tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News April 12, 2021 5:00pm-6:00pm PDT
follow the facts on. i have been fighting for criminal justice my entire career starting in june delve, juvenile court. it is important to get the facts in. they matter. thank you so much for watching "fox news primetime." i'm lawrence jones. i will be here tomorrow at all week. tucker starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." happy monday. last week we said something on television. now pretending it is somehow highly controversial. we are going to ignore all of this. none of it is real. it's all a form of social control. honestly, who cares what they think. but in this one case, we thought it might be worth pausing to restate the original point, both because it was true. also because america badly needs
a national conversation about it. on thursday, our friend, mark steyn guests hosts the 7:00 p.m. hour on fox appeared he did a segment how they are allowing illegal aliens to fly without i.d. the following exchange took place in response to that story. we are going to play the entire clips you can be certain we are not leaving out content. here it is. >> i'm laughing because this is one of about 10 stories that i have covered where the government shows preference to people who have shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, or system itself. and they are being treated better than american citizens. now, i know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement, if you suggest that the democratic party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voter's don my now casting ballots. but they become hysterical
question. i have less political power because they are importing a brand-new electorate. why should i sit back and take that? the power that i have as an american guaranteed at birth is one man, one vote. they are diluting it. no, they are not allowed to do that. why are we putting up with this? so, it's a political question obviously. at least one prediction came true right away. all those little gatekeepers on twitter to become hysterical. they spent the last four days jumping up and down trying to pull the show off the air. it is amusing to see them keep at it. while the anger? if someone says something you think is wrong, is your first instinct to hurt them? probably not. normal people don't respond that way. if you hear something you think is incorrect, you try to correct it. but getting the facts right is hardly the point of this exercise. the point is to prevent unauthorized conversations from starting in the first place.
shut up, racists. no more questions. you've heard that before. 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 but you can see why they are trying it. demographic change is the key to the demographic's party. say that again for emphasis because it is the secret to the entire immigration debate. demographic changes the key to the democratic party's political initiative. in order to win and maintain power, democrats plan to change the population of the country. they are no longer trying to win you over with their program. they are obviously not trying to improve your life. they don't even really care about your voting. their goal is to make you irrelevant. that is provably true and because it is true, it drives them absolutely crazy when you say it out loud. they scream about how noting the obvious is immoral. you are a racist if you dare repeat things that they
themselves probably say. most people go along with this absurd standard. to shut up. they don't think they have a choice. but no matter what they are allowed to say in public, everyone understands the truth. when you change to vote, you change who wins. that fact has nothing inherently to do with race or nationality. it is the nature of democracy. it is always true. you can watch it happen. probably have. all across the country, we have seen huge changes in election outcomes caused by demographic change. new people move in and they vote differently. as a practical matter, it doesn't matter what they look like or where they are from even. all that matters is that they have deferred political views. this is every bit as true as when they come from oaxaca. they turned the state blue. as recently as 292, vermont was republican. it is not a parody of liberalism. that is lifestyle change at work here you see the same thing
happening in the state of new hampshire. they fled north and bring their bad habits with them. montana, idaho, nevada all faced similar problems. the affluent liberals who wrecked california are sticking around to see how that ends. destroying local culture and real estate as they do it. people who are born in the mountain west soon won't be able to live there. they will become a "yes," displaced by yoga instructors and senior vice president's from google. beautiful places are always in danger of being overrun by the worst people. but in most of this country's immigration from other nations. more than anything else that has driven political transformation. and this is different from what we have seen in vermont. americans have every right to move to new states if they want, even if they have differing political opinions. but our leaders have no right to encroach foreigners to move to this country in order to change election results. doing that is an attack on our democracy. yet for decades, our leaders have done just that.
they keep doing it because it works. and so the virginia, the counties across the river from washington, d.c., have now become one of the largest immigrant cities in the united states. most of these immigrants are hardworking and decent people. many of them have been very successful in business. good for them. but they also have very different politics from the people who used to live there. their votes have allowed democrats to seize control of the entire state and change it into something unrecognizable. he owes his job to immigrants. similar trends are now underway in georgia. north carolina and many other states. mass immigration increases the power of the democratic party period. that's the reason democrats support it. it's the only reason. if 200,000 immigrants from poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, kamala harris wanted promise them health care. polls aim to vote republican. democrats would deport those migrants immediately.
we are a nation of immigrants. hundreds of thousands of likely republicans into you want that would qualify for a national crisis. we have a border wall by wednesday. for democrats, the point of immigration is not to show compassion to refugees, much less to improve our country. it is definitely not about racial injustice. mass immigration hurts african-americans may be more anyone else. immigration is a means to electoral advantage. it is about power. more democratic voters mean more power for democratic politicians. that is the signature lesson of the state of california. between 1948 and 1992, the state of california voted for exactly one democratic presidential candidate, one. alone, among americo's big populations, a contrast to chicago and new york, california was reliably and proudly republican. for 8 years, ronald reagan ran the state. the country's best schools, best
infrastructure, best economy, and california was a model for the world. in 1980, ronald reagan became president of the united states. and never got any better for california. midway through his term, he signed something called the immigration reform act in 1996. but we didn't realize it at the time, that made future ronald reagan's impossible. it brought about an amnesty and a path for citizenship for nearly 3 million foreign nationals within the u.s. illegally. the next year, he added to the number. he halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal miners. the rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. would be migrants everywhere concluded there was no real penalty for breaking americo's laws. in fact, there was a reward. reagan also signed a law that required hostiles to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status.
free education to anyone who showed up without a visa. so, free hospitals, free schools, amnesty if you get caught. why wouldn't the rest of the world come? they soon did. if you are ever bored, go back and read the coverage of the 1986 amnesty bill the day it passed. everyone at the time and both parties and the media assured americans that the new law would control our border was called immigration control act after all. the opposite happened. huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately. many of them illegally. california was transformed virtually overnight. it became a democratic state. in 1988, george hwb narrowly won california in the presidential election. no republican has won that state since. no republican ever will win in california, not in our lifetimes. they are now about twice as many registered democrats in california as there are republicans. how did that happen? there's not not much debate about it. the counties in california with the highest percentage of
republicans are not coincidentally those with the lowest percentage of immigrants and vice versa. california changed because the population changed. analysis, for example, the 2012 presidential election showed that if you were actually from there, if you lived in the state of california in 1980, you probably still voted republican. your views hadn't really changed. but as your state's wealth 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. and i was the whole point. that's not democracy. it's cheating. imagine watching a football game where one team decides to start with an extra 40 players on the field. would you consider that fair play? the democratic party did something very much like that in the state of calpurnia. they rigged the game with more people. as a result, americans who grew
up in california lost their most basic right, which was the right to have their votes count. this is true for all native foreign americans, by the way, not just republicans. los angeles has the largest latin american population outside of mexico city. whites are less than 30% of the population. according to demographer, in the last 30 years, the proportion of black residents has dropped by half. the city of san francisco is now just 5% black. in 1980, it was 13%. now, you've heard a lot lately about the necessity for black political power. in california, that power is evacuating 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 cannot 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. as 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 come 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 -- you would be asking that question urgently. how can a place as idyllic as california where people decide to abandon their homes and flea customer 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. george is less than 50% non-hispanic." again, that is a "new york times" column. it is not some aanon 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 schema 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 to be with 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 boats 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.
how about saving hundreds on the new samsung galaxy s21 ultra 5g? you can do that too. all on the most reliable network? sure thing! and with fast, nationwide 5g included - at no extra cost? we've got you covered. so join the carrier rated #1 in customer satisfaction... ...and learn how much you can save at xfinitymobile.com/mysavings.
♪ ♪ >> 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 and 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, think 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. first off, amazon should not be allowed 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. don't allow the big banks to get bigger. tough new penalties for corporations that violate our trust laws. and also a new ability for a 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. >> 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? >> 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 have 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. i 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 are 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. >> tucker: well, there's writing 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. ♪ ♪
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. >> tucker: [laughs] she's a marxist. you can't blame her. these people are falling for this stuff. she is just making her way in this world.
got a big check from warner bros. actually blm raked in $100 million in donations. we have some idea now. property records show that she purchased four high end homes for $3.2 million just in this country. one of those homes in l.a. features bamboo floors. one of the widest neighborhoods in l.a., by the way. kind of polaris. 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 peered she's a marxist. marxist steel other money from other people and they enrich themselves. she has stolen money from other
people on the pretext of a 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 i've been doing this for 40 years. 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 really 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 going to build in the black 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. but 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 is because the democrats see an advantage 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. what is it? what are they investing in when they invest in the lie that is black lives matter? what is 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 to destroy the country. they are willing to see it looted because they see something bigger they are gaining from these riots. that is control over this country. its power and its sinister and it's sick. >> tucker: and of some pakistani liquor store owner is dashed off to think jeff bezos cares western mark know. so put, candace owens.
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 with it. a very long one on "tucker carlson tonight." we are going to show you part of it, just ahead. ♪ ♪
for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's golo. golo helps with insulin resistance, getting rid of sugar cravings, helps control stress and emotional eating and losing weight. go to golo.com and see how golo can change your life. that's golo.com. ♪
♪ ♪ >> 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 scott in her. 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 particular age. and then they become unhappier. so, people who don't have children before the age of 30 and up on markers of on opinion polls, are you happy customer of people who are under 30 will say there happier. >> tucker: is a 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. 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. >> tucker: [laughs] oh, there is. >> the advent of i would say the modern economy's detachment from the nation. the way i like to put it is you couldn't have come up with a better ideology to serve the interests of modern capitalists 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. while, 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 $9 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 should we 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 moving towards war? is this conflict moving towards more? >> 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 of 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, instead of the tuning to
escalate tensions and continuing this 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 end 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. 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.