♪ ♪ >> tucker: while them i could even come i will come to "tucker carlson tonight." at last week we said something on television to the usual chorus of hyperaggressive buyers. we would ignore all of this once you've been announced as a white supremacist, it's all another form of social control. but one case we thought might be worth pausing to rethink the original point because it's true and therefore saying it's also because america badly needs a

national conversation about it. if there is to our friend mark steyn guest hosted by 7:00 p.m. hour and did a segment on how federal authorities allowing illegal aliens to fly without i.d. something in case you haven't noticed you're not permitted to do. the following exchange took place in response to that story. we'll play the entire clips you can be certain it's not on context here it is. i'm laughing because it's 1 of 10 stories that you've covered where the government shows preference to people who show absolute contempt for our customs, or law, our system itself, and being treated better than american citizens. i know that the left and all the gatekeepers on twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement, you suggest that the democratic party's trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people more obedient burgers from a third world

that's what's happening, it's true. if this is happening in your house, in sixth grade for example without telling you your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings and gave them brand-new bikes and let them stay up later and help them with their homework and gave them twice the allowance that they gave you, you would say to your siblings i think we are being replaced by kids that are parents love more. it'd be hard to argue against it because look at the evidence. this matters on a bunch of different levels but on the most basic level it's a voting rights question. in a democracy, one person equals one vote, if you change the population you dilute the political power of the people who live there. every time they import into a new voter, i become disenfranchised as a current voter. everybody wants to make it a racial issue, white replacement, no, no, this is a voting rights question.

i have less political power because they are importing a brand-new electorate. why should i sit back and take that? the power i have is an american guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote, they are diluting it. they're not allowed to do that, why are you putting up with this? it's a political question obviously. one prediction came true either way, all the gatekeepers on twitter did become hysterical, jumping up and down fiercely trying to once again to pull the show off the air. once again, they'll fail. they get so enraged it's a riot. while the anger? if someone says something you think is wrong, is your first instinct to herd them? probably not. normal people don't respond that way. if you hear something that's incorrect you tried to correct it. then the fax is hardly the point of the exercise. the points to prevent unauthorized conversations from starting in the first place. if shut up, racist, number

questions! you heard it before. if you wonder how much longer they imagine americans are going to go along with this an entire country forced to lie about everything all the time. it can't go on forever. you can see why they're trying it. demographic changes they key to the democratic party's political ambition. say it again for emphasis because it's the secret to the entire immigration debate. demographic change is the key to the democratic party's political image. in order to win and maintain power, democrats plan to change the population of the country. if there are no longer trying to win you over with their vote income other obviously not trying to improve your life, they don't care about your vote anymore. their goal is to make you irrelevant. that's provably true. because it's true, it drives them crazy when you say it out loud. a hurt dog barks. they scream about how noting the obvious is immoral, you're racist if he dared to repeat things that they themselves proudly say.

most people go along with the uncertain standpoint, they dutifully shut up and they think they don't have a choice. no matter what they are allowed to say in public, everybody understands the truth. when you change who votes, you change who wins. that fact is nothing inherent to do with race or nationality. if it's the nature of democracy, it's always true. all across the country we have seen huge changes in election caused by demographic changes. it doesn't matter what they look like or where they're from even. of all that matters is that they have different political views. if this is every bit as true when the migrants come from brooklyn, vermont. as recently as 1992, vermont was republican, for months now at parity of white style liberalism. if that's demographic change at work. you see the same thing happening in the state of new hampshire,

massachusetts, taking the bad habits with them. montana, idaho, nevada, all similar problems. the affluent liberals who wrecked california aren't sticking around, they're running to the hideaways distorting local culture and real estate market. they will be replaced by private equity barons, yoga instructors, and by senior presidents of google. but, in most of the country immigration from other nations more than anything else that's driven political transformation and this is different from what we seen in vermont. even if they have silly political opinion, they have right to move to other states. but the leaders have no right to encourage foreigners to move to the country in order to change election results. doing that is an attack on our democracy yet for decades our leaders have done just that and they keep doing it because it

works. consider virginia, the account access across the rivers from washington, d.c., contain the largest immigration community. good for them. but they have very different politics from the people who used to live there. their votes allow democrats to seize control of the entire state and change it into something unrecognizable. governor blackface clan hoods in richmond losing his job to arlington falls true. of similar trends underway in georgia, north carolina, many other states. a mass immigration increases the power of the democratic party. period. that's the reason democrats support it. if it's only reason. if 200,000 immigrants from poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, kamala harris would not promise them health care? why? they tend to vote republican, that's the difference. democrats would deport those migraines immediately. of no more hand-wringing about how we are a nation of

immigrants. hundreds of thousands of likely republicans massing in tijuana? that qualifies as a national crisis. at a border wall by wednesday. the point of immigrations and to show compassion to refugees or improve our country, it's definitely not about racial justice, mass immigration hurts african-americans may be more than anybody else. immigrations i mean to look carl advantage, it's about power, more democratic voters mean more power for democratic politicians. 1948-92, the state of calvary avoided for exactly one democratic presidential candidate, one. alone, america's big population centers in chicago and new york, california was reliably proudly republican. for eight years, ronald reagan ran the state. california is the country got schools, best infrastructure, best economy, the best natural

environment on the planet. california is a model for the world. 1980, ronald reagan former governor became president of the united states. in retrospect, it never got better. midway through the second term break and sign something called the immigration reform control act of 1986. we didn't likely realize at the time that law made future ronald reagan impossible, the immigration reform control act brought about a amnesty and the path to citizenship for nearly 3 million foreign nationals in the u.s. illegally. next year by executive order, reagan added to those numbers. he halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal miners, the dreamers of the day. the rest of the world watched carefully as it happen. it would be migrants everywhere conclude that there was no real penalty for breaking americans law. it was a reward, reagan also signed the law that requires hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. already guaranteed free

education. so, free hospitals, preschools, amnesty if you get caught. why would not the rest of the world come? they soon did. if you're ever bored, go back and read the covers of the 1986 amnesty that was passed. everybody at the time both parties in the media assured americans that the new law will control the border, called the immigration control act after all. the opposite happened. huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately, many illegal. california transformed virtually overnight. it became a democratic state. 1988, george h.w. bush narrowly won california in the presidential election. no republican has one it sends, no republican will ever win in california and our lifetimes. how has it happen? not much debate about it. at the counties in california was the highest percentage of

republicans are not coincidentally those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa. california changed because of population change. analysis for example the 2012 presidential election showed that if you're actually from there, if you lived in the state of california 1980, you probably still voted republican. if your views had not changed. as you state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. your political power, the power to control your own life disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote. that's the whole point. if that's not democracy, that's cheating. imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start the third quarter with an extra 40 players on the field. when you consider it fair play? the democratic party did something very much like it in the state of california, they rigged to the game with more people, they packed to the electorate. as a result, americans who grew up in california lost their most

basic rights in the democracy. this is true for all native-born americans, not just republicans. los angeles is the largest latin american population outside mexico city. but in a less noticed a client has occurred african-americans. according to demographer joel, the last 30 years the proportion of black residents in los angeles has dropped by half. san francisco is just percent black 1980 at least 13%. now, you've heard a lot lately about the necessity for black political power. in california, that power is evaporating due to mass immigration. democratic leaders never mentioned this trend, but it's obvious to people who live there. one poll found that over 60% of black people in california would very much like to leave. many already have. the exodus of american-born californians began shortly after the 1986 amnesty.

it has grown to a panic rush, as you know. it can cost you five times as much to drive a u-haul out of california than to drive u-haul in. not many americans are moving to los angeles. for every californian who abandons, several others arrive. the total population of california has grown by 10 million people. that is the equivalent of an entirely new michigan and north carolina in just 30 years. that is an awful lot of people in a very short period of time. most of these new arrivals come from different places. their standard of living rises. the state however has become much poorer. in 1986, california was the richest landmass of its highs in the world. california now has more poor people they in any state and country. as of this year, the measurements available from the federal government, california has a higher property rate than mississippi. it is at the highest in the nation. how does this happen? in a healthy country, one that

prides honesty and inquiry and legitimate social science. you would be asking that question urgently. how can a place as idyllic as california where people decide to abandon their homes and flea if you cared about the united states, you would want to know the answer. you would want to make actually certain that this doesn't happen anywhere else. the democratic party is working to make certain it happens everywhere else. that is not a slur. it's not a guess. we know it because they brag about it constantly. the left becomes unhinged if you point out that american voters are being replaced by democratic party loyalists from other countries. you are actually not allowed to say that. but they are allowed to say that. they have done studies on it, written long books about it. talk about it endlessly on television. often in the ugliest racial terms. they are not ashamed at all. they don't think they have to be ashamed. in the fall of 2018, a columnist from "the new york times" wrote a piece that was literally

replaced "we can replace them." the column told you expressively, thanks to demographic change, the author noted with hearty approval. the potential is there. georgia is less than 50% non-hispanic." again, that is a "new york times" column. it is not some qanon blogger. they tell you it's a replace in on the right. no, it's not. the right is obsessed with it. no, the left is obsessed with it. in fact, it is the central idea of the modern democratic party. democratic replacement is the obsession, because it is their path to power. several years ago, future obama cabinet secretary, julian castro went on cbs and explained why texas will soon be a democratic state. >> in a couple of presidential cycles, you will be on election night. you will be announcing that we

are calling the 38 electoral votes of texas for the democratic nominee for president. it is changing. it is going to become a purple state and then a blue state because of the demographics, because of the population growth. folks from outside of texas. >> tucker: no one attacked him for saying that. folks from outside texas might be or why they had a right to control the future of people who are ready lived in texas. nobody said a word about it. it seemed normal. it was normal. it still is normal. in washington, what qualifies as shocking is any real attempt to protect democracy. he promised falsely as it turned out that he was going to deport huge numbers of foreign nationals. kamala harris' response to this was revealing. she could have argued as democrats often do argue that deportation is cruel and un-american. but she didn't say that. instead, she told the truth about it let's call it what it is."

it's an attempt to remake the demographics of our country by cracking down on immigrants. this threat is coming from the president of the united states and is deeply reprehensible and a front to our values. we will fight it. but wait a second. donald trump announced he was deporting illegal aliens. illegal aliens aren't allowed to vote in our elections. they are not even allowed to live here. how is sending them home to their own countries "an attempt to remake the demographics of our country? illegal aliens shunted even count in the demographics of our country. they are not american. kamala harris' response only makes sense if you believe that the millions of foreigners breaking our laws to live here are future democratic voters. and that is exactly what kamala harris does believe. it's shocking if you think about it. and that is why you are not allowed to think. think about what kamala harris is planning is deeply reprehensible and affront to our values. in other words, submit to our

scheme or you are immoral. if you heard prominent people talk like this and any other country, he would be confused. a nation's leadership admitting they hope to replace their own citizens? it seems grotesque. if you believed in democracy, you would work to protect the potency of every citizen's vote, obviously. you wonder if people even debate questions like this in countries that don't hate themselves, countries like japan or south korea or israel. go to the anti-definition's website sometime if you would like a glimpse of what an unvarnished conversation about a country's national interests might look like. in a short essay, they explain why israel should not allow more citizens the possible influx of palestinian refugees, would quickly become a minority within a binational state. thus, likely ending any semblance of equal

representation and protection. in this situation, the jewish population would be increasingly politically and potentially physically vulnerable. it is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the state of israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign systems and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority into what was once its own territory." now, for israel's perspective, this makes perfect sense. why would any democratic nation make its own citizens less powerful? isn't that the deepest betrayal of all? in the words, why would government subvert its own sovereign existence? good question. the president, jonathan greenblatt will join us sometime to explain and tell us whether that same principle applies to the united states. most americans believe it is. unfortunately, most americans don't have a say in the matter. most americans aren't even allowed to have a conversation. so, they watched from the sidelines as their democracy

gets murdered by people who claim to be its defenders. democracy! democracy! democracy! screams the twitter mob. even as the vote who the people who work born here is devalued. this is what it looks like when an entire native population, black-and-white, but every one of them in american's systematically disenfranchised. middle-class americans become less powerful every year. they have less economic power and thanks to mass immigration, they now have less political power. the leaders making these changes have no simply for their victims. they blame the country for its own suffering. you always hate the people you hurt. that's all true. every honest person knows that it's true. as long as we're here, we are going to keep saying it out loud. see you wake up one morning and you realize corporations are more powerful than they have ever been in american history. they seem to be in charge of our

laws. they are silencing news outlets that disagree with them or the party they support. one senator in the congress thinks it is time to change this. senator hawley unveils a new trust busting agenda after the break. ♪ ♪

howard: my mom and dad were traditional asian parents. my father would go to work before i woke up in the morning, and then he would come home too tired to play with me.

i tell my son "i love you" every single day. i love you. mom: awwwww. howard: my dad has never said that to me. not because he doesn't love me, but because culturally, it was uncomfortable for him. so, i teased him the other day and i said, "how come you never say that to me?" and he said "you're too old now." now that he's a grandfather he says i love you to my son every time he sees him. my advice to all the fathers out there, forget the material things, forget the cultural restrictions, they grow up way too fast for you to waste even a single precious minute or moment. mom: say bye bye. baby: bye bye.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: teddy roosevelt famously used in antitrust law to save capitalism, which was on its way out. they broke up monopolies because they were abusing consumers and discrediting the entire system. can he save the system by restraining it? there was almost so much abuse people can it take it so they started looking to other options. why is socialism popular? that's why. because big monopolies are discrediting market capitalism. unfortunately, corporation seem to have more political power the end they have had before. they are doing anything about it. one senator, however is. he would also authorize the federal trade commission to regulate online markets. joining us to explain exactly what this would mean and how it might help is senator josh hawley of missouri.

senator, thanks so much for coming on here what a day you chose to do this, hours after learning that the biggest company in the world is conspiring to change election laws. tell us what this would do, your plan? >> well, what would do, tucker is actually put the american people back in control of their democracy. no longer these corporations. we've got to remember what our founders knew, which is that monopolies and liberty is not compatible. no corporation should be so big that it controls the political process that can it can override voters. that is exactly what today's megacorporations who have gotten big and fat. here is what i am trying to do. first of all, i would break up the big tech companies. make them a spin-off of their various parts.s. first off, amazon should not be allowedrsi to have the dominant platform and be able to control the cloud. it would break up big corporations. no more mergers and acquisitions by the biggest companies in america. t don't allow the big banks to get bigger.

tough new penalties for corporations that violate our trust laws.he and alsoo a new ability for prosecutors to go after these trusts. a new focus for antitrust law, which is this. it ought to be about promoting competition. freedom is protected when there's competition, not when there's a monopoly.e' >> tucker: the whole reason we have antitrust laws is because when you have monopolies, everything beneath them withers and dies. you don't have a real market when you have monopolies. we are watching that now. why are you the only person who was noticing this?s, >> well, i think for a long time, conservatives have thought that the market, if left to its own devices will operate smoothly and will ensure freedom. the problem is that when you get monopoly power like this, a precious competition. the market doesn't really operate. you don't get a truly free market.

you get a market dominated by a few powerful entities. the other thing we are learning is this, when you have mask consolidation, political power follows. why are they able to blackmail georgia? why is it that they are able to threaten other states question markets because they are so powerful. they havege achieved monopoly status. this is another reason we've got to break them up. they are too politically powerful because they are too economically powerful. >> tucker: this is why they want you off the stage. [laughs] this is why they are calling you an insurrectionist. quickly, do you have a hope of getting people on your side? will anyone join you on this? >> i sure hope so. ei sure hope so, tucker, and i see on the republican side you are really seeing eyes are open to the danger of these monopolies. voters are already living it. they are being censored on social media. they areey living in fear that these banks are going to cancel them, that these big corporations are going to cancel them. i think elected officials, republican-elected officials are listening to voters, are opening their eyes, are realizing the dangers and it's time to do something about it.

it's time to protect the people's liberties. >> tucker: i hope you will come back and give us the names of those senators who stand in your way. i think it's that important. so, senator hawley, thank you. >> thank you.t. >> tucker: well, there's rioting again in minneapolis, weirdly. civil rights demonstrations at local shoe stores in the name of marxism. so crazy. meanwhile, the founder of blm has reportedly denounced it. you can tell by the number of houses she has bought recently. we will tell you after the break. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

cal: our confident forever plan is possible with a cfp® professional. a cfp® professional can help you build a complete financial plan. visit letsmakeaplan.org to find your cfp® professional. ♪♪

>> tucker: riots again in minneapolis last night. a police officer killed a black man during a traffic stop. apparently the shooting was accidental. according to the police department, the officer mistook her gun, rather she thought she was chasing him, but she shot him,m, which was awful.

horrible. it doesn't sound like racism. didn't matter. they immediately held civil rights demonstrations in local stores. >> [inaudible] >> tucker: yeah, sorry. that was actually looting a liquor store. one person is the cofounder of blm. if you are not familiar with her, you should know that she

loves karl marx. >> let's just talk about it. am i a marxist? i'm a lot of things. i do believe in marxism. it is a philosophy that i learned early on. we were taught to learn about systems that were criticizing capitalism. we can't allow for fear to dictate how we understand what is possible. you want to know a funny fact? everybody called dr. martin luther king a communist. that was the terrible word he was called forever up until he was assassinated. and now, everybody loves dr. martin luther king. ow>> tucker: [laughs] she's a marxist. you can't blame her. these people are falling for thissh stuff. she is just making her way in this world. got a big check from warner bros. actually blm raked iner $100 million in donations.

we have some idea now. propertyty records show that she purchased four high-end homes for $3.2 million just in this country. one of those homes in l.a. featuresus bamboo floors. one of the widest neighborhoodss in l.a., by the way. kind of hilarious. again, not her fault. candace owens is the host of "candace." she joins us tonight. maybe i'm being too soft. but anybody who can talk america's woke corporate structure into sending close to $100 million on the basis of that kind of gets my respect and way. >> she has my respect because she's unapologetic and her approach. she is telling you what she has. she's a marxist.pe marxist steel other money from other people and they enrich themselves. she has stolen money from other people on the pretext of aro lie that is black lives matter and

she has enriched herself and she has bought four homes. you have to appreciate the honesty. she is not hiding by any means. she is a communist through and through and she has been unbelievably unapologetic in her approach. >> tucker: alan sharpton must be looking at this and saying uni've been doing this for 40 years.n where did i go wrong? i don't have a house there. >> exactly right. it's completely ridiculous. the corporations are standing behind her, which is a credible and interesting. you point to something reallyy important. it is corporations who are pouring millions and millions of dollars into black lives matter. we raised more than $90 million. how much more, we will never know. it went to building the black movement. i don't even know what that means. $25 million goinghe to build in the black b movement.

apparently the black movement is her moving her soft, black woman moving herself into other areas of the community that she claims are oppressing black americans. she is fearful of white people. well, why doesn't she want to live amongst black people? why is she choosing to move herself into an all-white neighborhood? those are important questions. >> tucker: they are. [laughs] it's not riverside. the looting we are seeing in minneapolis was just reflexive. this police shooting does sound like it raises questions with the police officer. what is going on with the minneapolis police department? maybe they lowered their standards. maybe there aren't enough cops. libut looting in immediate response to that, why do we put up with that? >> we shouldn't put up with that but the reason we do isse becaue the democrats see an advantageul in that. right now you have a bunch of criminals who love the black lives matter organization. they love it when a black person dies and we don't have a reason peered wouldn't know what happened. they are allowed to run into the streets and grab whatever they want, whether it is from target or walmart.

what is remarkable also is that these corporations are standing behind black lives matter. they are pulling money into these corporations. i remember most notably during the george floyd riot, we didn't even care if we were writing because we stand with black lives matter. that is not a normal thing for a corporation to do that is losing money. so that means that a corporation must be doing something else. whatta is it? what are they investing in when they invest in the lie that is black lives matter? what iss the return? i think josh hawley alluded to it in the previous segment. i think you're onto something when you say that corporations seek toh destroy the country. they are willing to see it looted because they see something bigger they are gaining from theseou riots. that is control over this country. its power and its sinister and it's a sick. so put, candace owens.

>> tucker: and it difficult year for a lot of people on a personal level but for people who live alone and aren't married, it's been worse than that. very few people getting married has massive effects. why? we. had a fascinating conversation on it. a very long one on "tucker carlson tonight." we are going to show you part of it, just ahead. ♪ ♪

let's get back to talking smack with a side of mac and cheese. before we can safely come together, we need the facts on covid-19 vaccines. to get the facts, visit getvaccineanswers.org so you can make an informed decision when vaccines are availa♪le to you.

what would you give for a child you loved, to make their wish come true? to help them fight a critical illness, just imagine what you'd do. every single one of us can make the stars align. because when we come together, hope and joy will shine. ♪ ♪ every 2 minutes, a woman in the u.s. is diagnosed with breast cancer. and that's why when others look away, we lean in. we're fighting alongside patients because we know, one moment can change everything. with your help, more moments of hope are possible. join our fight. save lives.

♪ ♪ >> tucker: people are really unhappy, unhappier than they have ever been in this country. part of the reason is a lot of people are alone. they are not tied to anyone else. they are not married. they don't have kids. how did that happen? how can we fix it? it's not good. we had a very interesting conversation with professor. he is the author of "recovery and family life." you can go to foxnation.com to check it out. here's part of a conversation. >> the purpose, i think everyone would agree, of living is to serve and to enjoy, but ultimately do these things in the hope that they will make you happy. you will get some satisfaction.

our people happier, with do we know, when they don't have families or children or when they subordinate those desires to careers? >> yeah, that's a great question. there is kind of a crossing point. people who don't have children are generally happier until a ssparticular age. cand then they become unhappie. so, people who don't have children before the age of 30 end up on markers of on opinion polls, are you happy? people who are under 30 will say there happier. >> tucker: is a c father of four, i believe that. >> but than the cross at a certain age. usually in the 40s. and then for the rest of their lives.uc the people who have had children end up being happier and more fulfilled than those who haven't had children. so, if the purpose of life is to enjoy and not to really think about tomorrow, as it is for younger people, marriage doesn't suit them. but the tragedy is by the time you're ready to have children and ready to marry when you

reach the age at which that is still possible, you are not ready for it. and you haven't done it. and so, pushing those ages earlier might compromise people's short-term happiness. but it does fulfill them in the long term. >> tucker: feminism is a human liberation movement. you are describing something that sounds like corporate propaganda. >> yeah, well, there is a great relationship.ng >> tucker: [laughs] oh, there is. >> the advent of i would say the modern economy's detachment from >> nation. the way i like to put it is you couldn't have come up with a better ideology to serve the interestsmo of modern capitaliss than modern feminism. what you have done as you have increased the number of people who work by like 50%. and that depresses wages and allows you to not pay a family wage and not encourage anything like that. in fact, now you have more

consumers with more disposable income.. and they can go about their business of buying, travel income and selling. i do think that feminism complements the interests of modern neoliberal institutions. it also has a way of detaching people from a place.. because if you don't have a family, you are not really concerned about living in a particular place. therefore, you can shift jobs overseas. it doesn't really matter because your interests are disconnected to a place. >> tucker: you can find the full conversation, which is genuinely interesting. a little shocking, part of it come on "tucker carlson today." how do you get it? it's very easy. go to foxnation.com. new episodes every monday, wednesday, and friday. again, even if you can't really work your phone, as some of us can't, foxnation.com is pretty easy to navigate.

well, no one seems to be talking about it but there seems to be in actual chance there could be a war in europe soon. a certain administration in this country seems to be pushing for it. tulsi gabbard joins us after the break to assess what the heck is going on. ♪ ♪

>> tucker: we have been arguing about pronouns, and also wondering why two-by-fours cost apiece. there is a real drama unfolding in europe. tensions between ukraine and russia are the highest they've been very long time. we get some sense that there are political elements, mostly the democratic party but not exclusively, who would like to see a war in europe. what is this how concerned be about it? tulsi gabbard paid a lot of attention to this. you're happy to have her on. congressman, thanks so much for coming on.

is this t conflict moving towars war? >> it's moving in a very dangerous direction and the question for the american people is, are we willing to go to war with russia on behalf of ukraine? we need to understand that such a war would come at a cost beyond anything we can really imagine. it's not a war that is just okay, it's going to be something happening to someone else somewhere else on the other side ofs the world. no, it will directly impact me and you, everything one of your viewers, and all of our loved ones. this is a war that's not a game. it's a war in which there are no winners. you've got thousands of nuclear weapons that the united states has aimed towards russia. russia has thousands of nuclear weapons aimed toward us they can hit any town or city in america in less than 30 minutes.

an exact a cost upon everyone of us that results in excruciating death and suffering. beyond comprehension. hundreds of millions of people dying and suffering, seeing their flesh being burned from their bones. this is something that you can't really even imagine. it's a cost that we will all pay. >> tucker: why in the world will be ever contemplate going to war with russia, honestly? >> it is one that we should not do for those very reasons. you look at the impacts of what a nuclear war brings. it really brings about the end of the world as we know it and our leaders should understand this consequence will take it seriously. this is my president biden,nd instead of the tuning to escalate tensions and continuing thisde new cold war between the

united states and russia, he needs to de-escalate these tensions. take the heat out of it and actually focus on bringing in to this new cold war. if he doesn't, then it's not a question of if we go to war with russia, if this war ends up with a nuclear holocaust, it really is that a question of when and if we continue down this path thereon, it's something that could happen a lot sooner than any of us think. >> tucker: i'm just amazed by the magnitude of the stories that all of us are missing, including those of us who are paid to follow this stuff and especially this story. i appreciate how you so crisply and wisely assisted. it's terrifying. thank you.i tulsi gabbard of hawaii joining us tonight. we appreciate it. thank you. we are out of time, sadly. we'll be back tomorrow. in the meantime, today's new episode of "tucker carlson today" is available on foxnation.com. we'll be back. the show that is the sworn enemy

of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. have the best night with the ones you love. we have a great surprise for you and story. sean hannity takes over the 9:00 p.m. hour. >> sean: is it really a surprise? i'm just saying. all right, tucker, thank you. welcome to "hannity." the so-called biden blitz was in rare form. joe spent all of oh, a couple minutes into very brief semipublic events likely between several naps. we'll have a full rundown of his incredibly lazy and limited schedule. that's coming up. first we have a lot of deeply troubling news to cover surrounding the police and rising tensions in america's major cities which are now sadly poised for yet another summer of violence that likely will be completely ignored by the democrats, the mob, the media. over the weekend we sell riots. we saw widespread looting erupting in minnesota again after a 20-year-oldcr