Dave Portnoy defends Barstool Sports after it's accused of 'traditional masculinity'

close

Video

Tucker: What exactly is the 'existential threat' of climate change?

Democrats, activists offer doomsday climate scenarios.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," September 23, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Good evening and welcome to "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Barstool Sports is taking the countercultural position that men ought to be allowed to be masculine if they want to, and that people ought to be allowed to enjoy sports rather than sitting back and absorbing a lot of political propaganda as they watch. That's their position. For taking that position, the left would like Barstool Sports canceled. The head of Barstool Sports, Dave Portnoy joins us in just a few minutes to explain how he is responding.

But first, we hope you had a happy weekend. If you did hold on to those memories. It might be the last relaxing moment you'll have for a while.

We're about to wreck your peace of mind.

It turns out that all is not well on this blue planet of ours, far from it.

Indeed, it appears that the Earth itself is facing what we're going to call tonight, an existential threat from climate change.

Now, what does the term existential threat actually mean, you ask?

Honestly, we don't know. But it sounds absolutely terrifying. So watch carefully.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The climate change is real. It is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet.

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If NATO is about the common defense, the biggest existential threat is climate.

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is climate change. It really is the existential threat.

JULIAN CASTRO (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We're going to have to address the most existential threat to our nation and the world, climate change.

BETO O'ROURKE (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: On climate change, the greatest existential threat that we face.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That we are facing a climate crisis, it represents an existential threat to who we are as human beings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: A threat to who we are as humans. Well, there are a number of questions here. Let's see if we can unpack them. The first one, is climate change real? And that's an easy one. Of course, it's real.

Climate always changes.

If you're in the United States, for example, the ground that you're standing on right now was not so long ago really covered with glacial ice a mile thick. Now, it's not covered in glacial ice a mile thick. So what happened?

What happened is climate change. That's been happening since the Earth cooled. Is human activity accelerating climate change? Can we reverse or slow climate change? Despite what they tell you, no one really knows.

But the real question here has nothing to do with climate science. It has to do with people who pretend they understand climate science. Do those people actually believe what they're saying?

Well, let's see. Here was Kamala Harris recently talking about how red meat contributes to the absolutely existential threat of climate change.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: As a nation, we have actually have to have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating, because we have a problem in America.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: But would you support changing the Dietary Guidelines?

HARRIS: Yes.

BURNETT: You know, the food pyramid, what people are eating?

HARRIS: Yes.

BURNETT: So reduce red meat specifically.

HARRIS: Yes, I would.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Got that. Kamala Harris is a good person, and because she is a good person, a much better person than you are, she cares about the existential threat of climate change so much that she is willing to forgo red meat. That's what she told CNN viewers recently.

But when she is the pork producing State of Iowa, though, it's a very different story. Just this past weekend, Harris attended the Annual Polk County Democratic Party Steak Fry. She took her turn working the grill posing for the cameras.

And by the way, so did all of the other Democratic candidates. Liz Warren was there, Beto O'Rourke, even Cory Booker who says he is a vegan. Organizers grilled more than 10,000 steaks over the weekend. Tape of the event shows plumes of ozone destroying meat smoke rising heavenward. The candidates standing amidst all of this seemed wholly unconcerned.

Ha. Are you surprised? Don't be surprised. This is what climate activism has become, a performative stunt mixed with hypocrisy. These are the people who promised to crack down on your cheeseburgers while flying across the country, private. No one says a word about it.

Last week, millions of concerned progressives took part in the so-called climate strike. In their wake, they left mountains of litter.

Just today in Washington, climate activists demanded change by blocking roads, causing gridlock, and throwing confetti on the ground.

(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)

CARLSON: Well, if you're under 40, you might be surprised to learn that people didn't use to express concern about the environment by littering.

That used to seem weird, but then the point of environmentalism used to be about nature and preserving it and protecting it.

The point now is very different. The point now is political power. You gin up a crisis and you demand the population submits to your will, or else. And as you do that, of course, you don't need to fight fair or acknowledge democracy or you make a rational case for your position, you do whatever it takes. You'll even use children, if it helps.

Just today, for example, a 16-year-old Swedish girl addressed the United Nations at the behest of climate activists, here's part of what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRETA THUNBERG, TEEN CLIMATE ACTIVIST: This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school, on the other side of the ocean.

Yet, you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you? You have stolen my dreams, my childhood with your empty words.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is the money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you?

If you really understood the situation, and still kept on failing to act, t hen you would be evil, and that I refuse to believe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You stole my childhood? Do what I want you to do, or else you're evil? How do you respond to statements like that? The truth is you can't respond. And of course, that's the point.

When you use children to demand power, they become a kind of human shield.

You can hide safely behind them, no one can criticize you. But who would do something that unscrupulous? Anyone who would do that is someone who would literally do anything to seize control. And that's exactly what they're doing.

Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, author of the book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," and we're happy to have him tonight here. Bjorn, thanks very much for coming on.

BJORN LOMBORG, PRESIDENT, COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS CENTER: Good to be here.

CARLSON: So when you hear, as you just did the testimony, before the U.N., this was -- these were the words of a child, but they could have been the words of many adults in this movement. If you disagree with me, you are evil. Is that a scientific debate we're listening to?

LOMBORG: Well, of course, it's not. But in reality, I think we should answer them on their questions and on their claims. Look, they're telling us, this is an existential crisis and that this is potentially the end of the world.

But look, the U.N. Climate Panel actually tells us, if we do nothing about global warming in 50 years, the impact will be equal to reduction in the average income of a person on Planet Earth by about 0.2 to two percent of our income. That's a problem. That's not the end of the world.

So let's get our priorities right. This is a problem. And what we of course, need to do is to tackle it smartly. But look, if we end up spending five or 10, or 16 percent of GDP to avoid this tiny problem, then we're really screwed.

CARLSON: Is there any science -- is there a scientific consensus that we know exactly how to arrest climate change? That we know the precise formula that we are actually in control of the climate?

LOMBORG: Well, look, I think there's a tendency for us to tell everything that you see is due to climate change and that's obviously wrong. But there are some very clear indicators that were causing higher temperatures, that were causing more heat waves, that we're causing sea level rise, and to a certain extent, it actually makes sense to cut back some of the easy emissions to cut should we actually do.

But we should also recognize -- and that's what Greta, that Swedish girl that you showed before, she doesn't have -- she probably haven't heard is that fossil fuels and the availability of easily accessible energy makes people much better off. It has lifted over the last 25 years more than a billion people out of poverty.

So it's not just evil, it's not just a problem. It's also fantastic good that we are actually able to give a lot of people a lot of access to energy. That's how we can talk together just now. But of course, it's also what cools us, heats us, gives us communication, transport, food, and everything else that actually is worth having in our civilization.

CARLSON: So why -- I mean, you make an obvious point that there's of course, another side to this, there always is, why do we never hear that?

I mean, someone committed to science would, of course, would raise up all the known facts about whatever issue it is, but they don't. Why do you think?

LOMBORG: I think this is because it's become so politicized. And also, you know, if you raise the point of saying, look, like all of the things, there's both sides. There's a problem with global warming, but cutting emissions also have cost.

We need to find a place where we minimize both of these that is we maximize the benefits and minimize the cost of trying to do that. We don't have that conversation.

All the Democrats want and most politicians around the world just simply wants to say, we're going to promise to do everything. But of course, remember, they don't actually do that because doing that would be fantastically expensive.

New Zealand, they've just promised to go carbon neutral in 2050. They actually had the audacity to ask their official economic institute, how much is this going to cost us? And the answer was 16 percent of their GDP.

That is more than the entire government spending right now in New Zealand of everything they do. Of course, they're never going to actually do that, because they'll have a revolt before that.

CARLSON: No, of course not. Yes, it's just striking that every political solution I'm aware of would increase the power of the politician suggesting it, which is a tip off, this is not about science, and it's a power grab.

And it's terrifying in my view.

Bjorn, and thanks for your measured assessment. Appreciate it.

LOMBORG: Thank you.

CARLSON: Pretty obvious, the left stop caring about the environment a long time ago, that's why their cities are filthy. But the evidence that proves it is that everything, all of a sudden is an environmental issue.

At MSNBC this weekend, Al Sharpton explained that actually climate change has become a Civil Rights issue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL SHARPTON, MSNBC HOST: I'm even prouder to say these young people of color are connecting the dots between climate change and its effects on their communities, their futures.

When the young people went out there yesterday, it made me so proud. I was in Kansas City when I heard in several cities, some of the people from National Action Network said this is a Civil Rights issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Got that? Global warming isn't really about the environment.

It's really about racism. More specifically, it's about how you are a racist if you don't agree with our solution to the supposed environmental problem.

If you don't want to surrender the entire economy over to people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other dumb people, give the free green card to every person from a tropical latitude, of course, you're a racist.

Environmental racism.

Chadwick Moore is a New York based journalist. He has been watching all of this with jaw agape, and he joins us tonight. Chadwick Moore, what is environmental racism exactly?

CHADWICK MOORE, JOURNALIST: Environmental racism is a way for the Democratic Party to get a group of people on board who really ultimately do not care about the climate change of these issues. You don't have urban black communities, urban Hispanic communities who are bothered about cow farts.

But I think you've nailed it when you said that these protests are not about cleaning up the environment. They're not about making the world a better place. They are about statism. These are basically rallies advocating for advancing state power.

These people believe that the United States government, the same entity that runs your D.M.V., or your Post Office is going to legislate the salvation of mankind. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party can't even be bothered to clean up mountains of festering effluvia in the cities that they run with the one party control.

And you know, for people who actually do care about the environment, they would be advised to think twice before they empower a party so strongly.

CARLSON: Exactly.

MOORE: Just look at China, China is a one-party rule and they are the world's biggest polluters, by far.

CARLSON: So I was -- we haven't had time to do this, but I'm pledging now we're going to do this, spend a day with a camera at Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez's congressional district. Is it a green, thriving, clean place?

No, it's a filthy place.

MOORE: Yes.

CARLSON: So if you preside over that, how dare you lecture me about the environment?

MOORE: Exactly. And look at the hypocrisies, and you know, we can't even necessarily call it hypocrisy, you know, because President Obama may have spent $15 million on a seaside mansion that apparently every burger you eat means it's closer to being engulfed by the Atlantic Ocean.

All of the biggest names in this group, they jet around the country on private airplanes. They are now having a meat cook-off in Iowa to, you know, try to get the message out to those witless heathen plebs in the hinterlands, you just don't know what's good for them, but they know what's good for you. It's more state control. It's more state power. It's more legislation.

Now, look at also what happened this weekend, where supposedly millions of people were gathering to these protests. Well, no one planted a single tree, did they? They certainly use plenty of dead trees for their protest signs, for their sticks.

But in downtown Los Angeles, you had a group of conservatives and Trump supporters who spent a Sunday afternoon dressed in hazmat suits volunteering to clean up a mountain of waste. They reportedly took away 50 tons of garbage. Where's the media on that? That's actual environmentalism. That's actually helping out your neighbors and making your community and your world a better place.

CARLSON: If they were planting trees, I'd probably send them money.

Because I support them. Most people do.

MOORE: I would, too. Yes. I agree.

CARLSON: Chadwick Moore, great to see you tonight. Thank you.

MOORE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Congressional Democrats thought they'd found a new excuse to push for impeachment, this time over President Trump's conversation with the President of Ukraine.

Now that scandal could it turns out, whip around like a boomerang and engulf their own presidential frontrunner, Joe Biden. Catherine Herridge is of course our Chief Intelligence Correspondent here at Fox News. She joins us to explain this story -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Tucker, and good evening. A person familiar with the situation tells Fox News that the whistleblower did not have quote, "first-hand knowledge" of the conversation between President Trump and the Ukrainian President, adding the complaint makes clear the whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the July phone call.

That matters because typically multiple U.S. officials are on these calls with the President indicating the whistleblower was not one of them. It's unclear how the individual obtained a transcript, heard about the call or learned about it another way.

After consulting with the Justice Department, the top lawyer for the acting Director of National Intelligence Joe Maguire said the complaint was not standard, did not meet the statutory definition of urgent and congressional notification was not required, quote, "The information within the present complaint, however, is different in kind from that involved in any past cases. Because the complaint involves confidential and potentially privileged communications by persons outside the intelligence community, the D.N.I. lacks unilateral authority to transmit such materials."

Speaking to reporters at the U.N. today, President Trump went on the offensive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Did you tell the Ukrainian leader that they would have the aid only if they investigated Joe Biden and his family?

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I didn't. No, I did. I didn't do it.

QUESTION: Did you not --

TRUMP: But Joe Biden said it about his son. Joe Biden was very dishonest what he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: On the whistleblower lacking direct knowledge of the call, a separate source told Fox News that weakens the complaint, but does not necessarily undercut all allegations. Democrats want Maguire's testimony on Thursday -- Tucker.

CARLSON: Catherine Herridge, quite a story. Thanks for that.

HERRIDGE: You're welcome.

CARLSON: Well, the Ukraine story appears to be falling apart, at least at the edges. But of course, the same people who jumped to wild and unfounded conclusions over Russia are doing the same thing here.

Some of them have gone even farther. For example, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, a Republican turned libertarian who is challenging the President in the 2020 primaries is calling Trump a traitor who deserves to be executed. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL WELD (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Talk about pressuring a foreign country to interfere with and control a U.S. election. It couldn't be clearer, and that's not just undermining democratic institutions. That is treason. It's treason pure and simple. And the penalty for treason under the U.S. Code is death. That's the only penalty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Death. Charlie Hurt is Opinion Editor over at "The Washington Times" and author of the fantastic book, "Still Winning: Why America Went All-In On Donald Trump and Why We Must do it Again," he joins us tonight.

Treason, Charlie, death is the penalty for treason.

CHARLIE HURT, OPINION EDITOR, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": You know, you can't make it up. But I mean, if you think about it, you know, for the past three years, we've been hearing about this Russia collusion, Russia collusion, and Trump did this and Trump rigged the election and all this kind of stuff. And it turns out, of course, Trump didn't do any of that.

But the actually the Democrats did, and Hillary Clinton did.

There comes a point where, you know, their own voters, Democrats own voters. They're starting to realize they're being lied to . And I swear, I think Democrats are getting together right now. And they're saying, okay, guys, we've got to come up with another lie, and it has to be even more fantastical and more ridiculous than the last one, just so that we can stop talking about the fact that we've been lying to our people for the past three years.

So they come up with this Ukrainian thing about Trump strong-arming the Ukrainian government for some favors or something. And then it turns out, what? Oh, it turns out, no, no, he didn't do it. Joe Biden did it. And it's kind of funny.

I think that when they did that, they were thinking that they had this gossip witness, this hearsay witness, who didn't even -- wasn't even privy to any of the conversation, just something he heard like at the lunch table, and he went to the IG and reported all of it.

And I think that what they were thinking is that the IG would -- he would take this information, handle it the way he should handle it, send the guy back to his cubicle and tell him to shut up. And then of course, never tell Congress about it. Then it would leak, and then all anybody would know is that the Intelligence Community is investigating this improper phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian leader. And that would sound so terrible.

But what happens? Trump hears about it and he lays it all out there. He completely calls their bluff, and as you said, it turns into a boomerang that they throw and it hits them in the back of the head. They become the party of projection. And that moment when a patient begins projecting everything on people around them, that's when they're more -- that's when they're starting to lose their last marble.

CARLSON: Well, that is definitely the case and on the most basic level, I mean, you often hear Trump described as deranged, and I'll consider, he is certainly eccentric. But deranged?

HURT: Unusual.

CARLSON: But I mean, here you have Bill Weld calling for the guy's execution. I mean, there's something about Trump that is like a bug light for wackos, it does seem that way.

HURT: It really is. And no, it's absolutely astonishing. And it's like the stuff with race, you know, they accuse Trump of being racist all the time, and my goodness, I look around and I'm like, I'm sorry, who's obsessed with race? All of these people that are accusing Trump of being a racist? They're the ones who are obsessed with race, it's a really psychological break --

CARLSON: Who is attacking other people for their skin color? Is it Trump?

No.

HURT: Right. Exactly.

CARLSON: So it's all so bizarre. So quickly, will you assess just on a scale of zero to 10, the potential importance of the Biden-Ukraine story.

HURT: I mean, I think there are a lot of very serious questions about all of it. It's very strange. You know, I mean, and they're his own words.

That's the other thing. But then the real tell for me is the way all these so-called mainstream media outlets are trying to pooh-pooh the story and say, oh, we just don't know what's going on here. No, move right along.

There's nothing to see here.

CARLSON: We just don't know. Okay, unbelievable. Charlie Hurt. Great to see you tonight. Thank you.

HURT: Great to see you. Thanks.

CARLSON: Dave Portnoy has built a career and a great website out of upsetting the easily offended. Now, he is under attack for supporting traditional sports and the men who watch traditional sports. Dave Portnoy joins us after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: One of the most remarkable and troubling moments in the years- long Russia saga occurred you may remember when the former Deputy FBI Director Andy McCabe claimed that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire to spy on the President. Now at the time, Rosenstein denied it.

Today, though Judicial Watch announced it had obtained a two-page memo from May of 2017, in which McCabe records Rosenstein making that offer.

According to the memo, Rosenstein thought he could sneak a wire in, because he was not searched when visiting the White House.

Matthew Whitaker was acting Attorney General under President Trump, and he joins us now. Mr. Whitaker, thanks very much for coming on. What do you make of this report?

MATTHEW WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, the memo in and of itself is extraordinary, because it captures a moment in time between the firing of Jim Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel and it and it really, to some extent, lays out the entire conversations that Andy McCabe as Acting Deputy -- acting F.B.I. Director had with the Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and others.

And I just think it's extraordinary that they were having a discussion, whether or not it was a joke, as I've heard, Rosenstein allege of wearing a wire into the White House into the Oval Office and recording the President.

It's just -- it is -- I can't imagine under what circumstance that conversation would have come up and would have would been had between those two people.

CARLSON: So I mean, you've worked at this level of government for a long time, assess the likelihood that it was quote, "a joke."

WHITAKER: Well, so at the time, I was the Chief of Staff when Rosenstein issued that extraordinary statement, and then another statement on top of that, when the first one wasn't received well, and the story was covered by many and it was obviously the only explanation that he could have stayed in that role if it had been a serious consideration of wearing a wire in the Oval Office. And obviously, the President couldn't have the trust and confidence in Rosenstein, so he had to explain it as being a joke and saying that as a facetious matter.

I don't know, I know there were others in that same meeting that also took copious notes. I would expect that since Tom Fitton and his group do such a good job that we will see those contemporaneous notes as well, because I think we're far from over. But the prosecutor in me wants to corroborate the story.

And Andy McCabe, at the time, had a lot of reasons to write down historically inaccurate accounts, because he was about -- he had just put the president into this investigation as a target.

CARLSON: So I guess the obvious question is, do you think and you know him, Rod Rosenstein is capable of that?

WHITAKER: You know, I worked side by side with Rod as Deputy Attorney General, when I was acting Attorney General. I also worked with when I was Chief of Staff. I would be surprised if he had honestly said that he would wear a wire.

But at the same time, if you read that memo, it's very clear that Andy McCabe didn't think rod was joking, and I would like to see what others in the room thought because I was not in the room at the time. And I think it would be -- it is something that I just think is so extraordinary to even be talking about wearing a wire whether you're joking or not, that I think you need a few more witnesses to that conversation to actually know whether Rod was joking or not. But it's just extraordinary.

CARLSON: I think so, too. I think so, too. Matthew Whittaker thanks so much for that.

WHITAKER: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Like just about everything else in the world, sports is being consumed by woke ideology. Athletes protest the anthem, ESPN preaches social justice. Biological males annihilate records in girl sports.

Barstool Sports, meanwhile, is just a sports site with a sense of humor.

That's the most offensive part to many, they are funny and for that they come under constant attack.

Most recently, an NBC News piece fault the website for being, we're quoting now, "a basket of traditional masculinity."

Dave Portnoy founded Barstool Sports. He joins us tonight. So Dave, NBC has gone after you for being masculine.

DAVE PORTNOY, FOUNDER, BARSTOOL SPORTS: Yes.

CARLSON: What's your response?

PORTNOY: Well, not only masculine, for liking sports. They have a problem with sports literally, like direct quote, there's so many so many head scratchers in this article, I don't even know where to start. But that's some of them. They say were overwhelmingly conservative. Not really true.

Were apolitical, I've told you that.

But it literally says, they are a bastion of conservative ideology, because they watch sports. Guess what? We like sports. We're not apologizing for it. Guess what? Women like sports, too. It's almost like saying -- making the NFL like, well, the NFL must be conservative because guys like football. It makes no sense. None. Zero.

CARLSON: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. And by the way, I've said this before, I would be shocked if, you know, there are a lot of right wingers on your staff. You're just doing what you've always done. But all of a sudden, the moment has changed so much. They're calling you political.

So the piece contains -- this is my favorite part. It contains a quote from the following. Lisa Nakamura, who is described as a Professor at Ann Arbor, quote, "...who studies the intersection of digital media race, gender and sexuality."

PORTNOY: And you know what, that's my school. That's my school. That hurts. I'm a Michigan guy. We're going downhill every week, we get killed by with Wisconsin and we are getting embarrassed by this lady. It's disgusting.

It is actually this one of the more serious like threats. You look at some of these articles. They are all professors at all of these schools. It's like, what are you teaching these kids?

And by the way, Tucker, we reach out to these people, hey, do you have any interest in defending anything you say? None of them. Ghost. They don't call us. They don't talk to us. They just make up stuff.

CARLSON: They're cowards. They won't come on this show, either. So have you ever had anybody respond and say, yes, I'd like to defend the proposition that it's wrong for a sports site to cover sports or they just ignore you?

PORTNOY: No, they say no and how are you going to defend it? A lot of this article says, we're going back in time, like, as the #MeToo Movement and women are getting more power in different places, we're rejecting that notion.

Our CEO is a female, by the way, which in its own right is insulting to have to bring it up. She is the CEO, because she's brilliant. I didn't hire her because she is female. She's awesome, and the results speak for themselves.

But what are you going to do? And our CMO is a female. Our CFO is a female. You look around, like, what are you talking about? You're just making stuff up. That's why they don't answer it.

NBC, hey, I've offered to go on that show. You know what they do? They cancel because they know they have no answers. Listen, everyone's like, you only go on Fox. You only do Tucker.

Tucker, you're the only one who lets us speak. I'll speak to anybody, anytime, anyplace. But if they're afraid to have these questions asked, what am I supposed to do? You let us get our story out.

CARLSON: I worked there for four years, at NBC, and so I know how many pigs work there for real. But I wonder, given their deep commitment to feminism, like what percentage of the profits from the Olympics do you think they're giving to women's organizations at NBC?

PORTNOY: All of that -- I don't know the answer to that. I know this. I know they killed the Harvey Weinstein story. I know they've had their own, you know --

CARLSON: Exactly.

PORTNOY: We've got none.

CARLSON: Exactly.

PORTNOY: Hey, look in the mirror, just look in the mirror, NBC, and I'm not -- either way I'll gladly go on your show.

CARLSON: Exactly.

PORTNOY: You know, you don't have -- when I present you with facts, you're going to turtle. You're going to roll over. They just make stuff up. And then if you can't dispute it or you won't debate it, what are you supposed to do?

And by the way they may have actually -- if they think it's a problem to watch sports that means you're conservative. Guess what? Conservatives have the presidency for the rest of time because people like sports.

CARLSON: So Andy lack and Noah Oppenheim over at NBC, as you just pointed out, killed the Harvey Weinstein story, and now accuse you of sexism. I wonder when either one of those ever do an interview with you?

PORTNOY: You think? Do you think anybody -- again, the facts are so heavily weighted on our side. It makes no -- you read that article. There were sentences in that article. I read them a hundred times. I think I'm a fairly smart person. I still didn't know what they were driving at.

Like the Dean of Communication School at Penn State, you know, if you listen to what she said, I would never let my kid in her class. What world is she in saying sports-centric, going back in time, it is insanity. And again, I am happy to debate it. I will go to your class, Marie Hardin. I will let you have the moderator. I'll let you put your people in and I'll put you in a mental pretzel because you have no facts.

CARLSON: Don't send your kids to college. That really is the lesson. I don't want to send my fourth. I mean that, completely. Dave, great to see you tonight and God bless.

PORTNOY: Thank you. Thank you.

CARLSON: Well, Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world, but being number one isn't quite enough so now Whole Foods is cutting healthcare for bunch of its employees. Just again -- the world's richest man is cutting healthcare benefits for his employees. By the way, he is a screaming liberal. Ha? How does that work? We will tell you, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(VIDEO CLIP OF "HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS" MOVIE PLAYS.)

CARLSON: Even after his divorce Jeff Bezos remains the richest man on Planet Earth. He has got a net worth of more than $100 billion. How rich is Jeff Bezos? Well, as a factual matter, he could give $100,000.00 to every single one of his employees, all 647,000 of them, and still have almost $50 billion leftover.

And yet, with all that wealth and power, you might hope the press might be skeptical of Jeff Bezos. That's the point of having a free press, right?

To afflict the comfortable? No. To suck up to the powerful, which they do assiduously. They love Jeff Bezos.

Over at MSNBC, the morning anchor called him Bezos Bear.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a source close to Bezos told me last night, do not poke this Bezos Bear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: He is a bear, Bezos Bear. You know how it is. Bezos Bear has a lot, but he only wants more. He's a greedy Little Bear. So this week, Whole Foods, which Bezos owns just like "The Washington Post" announced a change to its Employee Benefit Policy.

Previously, Whole Foods workers could receive health benefits if they worked at least 20 hours a week. Now, the cutoff is 30 hours a week. As a result, and this is not an accident, it's the whole point, almost 2,000 Whole Foods employees will lose healthcare coverage. Who is going to take up the slack? Well, of course, you will as a taxpayer.

In a statement, Whole Foods noted that the move would make the company, quote, "more often efficient," end quote. Better meet the needs of our business. Those needs, of course, are making Jeff Bezos another few dollars, money he doesn't need.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Chick-Fil-A opened its first outlet in Canada. A mob of progressive activists was there to protest because of its social policies or the opinions of its owners.

You probably won't see any protesters at Whole Foods anytime soon. The left doesn't care about workers at all. It cares about being woke. Maybe some workers will still have healthcare if the left cared.

Ethan Bearman is a California radio host, he joins us tonight. So Ethan, where are the protests? And I noticed that the left sucks up to Jeff Bezos as it does to people in power, generally. But you'd think somewhere there would be at least one honest progressive left who would say, hey, Jeff Bezos, why won't you pay for the healthcare for your employees?

ETHAN BEARMAN, CALIFORNIA RADIO HOST: Well, you're speaking to one of them who did speak up, I'm not afraid to poke the Bezos Bear. And I think it's totally wrong for roughly a million dollars a month, he is throwing 200,000 part-time workers, you know, out to the wind. It's terrible. It's tragic.

It is beyond ridiculous. And I hate as much as maybe you do, or maybe more when people want to tell us what to do and then they don't do it themselves.

CARLSON: Oh, exactly.

BEARMAN: Jeff Bezos is not leading by example. He is leading with his words.

CARLSON: So it's a pretty clever deal he has figured out, so he buys "The Washington Post" and turns it into a complete garbage publications to pure political operation. But it hits every fashionable note in the progressive sympathy, simply, there's not one left wing idea that they're not a hundred percent behind.

And by doing that, he indemnifies himself against any criticism for his business practices from the left. You're the exception, but you get what's going on here?

BEARMAN: I do. And I'm oddly, Tucker, to be in agreement with you tonight. I'm uncomfortable with that as well. I'm a loud proponent for speaking to power regardless of whether or not they're on my side or not.

CARLSON: Yes.

BEARMAN: And we must do this, I believe that we have an issue that's happening in our country from both sides for that matter where we need to be speaking out. When we see something that somebody who supposedly leads on our side is not doing the right thing, we need to be able to call people out. We need to be able to talk about the issues that are happening.

And in this case, in my mind, this is where I will probably disagree with you. I think some of the Democratic candidates like Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke have the right idea where we need to make sure that we have coverage for all Americans, because under President Trump, we have two million more Americans who don't have health insurance for the first time in over a decade as "The Wall Street Journal" pointed out.

CARLSON: Right. Weird that Obamacare didn't fix that. I thought it was going to. Super quick. This is something that infuriates me and no one ever mentions it. But Jeff Bezos on his dividends on the income he makes from his investments, which is a lot pays half the tax of someone who works for him for a salary. That's our system. It's grotesque -- it's disgusting, actually. It makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. But the left never says word one about it. Why is that?

BEARMAN: Well, I again, I can't speak for others. I've been very loud about this issue for a number of years. We need to close those loopholes.

People need to pay their apportionment. I mean, why should I or his secretary pay less in taxes like Warren Buffett has pointed out, than he himself?

CARLSON: Right.

BEARMAN: We need to fix that and Democrats really should address it, absolutely.

CARLSON: Because we tax capital at half the rate of labor. So we penalize work, so you're an idiot if you work for a living. And those of us --

BEARMAN: Yes, that's right.

CARLSON: Whatever. I don't know many people who live very --

BEARMAN: We never closed the hedge fund loophole.

CARLSON: Yes, I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more. You don't have to be a liberal to think that. Ethan Bearman. Thank you. Good to see you.

BEARMAN: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Every year, artificial intelligence is getting more sophisticated. That has implications for tens of millions of American workers. What does it mean for them? What does it mean for our society?

We will investigate those questions, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TEXT: Tech Tyranny.

CARLSON: Year by year, day by day, artificial intelligence is becoming more powerful and much more sophisticated. Latest example, McDonald's is now working on automating its drive through windows. Google and other tech titans will soon produce cars that can drive themselves. Millions of Americans, from drivers to factory workers to retail clerks, people who work in jobs that could soon be automated -- automated away.

So what does that mean for this country? Oren Cass is one of the few people who thought deeply about this subject. He is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, "The Once and Future Worker: A vision for the Renewal of work in America." He joins us tonight. Oren, thanks a lot for coming on.

OREN CASS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Hey, great to see you, Tucker.

CARLSON: To the extent that people are paying any attention at all to automation most people, most of our leaders I think are ignoring it, but to the extent that they address it, you hear some of them say, well, actually, you know, this is a problem that will solve itself. We will think of some new thing for these people to do. Are you hopeful that will happen?

CASS: Well, I think it should happen. I think the question we have to be asking is why isn't it happening? We've always automated away old jobs since the days of horse carriages. But the economy and business leaders used to spend their time finding new, better ways for people to work. And that's what's missing from the equation. We're not creating those new opportunities anymore.

CARLSON: Interesting. So you would describe part of the promise of failure of will?

CASS: I think I think that's right. I mean, you look at, you know, what do our business leaders invest in? What are our biggest, richest businesses doing? In a lot of cases, it is trying to find ways to do things with as few workers as possible.

Or it's, you know, we're speculating in bonds and making money without doing anything in the real economy or when we do need people, you hear the business leaders either wanting to use people in another country or insisting they need to bring new people into this country.

Whereas back in the day, it was all about using American workers well, and giving them opportunities to be more productive.

CARLSON: Why do we not hear politicians push back against that? This McDonald's idea, for example, my gut reaction is really, you know, it's too much for you to pay some kid to stay at the window? But I can't imagine even a Republican senator is saying something like that to McDonalds. Why?

CASS: Well, you know, I'm not sure if the concern should be about the McDonalds kid at the window. I think when we talk about what we want our economy to be, it's not that we're saying, gosh, darn it, why don't we have more jobs at McDonald's windows?

CARLSON: Good point.

CASS: If McDonald's could find a way -- if McDonald's could find a way to bring more automation into its stores, the people who were working there would probably be more productive, they could earn more. We could have more McDonald's restaurants in more smaller towns and that would create more jobs.

So I think the question doesn't have to be how do we protect the McDonald's worker in the in the drive-thru? The question has to be where the new exciting businesses that are using people in new and exciting ways? And whether that's in the McDonalds, whether that's entire new types of businesses that's what I'd love to hear people talking about.

But again, we don't hear much talk about that either. Instead, we just hear talk about how, you know, we'll let people get rich, whatever kind of business they run, and then we'll tax them and send the money over to the people who don't have good jobs anymore.

And a lot of our politicians seem to think that's a winning formula. And I think that's what we have to fight back against.

CARLSON: Right. So a small group of people in finance subsidize the welfare for everybody else. That sounds depressing.

CASS: Well, that's -- you hear the same thing from Silicon Valley with things like universal basic income, which is this idea that, you know, maybe a few people will earn all the money, but we are going to be rich enough that we can send everybody a check, and that's not what people want.

They want a job.

CARLSON: No. That's exactly right, and if free money made you happy than inherited money, people would be happy and generally they're not. So it tell us you a lot. Oren Cass, great to see you.

CASS: Good to see you, too.

CARLSON: Well, progressives have a brand new idea for education -- ban private schools. This is a suggestion from one of the biggest political parties in Great Britain. Don't laugh though, it will be here soon enough.

We'll investigate after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Here's a story that's happening abroad, but we think it's relevant to you, so we're going to tell you about it.

In the U.K., the Labour Party is making a promise or what they're going to do if they win the country's next election, and they may do that. They say they are going to abolish private schools.

Among their plan, ban colleges from admitting too many private school students, seize their assets, redistribute them to the more worthy, as defined by them. Levy new taxes on them until they have no choice but to submit the state control.

The Labour's stated goal is to fight quote, "grotesque inequality." In other words, Britain's private schools do better than its public schools -- that's putting it mildly. That's true in this country, too. And instead of fixing the broken schools that the state runs, the leftist decided to destroy the remaining successful ones. Got that?

Rather than allowing some people to have something good, they want to make certain nobody can have it at all.

But it's not just about force mediocrity; though, it is about that, it's about and it always is about power. If people can send their kids to schools that aren't controlled by the state, they might be able to get around the left's relentless indoctrination and to the left; that is intolerable.

So again, why are we telling you this? It's simple. We're telling you this because this could very well be our future in this country. In New York now, under Bill de Blasio, the city may soon eliminate all gifted and talented programs. They're moving very close to that.

In California, meanwhile, public schools had been banned from suspending disruptive students. Kamala Harris is promising to bring back school busing. What do these things all have in common? They are all initiatives that will drive parents back into private schools at great cost to themselves.

Loving parents are not going to sacrifice their kids to crummy schools.

Period. So you're going to see much more private school enrollment, but the left will react as in Britain, they'd rather destroy a successful school than allow it to operate independently.

So it could be five years, it could be 10 years, you will see an effort to ban private schools and homeschooling in this country. You heard it here first.

We are out of time this evening, unfortunately, but the good news is, we will be back tomorrow, 8:00 p.m., the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink. Sean Hannity is buckled up in New York City. He spoke to the vice president today.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.