Joe Namath on his path to sobriety

close

Video

Joe Namath on his path to sobriety

Former NFL quarterback Joe Namath on the dangers of addiction and how he overcame it.

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," November 7, 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.” Ever notice how as if on cue, all the dumb people on cable news and their Democratic allies in Congress for whom they are actually working, they start hyperventilating about the same thing at pretty much exactly the same time. Pick your topic, pick the day, it's always the same. Only the issue itself changes.

Today's issue is the identity of the so-called whistleblower. That's the person who originally filed the complaint about the President's call with the President of Ukraine that set in motion the series of events that are certain to culminate in an official impeachment proceeding.

Now we're being told the one thing that we can't know about this whole process is who that person is, who the whistleblower is. Why can't we know that? Well, abettors on television are telling us we can't know that because the identity of the whistleblower is the one thing standing in the way standing between that person leading a normal life and that person being potentially injured in political violence.

Now, political violence is a concern in this country and as we've said countless times in the show, we are adamantly and totally opposed to it in all cases, in every case. What's so startling, though, is that the people making this claims aren't against political violence, adamantly and in every case, in fact, in many cases, they are for it.

These the people, you'll remember who told you to punch a Nazi. These are the people who applauded when various members of the Trump administration were screamed at and threatened in public places with their families in some cases.

We're talking about restaurants or walking down the street. So these people aren't actually concerned about protecting anyone, particularly people with different political views. They're totally fine slandering teenagers who go to Catholic high schools or pizza shops in small towns in Indiana.

When it comes to people they don't agree with like the guy whose life CNN wrecked for making fun of their logo or the Ohio bakery that was nearly destroyed forever by Oberlin College, they'll charge right in there and ruin innocent people's lives. It doesn't bother them at all.

But in this one specific case, they're telling you can't know. Why are they telling you that? Whenever they are adamant about something, it ought to be your cue that something is going on here. What are they trying to protect? What don't they want you to know? What are they covering up?

In this specific case, what they don't want you to know is the so-called whistleblower might have been motivated by partisan impulses. This might be someone who disagrees with the President's policies, and maybe that's what this is really about, a policy disagreement.

It's not about standing up heroically for his country, it's about undermining a democratically elected President with whom he disagrees. Now they're swearing that that's not the case. Nancy Pelosi up there telling you, she is praying for this country and nothing makes her sadder than seeing the President impeached. This is terrible for all of us and we just hope it's over soon.

And the person who did this did so. The whistleblower did so at great personal risk, and we're just hoping he can get through it. He is just doing the best he can for America.

And you know, by the way, maybe that's true. But maybe it's not true. Maybe the whistleblower is just another nasty little partisan, like so many of these people, like virtually everyone you see on cable news, and maybe they're lying to you.

You can't know, and you won't know until you find out who this so-called whistleblower is. That's why they're hiding it. That's what's really going on here.

Peter Van Buren has watched things like this for a long time. He is a veteran in the State Department. He is a whistleblower himself. He is also a contributing editor at "The American Conservative," he joins us tonight.

So, Peter, thanks so much for joining us.

PETER VAN BUREN, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: Thank you.

CARLSON: As someone who actually was a whistleblower, and who wrote extensively about it, I think it's fair to say you were punished for it.

VAN BUREN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: What do you make of this? Did any of the people crowing about the importance of whistleblowers ride to your aid when you were in this position?

VAN BUREN: No, absolutely not. And I want to say that as a whistleblower who chose not to be anonymous, I'm well aware of what being public on this can lead to. But in this specific case, it's very difficult because of course, as a whistleblower, I want to protect the process and anonymity could be such a critical part of all this.

CARLSON: Yes.

VAN BUREN: But in this case, the whistleblower is not anonymous. His name is available to anyone with Google. And it's not clear that he is a whistleblower. He didn't reveal information at personal risk. He didn't give us information that we didn't have. He basically reported corridor gossip.

And at this point, his anonymity is in way against the value of knowing his motives and the process that brought him to us. And when you weigh that anonymity against the benefits of exposing that process, he needs to stand up as a patriot and say, here is why I did it, here is how I did it, and put himself where his mouth is.

CARLSON: Well, that's kind of it. I mean, I guess there are two tracks. The first is there is value in attaching your name to your views. I mean, this is a free country. We say that a lot. Let's make sure it remains a free country by openly stating what we believe our disagreements with the status quo and you know, in the trust that you can still do that here.

But second, the rest of us were beginning to think that maybe the government is irredeemably corrupt and we can't trust anybody. Wouldn't we benefit from a little transparency here?

VAN BUREN: Well, more than benefit, we are going to be the ultimate judges of this. I think the process is partisan enough that we know what's going to happen in the House and we can predict a pretty good guess of what's going to happen in the Senate.

But a year from now, we are going to vote on whether Donald Trump should have a second term and understanding whether this whistleblower is a patriot, or whether he is an agent provocateur, who set up this whole thing, teed it up for the Democrats, is what separates righteousness from a coup, and we need to know more about him and why he came forward and how he came forward so that next November, when we judge righteousness, we can do that with all the information.

CARLSON: Well, and that's it right there.

VAN BUREN: That's the relevancy.

CARLSON: You know, the name is not material necessarily. It's who he is, what his motives are. It's that context that's completely missing.

VAN BUREN: Absolutely. His name is Fred or John or Steve is irrelevant. What is relevant is how did this corridor gossip become a whistleblower's complaint? And how did it thread its way through the bureaucracy to the point where it acted as nitroglycerin to trigger an impeachment? That separates the real from the political and we need to know that. That's what's relevant here. Not that his name is this or he lives over here, but what brought him to us.

This process is critical. It lies at the heart of our democracy, we're talking about unseating a President in the middle of a campaign. That is an extremely serious act for our nation.

And to go forward on that with someone in the back in the shadows whispering, hey, I heard something.

CARLSON: Yes.

VAN BUREN: Doesn't seem consistent with our democracy.

CARLSON: Well, it doesn't. Quickly, I just have to ask you a personal question.

VAN BUREN: Please.

CARLSON: Now that whistleblowers are -- it's a sacrosanct category, which is fine with me. Now, I'm for whistleblowers, actually. But now that everyone loves whistleblowers, has anyone congratulated you from the left for your service?

VAN BUREN: Maybe the call came in while we were talking, but unfortunately, I've been disowned by the left, people that I used to consider friends gave up talking to me, people that I used to consider colleagues at the State Department gave up talking to me.

And even after the amazing work that other whistleblowers have done exposing the N.S.A., exposing what's happened in our wars, I'm afraid that we, as a group generally remain pariahs. Right now, there's a celebrity whistleblower who is taking the attention, but I suspect at some point, the system will configure itself to wonder what his motives were.

CARLSON: Sad, but not surprising. Peter, thanks so much for joining us.

VAN BUREN: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: I appreciate it. Before the contents of the whistleblower complaint were known publicly, a Democratic congressional staffer contacted the former American Ambassador to Ukraine to discuss with the staffer described as quote "quite delicate and time sensitive questions."

This show has obtained exclusively an e-mail from that Democratic staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent by private e-mail to the former American Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

Now, Yovanovitch as you know, is now a key player in the Democrats' impeachment probe and was recalled from her post in Ukraine by President Trump in May of 2019 following allegations of serious partisanship and political bias.

In the e-mail, the Democratic aide says this, quote, "I'm writing to see if you would have time to meet up for a chat -- in particular, I'm hoping to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we're exploring. I'd appreciate the chance to ground truth, a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time sensitive and thus, we want to make sure we get them right," end quote.

Now that e-mail was sent on August 14, that's two days after the whistleblower complaint was filed, and a month before that complaint became public.

The whistleblower however went to Schiff's team -- Adam Schiff's team -- before filing the complaint. The question is, did Schiff's office tell other Democrats on Capitol Hill what was in the complaint? In other words, how long did this effort play out in secret before the rest of the country learned of it?

Well we asked the Democratic spokesman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee about this, and here is the response we got, quote, "The Committee wanted to hear from an Ambassador whose assignment was cut short under unusual circumstances. This staff outreach was part of a months' long effort that culminated in the September 9 launch of an investigation into these events."

Well, Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York asked Ambassador Yovanovitch directly about the e-mail. Yovanovitch claimed that she never personally responded to it, never responded to the Democratic staffer. In fact, it turns out that she did respond. In fact, she said she, quote, "looked forward to chatting with you," to that staffer, and as Congressman Zeldin pointed out, the Ambassador's original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath.

So maybe she will get hauled into court like Roger Stone and threatened with life in prison. Just kidding. Meanwhile, we have an actual whistleblower here in media world. That whistleblower worked for ABC News and leaked an off air tape of an anchor, Amy Robach talking in very frustrated tones about how her employers at ABC News killed her story on billionaire pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. Why did they do that? It'd be interesting to know.

Well, whoever leaked that tape later went to work at CBS, where apparently was a woman, she was located. CBS and ABC got together, they found her and they fired her.

So in other words, those two networks spent a lot of time finding the person who embarrassed them and in no time at all, figuring out who covered up for a pedophile and why. That tells you a lot, doesn't it? Robby Soave is an editor at "Reason" magazine and author of the book, "Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump." He joins us tonight.

Robby, even by the standards of the press for whom I literally have no respect at all, and I couldn't have more contempt for the television networks than I do, and I say that having worked at almost all of them. This seems especially low to me.

ROBBY SOAVE, EDITOR, REASON: Oh my God. It's horrifying. I mean, it speaks to something I've mentioned on your show a couple of times that the people who work at these networks who want to practice real journalism...

CARLSON: Yes.

SOAVE: ... who are reporters, who are journalists, who have interesting stories and want to hold the powerful accountable and get stymied, stopped, obstacles put in their way by powerful bosses who are apparently listening to people like Harvey Weinstein, listening to the British Crown, in this case. There was some concern that the reporting on Epstein involved Prince Andrew and they wouldn't let you do an interview with Kate Middleton or something, if you follow the story --

CARLSON: Some celebrity dingbat from a foreign country didn't like it.

SOAVE: Right.

CARLSON: They suppressed a story, a real story about a pedophile.

SOAVE: Right.

CARLSON: And we still don't know who did that and why, but luckily, the low level staffer told the rest of us about it is fired and humiliated.

SOAVE: Yes, they're punished. I mean, that's media solidarity, right? There are two tribes, if you're in the media tribe and you cross them, they are going to hunt you down. They're going to find you and they're going to punish you for this. I mean, it's just -- it's incredible.

CARLSON: I was saying to a friend of mine having done -- I have been in this business for 28 years, I was talking to a friend of mine who is aged as I am. He has been in this as long as I have, and I said to him this morning, you know, I used to feel bad when media companies collapse because so many are collapsing. I don't think I do anymore. They're so rotten. I don't think you can defend this.

SOAVE: Do they see themselves as news outlets or just entertainment? Just we want to give you more fluff pieces about how the British Royals are living this week or something or what celebrities are up to --

CARLSON: But I wouldn't even settle for that, but how about this? Don't cover up for the pedophile.

SOAVE: Right.

CARLSON: Can we draw a line there?

SOAVE: Right. This was an interesting story, obviously with huge consequences.

CARLSON: Yes.

SOAVE: The people wanted to know about it. It involves powerful people on all sides of the political spectrum. This is not -- right? This is not a polarized story in some sense. The people that Epstein was involved with, and we don't even know the extent of it, and we may never know unfortunately, but they were not interested in doing more reporting on this because of, you know, threats from other people.

Do bosses not backup their journalists anymore? Do they not do it in TV, I guess?

CARLSON: Well, it's just so interesting because Fox is the only channel pursuing this. So you had ABC who has clamped down completely. They called over to CBS to make sure they fired the employee who leaked it.

Meanwhile, CNN Jeff Zucker's network and NBC, Noah Oppenheim's network are not covering this, so in effect all of them are covering up for Jeffrey Epstein. Why is this?

SOAVE: And when they say we didn't have enough evidence so we couldn't have run the story, I just -- like I don't believe that, right, because they were happy to have Michael Avenatti on to talk about Julie Swetnick and so on and so forth. Like when it's -- do you know what I mean?

Like that oh, we can't report this because we just don't have it a hundred percent verified. That doesn't always, you know, comport with their standards for how the news is covered, right?

CARLSON: Right. The only winner in this I think is Amy Robach. Meanwhile, you know, the celebrity anchor in her channel is having dinner with Jeffrey Epstein. She is trying to report on it. They're thwarting her. You know, I hope she is rewarded in some way.

SOAVE: I do, too. Yes.

CARLSON: Robby, thank you.

SOAVE: Thank you.

CARLSON: Up next, we're joined by the former Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions for his first interview since he left the Department of Justice. He will address recent rumors that he may run for the Senate again, starting fairly soon, like tomorrow. We'll find out in just a minute. That's straight ahead.

Plus addiction wreaks havoc on this country. No one talks about it. We will. Tonight, the first in a series of interviews with people who have gotten sober. How are they enjoying it? NFL Hall of Famer Joe Namath here tonight. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Until not long ago, he served as Attorney General of the United States. Tonight, he is speaking on camera for the first time since he left the Trump administration. There are currently rumors swirling that he could run for the Senate seat that he held for two decades. Will he do that?

Jeff Sessions joins us on set tonight. Senator, thanks so much for coming on.

JEFF SESSIONS, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Tucker. Good to be with you.

CARLSON: Are you running for senate?

SESSIONS: Yes, we will file our papers tomorrow.

CARLSON: So you are running for the seat that you held? You were, I think, after the coach of the Alabama football team, the most popular person in the state when you left. Do you regret that you left in the first place?

SESSIONS: Well, I had a great tenure at the Department of Justice in so many different ways, and I don't ever worry about regretting things like that.

We were able to serve, be able to push the Trump agenda and do it in an honorable way, and it was actually a great experience. I spent 15 years in the Department.

CARLSON: Yes.

SESSION: So I don't regret that, and it was an honor to serve and I am -- it's not my seat in the Senate, but I believe I have something to give. I have some convictions that I think need to be pushed. We need to get some Republicans moving. They haven't been pushing hard enough to advance the Trump agenda. And so that's what I look forward to doing and I think I can contribute to that.

CARLSON: So politics famously intruded on your tenure at the Department of Justice, we can get to that in a minute, but it raised the question of your relationship with President Trump, which I think you address fairly directly in a new political ad. I don't know if this is aired anywhere until now. But here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SESSIONS: When I left President Trump's Cabinet, did I write a tell-all book? No. Did I go on CNN and attack the President? Nope. Have I said a cross word about our President? Not one time.

And I'll tell you why. First, that would be dishonorable. I was there to serve his agenda, not mine.

Second, the President is doing a great job for America and Alabama and he has my strong support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: He has your strong support. Do you have his strong support?

SESSIONS: Well, I hope so. I think he will respect my work. I was there for the Trump agenda every day I was in the Senate, no doubt about it. I was the first Republican, first senator to endorse him.

CARLSON: Yes.

SESSIONS: We pushed his immigration agenda, his trade agenda and began to work to a more realistic foreign policy that doesn't get us in endless wars. I think he was right about all three of those.

CARLSON: Yes.

SESSIONS: That's where the American people are. And this is a Republican Congress and the whole Congress needs to listen to that.

CARLSON: Well, ironically, you were one of the, by my count, one of the very few people in the administration who agreed with him on his signature issues, most didn't and worked to undermine him as we've seen over three years.

But you got into it on the question of Russia. You recused yourself from the investigation. He was furious about that. He has never stopped complaining. Recently, he was complaining about it. Do you regret that decision?

SESSIONS: No, I did the thing I had to do under the rules of the Department of Justice. The senior advisers told me that this is what the rules require, the regulations required. And I read them and I don't think there was any out for me. But I know how painful it was for the President. This is -- the whole thing was very painful for him, and he saw this as a pivotal moment.

But painful and is prolonged as it was, it did clear him of Russian collusion, and I'm certainly glad that finally happened.

CARLSON: He is very popular in the State of Alabama, as you know, and as your ads suggests, you don't want him to come out against you, of course, are you going to talk to him about it?

SESSIONS: Well, I do. I will and I look forward to having that opportunity. I hadn't been provided at this moment. But I would like to be able to go to the people of Alabama and tell them with all honesty, I believe in his agenda. I was for this agenda before President Trump announced.

CARLSON: That's true.

SESSIONS: I supported it when he was President and when he was running for President, I supported him and if I return to the Senate, I will -- no Senator in the Senate will be more effective in advancing President Trump's agenda than I would be.

CARLSON: I believe that and I was there before Trump arose and you were making the same case that he is making now. What about your fellow Republicans who remain in the Senate? Do you think after three years they'd buy the Trump agenda?

SESSIONS: Gosh, Tucker, I think some of them are still standoffish and some of them almost give the impression that maybe he'll just fail or it won't happen, and we won't have to deal with it.

But ending lawlessness at the border is a bipartisan, overwhelming issue. Standing up to China, defending American manufacturing, standing up against cheating and fraud and abuse is a bipartisan and a powerful issue. Trump is right on both of those.

And on wars. I saw recently that veterans opposed -- didn't think military efforts in Iraq were justified by 64 percent. American people think we are too committed in too many endless wars. President Trump is right about that.

So I think this represents some change for the Republican establishment. And many of the Democrats are totally opposed to it. But we should be able to put together a majority, we should drive these issues. We could take it to the American people and name names and show who is for what and make them vote. That's what I'd like to see us do.

CARLSON: Naming names would be a great public service. Quickly, we've moved from Russia to Ukraine, the President apparently is going to be impeached. What do you make of that?

SESSIONS: I just cannot see an impeachment case here. It's just been a continuous political attack on him from day one. Things that people have done that are perfectly innocent -- I felt some of that myself -- created and twisted to be something evil and improper, and I believe the President has conducted himself in this matter within the law and I don't believe there's anything close to an impeachment case.

I think the democrats will basically vote it, it looks like; slink away and let the Senate reject it.

CARLSON: Senator, Attorney General and now once again, Senate candidate, Jeff Sessions. Thank you for coming on tonight.

SESSIONS: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Godspeed. Democratic presidential candidates are crisscrossing the country in private jets to lecture you about global warming and your carbon footprint.

Also, the great Mark Steyn is here to assess everything in the past week. That's worth it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, the world as you've heard is going to end in 12 years, if not sooner, unless you immediately ditch your car and start eating insects. That's what the presidential candidates and the Democratic Party are telling us.

They're very concerned, but not so concerned that they won't stop flying private. So we've got an idea for them. We're calling it the 2020 Tree Challenge, and it's an idea that will help compensate for the greenhouse gases they are spewing into the atmosphere every time they get in their little Lear jets.

Plant a tree for every mile you fly private. It's not just a challenge. It's really a request/demand. Plant a tree for every mile you fly private. It's not hard and if you care, you will.

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi is the author of "The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations you won't hear from Al Gore and Others," and he joins us tonight.

Joe, thanks so much for coming on. So even those of us who are skeptical of the details of some of climate theory, and a lot of it is theory, can get behind the idea of planting trees. I mean, there's no downside to planting trees. So why wouldn't these candidates take us up on our tree challenge?

JOE BASTARDI, METEOROLOGIST: Well, not only that, but nuclear power. There's people that think the combination of nuclear power and planting enough trees, let's say across the entire world the size of Canada would offset the carbon dioxide production by mankind.

And the question is why wouldn't you try that? It is much less expensive both ways for one, there must be some other reason though. And you know, there are times when I look at this --

CARLSON: What do you suppose that is, Joe?

BASTARDI: I don't think they want this -- well, we both know what we believe it is, but I don't think they want this to go away. I think there's only one answer that they want and this is a New Green Deal we could all get behind. Let's plant more trees, right?

CARLSON: Exactly.

BASTARDI: And by the way, it's fascinating watching this because, you know, plants grow best at about 1,500 parts per million of carbon dioxide. And we're currently at about 410 parts per million of carbon dioxide. There is a natural synergism between animal life and plant life, probably someplace in between, because animals exhale a hundred times more carbon dioxide than they inhale. That's right. You're a carbon pollution organism you are, that's what you are.

CARLSON: You make me feel like a cow.

BASTARDI: But trees love that. They get that and they grow.

CARLSON: Yes.

BASTARDI: In fact, Tucker, it's getting dangerous out there. I have trees trying to hug me. So because they know human beings -- well, they don't know that -- but the fact is that the planet is now greener than it's ever been in the satellite era.

Circling back real quick here to Dr. Will Happer. This is exactly the point he was making. We're pulling out of a CO2 drought. The climate optimum is the best time for life on the planet is when it's a little bit warmer, and there's more CO2 in the air and that's just been established through the geological history.

CARLSON: Yes.

BASTARDI: Why do we go -- why are we going to spend $10 trillion to save 0.01 Celsius over 30 years when we can try this.

CARLSON: There is no downside to planting Redwoods and Eastern White Pines. That is -- it's all good. Of course, it doesn't increase their power. So I doubt they are for it. We're going to keep pressing on our tree challenge. Joe, thanks so much for coming on tonight.

BASTARDI: Thank you for having me. I'm going to plant a tree as soon as I get home tonight. How's that?

CARLSON: Amen. Good for you. Keep in mind that the left isn't just demanding you give up steak dinners and plastic straws. Now, over at "The Huffington Post," -- it really is the most ludicrous news site on the internet -- are demanding that you cancel Thanksgiving dinner, too.

Cranberry sauce and mashed potatoes are bad for the planet said the unhappy rich kids who work at "Huff Po." The bestselling author, Mark Steyn is not an unhappy rich kid. He is a sage crypto foreigner and one of our favorite guests. He is our favorite guest and he joins us again tonight. Great to see you, Mark.

What do you make of this as it as a as a naturalized American, you're all in on Thanksgiving. But the native born entitled kids at "Huff Po" are against it. What does that tell you?

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST: Yes, I love Thanksgiving. It has something real at the heart of it. It's the biggest travel day of the year because this is a big country, so grandparents in Florida end up with grandchildren in Alaska. And so this, for many people, is the one day of the year when they do actually take a plane to go home for Thanksgiving.

CARLSON: Right.

STEYN: And "The Huffington Post" says you shouldn't -- you shouldn't be taking a plane. You shouldn't be eating a Turkey. Eating a Turkey is bad for the planet, even though it's not as bad as one of these flatulent cows that AOC wants the slaughter, but it's not as good as -- instead of having a stuffed turkey, you should have some arugula stuffed with kale or kale stuffed with arugula. It makes no difference, it tastes just as lousy either way. And you should not fly.

Now we've just had a situation today where Michael Bloomberg is about to get into the presidential race. There's a guy who served as mayor of New York and almost every weekend took his private plane from New York City to his home in Bermuda.

If he was to take the Tucker Carlson 2020 Tree Challenge, you'd have to infill the Atlantic between New York City and Somerset, Bermuda to plant all of the trees for all the private flights he has had.

This whole thing, presupposes that there is a natural ruling class that is entitled to live differently from you.

CARLSON: That's exactly right.

STEYN: Meanwhile, at a time when the American family is increasingly atomized, the one time of the year they all get together should be abolished.

CARLSON: That is exactly right. Their attitudes are completely medieval. Mark Steyn, great to see you.

STEYN: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Who by the way is hosting this show the day after Thanksgiving, speaking of Thanksgiving, and I hope you'll get him --

STEYN: Yes, that's one real Black Friday, Tucker. I think so. Bargain host -- guest host price declared.

CARLSON: That's not true. We're grateful you're doing it. Thank you. Mark Steyn. Good to see you tonight.

STEYN: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well, substance abuse addiction, one of the key issues facing this country doesn't get the attention it deserves, but it undergirds a lot of the disasters unfolding. You certainly know someone affected by it. Excuse me.

After the break, we begin our month-long series on addiction and sobriety in this country. We hope you'll join us for that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: We're less than 20 years into the new century, 19 to be exact, and yet sometimes it feels like America is suddenly beset by a stunning array of terrifying social problems -- collapsing families, idle men, millions of them rising suicide rates, declining life expectancy. These are not small things. They are big society wide trends, and on some days, they seem intractable. What's causing them?

Well, it is complicated, but there is at least one thing that all of these slow moving disasters have in common. They are all, to some extent driven by addiction.

Nobody wants to say it out loud, but an awful lot of Americans are not in their right minds a lot of the time. They're hooked on something. You've seen the stats. They're grimly familiar at this point. They tell part of the story.

America loses more than 70,000 people every year from drug ODs. The death rate from overdoses has tripled in the last two decades and it is driven by an explosion in opioid abuse. You know all of that.

But it's not just fentanyl that's killing Americans. Abuse of more traditional drugs is also rising. For example, the death rate from cocaine overdoses has risen by more than a hundred percent since 2003. And of course, there's alcohol, which is and will always be most likely the most abused drug in the West. Many thousands of Americans will die just this year from the cumulative effects of beer.

So why is this happening? And what can we do about it? Well, a lot of people thought about this for a long time. And the truth is, nobody is really sure.

What we do know for certain is that people who are determined to get sober have the best chance of getting sober. But in order to break free of addiction, you really have to want it, you have to want it badly. And that raises a deeper question. Do we really want it? Is sobriety still a virtue in America?

And by the way, should it be a virtue? Is it worth being sober? We think that's an issue well worth talking about and exploring at some depth. And so over the next several weeks on this show, we plan to do that.

We're going to talk to people, some of the well-known people who have fought for sobriety and want it and we're going to ask them a really simple question. Was it worth it? What's your life like now? We begin our series tonight with the conversation with football great, Joe Namath. He is the author of the book "All The Way: My Life in Four Quarters."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: You write about your struggle to get sober, now that you are, was it worth it?

JOE NAMATH, FORMER NFL QUARTERBACK: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Big time worth it. I've had some experiences throughout my life and had been knocked down a few times, certainly in sports, but the major part of it is knowing that this whole big game of life is a team effort.

And having had some struggles, I have reached out and received some education and help from other people and man, I'm around willing to help whomever I can.

CARLSON: How do you how do you feel? Do you feel different now that you're not drinking?

NAMATH: Well, yes, I feel different. I feel good about myself in the effort. Because I know, addictions take place throughout our lives or can take place. Many people can be brought to their knees for a variety of reasons.

And I think we all can actually, and addictions come in different shapes and forms. Alcohol is one of them, certainly. Opioids is another one. Everyday sugar you can consider that kind of an addiction.

CARLSON: That's for sure.

NAMATH: And salt, the kind of foods we eat. Yes, man. So getting an education, getting help is important. And I think I know, we have one instrument, we're the only one that can take care of this body and mind of ours. We need to put the effort in. And we need to recognize the importance of how we take care of ourselves to be able to take care of the ones we love or be a part of this life in a loving way.

CARLSON: What was the key for you to getting over your addiction?

NAMATH: The key was love for my family. It was an embarrassing moment that occurred after I'd been sober for a number of years, I was challenged originally by my wife when my first daughter was a year and a half old to go get help, and I didn't think I needed help. I figured I could quit, and I didn't quit.

So she challenged me again and I promised her that I would stop and this was dealing with alcohol at the time and I became what I learned through Alcoholics Anonymous that I became a dry drunk for 13 and a half years. I didn't have a drink, man, and then I found an excuse.

I found that excuse. I learned going through a divorce was an excuse for me. I was taught this lady to go back and drink, and I did that until I had an incident with a young lady that was during a football game, a halftime experience at a Jet game that, man, I didn't even remember.

The next day I found out about it and I let a lot of people down including myself there with that kind of behavior. And I did reach out to get help and I went and got an education and I'm so thankful for it today.

And you know, Tucker, one of the good things about this -- that I've experienced being an athlete, being out there in the public over the years, I'll go through airports, man; I'll go into the grocery store, people would come up to me, hey, Joe, how are you doing? Pop up. I'd say fine, you know, and then they leaned over and whisper to me. I'm a friend of Bill's.

I'd say, hey, you don't have to whisper, you know, come on. We're in together, for real, you know. I want to encourage them. That's a good thing, man. And I do like to help out and encourage people.

Throughout my life, people who come up to me and I've learned, you know, good vibes. Good vibes and smile, it's healthy. It's healthy. I want people to treat me, treat my children the way we treat one another and I've been lucky.

CARLSON: Amen. There's nothing shameful about getting better. Joe Namath, a great man in a lot of ways. Thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.

NAMATH: Thank you, Tucker.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON: It is worth it, says Joe Namath. Clear headedness, not easy to get, but it's worth it. That's the first in what we hope will be a long series on sobriety in this country. How to get it and why it's worth having.

Up next, students in California Public Schools can't read or write very well, but pretty soon they'll be able to define heteronormative success. We'll tell you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Only about half of students in the State of California meet English standards, even fewer than that can do math before California's leaders lost their minds, they would have been concerned about this. That's a sign their schools are failing. They no longer care.

California has just changed what it teaches. It doesn't bother with long division anymore. Education is no longer the point. It's about indoctrination. We know that because the state has laid it out there.

The state is planning to roll out a new ethnic studies requirement for students. You can imagine what those classes will be like. But again, you don't have to imagine we already know.

A model curriculum for the program reads like a handbook from voxx.com's HR Department, the definition of hell. It features topics like coloniality and hegemony, whatever that means. They'll be forced to have courses on their, "intersectional and ancestral roots," end quote.

Of course, it will describe capitalism as a form of power and oppression comparable to racism, white supremacy and ableism.

Well, many of California students are already taking courses on ethnic studies. A Charter High School in Mondale, for example, require students to write breakup letters from various forms of oppression. Students must persuade leaders about the dehumanizing effects of masculinity, heteronormativity and gas pipelines. That's assuming they can even write a sentence in English, which many can't.

The whole thing sounds like a joke, but it's not a joke. This is the public school curriculum in this nation's largest state.

Heather Mac Donald is the author of the book, "The Diversity Delusion" and she joins us tonight. So what exactly does this portend if the largest school system in the United States is teaching this? Where does that put us 10 years from now?

HEATHER MAC DONALD, AUTHOR: It puts us at the bottom of the international arena in terms of education because this is not just California, Tucker, I wish it were so people could move out. This is happening in Iowa, it's happening in Indiana, it's happening in Arizona -- these are red states.

We are falling further and further behind our international competitors. Just this week, the National Standards came out, Reading and Math is down across the board. Direct inverse proportion -- the greater the schools get politicized the worst our basic skills decline.

CARLSON: We used to care. I remember liberals used to say I can't believe we are losing to Norway or Taiwan or whatever. They seem to have decided we're not competing anymore. The whole system is racist. Hide under the bed. Facts don't matter.

MAC DONALD: Well, yes, they're obviously more concerned with a phony narrative about America. This is about as they say, in Ethnic Studies, decentering whiteness.

Now, let's translate that. What does that mean? It means that every white person by virtue of being white is an oppressor. So a laid off Kentucky coal miner has more power and privilege than Barack Obama or Eric Holder because he is white.

CARLSON: Well, isn't that racist?

MAC DONALD: All white people are -- it is the very definition of racism, Tucker. This is a Cold War on the grounds of race. And I think we're at an emergency level now, because this is poison being poured into the body politic. It's going to end every single meritocratic standard. Parents have to start pulling their kids out of school.

We cannot give them the cannon fodder for this type of racial division any longer. Homeschool, I would hope that these donors that are pouring multimillion dollars into over endowed colleges. I was just to Yale which is just the height of privilege would instead start creating schools that respect knowledge, that respect our tradition, that are factually based.

Any educator who purports to claim that the West and America are the source of the world's depression should on that ground alone be fired because that is proof of complete ignorance -- historical ignorance. It was the West that broke free of tribalism.

CARLSON: Yes.

MAC DONALD: Of colonialism, of slavery, and gave the concept of individual rights to the world, gave the concept of tolerance and today, the places that are still practicing slavery, genocide, homophobia, it's not America. It's not the West. It's the third world.

CARLSON: We should seize their endowments immediately.

MAC DONALD: Yes.

CARLSON: I think it's that serious. Heather it was great to see you tonight. Thank you for that.

MAC DONALD: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Much more to come. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Sadly no time for "Final Exam" tonight. It is airing tomorrow. Bret Baier competes against his college roommate, someone you've seen before, but didn't know he lived with. Great show, tomorrow, 8 Eastern. Here is Sean Hannity.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.