>> laura: dr. oz will join us tomorrow night now i like them even more, he will make a great senator, i've known him for years. he is a solid america-first, make america great again conservative. that's why i'm supporting him, and a friend. that's all the time we have left. i have good news, let not your heart be troubled, because guess what? "the ingraham angle," laura ingraham is back, have a great night, see you tomorrow. ♪ ♪ >> laura: i'm laura ingraham and this is "the ingraham angle." the last time tulsi gabbard was on this show her commentary on the war in ukraine was labeled as offensive by youtube. she's back on tonight with her reaction and who she thinks was really behind it. but first, lawless and lame, that's the focus of tonight's "angle." >> you have people with violent crimes and you had language saying there are vile crimes.

but the new sentence them to very, very low sentences. >> senator, no one case can stand in for a judges entire record. >> why did you sentence him for half the amount? >> you're not recognizing senator. >> you don't want to answer that question? an attempt to distract from your broad support, your deep record, your outstanding intellectual and legal credentials. >> can you provide a definition for the word "woman"? >> can i provide a definition? >> you can? >> not in this context. i'm not a biologist. >> how would you determine if a plaintiff had article three standing to challenge a gender-based rule, regulation, policy, without being able to determine what a woman was? >> senator, i'm not able to answer your question. you're asking me about hypotheticals. >> no one question, either your

academic or law school credentials or your service as clerk and as federal judge. >> she has all the tickets in terms of her intelligence, education. >> i don't quite remember the basis for the dred scott opinion. >> laura: now, what americans saw in this confirmation hearing to the extent that there watching it all is a complete farce. what they saw was a supreme court nominee chosen not primarily for intellect and stellar judicial record, but at least in part for her skin color. the biden pledge to select a female african american justice was both discriminatory and demeaning. as if somehow minorities couldn't make it without joe's affirmative action. how insulting. most of the questioning by republican senators was devoted to hot button cases such as her lenient sentencing in child pornography prosecutions. and of course in an attempt to blunt the revealing moments from

judge jackson's performance under sharp questioning, democrat senators have dwelled on her personal biography, or academic credentials, and the historic nature of her appointment. yet instead of insulating and rehabilitating her, they made her nomination appear even weaker, if that's possible. academic resumes, i think they are largely irrelevant given how political they've become. i'm talking but the universities, the law schools, they've all become political. and any republican or so-called moderate who is satisfied by the judge's attempt to come off as reasonable in this instance or even as an originalist, if you can believe that, well, that senator is simply clueless or dishonest. judge jackson's views, expressed views, about the probable role of the federal judiciary, they are only credible if they end up matching up with her actual judicial record. and they do not.

a careful review of her record shows that it's elevated to the high court, justice jackson will simply be a rubber-stamp for whatever the far left demands. contrary to what she claimed in her hearings, judge jackson does not feel constrained by either the plain language of a governing statute or court precedent when she is a case. this is precisely what she did in a case called make the road -- where a panoply of -- immigration activists sued trumps department of homeland security. they asked the court to enjoin the dhs decision to expand the category of aliens who were subject to immediate removal from the u.s. in other words, no immigration hearing, no long wait. at the outset, this was a frivolous case. because the court never had the authority to review it in the first place.

you see, congress had passed a law that specifically delegated to the dhs secretary the sole and unreviewable discretion to expand categories for expedited removal. disregarding the plain language of the statute, judge jackson ruled against the trump administration and sided with the plaintiff, issuing that injunction. her decision, no surprise, was hailed by the open borders crowd because it thwarted -- to give you a sense of how radical her ruling was. two of the most well-known liberal judges. i'm talking about obama 20, joined by carter appointee -- can't believe he is still on the court -- harry edwards.

the secretary's decision is not subject to review under the administrative seizure act, standards for agency decision-making, nor is it subject to the notice and comment rule making requirements. for those reasons, we reverse the district court grant of preliminary injunction. and for those of you who think well, come on, laura, all we need to do is get a new president to stop biden's current border crisis, where he sweating his decision? well, if you think that, you're wrong. one of the main drivers of today's border crushes the biden dhs decision to summarily toss the role that the term people had put in place to expedite -- the moment those rules are reinstated with a republican president, we assume they would be, they will again be challenged by the aclu and radical immigration rights groups. and right on cue, justice

jackson will vote to enjoin those roles and ultimately to invalidate them altogether. what does that mean? millions of aliens will keep pouring across the border along with the deluge of criminals and deadly drugs. and if she feels justified in ignoring the plain language of a federal law in this case, shall feel justice justified ignoring it in any case where she wants to arrive at a certain result. in case you wondered, this is what it means to be a true judicial activist. in the end, judge jackson believes that she, not the founders who wrote the constitution, knows best. for years now democrats have been beating the drum on the suppose it dangerous to democracy that lurk everywhere. but this nomination is the epitome of a danger to democracy. one person with life tenure twisting the relevant statute or court precedent to reach whatever policy goals she

prefers. >> increasingly, many public opinion polls see the court as over politicized or out of touched. at the same time, we've seen an alarming rise in threats targeting members of our judiciary for just doing their jobs. >> i do think the court's crisis of legitimacy is the result of divisions within the court. >> laura: that's really funny. their party, starting with the hearings in 1987, they've continued to this day the politicization of the judiciary. so if anybody is to blame for politicizing it all, it's the activists who want the court to act as a super legislature against the will of the people. that's blumenthal in this case and even amy glover char, who should know better. and here, it was one runaway judge blocking the agenda of a duly elected president in order to advance an open borders agenda. and for all of you so-called

moderates in the u.s. senate, that means you come ascenders flake joe manchin, jon tester, kyrsten sinema, susan collins and lisa murkowski, voting to confirm judge jackson is the opposite of being a moderate, because the moderate position is to say that you will not vote for a nominee who believes that she has the veto power over what congress and the president have lawfully decided. think of it this way. does anyone believe that justice scalia supported flagburning? course not. but he nevertheless ruled in the 1989 texas versus johnson case that it was protected speech under the first amendment. but justice scalia in 2012 said look, if i were king, i wouldn't allow people to go about burning the american flag. however, we have a first amendment that says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed in particular to

speech critical of the government. and that was the main kind of speech that the tyrants would seek to suppress, burning the flag is a form of expression, he said. where the rubber meets the road on the will of law is where the language of the law forces you to do something you don't much want to do, you don't even like. judge jackson has found herself unworthy of the sacred trust we have put in the judiciary. in certain instances my you know, there are gray areas of the statute is ambiguous, the words are ambiguous, but such was not the case in her decision in this immigration matter. in this case, jackson viewed herself not as a judge, but as part of the resistance to stop trump. of this is why her nomination was so ardently pushed by the most far left groups out there.

remember, she swore to uphold the laws of the u.s. and yet refused to be bound by the plain language of the statute. the word soul unreviewable discretion means it was unreviewable discretion. how hard can that be to understand? not ambiguous at all. and to senators collins and senator murkowski, how can you possibly support this nomination? one has there been a nominee with such extreme positions who refused to be straightforward in her answers? >> i'm not able to comment. senator, i'm not able to answer the question. a senator, no. senator, i don't have any comment. again, it's hard for me to answer that question in the abstract. >> laura: if you vote to confirm her, you are genuflecting to the notions of the imperial judiciary. if that means when democrats get a critical mass of activists on the supreme court, it's not only goodbye to border enforcement, it's goodbye to the

second amendment, goodbye to the rights of moms and dads who raised their kids as they see fit, goodbye to the right of the unvaccinated to live freely in society and someday goodbye to the right to maybe even drive a gasoline powered car wherever and whenever you want. rushing to approve a supreme court nominee of a president with, what, an approval rating that always seems to be hitting new lows, that, my friends, is a violation of the basics sacred duty that each and every senator, himself or herself, has agreed to. that means every word of the oath that they took to protect and defend the u.s. constitution. that is an oath just as sacred as the oath that the nominees have to swear to as well. and that's "the angle." joining us now is senator tom cotton, who was part of this -- i call it a farce

because all of these have become politicized over the years. senator cotton, this point of this one case which i decided to focus on, it's an area of law, as you know, for many years, immigration law, that i think is been absolutely rasterized by activists and sadly judges. what does this tell us about her judicial philosophy, which she decided she wasn't going to address today? >> laura, the case tells us that judge jackson is a far left activist. she always has been, just because she put on a black robe ten years ago, she didn't change. as you outline, she took it immigration law that removed all jurisdiction from the federal courts, removal of -- the trump administration acted on that long she still reviewed it and she still enjoyed the regulation nationwide. her court of appeals, one of the more liberal court of appeals said that it was a blatant

disregard in plain language. goes to show that far left activists will take the steps they want to achieve the results. if there was another case that i highlighted, laura. the fentanyl kingpin, to use his own words, she sentenced him because of mandatory minimums -- shared his frustrations. came back later for a bogus covid early release -- denied that she had to, but then she just took it on her own initiative from a sentence which she never wanted to impose in the first place. that's the kind of -- >> laura: senator we actually have a part of that -- >> the last few days. >> laura: senator, just so people who didn't watch the hearing today, i want them to see what you're talking about so they understand how important this is. watch. >> before you granted this fentanyl kingpin's motion to reduce his sentence, did you contact any of the victims? >> senator, mr. young was not

released. his sentence was reduced and i did not contact the victims in this case because there were no victims. he committed a crime, a drug crime, there were no identifiable victims in his case. >> drug crime is not a victimless crime. >> laura: i mean, we had 51,000 overdoses i believe just in the past year, most of them involved some level of fentanyl overdose, isn't that right, senator, how do we call that a victimless crime is beyond me. >> in the last full year for which we have data, it's 100,000 overdoses, laura, so that's not just 100,000 victims, but hundreds of thousands of loved ones, of parents and husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, children, friends, who are being killed by the poison that is coming in across our uncontrolled southern border. judge jackson, like so many far left activists, thinks that

mandatory minimums for drug crimes are too harsh, just like she a parent i think that mandatory minimums for child pornography are harsh. she consistently sentences on the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines or even deviates downward from sentencing guidelines. that's what we've seen over the last few days examining her record she is a far left activist who always -- almost always -- finds a way with the criminals, not the victims. >> laura: senator, i just still can't believe soul unreviewable discretion. that's what the statute says in the immigration case and she refused -- just refused to apply it and said no, i can review that and totally invalidated it. unbelievable. >> it's astonishing, laura, and as you said, her court of appeals in washington, d.c., is not exactly a bastian of right-wing thought. it is one of the most liberal courts in america they have been repeatedly reversed by the supreme court for engaging in

similarly egregious decisions, but even they said that this was beyond the pale, it was one of the worst examples they had ever seen of disregarding the plain language of the statute. i don't know how you can misinterpret so unreviewable discretion. >> laura: senator, thank you. >> we face our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. >> we are here to carry out one of this committee festiva's most solemn constitutional obligations, to advise and consent on president biden's nomination. >> the senat advise and consent clause in our role is especially important these days. >> laura: but what does that mean exactly? "advice and consent," and doesn't require that senators give special deference to the president even when he or she is nominating a obvious judicial activist? joining me now is harmeet dhillon, chairwoman of the republican national lawyers association.

give us some clarity on this. article two, section two, clause two of the constitution. listening to some of the senators today, one would think that basically the president can nominate anyone he or she would like to nominate regardless of whether that nominee just would shred the constitution. >> well, thank you, laura. this really goes to the fundamental point of checks and balances and there is a role for the senate and the role is not to plead a rubber stamp. it's also not to make grandstanding boring speeches and talk about themselves, which a lot of them do in both parties. it's to give a critical eye to the nominees that are going to hold in this case life tenure on the highest court in the country, but even the court of appeals judges are subject to the scrutiny and all the federal judges, so i think where the foul really occurred here is the district -- from a district court elevation to the court of appeals last year where republican senators had a chance to really flush out these issues, they didn't, and so a lot of that evidence about the

sentencing record and judicial activism and critical race theory, we had that information already. they just chose -- lindsey graham of the other two senators approved this nominee for a very important court and now we are at the situation. that said, there have been many instances over time when the senate, even senators from the party of the president, have refused to give a hall pass of the nominees of the president, particularly in this life tenure situation. during the trump administration for example, senators refused to allow a couple of the president's district court nominees to proceed because they didn't have sufficient experience so this is the time for the senators to step forward. my opinion going into the beginning of the hearing i thought okay, this is a liberal nominee but she kind of checks all the boxes, it's probably going to be fine in terms of she's not going to say anything crazy. she had said some things that are very disturbing and what we went about her record during this hearing is also very disturbing and frankly, the answers she's given and i think

the disingenuousness that she is exhibit answering these import questions, what is a woman, what is your position on some of these important issues. today, 50 minutes of downloading pornography, why would -- should someone go to 30 or 40 years of prison but i? if you don't like the, you should not be judged on the high bench. resign for the bench and run for congress. i think the senators are in there -- it's their duty to vote according to what they believe is somebody who's fit or not fit for the highest coordination and i think this judge has shown during these hearings -- >> laura: well, here's the problem. here's the problem. people vote on personality, on life story, they don't want to be considered mean, they don't want to be written up in "the new york times," "the washington post." it's a first so you can't vote against a first. that's what this has gotten boiled down to. not all the senators, some senators take their jobs

seriously, but i keep forgetting the senators have to take an oath of office as well to defend the constitution and that's what they're supposed to be doing but they are not living up to it if they don't take this job seriously. we've got to go. >> that's what's happening. thank you. >> laura: thank you. as biden touches down in europe, he's going to reassure nato, right? 's administration's plan to extend this war is being laid bare. tulsi gabbard has cree action. plus response to what big tech did to her last appearance on the show. you won't believe it. stay there.

♪ ♪ >> laura: after being criticized by both parties for a rather weak and disorganized response to vladimir putin, the administration today trotted out its new global criminal justice ambassador. >> based on information that is currently available, the u.s. government assesses that russia's forces are committing war crimes in ukraine. we are committed to pursuing full accountability for war crimes in ukraine using all of the tools that are available to us, including criminal prosecutions. >> laura: that could very well be true, but does language like this help end the bloodshed sooner? joining me now as neil ferguson, senior fellow at the hoover

institution. it seems like this was a response to criticism that they've been feckless in their response to putin, but people are saying these horrific images of civilian targets being hit, innocent people being killed and how does this then perhaps affect putin's mind-set as this war enters its next stage? >> martha, this is not a simple matter. >> laura: of laura. >> we must always remember that a delicate balance has to be struck here. we've got to supply enough weaponry to ukraine to keep them in this fight so that they don't actually lose, and that's still not a certainty because there are still things that the russians can do after marrying paul falls to falls, they have many more missiles, i think it's

premature for people to start saying that ukrainians have won it. all you can say is that they've not lost it. we need to encourage the europeans to make tougher sanctions, because until they stop buying russia's oil, vladimir putin is getting a billion dollars a day in oil revenues, and that keeps the war going more than anything else. but at the same time, the united states needs to be pushing for an end to this war. allowing it to carry on, in my view, is extremely risky partly because of the things that putin could do if he becomes desperate, but also because i think there's a danger that the ukrainian defense begins to weaken, and my worry about the administration strategy is that it really seems to want this war to keep going. if there isn't a significant diplomatic effort to end it, we are essentially leaving that for the europeans or even the turks and the israelis and calling putin a war criminal, i do believe makes it more difficult

>> laura: basically came out and said there's no sign that russia is serious of all about these ongoing negotiations. i'm not sure what they're basing that on, i get the fact that the war continues on the pummeling continues, but i just thought that was rather odd. i mean, we all want this to end and we want to get to yes, we can agree to something. zelenskyy seems to have come around on some of the nato membership points. at least there's an indication that russia is amenable to coming up to some ultimate agreement, but it's -- to your point it just seems like the administration right off the bat says they are not serious. >> the problem is the longer a war goes on, the harder it becomes to end, that's a kind of

general historical role because the stakes get higher as the casualties mount on each side, it becomes harder to compromise. and that's part of the problem about letting wars run on for months, because months can turn into years. we don't want a syria in eastern europe and there's a real danger of that, in my view. the key here is the russians aren't ready to negotiate in earnest because they still think they can make gains in vladimir putin wants to negotiate from the strongest possible position, so one has to watch very carefully over the next couple of weeks, can the russians achieve what they are trying to achieve, which is to roll out the ukrainian defense is not make for the gains in the south along the black sea coast. i think the possibility of -- if the siege and kyiv is on hold and may even have been dropped, they are looking to make gains before they negotiate in earnest. i think that's right. >> laura: all right, thank you, great to see you

tonight. >> nothing of the biden administration has done has helped to make this situation better, has helped to de-escalate the situations. what is happening before our eyes right now is exactly what they want to see continue. why is that? because it's good for the military-industrial complex, it allows them to have this proxy war with russia. >> laura: now, that was the last time on the show where there was speculation about what motivates our elite fairless kind of seemingly dragging out the conct -- i barely tells gabbard's remarks at home because it wasn't long before big tech sensors got to work. google and youtube flagged that clip as inappropriate and offensive to some audiences. back with us now is tulsa gabbard, former congressman and former presidential candidate. why is calling out what many

have called the military-industrial complex now offensive to big tech? >> you know, laura, that was not the only example. of get to tell you, just before coming on your show today i found out that instagram, which is owned by facebook, is also suppressing my voice. it normally on average, videos are posted instagram get somewhere between 250,000, 300,000 views, tens of thousands of likes. the video that i posted last night or early this morning got about 10% of that, around 15,000 views and a couple of thousand likes and it is very clear that there during all they can to suppress my voice, suppress the message that i'm carrying out and it just points to yet another example of this larger machine that is very clearly at work that is controlling our marketplace of ideas and this machine is made up of the power elite, it's made up of these big social media tech giants, it's

made up of the politicians, the powerful politicians from both parties in washington, the military-industrial complex, people who feel directly challenged when anyone dares to question their narrative, the message that they want the american people to hear, and so while they can't silence me, they're going to do all they can as we are seeing they are doing all they can to try and make it so as few people dare to hear my voice, to hear something that asks questions that's different from that mainstream narrative. >> laura: you must not ever challenge what the elites say on pretty much any given issue now, whether it's about gender, transformation, any of these hot button issues. by the way, this new fox news poll shows that 55% of americans oppose giving ukraine military aid if it risks war with russia. 36% support military aid to ukraine even if it risks war with russia.

so i guess these big tech sensors are happy to censor the views of the majority of americans. >> that's really what's at risk here, this marketplace of ideas, our freedom of speech is fundamental to who we are as americans and those numbers are encouraging to see because i think people realize what is at stake when you've hit two nuclear powers against each other, the united states versus russia, and really what is it all for. you and i have had this conversation before, we are told by president biden that this is something that must be done, freedom isn't free, we have to pay the price but it's not joe biden or kamala harris paying the price. it's everyday americans who are struggling to make ends meet who are paying the price for the fact that this president is failing to do all that he can to bring about an end to this conflict. >> laura: the war crimes comment today -- again, very

well may be true, but you have to ask the next question, where does that take someone who they say is so unbalanced, perhaps mentally unbalanced, as vladimir putin, does that corner him? it's like what the heck, push the button? is it sent him into a complete wild crazy rage? i don't know how you game that out. i'm not an expert on that but it would seem that that doesn't get you closer to a resolution. >> it doesn't. i think it's important to be clear that putin and putin alone is responsible for his invasion, russia's invasion of ukraine and the atrocities that are occurring there and really the death and suffering of so many ukrainians that we are seeing and we are heartbroken to see every day coming through our television screens and online. we as americans need to hold our president accountable and responsible to see what he is actually doing. what is his strategy to bring about an end to this conflict,

to encourage negotiations and thus far we have not seen at all. >> laura: plenty of time to hold him accountable. this has to end. thank you. biden's supreme court pick may just have a new catchphrase. and here lori wants some movie suggestions, so we have some for her. "seen and unseen" with raymond arroyo's next. stay there.

do you take aspirin? plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. vazalore 325 liquid-filled aspirin capsule

is clinically shown in a 7 day study to cause fewer ulcers than immediate release aspirin. vazalore is designed to help protect... releasing aspirin after it leaves your stomach... where it is absorbed to help prevent another heart attack or stroke. heart protection with your stomach in mind. vazalore. the first liquid-filled aspirin capsules...amazing! we got the house! vazalore. you did! pods handles the driving. pack at your pace. store your things until you're ready. then we deliver to your new home - across town or across the country. pods, your personal moving and storage team.

>> laura: time for our cnet unseen segment where we expose the cultural stories of the day and how they affect you. we turn to raymond arroyo. you've been these hearings, these ketanji brown jackson hearings on capitol hill, what you think you might >> miss jackson, whatever her talents, laura, she doesn't seem ready for prime time. she either generally doesn't know over to mentor things are seized been coached to evade every question. but there was one phrase she used again and again. >> laura: what was that? >> i don't know.

>> laura: what was the phrase? >> i don't know. >> laura: never mind, just roll the tape. >> can an unborn child feel pain at 20 weeks in the birthing process? >> senator, i don't know. >> when does life begin? >> i don't know. >> ma'am? >> i don't know. >> the fetus can live outside the womb after about 23 weeks. is that your understanding? >> senator, i haven't studied this, so i don't know. >> windows equal protection of the laws attach to a human being? >> i actually don't know the answer to that question, i'm sorry. >> laura, my question would require a much shorter response. "what do you know, judge jackson? "she doesn't know how to define a woman, she doesn't know when human rights begin, she's got trouble. but fear not, cory booker came

to the rescue, finding his inner oprah, laura. >> i'm not letting anybody in the senate steal my joy. don't worry, my sister. don't worry. god has got you. and how do i know that? because you're here. and i know what it's taken for you to sit in that seat. >> chairman of the empathy -- >> laura: it is awards season. it is awards season after all. >> it is. >> laura: best actor nomination. we have a positively boosted update, raymond, hillary clinton reveals that she has covid, though her symptoms, thankfully, our mild, and she's feeling fine, but she'd then asked for movie recommendations for quarantine. >> i have some for her, laura. last fall, fx premier to riveting drama, it was called "impeachment, america crime story." it's even set in the white house, i think she would like it. >> you told me nothing happened,

you said it was all made up, you [bleep] promised me! piece of [bleep], how do you think i'm feeling? i'm devastated! >> would bring back fond memories. bill is still ducking and weaving whenever he comes into a room at home, or maybe she just wants to serve netflix and see what she comes across. >> hello, are you ready for an amazing adventure? >> no! no! we have to do a much better job. >> you know what hillary is really watching at home during this quarantine, don't you? >> one of the most vilified women in american history. >> she is so smart people always believe there is some deviousness. >> i provoke strong opinions. what you see is what you get. >> mirror mirror on the wall, was the most electable of all? >> laura: imagine spending

that quarantine together, raymond, you and hillary. raymond, thank you. something disturbing a sweeping the nation, depraved criminal acts being perpetrated more and more by teens. but what's causing this? a stunning report coming up and moments.

- i had an important job and it wasn't just a job, it was keeping my brothers and sisters safe. and coming back, it felt like, kind of thrown away. it's like, you're useless, you know? "we don't really have a need you now because you can't really do anything for us." that's the way i felt. if it hadn't have been for wounded warrior project, i honestly don't know if i would be here.

it was the comradery that i saw it was like, i got my family back again because we all had some sort of injury or illness that we didn't have to talk about but we all felt the connection, like, that brother and sisterhood.

♪ ♪ >> laura: we all know about america's rising crime rates, especially violent dominic violent crime in urban areas. but to do know increasing number being committed by young teens? matt finn is in los angeles to tell us more. >> over the past few days, extremely disturbing crimes committed by teens in chicago. three boys 14 and under were charged with felony -- aggravated carjacking. here in california, horrifying robbery video. his hammer system under, a chinatown camera store, three teens used a hammer trying to smash the glass cases but they are plexiglas and do not crack. a co-owner grabs a bat and starts swinging. neighboring workers rushed into. the co-owner said he got pepper spray, hit in the head with a hammer, needing ten stitches.

and in new orleans, a 73-year-old grandmother was killed after her arm was ripped off during a carjacking. video appears to show the woman innocently in her own car when a group of teens rushed and then carjacked her. neighbors and witnesses were screaming and tried to intervene. her arm got caught in the seat belt and was severed as the four teens drove her car away, dragging her for one block. the stolen car was recovered about 13 blocks away. >> i can't say this enough. when they pulled away and she was in that strap, they made the decision to murder, they should pay for it. >> new orleans police arrested four miners for that deadly carjacking. the police superintendent wants them charged as adults. laura. >> laura: matt, that is so upsetting on sony levels. thank you. >> it is. >> laura: joining me now is john macarthur, grace community church pastor. it's good to see you tonight. i immediately thought of you

because i wanted to ask you what you thought was at the heart of this, these intercity youths, this is happening across america. how did things get this bad? >> well, i think you know, laura, that humanity is capable of some horrendous crimes, whether it's killing a senior citizen or bombing hospital full of children in the ukraine, and god has built into society some restraints. the first restraint is the knowledge of god, that there is a righteous and holy judge to whom we are accountable. that is a restraint on evil. beyond that, there is the law of god written in the heart, every culture knows what is right and wrong. the universe, part of being in god's image. there is the conscience. we have a society basically that has removed god so that transcendental restraint is gone

that has flipped morality on its head, so conscience is misinformed. the next restraint is the family. destroy the family and there's no opportunity for disciplined raising of children to make them socially capable of interacting in a positive way. the family falls apart and the next barrier is the police, and by then, it's beyond them. i mean, witness the riots last summer when the police just stand there and watch. it's a sequence of things where this society, the young in the society, have smashed every divine restraint down and it overwhelms the final governmental institution, which is the police, and then you can add -- throw in how much lawlessness there is at every level, whether it's even politicians or the immorality of heroes, athletes, movie actors,

the culture is so immoral, so against the family, so against god, and you so that and you reap exactly what we get today. >> laura: pastor macarthur, i think people just wake up and i think out of this happen, but you just laid it out beautifully in all of these sad, disturbing ways that this happens over time and every institution which acts as a check on the individual is under attack or cast aside and we have the results around us. i knew you would say this so substantially and we really appreciate you joining us tonight. next i will have you on for longer. thank you. up next, nancy pelosi on joe biden. what could that be? the last bite explains next. prevents crab grass and feeds your lawn. all three,in just one bag. i like that.

scotts turf builder triple action. it's lawn season. let's get to the yard.

>> laura: . >> i said to him sometimes i'm glad they want before because we really need you to win now. [laughs] perfect. perfect for now. >> laura: perfect. >> i'm jonathan hunt live from ukraine. air raid sirens wailing in the ukrainian capital of kyiv, also rock in the city. high-rise building, fires from shelling, injuring four people according to kyiv mayor. speaking to reporters earlier today 264 civilians have been killed in