problem in an afternoon. borders are not that complex. it's not like weik are trying to gear pancreatic cancer here. our best minds are stumped. hardly. what worked for hadrian will work for us. it works for israel right now, and a lot of other places. walls work. that is why people still build them. everybody knows that. this is all a charade, and we should at least admit what is happening. what you saw last night was not to two parties bickering over the best way to solve a shared problem, no. it was one sides problem is the other sides solution. for democrats, a porous border is a good thing, unalloyed, good thing. it means more low-wage workers for their donors, that is deeply

appreciated. it means more compliant motors for them to replace the millions of actual americans they have a. then there's the emotional payoff of the whole thing. democrats feel good about letting and poor people from around the world. these are people who don't make a lot of complicated demands about health care or dental or unfunded pensions or what their kids should be doing for a living. they are not whiny like americans. they are not living reminders of how politicians have failed to fulfill their promises. no, they are just grateful will erbe here. they are immigrants. democrats love people like that. in fact, they come to love them much more than they love you. congresswoman ocasio-cortez said that out loud to us last night. >> the women and children on that border that are trying to seek refuge and seek opportunity in the united states of america with nothing but the shirt on their backs are acting more american than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be.

>> tucker: so people who show up here and ignore our laws are more american than you are. that is how democrats feel. keep that in mind as you watch this debate. joining us tonight is mark morgan, the former head of the border patrol under barack obama. he was then replaced by the trump administration and we are glad to talk to him again, the second time this week. thank you for coming back. when you hear the term "manufactured crisis," from politicians and theirti lackeysn thein press, what is your response? >> my responses, those people thats are saying that, anyone that says that, tucker, is misinformed and they are misleading the american people. before i was chief of the border patrol, i served in the fbi for two decades. one of my assignments was, i led the el paso office. from my office, on the border, i could see you are is. every single day, tucker, we work for the dea and all components of dhs and we work with human trafficking cases, drug cases, and getting cases, all impacting the southern border.

and every single day, tucker, i was briefed,uc every single day about the men and women risking their lives every day, and are apprehending murderers, rapists, other violent offenders, gang members. that is not manufactured. that is real and that is in fact ended is still happening today. i would also say one last point, 127 border patrol agents have died. they didn't die playing monopoly.th they died defending, being the frontline defenders of our borders, trying to apprehend the 17,000 people, the bad people the secretary nielsen mentioned. ask their families have a dimaggio vendor questions. >> tucker: i do wonder. i do wonder why people serving on the border of all backgrounds and political beliefs think when they hear these self-appointed experts on television refer to this is a manufactured crisis. >> i think that's the point. self appointed experts. i go to the experts that are really working. i will say the president has done that way the president is

talking to the leadership of cbp and the border patrol on the rank and file, and those are the experts, and they are saying the wall works. it doesn't work everywhere, it is not the end-all be-all. it works. >> tucker: i want to run a couple of facts by you that i watched journalists tell me last night and the fact-checked segments. the first is that drugs don't really come across the border. they come through the ports. as i drew? >> again, complete disingenuous statement. so you want to say because more drugs enter the point of entry, therefore it's not a problem in between the ports. that is fictitious. it is correct that more drugs enter through the points of entry, tucker, millions and millions of pounds of drugs still enter through the point of entry. >> tucker: okay. i also heard people say last night, basically no one comes illegally over an unsecured border. they are just people who overstayed their visas. do illegals come over the border on apprehend it? >> yes, absolutely.

again, it's incredulous. i can't believe that someone could state that. again, there is factual, historicalal data that just says that is absolutely absurd. n's false. >> tucker: i saw a lot of people who had the air of authority about them, who reallh seem to know what they were talking about last night claimed that every study has shown that illegal immigrants in this country commit crime at a lower rate than native-born americans. we do this topic a lot and we are pretty conversant with thebo social science on it. i have never s seen that study. where are those numbers from? >> i've never seen that study. i posed that to somebody, to show me that stat, and show me how they can come up with that because i can show you the opposite. they sure if of yuma, arizona, published an article today where he talked about in 2005 when they started putting the fence, the wall up in his area, violent crime, all crime, drastically reduced in his area. >> tucker: so you are saying -- i don't want to blow anyone's mind here -- but the people telling us they were fact-checking this speech may not have reallyte known what thy were talking about?

>> that is absolutely what i'm saying. >> tucker: i appreciate, mark morgan, you're coming out tonight. we are doing to know by our senior political analyst here at fox, brit hume. thanks auc lot for coming on. first just want to ask you by n the spectacle, not just of this beach and there were bottles by lastemocratic leaders night, but by the analysis that followed. you saw a lot of fact checks by journalists who really we do count on on questions of policy because policy should beul nonpartisan, really, to be honest, and some of them seem like they were repeating democratic talking points. is that unfair, do you think? >> what could be a more legitimate form of journalism then checking the facts of what politicians say, it is totally proper, and if necessary, vital even. the problem, though, and this current atmosphere, is that packet checking has become a branch of opinion journalism. for example, in the speech last night, the president spoke of a crisishe at the border. a number of the fact checks that

were critical of of the speechs due to the fact thatt there wasa crisis at the border. let's start with this, tucker. whether there is a crisis at the border or not is not a matter of fact. is a matter of opinion. one man's crisis is another man's problem. so when you start out trying to fact-check opinion, you obviously up on the wrong blood. and in some instances, i saw a fax as being a problem that werr true. for example, there was a statistic, 266,000 people arrested who had come across the border, and "the washington post" announced that that was a true statistic but it was misleading. there again we are. whether something is misleading or not it is not a simple matter of fact. it is a matter of opinion. the impassioned ambition of journalists today to get in on the opinion game is so strong that they are coming in through all the doors, including the fact-check door.

go ahead. >> tucker: i'm worried they will devalue their own currency. you see someone who was supposed to be a straight news reporter, for example, and say, the president claims that people coming over the border illegally are committing a lot of crime. looking right into the camera, and say, we have statistics that show they commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born americans, when they don't have those statistics because they don't exist. i know they don't exist! that's a lie! >> even if the statistics did exist, it does not -- they don't refute the fact that people coming across the border commit a lot of c crimes.nt the president wasn't saying they commit more crimes than anybody else, he sank in may committing a lot of crimes, and they do. the first one in many instances is the mere fact they arrived here illegally. so that doesn't seem to me to be an effective fact-check no matter how you look at it. and what is striking about this is when you hear this repeated over and over again, that whole montage we did of people saying manufactured crisis, echoed by

their friends in the media, "the washington post" itself, which is leading the fact-check charge, i think it is fair to say, had a story the other day, some length, by a couple of its reporters, who went down to the border and came back and reported that there was, yes, a crisis of the border, and it explains that numbers that say that the number of border crossings or whatever is down does not get at the point because it's about the composition of the people who are coming now that have -- because of the nature of our laws, what we are gettingti his families, small children, and it used to be we got to just a mostly. now we are getting a different type of group coming. because of the nature of our laws, it has overwhelmed our officials at the border and it's created a crisis, which i think it's fair to say is a crisis but i would know, tucker, that is my opinion. >> tucker: you are honest enough to admit that. you always are. brit hume, thank you for joining us. appreciate it. >> you bet. >> tucker: chuck schumer, nancy pelosi teamed up for the

democratic response last night and the internet went bonkers. kind of amusing. after the break, we'll tell you what happened. ♪

show of hands, who's a future comcast business customer here? i think we all are.

yeah, definitely. sign us up. yes. two hands. two hands. yay. double hands. get fast reliable internet and add voice for a low price. just one more way we go beyond for your business. and now you can also enter for a chance to win $10,000 from comcast business toget your year off to a fast start. there's a new $10,000 winner every day in january. go online now and enter for a chance to win. comcast business. beyond fast. ♪ >> tucker: yesterday was not one ofke those moments that the handler is tasked with making politicians look good are going to put on the highlight reel. the president's address to the country was marred by some loud breathing. that should not have been hard for democrats to top but they certainly did. chuck schumer and nancy pelosi appeared together. it was a bizarre tableau and their awkward appearance

immediately sparked ridicule, evenim msnbc wasn't impressed. watched. >> tell me why responses are so bad. [laughter] tonight, chuck and nancy visual tonight, launched 1,000 memes while they were still talking. there was an american gothic meme, there was a -- your mother and i are very upset you stayed out late meme. >> i don't think they wanted to do it, i don't think they should've done t it, i guarantee you, at the staff meeting tomorrow morning, someone is going to get chewed out pretty good. >> tucker: lisa boothe, senior fellow identified a woman's voice, she joins us tonight, covering the meme. for us. >> amazing. >> tucker: the message kind of got lost in the visuals may be? >> exactly. you know when msnbc is laughing at democrats, you have a problem. when you areyo giving a big poly speech like this, he want people to be listening to the words you are saying, the method you are trying too deliver, and you dont

want people to be watching and say they are being held hostage, which was the thought of a lot of americans watching it because they look like hostage victims giving the speech. as hevi mentioned, there were a lot of hilarious takes on this on twitter. you've got one right there, as you see, nancy believes nancy d chuck schumer's faces superimposed on the "american gothic" painting. this one, saying, "we are not mad, we are just as appointed" by this look like your parents, and high school, you come home late, greg gutfeld right there, chuck and nancy look like theyan are selling a reverse mortgage. also hilarious. >> tucker: [laughs] >>my this is my favorite for melissa francis. "blink, nancy, blink, please." the rest of america watching this. >> tucker: she didn't. i love melissa francis. >> i do come too. i thought it was hilarious. the crazy thing about all this,

democrats literally voted for fencing on january 3rd. clearlyem they have no problem against a physical structure along the southern border.ow so we have a shut down over something that both parties agreeng to, which is putting upa physical barrier along the southern border. literally the dumbest debate of all time of this government n shutdown, and nancy pelosi and chuck schumer delivered us one of the most epic responses there, and also fodder for a lot of online fun. >> tucker: lisa boothe, i'm about to steal your point going into the next guest. >> you can come it's okay. >> tucker: in rare form, and giving you credit. thank you very much. jonathan harris joins us right now, a democratic commentator. thank you very much for coming on. again, i will take it from lisa boothe.ot democrats last week voted for a physical barrier on our border. what are we arguing about exactly? >> there's a difference between a physical barrier, the secure fence act in 2006. a difference between a physical barrier, both to most of which

is in place, and a concrete wall, which is what trump wants. >> tucker: what is the difference? >> fencing, which trump criticized -- >> tucker: just has an't american, what is the difference? >> i don't know how to leave trump out of it. >> tucker: he's not here. i'm wondering. democrats voted for aa physical barrier, and how they are shutting down the government because trump wants a different kind of physical barrier. what is a difference between the physical barriers? what about his physical barrier is more offensive than there is? >> i would change it a little bit to say that child by shutting down the government. >> tucker: whatever. i will give you that. what is the difference between what trump is voting for and what he is proposing? >> it is more about the $5 billion he wants to builded something else. they voted in support of fencing there. trump actually criticized it. they are not talking about the wall itself is much as they are saying, we are not giving you $5 billion to do something -- an cbs report said that wall will take care of one-third of

illegal immigrant to immigration because that's not where t it comes from. a waste of money. >> tucker: a waste of money pray democrats are budget talks now and the way -- >> kind of. >> tucker: the tech boom -- whatever. republicans are profiting, not here to defend the fiscal h continents. i'm merely saying that idea that democrats are upset, willing to shutdown the government over $5 billion of funding is so stupid. >> doll back >> the problem with that being, they are not the one who shut down the government. they shut down -- >> tucker: whatever. whoever shut it down, democrats are saying, his proposal is immoral. their proposal is moral. what is the difference between a moral and an immoral physical barrier on our border? >> because one does not cost >>$5 billion. >> tucker: the cost is immoral. any time we spend $5 billion, needlessly, we are committing an immoral act weighed >> it's not

about committing an immoral act. >> tucker: vendors with the speaker of the house had. >> this is about spending o$5 billion to build a wall that is an effective to address illegal immigration that does not come from the southern border. it c comes of legal ports of entry. s >> tucker: in a federal budget of over a trillion dollars, if i could find another example of $5 billion we spend on something, would you be willing to shut down the government? >> that is problematic. >> tucker: how problematic? >> i'm not president. trump is president. >> tucker: what i'm saying is -- >> trump shut down the government. >> tucker: i'm trying to in slow motion dig through the sea of manure to the kernel of truth. the sea of filth. so the cost, the nature of the barrier, those are not relevant to anything. what we are talking about is the fear that what trump is proposing might actually work. that is the actual problem. >> there is no reason to believe it will work.'s >> tucker: would at the democratic plan that will work? >> they laid this out in the

address that everybody is makini memes out of, which was kind of funny. they laid this out, talk about surveillance, rebuilding the existing fences >> tucker: what they floated is what is already in place. are w they saying is that what e have is working? >> they offered him $1.3 billion, currently, they are offering him $1.3 billion. >> tucker: that is what we o have. they offered what we already have. so i'm just trying to figure out the argument. are they saying that it's not a problem that needs to be addressed? >> no, they clearly said last night, he needs to be addressed, waand the problem is the wall is an effective. >> tucker: they are addressing it by not spending more money than we are currently -- >> they are offering him $1.3 billion -- >> tucker: that's already in place. that's already the plan. they are seeing simultaneously, it's a problem we need to fix but we're not going to give you more money to fix it. >> i think trump -- if i'm being my mosthe generous here, i think trump has a misunderstanding of our illegal immigration issue. it's not at our southern border. that is not where the issue has. >> tucker: you are saying it's not a problem we need to fix.

>> i'll see it this way. it's a problem. part of it is at the southern border. with the predominant issues that he is talking about are not from people at the southern border. 9/11 was not caused by people coming in from the southern border. >> tucker: really quick -- is trying to get to the truth. here's the problem at the southern border but we are not going to spend more money to fix it. we don't have any new ideas for how to fix it. there is a problem. that is what we are saying. >> is like saying you are having a cracked window and asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix a cracked window. that is not how you fix a cracked window. you fix it with $1.3 billion -- >> tucker: what is in place. doing the same things we have been doing, that is going to fix it but it's not going to fix it, but it is a problem but not a problem -- >> that is not a what i said it all. i b said to the border wall is $5 billion that would be wasted because it would stop one-thirdf illegal immigration -- >> tucker: [laughs] i get it. i just don't understand. >> ipe don't know what other way to say it. it's a waste of money because is ineffective. i don't think trump understands

our illegal immigration issue and that is why he wants $5 billion. >> tucker: [laughs] that may be the one thing he does understand. >> one thing -- >> tucker: mr. harris, thank you very much. america grew very wealthy thanks to our economy, and that has been great. but what happens when the country's biggest companies stopped caring aboutry the couny itself? t that is not great. we'll get to that after the break. ♪

>> robert muller's investigation into russia. and variou >> robert bentley's investigation into russia and various other related and unrelated topics feels like it's been going on for about a generation now, maybe multiple generations. but at some point, it will end, all things end. obviously, we don't know what mueller's findings will be. we do know they are an awful lot of people from the democratic congress to the entire news media who will use the russia report, whatever it says, to try to force the president from office. that is inevitable. donald trump has an awful lot of enemies. he also has a lot of supporters. 63 million americans voted for this president. pretty soon he will need every one of those people to stand up for him. and not just him personally, but for democracy itself, the principle that we choose and remove our leaders by voting, and other bureaucratic coups. that moment is coming. but while the president get the support he needs to stay in office?? so far, trump's orders have been remarkably loyal to him. but loyalty is a two-way streetu

it must be requited. you stick byst the people who stick by you. has the president stopped by his supporters? in some ways, he has. but if you voted for trump couly take a step back. how is your life two years later? are youou through for your nowt you want? are your bolder and more confident in your beliefs? or are you more afraid? it's a question james demar might ask, the company that he once worked for, google, often boasts about his commitment to the free exchange of ideas. so he dared to exchange hisxc ideas with others. he never threatened or demeaned anyone. google just did not like what he said. so they fired him and they trashed its reputation so thoroughly he could not find a job. something very like that happened to palmer lucky. he was thrown off the board of facebook solely because he supported donald trump. how about alex jones? you may not like him, you may

despise him. but you should know he was systematically crushed by the big tech companies just for saying things they disliked. you can't -- he can't even use paypal anymore. he is not the only one, hardly. others have been punished, not for what they say, but simply for refusing to read from preapproved scripts. virginia public school teacher peter fleming lost his job because he resisted using pronouns he believed to be inaccurate. he did not criticize irma's gender anybody. he simply avoided using pronouns entirely and address the student by name instead way that wasn't good enough. he was fired for the crime of having an opinion that most of the country shares. those things happen and they are just a few of the best-known examples. imagine all those that don't make the news. how many americans have been fired or denied work because of their political beliefs over the last two years? who is protecting those people? in the business world, virtually every major company seems to have lurched left since drum

selection. the corporate leaders are openly determined to reward these countries is boils on the basis of skin color rather than merit. they say that out loud. this is unfair and it's deeply divisive. itci makes americans hate each other! it's also come as a factual matter, illegal. corporations are not allowed to practice racial discriminations. neither are universities. there's an entire division of the justice department that enforces racism. they don't care. maybe they should find other jobs. theretihi are still lawyers in s country who care about civil rights, and the administration should hire them and sent them to work. while they are at it, they ought to defend the constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms as well. traditional christian beliefs are not a crime. discriminating against them as. corporate america ought to be reminded of that. beliefs that were considered conventionally conservativet. jt five years ago are now routinely described as terrorism.

meanwhile, actual terror committed by the left seems to go unpunished. in 2017, to name one example, a left-wing college professor called eric clinton smashed strangers in the head with i a bike lock. why? because he believed they disagreed with his politics. he was charged with a felony within the charges were droppedp he spent no time in jail. how did that happen? that same year, a left-wing mob in north carolina destroyed a public statue they didn't like. purely because they felt like it. the whole thing was caught on video. somehow, nobody was punished! at evergreen college in washington state, a left-wing mob ordered professor brett weinstein to leave campus for c having the wrong skin color when he refused, the mob rioted. he was forced to hold classes in a public park. police told him he was not safe on campus. eventually, he resigned from his job. he felt he had no choice. the people who threatened weinstein were never punished. in other words, they won. violence won.

this is all happening right now! imagine how barack obama would have responded if it had happened to his voters while he waswa president. let's say it's 2010. obamacare is just past and public sentiment against the administration is intense. people are angry.. suddenly it has become in effect a crime to support barack obama and public. you can be fired for admitting you voted for him. you can be punched in the face nfor wearing a hat with obama's name on it. you think obama would have donem something about that? heller yes. these are his voters. his job was to protect them and all americans who want to speak freely. you would never get away with threatening and obama bought her for supporting obama. there is no chance, not for a second. the fbi would be in your living room before you got home. good for the fbi! if our government exists to do anything, is to preserve their free society that is ourty

birthright. that society is crumbling. this country is becoming less free. the administration should fight back against that. they have the power. laws on the books already protect an individual's right ts support any political candidate if he chooses. enforce those laws. should americans need the approval of some tech billionaire in order to exercise their freedom of speech online? we want to know for sure until the administration pushes back against digital censorship. facebook and google and twitter likely would respond with legal challenges, let them. fighting for speech is always the right fight. it's also good politics. the president is up for reelection in two years and he will be judged on what he's accomplished in office. will he get a border wall or an infrastructure plan? who knows. the congress did nottr seem anxious to cooperate on anything. one thing the president can do is exercise his executive powers to defend the bill of rights, and the dignity of all americans, no matter what they think. let's say that while was never built.

on theil other hand, and novembr of 2020, the president can sincerely say to the country that he has fought as hard as he could to makee certain that everyone in america is treated equally under the law regardless of sex, skin color, political beliefs. no, he'll say, you didn't get new roads or airports, congress blocked all that. but the good news is, you are no longer afraid. you don't have to whisper any more't when you say what you really think. you don't live in fear that some corporate sensitivity officer will destroy your career for t thinking the wrong thing. you can say what you really believe in public. you are an american citizen, that is your right. if donald trump can credibly say all that two years from now, it is still possible he won't win, but he'll be a genuinely great president. for decades the republican party has been proud to call itself the party of free markets and good for them, nothing wrong with m markets. we are for them. there's something more important

than any economic system, and that isop the health of people. corporate interests in the interest of american family conflict, you have to side with american families. it seems like an obvious point. we made it last week and will continue to make it. one person who's been saying this for a long time is j.d. vance. the author of "hillbilly elegy," and he joins us tonight. thank you for coming on. the point is to not make some kind of argument against market capitalism or any company in particular. the point is only that conservatives come as a think about what is important, i do put individual americans, particularly a family unit, the nuclear family, above other considerations. you think that's a crazy way to see the world? >> no, i don't. the way i would frame it, tucker, we treat market capitalism as an end or retreat market capitalism as a tool. a tool to create prosperity, a tool to create wealth, a tool to create a healthy society. i think with a lot of folks in

the past ten, 15, 20 years on the right have forgotten is that it is a powerful tool but it's nota the end. it's not, as i said in the piece, platonic deity that enforces healthy families, that it enforces a prosperous society, and to your point about corporate interests, sometimes the corporate interests who are responding to market incentives, acting just as you might expect a company to act, is actively going to harm the american social fabric. they do that sometimes because it's in their business interest but for example, if the company is pushing opioids into communities in a way that is destroying families, whose side are we going to take? are we going to takego the sidef theor corporate interest or the side of american families? i think it's an obvious way to think about it. it's obvious what we should do. >> tucker: so the sackler familyke getting rich from sellg oxycontin is not more important than the health of an entire kentucky county. what has not been hard for conservatives, who i think really do care about families. they are sincerely interested ie

families, preserving them. why is it hard for them to say that, do you think? >> i think there are a couple things going on. first, so many of the battles in the 1980s and 1990s were about the republicans being the party of markets and to democrats being the party against markets and i think what happened is that we lost a little bit of our muscle memory, a, little bit of a recognition that libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing, and that sometimes, the interests of families do conflict with some of these corporate interests. i really don't think there's anything bizarre or into a conservative about this by the patron saint of american capitalism recognizes thatra sometimes the interests of corporations would not be the same as the interest of the nation, the interests of families, the interest of communities. and in this situation, it was natural for the state, the society, to take the side of families. that is really all this is ultimately about. do we remember who we are fighting for?

are we for healthy communities come healthy families, or are we just going to constantly defer to corporate interests every time those two sites collide? >> tucker: i am worried that if we don't articulate this really clearly and act on it, that the reaction against our current form of capitalism will be so intense that we will wind up with something really destructive. socialism, or some awful economic system. do you share that worry? >> i definitely share that worry for that worry. tucker come if you look through history, the bolshevik revolution in the early 20th century, if you look at what was going on in the world as the american -- excuse me, the world economy transferred from an agrarian society to themy industrial economy, there was a lot of war, w fascism, nazism, communism. the united states avoided it because teddy roosevelt stood up for american workers and set i will not defer to the interest of the corporate w world. what is going on right now and the economy is a similar level

of transformation. we are seeing a lot of people moveve from the industrial-based economy to an information-based economy, and the question is, what do we do to protect the promise of the free market to ensure that it can get you to be a tool to create prosperity, so thatro it we can have a healthy community, healthy society? or do we continue to ignore the fact that a lot of people in america are hurting right now? when people heard, they eventually go to the ballot box, and eventually sometimes people do things even worse than voting for politicians and policies that you don't like, that is a lesson of history. the question is, do we heed the lesson of history? do we build a modern, conservative coalition that supports working and middle-class families? it is r really coming to me, the only i way out of this. it's not just about avoiding the worst consequences of history. it's also about building a society that is better than the one we inherited, which is what our entire goal should be as

people who care about public policy interest about the nation. >> tucker: you are certainly one of the leaders of that effort and we support you vehemently. thank you. j.d. vance, nicely put. appreciate it.t. >> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: new york is giving away free health care to illegal immigrants. that is how we can get a thriving middle class. is it a wise idea? will dive deeper into it after the break. ♪

♪ >> if you are here and you don't have money, whether you are undocumented are documented emigrant, you have but did not have money, you deserve health care. health care is a basic human right and we had to figure out how to deliver that. >> tucker: speed what you provio

people from other countries? we have an obligation to provide free health care to everyone in the world? >> tucker: that was democratic pollster bernard rudman who came on the show yesterday. setting a new catechism of the democratic party. anyone on planet earth has a moral right to come here for any reason at any time and have you pay for theirn health care. period boyd new york mayor belle de blasio is nodding alonh that sermon and he's trying to implement that vision right now in new york city. watch. >> we also have a way to provide direct health care to a lot of our neighbors whon happened to e undocumented. they are still part of our community, they need health care, the families need health care. this is one universal way to reach all those folks right now who are not covered. >> tucker: and assemblyman assn new york joins us tonight. thank you letter coming on. >> my pleasure. >> tucker: >> tucker: and my misrepresenting with the mayor of new york are saying, that anybody in the world has a right to come here illegally and oncet

to have everyone else pay for his health care? >> i don't think that's ae. misrepresentation. 600,000 people will get coverage, among them, 300,000 illegals. but he's not's going to calculad the influx of people, probably six people, if you will allow for free health care to anybody, that will come in, and i haven't heard de blasio's plan to create more doctors, nurses, beds, space. i don't know how you add a 600,000 people to an overburdened health care system in new york city and not have delays, major problems. >> tucker: i think de blasio is kind of a moron. i think he's a marijuana smoker. a lot of smart people are new york and a lot of smart people work for him. i know some of that. what do they think of this? did nobody say, this is crazy? >>he i think the left is movingo quickly to the left. ten years ago, president obama thought it was so important in the state of the union to say, don't worry, illegals will get

obamacare. remember, the congressman yelled, "you lie." ten years later, the left is using it as a selling point. it used to be something to hide. guess what, free health care for illegals. i get calls to my office every day saying, my husband is 75 years old, working since he was 14, fade into the system, never take anything out. he had a stroke the other day, trying to get admin assisted living and you know what medicaid says? spend all your assets, sell your house, want to spend that on the assisted living, will cover medicaid. phil de blasio is saying, somebody can sneak across the border and they will get what this american citizen can't get after putting in 40 years of work. >> tucker: now you have made me mad. that is infuriating to think about. i think it was congressman joe wilson of south carolina, going, we need to have them on the sho show. do a little victory lap for being right when everyone scolded him.

>> 41% of residents of new york city are already on medicaid. they are already getting government help.d it's a huge burden on the taxpayer of new york city and new york state. i don't know why we are adding to it. >> tucker: it so crazy. thank you so much. great to see you. ♪ a huge number of silicon valley corporate managers, people making all the money from the tech boom, strictly restrict their children's phone time, and send them to screen free private schools. why? because they know that their own devices her children. at the same time, the tech industry has no problem foisting those devices on everybody else's kids. according to google, half of all the countries k-12 students use google apps to learn. google has donated 100 million devices to schools, which of the course has the side effect of acclimating and addictive to injecting children to google

products. no one has noticed this. a syndicated columnist has notet this could, she is joining us. this does seem like taking the most vulnerable and impressionable slice of america and pushing products on them that they will be addicted to for life. is it something else? >> it certainly is that. it's not merely the idea of addicting them and getting them used to the brand from preschool age. it's also about data mining. i've been investigating and reporting on this issue of infiltration of education and technology in the public schools in particular for the last decade. tucker, the problem is, the bulwark, the wall, if you will, on protecting families' student data was greatly undermined and sabotaged by the obama administration's education department, the samest way that

they areou promulgating rules we never scrutinized and congress d led to all of the terrible outcomes that we saw with title ix, that same approach was used to undermine the federal educational rights and privacy act, which used to require parental consent before personally identifiable into information, and in other words, your studentss personal data, ws basically allowed and thrown open for access to third-party contractors. boy, are they cashing in. >> tucker: that is so -- i never even -- i guess i'm not diabolical enough. and never thought of fat. this is not simply a way to get people using the products, kids do use a product young, it's alsoo a way to sell their information. do you think that is happening? >> it is. in fact, google was forced to admit that they were secretly data mining students' emails in 2014. the problem is, there have been

few consequences for it. until there is a presumptive -- preemptive right to know, no as well as know, and the loopholes are closed, and until there is an idea for example, that you cannot require students to log into google in order to be able to access their homework, their class schedules, and their grades, this is going to go on. what silicon valley corporate giants will say is, oh, the teachers and parents that arehi complaining about this are just stupid. they don't know that they can just merely log off. when, in fact, it's been proven, there are teachers and parents, particularly in missouri, which is where the rebellion has caught on about this, areho showing that plain text passwords are being stored without parental and student consent. the thing is, the kids, as you

mentioned, tucker, are captive, they are held hostage, because theyno cannot do their schoolwok without becoming iv hooked onto these products. >> tucker: is there a reason we have a congress that they are not protecting us? hold that thought. if you find a reason for congress to exist, if they are not protecting us, -- shall not come, great to see you. >> take care. >> tucker: a top democratic children use misleading web pages to support republicani but you did not read that in "the new york times" ." ♪ chicken?! chicken.

chicken! that's right, candace-- new chicken creations from starkist. buffalo style chicken in a pouch-- bold choice, charlie! just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go! try all of my chicken creations! chicken!

sof every army national guidiguard soldier. they have a stake in the well-being of the neighborhoods where they live and work. to be an army national guard soldier is to serve something greater than yourself. learn more at nationalguard.com

♪ >> tucker: here's an interesting story. left-wing activists appear to have used for conservative websites to suppress conservative turnout in the last election, 2018 midterms. trace gallagher has been on this and he joins us. hey, trace. >> hey, tucker. after reviewing facebook archives, the conservative publication discovered that not only to democratic operatives funded by technology billionaire read half and use misleading facebook pages in the run-up to the 2018 midterms, but also tried to give the impression that pages were operated by frustrated conservatives. for example, american engagement technologies, founded by former obama administration official mikey dickerson, bought ads for two facebook pages, the daily real, and today's nation.

both encouraging republican voters to stay home because the election was inconsequential. posting ads like this, "everyone else hearing more recent stories that the blue wave is a myth? and republicans are going to american upset mainstream pollsters once again? "are there said, "we told conservatives that we would defend their values and they believed us, and still, another ad saying, "some trump supporters see midterms losses for congressional republicans aa wake-up call to get serious on the wall." for context, billionaire reid hoffman was an early investor in facebook and acknowledged that he founded aet after they came under fire for running this information ads in the 2017 alabama special election, intended to falsely link g.o.p. senatorial candidate rory moore to russian influence operations. reid hoffman, mikey dickerson have yet to comment.

tucker? >> tucker: trace gallagher, appreciate it. we are out of time. we could go on forever. we will be out tomorrow. 8:00 p.m., they show that is a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. with deep sincerity, by the way. good night from washington. sean hannity right now. >> sean: before, thank you. welcome to a busy "hannity." we begin our "hannity wash" on huge, massive political hypocrisy. democrats claim to have a monopoly of compassion. conservatives are selfish and greedy because they want to lower taxes and less bureaucracy. they say we are mean-spirited for wanting to curtail entitlements. not true. i i don't know republicans that want to get rid of social security or medicare, if that is one of those campy lies. or if you don't trust their health care system. it hasn't worked out well. democrats are always generous, but with other people's money. when it now comes to what is a realh life or death crisis at te