sugar risk. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration and may worsen kidney problems. i have it within me to lower my a1c. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." if you dutifully watched joe biden sputter through his announcement, the administration's $2 trillion infrastructure plan yesterday, you may have been left with some questions. first and most obviously, is this really about infrastructure, bridges and roads, airports? things we can actually use? or is it yet another weird climate scheme/power grab/race-based redistribution plan? what exactly is this? by the way, $2 trillion sounds like a lock for anything. won't that kind of spending because hyperinflation?

if you print money like it is not worth anything, doesn't the value of the money decline? normal people have questions, but thankfully "the new york times" was on the seem to quell all doubt. "the new york times" and --t "biden's plan stresses jobs, "biden's plan stresses jobs, roads." one of "the new york times" four separate front page bill, "to trillion for once in a generation." ron klain, white house chief of staff, tweeted out the front page, "america, let's go win the future," klain wrote. let's go win the future, america. what does that future look like? this plan, whatever its merits,e will not make your commuteoo easier. only about 5% of that 2 trillion will actually go to roads and bridges, so 5% on

infrastructure, 95% on social engineering. that is what joe biden calls a once in a lifetime infrastructure bill.gi he is right about part of it, it is once-in-a-lifetime, if it passes, this generational live in a very different country. before we tell you what is in. the bill, one word about who is going to pay for. we only need one word, the word is you. taxes are going up to radically, speak with the federal reserve funds them. when federal officials want something, they print money. they've been doing this for years, and it's accelerating. there is no actual reason to raise taxes anymore for anything. joe biden wants to raise taxes to punish you, and he plans to do that. if the administration is calling for a tax increase of about $3 trillion over ten years, that

includes taxes on individual income and investments as well as corporations. this would make the first major tax hike in 28 years, but it's actually a much bigger tax hike than anything we saw in the clinton administration. in 1993, texas amounted to about half a percent of gdp. at this plan would come to reap tellme mike roughly three times that, about $300 billion a year, that's about 1.3% of gdp. woulddp have to go all the way back to 1968 to find a bigger tax increase, the big deal. any questions? [laughs] no questions allowed. joe biden doesn't want to answer questions, and he doesn't have to because it's an emergency. in emergencies, youou do what yu are told. >> president biden: what i am proposing is a one-time capital investment of roughly $2 trillion in america's futures. spread largely over eight years. put simply, these are investments we have to make. you can afford to make them -- put anotherer way, we can't affd not to. >> tucker: all of this can be

yours, america, for just $2 trillion. we can't afford not to spend $2 trillion, says joe biden, like s a used car salesman thate is at heart. joe biden will be paying a dime, he avoids taxes. joe biden avoids taxes, and 2017 and 'eating, joe biden and his wife dodged payroll taxes on more than $30 million that they got from speaking fees in book royalties. how to dictate to that question mike did you do that? you probably didn't. "wall street journal" reported that the bidens classified it as profits rather than taxable wages. we surprised? come on. corporations are going to pay for it. but they're not, corporate interests put joe biden in the white house, he designed his policy, sign up on every part of it, they will be fine. perforation down my corporations shelter, and when it cost, they pass the cost along to workers

the customers in the form of higher prices. that's not a secret, cannot tell macroeconomists know that, so it is joe biden. note this is going to hurt amazon, that's why their forts. joe biden is not interested into the details like the math, this bill is going to turn america into a t scene from the jetsons. >> president biden: imagine what we can do, what's within our reach when we modernize those highways. you and your family could travel coast to a single tax atomic tank of gas on board a high-speed train, and to connect high speed affordable and reliable internet to internet where we live. imagine knowing you are handing your children and grandchildren a country that will lead to the world and energy technology, and will need to address one of the biggest threats of our time. that's what we'll do. >> tucker: of flying cars? teleport machines? sadly not. if we are going to modernize

those highways. honestly, a lot of them could use it. what does modernizing highways mean, exactly? what are the details of that? "the washington post" gave us some ideas.gt according to the paper, an activist called me stelly has been demanding the removal, not the building, the removal of a highway in new orleans i cut through her neighborhood. she thinks the claiborne expressway is bad, it's an eyesore, and to contributes to pollution in her neighborhood. she's demanded local leaders get rid of it, they refused. people use it, now joe biden's infrastructure plan has decided that highway is an example of historic inequity, and i can be solved by billions of new spending. in other s words, it's a racist highway, so you have to pay to tear it r down. amy shelley was enthused by this, i'm floored, she said. i'm thrilled to hear president bidenn call out the claiborne expressway as a racist highway. yeah, not just racist, sexist and transphobic, too.

that highway is a jim crow dog whistle for white's pharmacy, not to mention keweenaw on insurrection. you got to tear it down. expect a lot more highways to meet that fate. people who believe highways or races are going to get tens of billions of dollars as part of this plan, with dividing calls underserved communities. the entirety of this infrastructure plan looks more like a mashup of intersectional theory from wesley an end a south african style spoils system. we saw tapes of that wouldn't joe biden send billions of dollars to african-american farmers in this country purely because of how they look. now, that's illegal, it's immoral, it's completely divisive, but in his infrastructure bill, joe bidenbi calls, pretty strongly, for sending $25 billion to historically black universities were research and development. you mayay think it's good idea, you should have to explain why, but it's not an infrastructure. he's also like to eliminate exclusionary zoning and needless barriers to producing affordable

housing. that means that your neighborhood may have to make way for multifamily dwellings. if you don't want multifamily dwellings in your neighborhood? doesn't matter, because its equity. to shut up, racist. and there's more where that came from. joe biden would like to spend $100 billion for workplace development to reduce racial inequities in job training and hiring. that doesn't sound like eliminating, it sounds like mandating it, and it is. you may be wondering, what does hiring people with certain skin colors have to do with infrastructure? sorry to keep bringing this back to the point, but the point was supposed to be infrastructure. it's not, really. democrats aren't really pretending it is anymore. they are in charge, it's a chance to take total control of the economy, and they are going to use it. because we understand, to save our democracy and to evolve into the multiracial democracy that we are, we have to take a holistic approach. so we spoke about infrastructure and alignment with the green new deal, ending our

dependence on fossil fuels within the next ten years.. we spoke about education and fully funding our public schools and canceling student debt. we spoke about repealing the hyde amendment, a federal job guarantee, we spoke about a variety of issues in alignment with the progressive priorities that the people of the country are demanding. >> tucker: this is why you don't want the theory people in charge of anything, especially the dumb theory people that just saw. appear to sleep all politicians of old would makewo the case, vote for me and i will fix the potholes. they may have stolen some of the money you sent them, but they asked the potholes, they promised that they would, and your commute got a little better. these people are not interested in fixing the potholes. it's about saving our democracy and evolving into a multiraciala democracy, as if we haven't already done that, by the way. there's also something called the green new deal, that's what thishi is. it's not simply one deranged theory adult member of congress admitting come according to the

transportation secretary pete put a judge, former mayor of south bend, former road scholar and mckinsey consultant, we need this infrastructure built to end to and hurricanes. >> in the united states, transportation is the leading contributor to climate change. contributing to a pattern of extreme weather events which takes a severe toll on her infrastructure. every dollar we spend rebuilding from a climate driven disaster as a dollar we could've spent building a morent competitive, modern, and resilient transportation system that produces significantly lower emissions. >> tucker: [laughs] so according touc climatologist pete buttigieg, we thought he was a mckinsey consultant -- no, he's a climate expert -- not even climate expert to understand the climate, he's telling us it's the roads that are causing hurricanes. we never had them before rhodes. he's going to fix that. that explains why there is $40 billion in this bill for the

federal government to buy electric vehicles. fbi's can arrest you for sedition while driving test a i. aren't those tests was powered by coal plants? insurrectionist. another $2 trillion -- $2 billion goes to tax credits for clean energy generation and storage. i wonder who owns those firms. could they be biden donors? is also a plann for billing electric vehicle charges, andnd allocation of hundred $74 billion, no one wants to buy them, government is going to make you want to buy them. $10 billion for climate conversation cord to boost climate resilience. [laughs] are they going to buy umbrellas? that would bemb a useful form of climate resilience, but they are thinking bigger than that. this is about transforming our democracy. you'll notice none of theon spending goes to our oil workers, they can learn to code. according to the people who

really run the democratic party, none of this goes far enough. it's just not enough! $2 trillion is not enough. we humiliated the keystone workers for spending $2 trillion, but we need to go farther, according to sandy court does john mcdonough cortes, we need to spend a lot more money very quickly or you are races. >> i have real concerns that $2.2 trillion isn't actually going to get a say. we are going to have to make deeper investments. we are in a devastating economic moment. a millions of people in the united states are unemployed, we have a truly crippled health care system, and a planetary crisis on our hands, andd where the wealthiest nation in history of the world. we can do $10 trillion. >> tucker: another math lecture from sandy! at $10 trillion, okay, sandy cortez. you've added a lot to our country. he built this country, didn't you? she doesn't care, none of them care about consequences of this.

what are the consequences exactly? what happens if all of this money gets into the system? could it affect your life? could it affect commodity prices? takeces, a look at the chart of commodity prices, that will give me some sense. you're looking at one. these are the increases over the past year. the government injected trillions of dollars into the economy. what happened? the cost of almost every durable good, the things you needt to live, went way up. the price of lumber -- we might need that going forward -- dumped more than 250% peer to crude oil went up 188%. sugar, 50%. copper and tin up by more than 80% each. cattle, meat,in wheat, a lot moe expensive to live here. that's fine if you are joe biden or sandy cortez. not fine if you are you. the cost to buy a home jumped by 11%. according too the u.n. price index, the price of food has reached its highest level in seven years. in other words, just by spending

a lot of money they didn't make, the people in charge ofe making it much harder for most americans to live here, that's the cost of inflation. it is a tax, it's insidious, and it's impossiblemp to control one it starts. meanwhile, in the most powerful people in the country have never been happier. at the cost of apartments in san francisco has gone way down. the dow jones is up by 50%, crypto investors are seeing huge returns. they have so much money they are making up things to buy. what else you do with money? they are investing something calledbl a nonfungible tokens, useless digital tokens. the nylon cat meme, which are seeing on your screen, just sold for $590,000 in nft formats. some of the art that was sold was the use of digital token. this is the two live grays if there ever was one, and these are the people benefiting from $2 trillion in spending. the tax increases will not offset of the spending, joe biden plans to tax what economists call savers, which don't bounce around asar much in

the economy. attacking sabers is not an effective way to curb inflation, because it's not affecting transactions. it is punitive. the party doesn't care about inflation, they don't care if it's harder for you to get gasoline or by dinner, they feeu entitled to drive your vehicle to work on the roads. >> i do think that given the preference, i and probably many others would like to see the gasoline tax raised. as you know, that has been talked about for decades, andun unfortunately, americans have become so accustomed to the low gas prices that even though i would challenge anybody toto go out and leave wherever they are right now looking at your show, to go out and ask ten people how much g they pay in federal gasoline taxes, they can't tell you. they won't be able to tell you until numbers are put out there when they say, were going to raise the taxes and ordered to pay our infrastructure costs or rebuild our infrastructure. now, all of a sudden, somebody

will start waging word. >> tucker:ea the real problem with america is, gas prices are too low. people who don't live in cds, people who drive for a living, just aren't paying enough. if that's the problem. of those ungrateful p americans don't even know it. what's going on here? trillions of dollars changing hands. this is looting. this is their supporters in minneapolis last summer, dividing people are looting the country. if they've done nothing to build america, not one thing. susan rice, barack obama, ron klain, the people making these decisions have not created a single thing. they are not creators, they are takers, and they've gotten richer from doing it. how much did susan rice make in the last four years? how to cheat make that money? when it falls apart, they will be gone. in the meantime, welcome to hyperinflation. we are joined today by someone who can assess the environmental parts of this bill, marc morano is the author of green fraud, where the green new deal is even

worse than you think it is, a book with a title that sells itself. thank you for coming on. how much of this bill is geared, not toward cleaning up the environment, which we could badly use, but toward this global warming theory that they have? how much of it is climate based? >> first ball, jim pataki was asked today, why the infrastructure built is called for only 5% of the bill going to infrastructure, roads and bridges, enter answer, this is a once-in-a-lifetime generation. the answer to your question, tucker, wee don't know the exact percentage, but we know it's going to do things like health care, equity, and all sorts of green buildings and changing all of the crime aspects, the green new deal are being implemented throughout this whole infrastructure built to bill. they are redefining the word infrastructure to mean crime activities. this is just -- this was part of their plan, because biden is also making every cabinet a climate agency from state

departments to interior to defense departments, financial institutions -- this bill is just the latest in a round of what they are doing becausef thy learned in 2009, they can't put a climate agenda straight on the american people with a vote on capitol hill. even when obama had the house and senate, they failed to get a carbon cap and trade, because democrats opposed it. they are trying to slip it in. in this stealth way, that's don michael the way they've been doing this since january. >> tucker: the two things they want, reparations and green new deal. they pulled badly with the public, so they rebranded them. not to be cynical, but no one is cynical when they put a senile guy in the white house. the code that is what they're doing, they are probably going to introduce the green new deal at some point, but this bill, when you're talking about roads -- let's look at where the progressives are, where the biden administration is on roads. we had andrew yang proposing the end, democrat candidate,

proposing an end to private car pownership. instead, they propose a fleet of roving electric cars. when it comes, we are talking about zoning, we hadal elizabeth warning to 1 proposing no more home construction and list it was zero carbon footprint. we have ucla professor saying we should abolish private homeownership because in a climate emergency, it's too damaging to the earth. what they're doing now behind the scenes where the public can see it, is the beginning of all of this. ultimately, what it's going to do as it's leading to lower economic growth, which we do it intuitively can, why would you want to do that question mike i have two chapters on why they want lower economic growth. they love the lockdowns for thir reason, they call it degrowth, plant recessions, this is that first step to transfer private equity, private finance, into more government hands. if this is a big step. >> tucker: i don't care about economic growth, i want to live a nice life, and i want them out

of my neighborhood didn't stop tell me what to do. thisy seems like it to in me. thank you so much for coming on. piers morgan was banished from television for asking a simple question. how is it that the most privileged people in our society get away with posing as the most oppressed? and for asking that, of course they crushed him and took his job away geared on monday we will speak to piers morgan for his first wide-ranging on-camera interview since he was canceledh we will have him on our new show, tucker carlson today's, as well. we will be right back with one of our favorite long-standing guests, alexon benson. he has been on the show a lot, so of course he has a hit piece on the cover of the "atlantic" magazine. as experience and joins us studio to respond. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: so, there was a time not that long ago when the most freethinking people in a society -- the people with the most questions, the deepest thirst for knowledge, the most curiosity, went into journalism because you got paid to ask questions and to challenge the t prevailing narrative. but sometime in the last ten years it has completely inverted and now the most close-minded people in society work in journalism, but not as journalists, as gatekeepers crushing and suppressing anyone who deviates from the approved script of the regime in power. so that is where we find

alex berenson. a former journalist who asked a lot of inconvenient questions, many of them on the show. it should not surprise you that "the atlantic" magazine, one of the most craven and corrupted pieces of garbage in journalism, has a new cover story out this week, in fact, i believe today, attacking alex berenson, because he read from a different script, and that can't be allowed! the piece is called "the pandemic's wrongest man." you know him pretty well. author of "unreported truths about covid-19 and lockdowns." he joins us on our set tonight to respond to this predictable, i don't even know if it is annoying, it is so dumb, but assess this hit piece on you. >> the entirely missed the point. if you want to ship to say there are pros and cons of the vaccine out in the wild and you can see they have not worked quite as well or quite as quickly as people had hoped in a place like israel, there is a bad spike of cases in january, great britain, too, but it looks like once you

get through that first period, there could be some advantages to having little large part of the population vaccinated. even though we don't know how long immunity last, and many people have severe sidem effects from this vexing, that is clear from the clinical trials and real-world data. okay, we have a real conversation about that, and wer can have a conversation about the idea that we should have restrictions on people or discourage them from travel orha discourage kids from going to school, whether or not they are vaccinated, makes no sense. but the public health establishment and the rest of the media basically don't want to have these conversations, so they are caught in this web, a story that does not make any sense.o the vaccines are perfect. they prevent 100% of serious infections and deaths, they say. yet, at the same time, you must continue to wear your mask after you are vaccinated, you must not hang out with too many people who are not vaccinated after you are vaccinated, and this is the problem. so, the problem is that when you sort of pile the lies on top of

each other, the lies and misstatements and overstatements, think start to break down and anyone with a brain can see the story you are telling does not make sense. the story i'm telling is pretty coherent, and i really do encourage anybody who wants to know where i really stand on this to get the booklet and read it for yourself, because you'll see, i'm not telling you, "oh, the vaccine plus 5g will make your brain explode," that is why they hate me. they hate me because the arguments i make come out of the clinical trial data, come out of the real world experience in israel and other countries. and come out of, you know, reasonable scientific questions that people have asked about the mrna biotechnology behind thef, pfizer and moderna vaccines, so because i am not a conspiracy theorist, they hate me more. >> tucker: it's just soo interesting, though, because you are a lone guy with a deep interest in science and a commitment to honesty. if you are wrong, you say so. you are not wedded to some worldview you are trying to protect at all costs. at the same time, you have federally employed public healto officials who have gotten a lot

of things wrong and also defending -- it's incredibly injurious and could destroy mankind, no exaggeration, and no one is even asking any questions about it! what they are attacking you because you deviate from the approved script. i just find that chilling. i do. >> i'm very fortunate. i've a lot of people around the world, actually around the world, who email me, "you should read this study, you should look at what is happening inn hungary," or "you should look at this paper that just came out of france," so i had people helping me. but yeah, i do think, look, even if i'm wrong about all of this -- i'm not wrong about all of this -- it's useful to have me, and it would be useful to have other journalists, asking hard questions. you know, last year, tucker, we talked about the wuhan institute of virology and we talked about this idea and might have leaked from a lab, "oh, that is a conspiracy theory, it's crazy" -- well, guess what, the chinese and w.h.o. actually went too far when they said this was more likely to have come from frozen food than the wuhan

institute of virology, and even the biden administration had to do something about that. so, before we decide we need to inject every 16, 17, 18, 25-year-old who basically has zero risk from this virus, okay, if you are under 25, or even 30, 40, if you are in reasonablem health, you are very low risk from this virus. before we decide we have too mandate or quasi-mandate that, maybe we can ask a few questions about what the side effects are, and if you have this already, maybe your natural unity means you do not have to get any vaccine. >> tucker: what is the answer to that question? as someone who has read "the atlantic" most of my life, it was a journal of ideas that challenged you. now you see in "the atlantic" ideas hauled blindfolded into a dark room and executed. it really is where ideas go to die, where freethinking ends. how can you have a country with science and art if the guardians of the conversation are committed to stopping conversation? >> i don't know.

i don't know. i just know i am going to keep asking. honestly, twitter has been pretty good to me. they have basically allowed me to ask and i have a couple hundred thousand people on there. you allow me on, fox allows me on. as i always say when i come on with you, i love to come on with you, i would be glad to go on msnbc, anybody else, asked me questions and i can handle myself. the people who need to hear this the most, the people who are hearing none of it. >> tucker: and you are hardly an ideologue. i still don't know what your politics are. you have corrected me a couple times live on tv. that is fine with me.. i believe in open mindedness period. alex berenson, i appreciated. >> thank you. >> tucker: thank you. those people are the worst. it is not just the and then rejecting the concept of biological sex. universities punishing professors there might be a difference between the men and women, those differences on the basis of human civilization, whatever. one professor decided to resistw it. he just joins us with aiden update, a rare victory, next.

lets us get back to spreading the word without spreading concern. before we can safely come together, we need the facts on covid-19 vaccines. visit getvaccineanswers.org so you can make an informed decision when vaccines are available to you.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: effectively eliminated from american universities. they are teaching the students the subject is subjective, whici means not real. there is no absolute. if someone identifies as a woman, that person is a woman. that person says his or her pronoun is they or xe, you've got to call them they or xe. if you would disagree or have attachment to english grammar, you are punished. that what is what happened to a professor at shawnee state university in ohio. the school reprimanded him in 2016 for referring to a student asked mr. instead of miss. they also forced him to usend made-up pronouns -- not sure how to pronounce that. he was told to avoid gendered terms like mother and father.no well, like a lot of people in this country, nicholas meriwether was bulliedvo by lunatics, but he, rarely, decided to fight back. he filed a lawsuit and just won

his case in the sixth circuit court of appeals. we are happy to have nicholas meriwether join us tonight, along with kristin waggoner, senior legal counsel. thank you both are coming on. so, first -- first, to you, professor, it's amazing that you won. i never think of people as fighting back against this. what made you decide to take them to court? >> well, basically if i had not, i would have been fired, i would have been terminated. that was one reason. it wasn't the only reason. the other was as you say, as you just said, i think we need to stand up against it, and i do think that we are losing our academic freedom. we are losing our freedom to disagree, and until people stand up to it, i think it's just going to get much, much worse much, much faster. >> tucker: kristen, tell us what the legal -- what the legal precedent that you've set in

this case is, that others can use to win. >> well, we won on both free speech and free exercise grounds, and the sixth circuit court of appeals said very clearly that the use of titles on pronouns as part of a debater that this nation is engaging in right now, and that those terms are infused with great meaning. that it is not the government's role to set that debate or weigh in on one side or the other. the court's decision referenced what would happen if the government demanded ideological purity. it used examples like the government could then force a pacifist, for example, to have to support war. it could force a civil rights icon to criticize the freedom riders, or to even force ald christian to deny the existence of god. those are examples that the sixth circuit itself recognized, and it basically said, if the government has that kind of power, it can essentially do almost anything it wants. that power is unlimited. >> tucker: the truth always --

i just can't tell you how pleased i am to hear this and how grateful i am to both of you for fighting it. thank you. i think you did us all a service. >> thank you. >> tucker: congratulations. so, donald trump has left the white house, and that means of the republican party has to figure out why it exists. what does it stand for? at least one member of congress has thought very seriously about what the republican party is today and where it ought to go. he has written a memo about it you should read. we will tell you about it after the break. ♪ ♪ you about it after the break. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, crime in los angeles, the second biggest city, has hit record levels, including organized crime, serious, but our own bill belugin reports that los angeles' soros-backed d.a. george gascon is eliminating the gang unit. they are here to explain this story, kind of shocking. bill, good to see you. >> tucker, good to see you, as well. this is the latest move our new progressive d.a. george gascon has made to really upend the criminal justice system here in los angeles. my sources in the d.a. office's hardcore games unit tell me thej were all called to a 4:00 p.m.s. meeting yesterday afternoon with the upper management, and they were essentially told that their unit is being gutted, severely downsized, a name change, apparently they were told george gascon wants to reimagine the unit, make it more community-based, and other prosecutors in the unit, very elite prosecutors, i would add, are going to get transfer notices that will be divvied up through the rest of the office, as this unit is downsized, andnd

the hardcore gang unit is one of the oldest in the office, it's one of the most elite. they prosecute the most serious and complex gang related cases here in los angeles county. we are talking mostly murders, mostly attempted murders. the most complex ones. and they are very violent. and they have 700 active casesex open right now, and this announcement was just made yesterday. so now, the people in the unit are essentially saying, what is going to happen to these cases, what is good to happen to our unit? they were apparently told that george gascon does not like the name of the unit, the hardcore gang unit. they believe he believes it is kind of offensive to the community, and the critics of this state is going to be ant. absolute disaster for public safety because we already have a huge gang problem here in los angeles, violence andso homicides are surging, listen to one prosecutor in the name meeting yesterday told me, asked for anonymity, but this is essentially what they were told during that meeting. >> the unit is going away.ed

it will be renamed. it will be reimagined. the d.a.'s serving in the hardcore gang unit will be transferred to other units. >> and the l.a. county sheriff alex villanueva saying this is going to be an absolute disaster for public safety here in los angeles. he says gang crime is already shooting through the roof and he said "this is not reform, it is beginning to look more and more like a suicide pact." it didn't end there. i was also told by folks in the narcotic unit, the major narco unit, they had a meeting at 3:00 and were told their unit is being cut in half, so to go specialize units being severely downsized here in los angeles. george gascon's office never s responded when i reached out for comment. tucker, i'll send it back to you. >> tucker: bill, thank you. a disaster in slow motion. not even in slow motion. now that the smoke from the last election is clearing andt donald trump is gone, the republic and party has to figur out what it is and what it should be.

is it going to be the g.o.p. ofa 2006, foreign wars and corporate tax cuts, the party of john boehner and liz cheney? that is what has been for a long time. or will it become, or is it already something very different from that, something new and potentially much broader? there is a memo this week that seems to answer that question conclusively. the republican party, he writes, is no longer in arm with the chamber of commerce. in fact, it is already the party of the american middle class. we know that because of they are its voters.id consider these numbers. 79% of mechanics in the last election gave to the republican, donald trump. so did 60% of small business owners and 59% of custodians, to the republican party.us when was the last time the republican party won janitors? probably 100 years, at least. the democratic party, meanwhilec has now solidified its position as the party of entrenched power.

94% of college professors gave to joe biden. so much for diversity on campus. so do 73% of bankers, and that is a remarkable change. as recently as 2012, wall street donors gave more than three times as much to the republican as they did the democrat, who is the party of wall street, for generations, but it isn't anymore. last year, joe biden took him four times as much from the finance establishment as donald trump did. congressman banks calls this a paradigm reversal, and he isru absolutely right about that. huge groups of people have changed how they vote. so how should the republican party respond to these facts? and they are facts. for starters, how about stop sucking up to the people who hate you? corporate america has gone mostly hard left, so stop doing their bidding. don't help the people who want to hurt you. and then when you get a minute, start representing your own voters. find the people who vote for you and do something for them. the issues aren't complicated. we know what they arepl interesd in.

control the border, demand fair trade deals, fight the power of big tech, stand up for small business. and as you do all this, denounce wokeness as the moral atrocityma that it is.. wokeness, banks writes, was cooked up by college professors and boosted by corporations. of course it was. that is my normal people hate it. all normal people, no matter what they look like. consider this, "hispanic and especially african-american voters are even more put off by democratic efforts to redefine sex than your average voter. hispanic and african-american voters oppose the equality act by 10 and 5 more points than the average voter does. and amazingly, 42% of hispanic fighting voters have a negative opinion of the black lives matter movement and opposition to the nuclear family and their support for defunding the police. compare that to just 6% of white bright end. get it? not everyone is for this stuff. most people aren't, and it does not break along racial lines at

all. t the memo goes on like this. it's fascinating, and you want to read it. banks ends on a hopeful note, he ends this way, "the democratic party today is mored vulnerable than it has ever been in modern history. the democrats agenda is now shaped entirely by corporate interests and radical elite cultural mores, but they still rely on many blue-collar voters." that is not sustainable. it can continue. "democrats will keep alienating working-class voters because that is what they're voters demand, and republicans should welcome those voters with open arms by fully embracinghe an agenda that is worthy of their support." amen. it is not complicated. well, the founder of the largest no-kill dog rescue in the country, and why is that not one of the best things happening in america right now, is the subject, of course, of a hit piece in "the huffington post." "the huffington post" is accusing this person of scheming with a politician they don't like. it's a bizarre story.

the founder of that dog rescue joins us next to respond. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> tucker: some of the people making this country better not worse, the big dog ranch rescue. for some reason "the huffington post" has decided to attack it. big dog ranch rescue has bad politics, following more than a million dollars to donald trump by having their events. lauree simmons is the president and we are honored to have her. why are they hassling you, your saving dogs. >> mainly because i'm having my fund-raising events at mar-a-lago which i've had for eight years and because i'm a conservative republican.

this "huffington post," i mean, they put out a total hit piece out on us that's totally false. we haven't spent $1.9 million out mar-a-lago. we spent 900,000 at trump properties over eight years for 14 events. we raised $1.4 million to save dogs in our last event. everything they said was false. lara trump nor i are funneling any money. i work for free. for 14 years, donated a lot of my own money to build this rescue. they put doubts in the minds of our donors. we have had hundreds of hate calls, nasty emails,ui and hundreds of thousands of donations canceled due to this piece. it's just not right for them to put out their political agenda against a dog rescue that saved

47,000 lives and trains dogs foo veterans. i mean, this is wrong. >> tucker: it's disgusting. because they don't like your politics. i love what you're doing i hope this helps. great to see you. ♪ ♪ >> sean: welcome to "hannity." we are witnessing what is an unprecedented effort around the country from the radical socialist democratic party to fundamentally radically transform this country. in his frail cognitively struggling state, joe biden, the realize it butot his administration is now waging what is an all-out assault on the principles that have made this country great. as we speak, the democratic party is now plotting a new court packing scheme to seize control over the judicial branch of government, a coequal branch.