about it. congratulations. thank you. that is "the story" on this tuesday night. we'll see you tomorrow night on 7:00. tucker carlson is waiting and standing by. we will see you tomorrow night. thanks, everybody. have a good day. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to " "tucker carlson tonight." alexandra collier cortez lecturing us about the weather today. flash cards on monday. act of god? no, it's the fault of republicans not passing her green new deal and not giving her full power of the american economy. one problem about that, scientists disagree with her read on that. we'll talk to her head. here's a quiz. how many foreign nationals are living in the united states right now? kidding, it's a trick question. nobody knows the answer. could be 10 million, could be 50 million bit we would just be

guessing. pretty embarrassing for an advanced country to know who lives within its borders, but honestly we have no idea. the last oracle years, the trump administrations trying to fix that by including a simple citizenship question on the 2020 census. democrats hate the idea, of course. if voters actually knew how many noncitizens lived in united states, they might be less than enthusiastic giving free health care to illegal aliens. last month, liberals on the supreme court threw up roadblocks to the citizenship question to the senses the attorney general is confident it's going to happen. >> we've been considering all the options being in constant discussions with the president since the supreme court decision came down. the next day are two, you'll see the next approach we are taking. i think it provides a pathway on getting the question on the census. >> a large majority of americans agree with that. so does the united nations. there is nothing inherently we are controversial about asking

who was a citizen of the country, every nation has a right to know that. ten previous censuses have asked about citizenship, by the way, including the long form census in 2000 back when bill clinton was president, that was less than ten years ago. nobody claimed that it was unconstitutional because it was not unconstitutional and still not their constitution has not changed but what has changed is the democratic party. suddenly they are telling us that it's illegal for the government to ask if you are a citizen or not. why? you know why. the same reason they gave for objecting to everything. it's racist! speak of the citizenship is motivated by racial and partisan reasons. it's no purpose in something that is neutral, also forced. >> this is political motivation. this is very racialized but you do not want communities like mine being represented in this chamber equally. this is not whether or not i want to know who is a

citizen in the united states or not. i want to know about the racism and the very disturbing history that we are seeing here. that's what i wanted to know. >> this is about keeping -- you know, this had? make america white again. >> tucker: they are such liars. at some point, words like these lose their power and their meaning. their misuse is absurd. but it's also entirely fake, like the temper tantrums. do what i want or i will call you a racist! it's always there threat. how long will people fall for it questioning how long will republicans in progress be intimidated by it? there is nothing racial about a citizenship question, obviously. a question would apply to everyone whether they are hard doormen, norwegian, congolese or korean. it's literally color-blind. the democrat party is not interested in stopping racism. what they want is power. don't ask questions, what's happening to your country puck you aren't allowed to know.

congressman jim jordan is the robert republican from a sedative from ohio. thank you for coming on. is there a substantive argument against -- >> no. >> tucker: okay. so where is this idea coming from that it's a racial attack coming from? what does it have to do with race? >> it comes from all these democrats in congress. judge alito said it best, it's important to know how many are immigrants in your nation, easiest is to ask on the census. go to any small town from any big city in this country, walk up to a citizen, person on the street, do you think on the census we should ask a citizenship question and their response will be yes. it would quickly be followed up by, aren't we doing that already? of course, you'd have to respond and say, yeah, we've been doing it for 200 years as he pointed out in your monologue. this is so common sense, every one gets it except for democrats in united states congress.

>> tucker: it's used important congressional districts every ten years. >> yes. >> tucker: what happens if you don't know how many noncitizens you have living in your country quickly doesn't that distort the congressional districts? >> of course. the portion of the persons, portion of the people. in your opening statement, we would like to know how many people of the 330 million, how many are citizens, how many aren't. it would be helpful information can be useful information. as you said, the u.n. says this is something the country should do. most countries do it, but the letter states of america, the democrats in power have their way, one ask a simple question that everyone assumes is already being asked and when they make the assumption, they are accurate. in one form or another, it's been asked for 200 years going all the way back to 1820. >> tucker: it's asked in canada. nobody says in canada it's racist. you work in politics. you are a sitting member of

congress. what are the actual politics behind this decision by democrats that charge it's racist! >> well, that's the line they use all the time when they want to accuse us of things they disagree with and they want a different policy. as i said before, so common sense, i think they are nervous about what the number may be. you actually may find out how many people -- maybe it's not 11 million, the number we hear all the time. maybe it's a higher number of people who are here who aren't citizens or hear it in some illegal fashion. i think they are afraid of number. ask them, why don't you want to know. i would ask them the catechin, they never seem to want to respond to that question when we bring it up in committee hearings. >> tucker: the party of science is arguing against gathering data. they have no real explanation for that. it's what you are saying. >> we know what it is. it's pure politics when in fact this is useful information that

we need for how certain services are administered, how certain federal dollars, how they flow through the respective states, critical information that we need. everybody knows it's common sense. the american people want us to ask this question. unfortunately, like i said, the democrats in congress don't want to do what everybody knows just makes good common sense. >> tucker: congressman jim jordan of ohio, thanks very much for joining us tonight. >> you fat, tucker. thank you. >> tucker: for more of the decade, virtually everyone on the left has repeated the same number, america has 11 million illegal aliens within their borders. guest on this show have repeated that number. >> the 250 million a document of people in the world today, the united states has 11 million. >> those are a lot of the 11 million people we are talking about. >> so many people living in this country, we have about 11-12000000 people living in this country. >> deporting 11 million people, is that what we wanted to do? >> this is america.

we aren't going to go round up 11 million people. >> the undocumented population remained stable for about 11 million for the last half decade. speaking of impacting not just 11 million people. >> we have 11 million people who are documented. >> when we say upper hand sieve immigration reform, that means legalizing 11 million people in this country. >> we now have 11 million people paying more taxes, paying into social security, paying into medicare. >> we have 11 million people. let's figure out how to get them into the country. >> tucker: okay. so here is a useful rule of thumb going forward. whenever everyone on television particularly on the left is repeating the same factoid, it's almost by definition totally untrue. this is no exception. how do you know it's 11 million? they have no idea it's 11 million. nobody has counted the actual number of illegal immigrants in

this country and democrats want to make it illegal to try. 11 million. you'll be hearing that when your grandkids are old. thanks very much for coming on. for the larger question, democrats are claiming this is racist. but the rhetoric is particularly biting. nancy pelosi, make america white again pick what happens to the social fabric of our country when trusted leaders make grotesque and untrue race-based claims like that? how badly does it hurt them? >> we are destroying the classical definition of the melting pot in which your superficial appearance was supposed to be incidental, not essential to who you are. when she says make america white -- i live in the community with 90% hispanics and i can guarantee you that i don't know if you were to tell me some were italian or somewhere southern european, i wouldn't know the

difference. so white is just a construct. many people crossing the border are wider than i am. this artificial binary is masking the problem, that is the democratic party wants to change the demography of the united states because they feel they the message doesn't resonate with the existing population. one of the strange thing, tucker, the analytics show that there is more than 11 million people. we know that from a recent mit and yale study, the suggestion is the high number might be as high as 22 million and up. that can be up to seven, eight, 9% of the population. but the democrats know that because in 2006-2008, if you and i collated what barack obama said, with john kerry said, with hillary clinton said, we would see that they were pretty much on record that they wanted legal only immigration. what changed from then until now? what's changed is that they understand the numbers are so

huge now that they see a potential constituency, actually an actual contents constituency p we shouldn't listen to what they say but how they act pandering to the illegal alien community because they know the numbers and truth are huge. >> tucker: that suggest overwhelmingly, they believe at some point the illegal aliens living here will be able to vote in elections. that has to be the plan or they wouldn't be pandering, correct? >> it is. i think it's even a western globalized phenomenon that citizenship doesn't mean much anymore, that residency is all you need, that is the distinction. we have local elections in which illegal aliens both, but if you come into the airport or one of our viewers do without a passport, a car, he's in real trouble. or if i used a fake identity or a fake social security number, i'm done at the hoover institution. that's a felony. if i am in a community and i say

federal law does not apply to me on matters of garden registration, epa -- that's impossible. sexually cities and open borders, we've actually given the legal exemption to citizens. there's a push back and your guests said, they are terrified that the fact to be true, if that gets out people will say wow, we got a huge fraction of people, 27% of california of current residents are not native born. that's over one and four californians and people say that we know what happened in california, that's what's behind this. flipping red states into blue states. it's pretty cynical when you look all around at the mexican government that once these 60 million along with these central american governments, the employers want cheap labor,

the democratic party wants a new blue state electoral college. it's pretty cynical. the only person who has no constituency is your average american middle-class voter. >> tucker: who's obeying the law and using his real name to pay his real taxes. >> absolutely. >> tucker: professor, thank you. >> he is. tragic is that it is. thank you. >> tucker: thank you. russian interference in the 2016 election is supposed to be an accepted fact. one journalist though on the left, by the way, says the very text of the mueller report undermines that assumption. what do we really know about the degree to which russians interfered and hacked our democracy much less than they say we know? we will tell you after the brea break. hey! i'm bill slowsky jr.,

i live on my own now! i've got xfinity, because i like to live life in the fast lane. unlike my parents. you rambling about xfinity again? you're so cute when you get excited... anyways... i've got their app right here, i can troubleshoot. i can schedule a time for them to call me back, it's great! you have our number programmed in? ya i don't even know your phone anymore... excuse me?! what? i don't know your phone number. aw well. he doesn't know our phone number! you have our fax number, obviously... today's xfinity service. simple. easy. awesome. i'll pass.

>> tucker: ross perot died this morning at the age of 89. some people might remember him as the answer to a trivia question. that guy ran as president in the '90s. he's not just a novelty of business men in politics, in many ways he was prophetic. don't believe it? here's what ross perot had to say about american foreign policy 27 years ago. all the way back in 1992. watch. >> i suggest that our number one reoccupation is red ink in this country and we've got to put our people back to work so that we can afford to do one of these things in russia but we cannot be the policeman of the world any longer.

we spent 300 people billion a year defending the world. if i can get you to defend me and i can spend all my money spending industry? that's a home run for me. >> tucker: america ignored ross perot. some of us, including me, attacked him at the time. but he was right about that. since he spoke those words, america has been hundreds of billions of dollars defending europe while the europeans do little to defend themselves, they could but they don't. they spend $5 trillion in wars in iraq, syria, afghanistan, and some all the while continuing to provide free defense for europe. we aren't richer for it. here's another parole nafta, 1992. >> for all of you who are business people, pretty simple. you can move your factory south of the border, higher -- let's

assume you are in business for a long time, you've got a mature workforce. pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care, most expensive single element making the cost, have no environmental controls, no punishment controls, and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, they will be a giant sucking sound going south. >> tucker: if you were around when perot said that, your member how mercilessly he was mocked and yet again he was right. the united states has rocked about 4 million manufacturing jobs, thousands of factories have closed since then. 1992, our country had a $5 billion trade surplus with mexico. today, its 80 billion. once again, perot was right. when nafta was being debated, opponents said it would he predict that illegal immigration would rise, may be dramatically. once again, he was absolutely

right. washington was absolutely wrong but more likely, they were just lying. in so many ways, america is a weaker, more divided country per week wouldn't say that perot would've been a great president. who knows. but if we listen to him more and not dismissed them, we'd be a stronger country today. ross perot? rest in peace. former special counsel robert mueller will be testifying before congress on his final report on the russian investigation. if mueller's investigation try to sway democrats towards impeachment, he had to overcome his teams on 400 page report. aaron mate just wrote a p is saying that the substance undercuts its own claims about russian interference in the 2016 election. thanks for coming on. you are arguing in this piece that the claims that the mueller

report makes about russian interference are not substantiated by the report itself. can you elaborate on that? 's because they are not. in fact, adc judges agreed with that assessment rebuking mueller for asserting that this russian troll farm, the ira, was a part of what mueller calls a systematic and sweeping renton interference russian interference campaign while mueller doesn't acknowledge never shows that that factory was part of the russian government. mueller was rebuked by this judge for suggesting otherwise. right there, you have what mueller called a central allegation of his indictment, this russian interference campaign. the second aspect of that being this troll farm being showed to have nothing to do with the russian government and there are many more disingenuous examples and glaring holes like that. there's also the fact that robert mueller never interviewed julian astonished assange, whiy

strange. assange released the stolen emails at the heart of russia gate. mueller had no entry speaking with him. >> tucker: what's interesting is the core claim that russia had a meaningful effect on the election outcome, that it was the russian government running this operation in order to aid donald trump, that claim has been brought completely, i would say, by both parties. republicans are mad about the russia hoax and all that, but they still repeat that line again and again, we know that this happened, and you are saying that we don't know really that this happened. >> mueller doesn't really know core details. there is a vague in his report when he talks about how the emails were stolen from the dnc. he uses the qualifier that russian officers appear to have stolen emails, not that they stole the emails, which i think is suspicious. also it doesn't know how the emails made their way to wikileaks.

despite having such an invasive window into the operations of russia, mueller can't tell us how the emails got to wikileaks. >> tucker: wait a second. if he can't show how he they got to wikileaks, then how does he know -- i mean, that's essential fact. if you can't know that, then you can't know anything, can you? >> no. i think it shows a real core flaw on his part and he should be question on it when he appears before congress next week. there is -- he suggests that the emails were given to wikileaks committees russian cutouts, alleged russian cutouts, guccifer 2.0 from wikileaks, assange he got those emails from guccifer 2.90 and before he did transferred by guccifer 2.0

which mueller cannot assert. >> tucker: he should be asked about it. the only person asking these questions, hopefully members of congress are watching tonight and will follow your lead on this. aaron mate, thank you very much for coming on. >> thank you. >> tucker: beto o'rourke's presidential bid looks dune. how he tries to stick by attacking the country. will it work? you know the answer. but it's still fun to watch. we will be right back.

>> tucker: not to brag, but we predicted a few months ago that beto o'rourke's presidential campaign would be doomed, and in fact we were right. he bombed in the debates two weeks ago. pete buttigieg stole his youthful energy in the democratic party of 2019, beto's skin color and sexual orientation work against them.

skateboard tricks and nirvana references are not enough to make up for it. his campaign is over, even if he doesn't know it. but o'rourke has one card to play before he leaves the race. he went to immigrants in nashville and proceeded to trash his own country. watch this. >> this country was founded on white super missy and every single institution and structure that we have still reflects the legacy of the slavery and segregation and jim crow and suppression, even in our democracy. >> tucker: imagine saying that the people who just got here. immigrants who chose to move to america. more than a million people come to this country every year around the world seeking a better life because they know that what o'rourke said is untrue. if it's a racist country, why are they streaming in from africa? they know that this is a tremendous opportunity with tremendous opportunity regardless of your background but it's not racist! it's not a white super mrs. country! it's absurd to say that. beto o'rourke will not be a potential candidate for longer

but he's managed to disgrace him so before leaving. good job, beto. well, and scoreboard in san francisco voted to spend $600,000 to destroy historic murals of george washington in l high school. in a local school board meeting, said resin said destroying art is a matter of human rights. >> it is a racist mural. my history shouldn't be racist, but it is. >> it's a matter of human right. it's a matter of learning in a hostile environment. >> i had to look at those murals. it did not speak to me. it was wrong. it was dehumanizing. >> i don't want another music that doesn't have to see those murals. the images are so painful they must be destroyed. ethan, thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me, tucker.

>> tucker: when did liberals decide it's okay to destroy art if politicians don't like it? >> well, i don't know what exactly is decided here. i actually wish it would be preserved in a museum or a gallery, but it wasn't. it's actually painted right on the wall itself. therefore the only solution that was decided in this case rightfully because as you just saw the upset in the face and the emotions of the students, there is a lot of signs there behind that type of implicatione every day. look, it's important to know, tucker -- >> tucker: there is no science -- the science of self-esteem is actually bogus. hold on, you are saying people don't like it so it must be destroyed. if i don't like a piece of art, can i petition my representative to destroy it as well? i mean -- >> no. >> tucker: what's the rule?

>> come on, tucker. here we have a picture that's historically accurate that showed president george washington with his slaves, with dead native americans. we have students at the school who are black americans who are native americans, mesoamerican, to see that every day when you walk into school, to be in their face, this is who you are: you are a slave, you are to be murdered because you are standing up against, well, the americans taking over your territory -- >> tucker: mesoamerican's click click mesoamerican's have no role in murals at all. that's a separate category, do not know what that has to do with any of this actually. that's not what the mural says. it was painted by, as you know, a communist back in the soviet union who was trying to highlight the downside, the other side of washington's legacy. it's trying to be historically accurate which no one would dispute that it is. but the broader question is,

it's art, it's being destroyed because the left doesn't like the message. why is? >> it is quite different from book burning and here's why because we study about george washington in our history books. it's important. there is a really important piece here that research has shown that black students before taking an exam when having to identify their ethnicity score lower on tests. this is doing that to them every single day when they walk into school. do we not want to help the black communities do better on tests? yes, we do. >> tucker: this is insane! speak of their science reasonin! >> tucker: ethan, this is one set of murals in one school in america. this is not responsible for the test gaffe. okay? it's not changing the fact you are endorsing the destruction of art because you don't like it. so this is very different from

book burning, very different from the taliban destroying buddha statues because why? do you think your liberal self would've been in favor of destroying art? >> i don't like destroying art at all. to my point which is, one, we have photographs of this -- i don't! but this has a different place. this is a piece we have pictures of. i wish they could have been moved. we learn about george washington in our history books. we aren't deleting george washington. we are removing one specific mural in one school where people were having a very strong reaction to it. again, there is evidence -- >> tucker: who cares about their reaction! speak of that imagery can suppress test scores. >> tucker: but that's completely bogus. >> it's not absurd, tucker. i will provide you the information. >> tucker: nobody believes that. >> absolutely! have you talked to any black

majority schools? >> tucker: you've got to be kidding. >> i'm not, tucker. i'm not. >> tucker: this standard, given this standard, do you think any art is safe? what would prevent anyone from walking into any museum and saying, that image is so offensive to me, it's a physical injury upon me, it must be destroyed. by the bear standards. >> that's absolutely not what i said. here in the museum that is a place where we maintain art and we maintain historical artifacts even if they are offensive. for example, i want to maintain our knowledge of what the did, for example. that doesn't mean when i walk into the schools i want it in my face to find out what happens to the jews. i think the auschwitz museum, the holocaust museum are very important. those are different circumstances. >> tucker: ethan bearman, thanks for joining us tonight. we'll have to and make it there.

>> thanks, tucker. >> tucker: while the left's push to ban plastic straws are annoying, is it killing people? is a are we making it up? it happens. also a signs saying alexandria because of cortez is climate science to we'll speak to him after the break. visionworks. see the difference.

monitor their blood glucose every day. which means they have to stop. and stick their fingers. repeatedly. today, life-changing technology from abbott makes it possible to track glucose levels. without drawing a drop of blood, again and again. the most personal technology, is technology with the power to change your life. life. to the fullest.

>> tucker: the chrissy to eliminate plastic straws in america is currently unknowing to ordinary people, but could suggest that it's also physically dangerous. jonathan hunt has more on this. jonathan? >> tucker, a tragic story of a woman who suffered terrible injuries as a jockey who became addicted to painkillers and alcohol and died in a freak

accident involving a mason jar and a metal straw. suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling while carrying a mason jar glass with a screw top lid and metal straw inserted into it but when she fell, the straw. her eye and went into her brain. the corner in the case said the straw was a danger because it was fixed in place and being metal, had no flexibility. he told the sun newspaper, "it seems the main problem here is if the lid hadn't been in place, the straw would have moved away." falling onto things is a cause not uncommon cause of death or injury. a cursory search by us tonight turned up instances of people being severely injured or killed by falling onto guns, falling onto knives, falling onto tent pegs, even in one case, falling onto a set of deer antlers. tucker? >> tucker: those are dangerous

too. jonathan hunt, thank you for that. alexandria ocasio-cortez has strong views on global warming, but they are not complicated but according to her, it's the single worst crisis in human history. >> the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. this is our world war ii. >> tucker: and ocasio-cortez's confidence is made possible, as it usually is, by complete ignorance, not knowing anything helps. washington, d.c., was battered by flash floods monday morning after the city received about 4 inches of rain in barely two hours. ocasio-cortez quickly exploited the tragedy by tweeting that the flooding was the fault of republicans from the implement in her green your deals. she was quickly rebuked by actual meteorologists. one of them tweeted this. "first a tornado and a flash flood? the congressman does not miss the opportunity

this is not climate." author of the "climate chronicles," joins us tonight. thanks for coming on. does the congresswoman have a grip on the science? >> that's almost impossible to answer given the things that she does. she has weaponized the weather. you just mentioned my book, the longest chapter in the book is on the weaponization of the weather. sometimes, tucker, i think they took that and after they burn the book, they decided let's just double down and weaponize it. every single event is being used like this and it's going to be continue to be used. i will tell you why. people don't know what happened before in the weather. if you don't know what happened before, people say you've got to stand up for something, you'll fall for anything? people will say, this is the worst thing i've ever seen. she is talking about that

particular situation in washington, d.c., she's probably aware of july 4th 1959 in northeast ohio, july 1977 with the johnstown flood in pennsylvania. this is going on across the board and it's going to continue, going into hurricane season, right? that is one of their favorite things but wait and watch what happens in the gulf the next few days. i guarantee over the weekend, there it is, climate change. >> tucker: but that is not a valid -- i mean, that's not it is scientifically valid way to understand the weather, is it? >> of course it's not. do you think these folks know what -- what's the perfect temperature of the planet quite make does anyone know? what's the perfect level of co2 since plants grow better when there is more co2. maybe that's part of the design here, there is more people donate food, prosperity is going up, life expended tea is going up come up

climate deaths are going down. i just don't understand. don't believe me. go look for yourself. i don't know what happened to curiosity today. there are a lot of honest people on the other side of the issue that i know. i see what they look at. i believe they over attribute it to co2, but there is a whole bunch of people here simply using this as an agenda driven idea and it has very little to do with climate or weather. it has things to do with political ideas. >> it does seem that way. thank you for joining us tonight. >> it is. thank you for having me. >> tucker: tammy bruce, the president of independent women's voice and the host of "get tammy bruce," you should watch, joins us tonight. there's a study out recently that shows if you wanted to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, the first thing you do is to plant trees, and a lot of trees. >> sure.

>> tucker: a possible conclusion, i thought. you hear nothing about this from democratic politicians, i noticed. could it be because that's because planting trees would not increase their political power, so they are not interested in it? >> it's one of those things. also solutions, they are again solutions to things. if you solve problems -- if you really solve the problems, what are they going to run on? what are they going to say to people? if you are going to run on the economy, you've got to run conservative values and they can't do that. they want to set up things that they are going to make sure that the general problems that are existential threats and the economic and wage divide, those things have to remain, tucker. it's because of the politics, if you people the u.s. says it is expendable, and, you know, they want their power, their funds, votes, they think we are dumb, and they found in 2016 that we are not. we are the new woke, the ones who are tired of being lied to.

>> tucker: very tired. i want to ask you in a piece that just ran in "the atlantic" at one point was a venerable magazine and now obviously a joke. but the piece declared war on air conditioning, "the new york times" published a history of ac. on twitter, a writer responded by saying air-conditioning is a sexist tool to the patriarchy. she tweeted this quote. air conditionings our unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist. people disagreed, she called them sexist. let me just say i hate air-conditioning. i'm kind of with her on that. but sexist? how is it sexist? >> you know, the patriarchy is so strong they've all colluded and made it sure that every building in america is going to be too called for women. when you've got that kind of power, i'm wondering why they are allowing women in the offices at all. right? here's the other issue. if they are that powerful -- tucker, they are making it to

gulf women in the summer but they are not doing it in the winter. wouldn't that be the best time to freeze women out of the office place. i'm very confused because i'm a simple woman and it's embarrassing, of course. we heard this, first, you will recall that since dominic cindy nixon running to be the governor of new york and she didn't win. but she brought it up that it's the most sexist thing in the world and women do dress differently than men, but there is a solution to this. first of all, it's not a plot. it's not some weird conspiracy plot that they keep accusing republicans of and conservative conservatives. it would require putting on a card again. i'm thinking that maybe they did not get cold in the winter because they are wearing heavier clothes. the sexist thing here is this argument like this young woman made from "the atlantic" it's because she gets sick and it just highlights how the left and

especially if you're immersed in identity politics, you don't think of anybody but yourself. because air-conditioning makes life worth living. charles cooke over at national review reminded us in 2003, the summer of 2003, almost 15,000 french people died because of the heat and it affects, of course, the elderly. the infirmed. and here in america, the poor, of course, the southern poor relying on air-conditioning in order to actually live. but that young woman, because -- i guess she didn't want to tell anybody to replace the filters in the air conditioning, maybe she wouldn't get sick and god forbid should we have to on occasion where a blazer so we do not get nailed by the air conditioning. it's worth thinking beyond ourselves when you are in a large office, not everyone is going to be happy. you are going to have to adapt and compromise sometimes, god forbid. but i think we can, the sexist

argument though and behavior is in this presumption that you are a child and everybody has got to listen to you and you've got to have everything exactly perfect for you. that's the sexist behavior and may be some of these young women will realize that that being independent and taking care of your environment and adapting gives you more power or more control over your environment in the long run. just a thought. >> tucker: malignant narcissism you introduced me to and i think of it every day. >> that's exactly what this is. >> tucker: tammy, great to see you tonight. >> thank you, sir. >> tucker: no person in this country has benefited more from american generosity than ilhan omar. instead of being grateful, though, she is better. she hates this country. it says a lot about our current immigration system and we'll explain how after the break. by the way, if you love me talking about on the show, you can come see what it's all about life. to get the special audience events to maryland and pennsylvania. you can find tickets to the

website, tuckercarlsoncapsoff.com. we will be right back. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

i'm so hungry. (photographers) look here!hers) ♪ candace! charlie! candace, starkist creations come in over 20 flavors-- right: chicken, salmon, or tuna like my favorite! just tear, eat... mmm-- and go! try my tuna or chicken salad creations. bravo!

♪ >> tucker: the democratic candidates for president on the road this week telling voters that the united states is an awful country. america's institutions are built on white supremacy, squeak to beto o'rourke at an event yesterday. of all the life these people to tell, there are many, this is the most absurd. in fact the united states is the kindest, most open-minded place on the country. the u.s. has done more for other people and receive less in return than any nation in history by five. americans like to help. it makes us feel good. some of our deepest satisfaction as a country comes from watching penniless immigrants arriving on our shores, buy into our values, and thrive. recall the american dream and nothing makes us prouder. it was in that spirit that a 1992, the united states welcomed 10-year-old ilhan omar and her family. omar was born in somalia, one of

the world's poorest countries, then ruled by marx's military dictatorship. when she was six, she and her parents and siblings fled a silverware and run up at a refugee camp in kenya. they spent four years until america offered the family asylum here and let them settle in minneapolis. omar's father drove a taxi then got a job at the post office working for the government. omar, meanwhile, grew up free in the world's richest country with all the bounty that implies. she became a citizen, and went to work for state university. a few years later she became a member of congress, elected by voters who were proud to see an immigrant to succeed. omar is now at the age of only 361 of the most powerful women in america. it's an amazing story, really. only in this country could it have happened. ilhan omar has an awful lot to be grateful for. but she isn't grateful, not at all. after everything america has done for omar and for her family, she hates this country more than ever. in a recent piece in

"the washington post" ," the reporter put it this way, "in omar's version, america isn't the bighearted country that saved her from a brutal war and oblique refugee camp. it wasn't a meritocracy that helped her attend college or bolted her into congress. instead, it was the country that had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a plane that has disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees, and minorities like her." if anything, that is an understatement. omar isn't disappointed in america. she's enraged by it. virtually every public statement she makes accuses america of bigotry and racism. this is an amoral country, she says. she has undisguised contempt for the united states and for its people. that should it were you not just because omar is a sitting member of congress. ilhan omar is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country. a system designed to strengthen america is instead undermining it. some of the very people we try

hardest to help have come to hate us passionately. maybe that is our fault for asking too little of our immigrants. we aren't self-confident enough to make them assimilate so they never feel fully american. or maybe the problem is deeper than that. maybe we are importing people from places who are simply antithetical to ours. who knows what the problem is but there is a problem and whatever that because this cannot continue. it's not sustainable. no country can import large numbers of people who hate it and expect to survive. the romans were the last to try that with predictable results. so be grateful for ilhan omar, annoying as she is. she's a living fire alarm, a warning to the rest of us. we better change our immigration system immediately or else. we want to interact with some good news. last night we told you about ed henry and his decision to save his sister's life by donating some of his liver. we are happy to report, thrilled to report, that the surgery has taken place. it was a success. they are both now recovering. godspeed to both of them.

he and his sister will be grateful when he is back here at fox. that is that for us tonight. we'll be back tomorrow, 8:00, the show that is the sincere and sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. have a great night. sean hannity is next. ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." breaking tonight, the investigation into the deep states abuse of power has now come full circle. finally. fox news tonight can confirm, christopher steele, the former mi6 agent, who created the dirty clinton bought and paid for russian dossier was in fact grilled by federal prosecutors in june. the interview with steele reportedly lasted over 15 hours. it was conducted by lawyers that were working for the doj's inspector general, that is michael horowitz. this is 1 of 2 reasons that the ig report is delayed. the other being key witnesses now at the last minute have finally decided to cooperate. this is going to get very interesting but make no mistake