This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," January 22, 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.” For a few overheated hours on Saturday, a group of boys from a Catholic High School in Kentucky became the most hated figures in America.

Television anchors denounced them as bigots. Journalists with Harvard degrees called them privileged. Republican commentators scolded them as bad Christians. Famous actors suggested they should be hunted down and punched in the face. Some on social media called for them to be killed.

The boys stood accused of mocking an elderly Vietnam Veteran, an American Indian man, and doing it in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. Now, the story had no inherent news significance. It didn't mobilize troops or move markets or re-open the government.

But as a symbolic event, it's hard to remember a moment more galvanizing in Washington. As they read their Twitter feeds, the leaders of this country were in rare and solemn agreement.

These teenage monsters, these remorseless thugs from our backward provinces are living examples of all that is rotten and immoral about America. That was the consensus on Saturday. Pretty much everybody agreed with it.

And then, suddenly, the Covington Catholic story exploded, popped like an overfilled balloon animal.

New footage of the event emerged. And it turns out the boys never attacked anyone. In fact, they stood in place as others approached and harassed them. People did indeed scream racial epithets at the Lincoln Memorial over the weekend. But it wasn't Catholic kids from Kentucky. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This child molesting (BEEP) priest right here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. That's the--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's "Make America Great Again." A bunch of child molesting (BEEP).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at all these dusty (BEEP) crackers with that racist garbage on. Look at these dirty (BEEP) crackers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A bunch of future school shooters.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A bunch of in - incest babies! A bunch of babies made out of incest!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The biggest terrorist on the face of this earth is the pale face man, woman, and child.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Now, whatever it is you just saw in that tape, it does not confirm what they were telling you on Saturday on Twitter, just the opposite. The official story was a lie.

And who knows what would have happened to the boys from Covington Catholic if the tape you just saw had never been posted to the internet? They'd probably be living under assumed names by now.

Instead, the facts exonerated them and implicated their accusers. From brunch tables across Washington, reporters rushed to delete their outraged tweets. Some of them even apologized for passing rash judgment, and good for them.

But amazingly, many others pretended that nothing had happened. They didn't acknowledge the new tape. They kept up their original attacks. Being woke means never having to say you're sorry.

CNN Political Analyst, Kirsten Powers now says the boys are guilty of "Disrespecting an indigenous elder." That elder would be Nathan Phillips, the man with the now-famous drum.

There is growing evidence tonight that Phillips concocted key elements of his story as well as parts of his own biography, and that he's done it before. The press isn't rushing to find out.

Kirsten Powers doesn't seem to care one way or the other, nor did she explain how precisely the boys disrespected Phillips. Identity politics doesn't concern itself with details like these. It's not about individuals or what actually happened to specific people on a given day.

Identity politics is a set of moral judgments about groups. Some groups are always right, no matter what the tape shows. Laura Wagner didn't even bother to look at the tape. Wagner is a Reporter at Deadspin that used to be a sports site before the Revolution began.

In an article last night, Wagner described the boys' behavior at the Lincoln Memorial as "A racially-charged frenzy of barely-contained violence" that was committed by a "Frothing mass of MAGA youth, frenzied and yelling and out of control."

She went on like this paragraph after paragraph. And, of course, anyone who disagree with that assessment is a racist. Keep in mind as you read that that there was literally nothing in the record, the documentary record on tape or in the testimony of anyone to support any of Wagner's claims.

Every word is just made up out of nothing. Imagine if someone was writing things like that about your son. At Covington Catholic, classes were canceled today. Thanks to people like Laura Wagner, there were too many threats.

Here are two seniors from the school.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRANT, COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: Several media platforms blatantly lied about the events regarding the controversy in D.C. And it has affected us as a community and individuals greatly.

SAM, COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: There have been many threats against our lives, against our parents. Some of these threats include that we should all be locked in the school and it should be burned to the ground, the school being bombed, school shooting threats.

GRANT: I myself wasn't even present, but I am very vocal about defending my school, and my peers, and I have been doxed on three separate occasions.

SAM: There are real consequences for these actions and it all spews from a 30-second clip taken out of a two-hour video, out of context, and people jumping to conclusions before the - before the full story is released. Nobody did their research and it's now showing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: You'd think somebody at some point in Medialand would wonder how all of this misreporting is affecting the kids who were falsely accused. But no, there is no sympathy for Covington Catholic in America's newsrooms.

In the mind of your average reporter in Washington, these kids are from a different country. Less than that actually, they're from a hostile country, a place we must subdue for our own safety.

That's the attitude, and it may account for the Left's embrace of violent rhetoric in the age of Trump.

Back more than a year ago, when CNN anchors publicly defended Antifa, it seemed at the time like they might have misspoken, may be they didn't know what Antifa was. Now, it's clear they knew exactly what Antifa was.

Our ruling class has told us that they're fine with punching Nazis. Now they've declared they're OK with punching children. How long before they're OK with punching you?

Jim Wilson was a chaperone for the Covington Boys in D.C., and he joins us tonight. Mr. Wilson, thank you for coming on. I want to read the quote in case you didn't hear it from Laura Wagner of Deadspin, and you tell me if you recognize these events as something that you witnessed personally on Friday in Washington.

"A racially-charged frenzy of barely-restrained violence" committed by a "Frothing mass of MAGA youth, frenzied and yelling and out of control." Those are the boys she describing that you chaperoned. Does that ring a bell?

JIM WILSON, COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' CHAPERONE: No, it - it doesn't ring a bell at all. They were boys waiting to go home on the bus. They were waiting to do the cheers we normally do at - at the end of the local - at the Lincoln Mem - Memorial on the steps.

They were behaving themselves. They were occupying themselves at the (ph) time talking to one another. And then, they had grown - grown adults yelling things at them, and they started doing their school cheers to kind of offset the noise that was being presented to them while they were waiting for the bus.

CARLSON: Were the - the schools - school cheers racial epithets or like what were the school cheers?

WILSON: No. No, they just--

CARLSON: Yes.

WILSON: --you know, they go CCH. I mean I don't have them memorized but--

CARLSON: Right.

WILSON: --they go through or they do a wave while they're sitting. And they'll - they'll do different types of cheers. There's one cheer where the - in the film you see it, the - the boy comes down and takes off his shirt, and they - they flex their muscles, and they scream loud.

That's a cheer that you'll see on the football field or in the gymnasium that they do. It was more of a defensive mechanism than it was some sort of attack.

CARLSON: Why do you think people who weren't there are mischaracterizing what happened there?

WILSON: Good question. I think it was because of the poor judgment of whoever took that story and ran with it. And then, it just fed on people's worst expectations.

And that's why, myself, my wife, community people there, you know, Rodney, Rick, Joe, we all got involved and started pushing back on social media. And we tried to find as - see if anybody had tape of this that we could put on the internet to combat what was going on.

CARLSON: These are young men who are about to launch into adulthood, go to college, get jobs, start families. What effect, do you think, this will have on them as they do that?

WILSON: Well, Tucker, I think it's going to be a learning experience for them. I think they're going to - I think they're going to grow from this. I mean right now we're all hurting.

We don't like what has happened to our sons, to the boys that we've watched grow up, be attacked like this. I - the character of these boys, I know they're going to get through this and be good men. But they're going to learn from this.

CARLSON: What kind of - we played tape of two seniors from Covington Catholic, saying they had received threats. Are you aware of threats?

WILSON: Yes. You know, there were - apparently somebody went through a directory and people in the community that just had last names, similar to the families, were getting calls with death threats, and they didn't have boys going to that school.

CARLSON: Is there any recourse, do you think, for these families? I mean someone like Laura Wagner who has a platform makes false and defamatory charges against children. Is there any way to clear their names and to - to punish someone who would do that to kids?

WILSON: I'm not an attorney. But it's - it's slander. It's - it's - it's an attack. It's - it's using one's power to a point where it causes damage.

CARLSON: Yes. How would the - final question to you. How are the boys holding up?

WILSON: The school's slogan is "A spirit that will not die." And they're embracing that.

CARLSON: God, what a - what a - what a senseless event. Jim, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

WILSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: Matt Bevin is the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and he joins us tonight. Governor, thank you very much for coming on. You haven't reacted very much to this. I know you've been watching it carefully. What's your assessment of what happened on Friday?

GOV. MATTHEW GRISWOLD BEVIN, R-KY.: I was as - assuming that I could - could not weigh into the drama. But there had been so much effort to get my response that today I did put out a - a series of three tweets back to back to back, giving my thoughts.

And my assessment is this. The level of bigotry that was evident throughout this came from one side entirely, and - and it was twofold.

It came in the moments prior to the little snippet that sent people into a tizzy, when there was true racial bigotry shown by people that were with the fellow drumming when they told people to go back to Europe that this was theirs country.

And also, preceding even that as people were yelling, some incredibly vile and racist things, at these teenage students, none of that was covered. That was the only true racism and bigotry that was evident on that day. Since that time, there's been an incredible amount of bigotry shown by the media.

The people who took this and ran with this, who did not verify anything, the people who made assumptions about these kids because of their color, because of their gender, because of their faith, because of where they lived, because of the hat that they were wearing, people didn't bother to do the basic checking of facts that anybody who's worth their salt in the media should have and would have done, because this fit the narrative and the stereotype and the bigotry that they wanted so desperately to be able to run with.

And I find it offensive that people have insulted these students as they did. Could they have themselves in every instance perhaps behaved more gentlemanly? Probably so.

But as somebody who has a 20-year old and six teenagers to boot, I can tell you teenagers sometimes act silly and goofy and irresponsible. But these children acted far more responsible during the course of that 20-minute interaction or so than any of the adults that were involved.

CARLSON: Do you think that the reaction from the media, the analysis would have been different if these kids had been from West Hollywood or Cambridge Mass--

BEVIN: Oh--

CARLSON: --in Washington for a pro-choice march? Do you think they would have had the same treatment?

BEVIN: With - without a doubt. I guarantee you, if somebody had been - and this idea that they instigated this by wearing something that has political overtones, give me a break.

How many times did people wear Hope t-shirts with the emblazed image of our previous President without having to be blamed for inciting violence by doing so? They were exercising their free speech. They had every right to do so.

And, in fact, they weren't even speaking in large measure during the course of this. Simply wearing a slogan that has been associated with something political should not be attacked and vilified.

They have done such harm to these kids, it reminded me of so many things such as have occurred at UVA and in Duke and - and even with--

CARLSON: Right.

BEVIN: --Richard Jewell in Atlanta years ago--

CARLSON: Exactly.

BEVIN: --where the media rushes to judgment. And it's so irresponsible. And it - and there's no one, as I pointed out in my tweet earlier today, there are none so intolerant as those who preach tolerance to all the rest of us.

CARLSON: Boy, is that--

BEVIN: There are none so quick to judge as those who tell us to be non- judgmental.

CARLSON: Boy, is that true? Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky, thank you very much for that.

BEVIN: Thank you.

CARLSON: Covington student Nick Sandmann will have an interview on the Today show tomorrow. Tonight, NBC released a preview of that. Here's part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH CLARK GUTHRIE, CO-ANCHOR OF TODAY, NBC NEWS: Do you feel from this experience that you owe anybody an apology? Do you see your own fault in any way?

NICHOLAS SANDMANN, COVINGTON CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: As far as standing there, I had every right to do so. I don't - my position is that I was not disrespectful to Mr. Phillips. I respect him. I'd like to talk to him. I mean, in hindsight, I wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Well the fact the interview took place turned out to be too much for many on the Left. Progressive Activist, Amy Siskind has called for a boycott of NBC for the crime of talking to Sandmann. On what grounds?

Well according to Amy Siskind, who's an Ivy League grad, who left a high- paid Wall Street job to host a vanity podcast, the teenage Kentucky Catholic student is "The definition of privilege." Of course.

Fox Senior Political Analyst, Brit Hume joins us tonight. How do you think, Brit, the media have handled this story in the past three days?

BRIT HUME, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Appallingly. And it - what's so striking about this, Tucker, is this - this is a phenomenon we've seen over and over again.

Not only did we just have an episode in which the Special Counsel's Office had to come out and - and - and - and deny a widely rep - rep - picked up story from - from a sort of marginal news site, BuzzFeed, and all who jumped on that and took it very seriously were embarrassed by that.

And no sooner does that happen, not to mention this chain of other bad stories that have gotten a lot of attention, then this episode comes along, and it seems that some of our media colleagues just can't learn their lesson.

And these things that happened, when you see them at first blush are so very often wrong. It happens all the time with natural disasters. It happens all the time. And even some of our - of our colleagues on the Right, Tucker, leaked on (ph) the bandwagon here--

CARLSON: I noticed.

HUME: --and had to - and had to eat their words. And at least they did that. What is even more appalling is the reaction of those who attacked. And then, when the evidence came out that made it clear that their original view of things was all wet, they can - continued to stand by them anyway.

That's amazing to me. I don't - I mean I would think they'd be so mortified that they would either retract their stories, well take them down from Twitter, apologize and remain silent. But no, you see people doubling down. I just - I'm just - I'm just totally astonished by it.

CARLSON: I - I just find it amazing that maybe we have that unique industry in the media where you can be as wrong as you want, you can be as malicious and reckless as you want, and nobody ever gets fired. Is there any other business like that?

HUME: Well it - it - it - it can happen. People do sometimes get fired when the stories--

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: --turn up wrong. The problem though is we have these - these - these social media sites where instantaneous commentary is all the rage.

And people want to weigh in. They want to weigh in immediately. They want to be heard. They want to - they want to display their - their awareness of things. They want to - they want to have something to say about them.

And, you know, being - and they want - and they want to get out there. And, you know, you would think that, you know, once - you know, once burned, you wouldn't be putting your hand on the stove again so quick. But it - it happens over and over again. And, you know, it's - and - and the striking thing about it is, Tucker, that so much of it is so dishonest. I mean--

CARLSON: Yes.

HUME: --I - I don't know Amy Siskind. But her taking Savannah Guthrie and - and in the - and the Today show to task for allowing this young man to be heard is just astonishing. It is so intolerant.

It is - it - and - and to - and to claim that that's an example of privilege is utter nonsense. Is it really a privilege to have your side of this?

Is it your - really an example of privilege to have your side of the story told when everybody else has been - has been out with - so many other people have been out with a false narrative?

I don't think so. I mean I - I can't imagine what - what - what a person like that is thinking. It is - it's just--

CARLSON: Well you're - here's what you know for a fact.

HUME: --so ridiculous.

CARLSON: When someone uses the term privilege as an epithet, you can be certain that person is more privileged than you are, every single time. It's unbelievable.

Brit Hume, great to see you, thank you.

HUME: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Well Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be the future of the Republican Party. But that's meaningless because she says the earth itself has no future. Whoa! Details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well since her shocking primary upset of an establishment, Democrat number three in the House, last summer, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has emerged as a symbol of the Democratic Party's future, maybe literally its future.

A new poll finds that 74 percent of Democrats would support Ocasio-Cortez if she were the Party's presidential nominee, even though she's too young to run. She can't run until 2024.

But will the world even make it that long? That's the question that hangs in the air after an interview Ocasio-Cortez did Monday in an MLK Day event. She warned that climate change could destroy this planet very soon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: We're like the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. And your biggest issue--

(CROWD CHEERING AND APPLAUDING)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: --is your - your biggest issue is, how are we going to pay for it? And like this is the war. This is our World War II.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Deroy Murdock is a Contributing Editor at National Review. He does not end every sentence with a question mark on an up-inflection (ph) unlike certain Members of Congress we could name, he joins us tonight.

Deroy, does it even--

DEROY MURDOCK, NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: Good evening, Tucker.

CARLSON: --matter like what are we doing? If I get to (ph) say like comma, what are we doing here man? We've only have 12 years to go like does it make you re-think whether you want to reverse mortgage, whether you can run up your credit card debt like if you really believe that, how would you live?

MURDOCK: Well like man, I think I'm going to leave the studio and fill up my last will and testament because it--

CARLSON: Yes. Well (ph)--

MURDOCK: --this could happen any minute, you know. Might not be 12 years, it could be two or three years.

CARLSON: But I mean who - who'd your--

MURDOCK: The clock is ticking.

CARLSON: --material effects go to if the entire earth is destroyed?

MURDOCK: Well, I guess my--

CARLSON: Look, I - I--

MURDOCK: --my friends on Mars or Jupiter, I suppose.

CARLSON: There are things about - I just want to be clear about Ocasio- Cortez. I take serious - I agreed with her, by the way, on Amazon relocating--

MURDOCK: That's right. Got that one right.

CARLSON: --to New York.

But this stuff, the climate stuff, why does nobody ever pause and ask like none of the adults in America, assuming there are any left, and ask like "What do you mean the world ends in 12 years? Can you be a lot more specific?" Why does nobody ever press that question or any?

MURDOCK: Well, unfortunately, there are - on the Left, in particular, there are a lot of adults who repeat that sort of thing.

Back in 2006, our former Vice President Al Gore, the man behind Inconvenient Truth, he predicted, I believe, that was that very soon we would have Arctic melting and things of that sort, and we wouldn't be here very much longer.

We had Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain he said back - I think it was back in '09, if not mistaken, that we only have 50 days, 50 days grand total. So somehow we lasted well beyond that.

So, you have a lot of these hysterical kind of predictions about so-called global warming. It's highly apocalyptic. We're all going to die. And yet, these people are not called to account when in fact the ice - the ice caps don't melt, we're all still here.

This studio is not flooding with water. I'm checking out. I don't see any water on the floor. And I think yes, I think, I hope things (ph)--

CARLSON: It is just - feeling after all (ph) years left.

MURDOCK: --are nice and dry where you are too.

CARLSON: But so the only sector of our economy that's really grown recently is the energy sector. And that's the very sector that the Green New Deal would eliminate, flat-out eliminate. If you wanted to destroy America, wouldn't you do that first?

MURDOCK: It'd be a very good way to do it. I mean we are now exporting oil, which is pretty much the first time in my lifetime, I can remember that happening.

CARLSON: Yes.

MURDOCK: I think we're now the largest producer of oil and natural gas. This, by the way, is not good if you're Vladimir Putin where - where your chief export is oil. And now, you've got the so-called Russian agent in the White House boosting oil and gas production, which is not good--

CARLSON: Good point.

MURDOCK: --for the Kremlin interestingly enough.

But yes, if - if Ocasio-Cortez got what she wanted, the so-called new - New Green Deal or Green New Deal rather, it would put tremendous pressure on those jobs. It would boost oil and gas prices, energy prices, and make a lot of people poorer.

And what's sad about this is that this woman has only had three weeks' experience in Congress. You know, her nickname is AOC. We should change the - change the name from DNC to AOC because she's pretty much running the Democrat Party.

She started pushing Green New Deal. And now, they're jumping up and - up and down and saying, "Yes, we like the Green New Deal." She's pretty much the tail that's wagging the - the entire donkey of the Democrat Party.

CARLSON: So we're - we're almost out of time. But very quick, how terrified and resentful do you think Nancy Pelosi and Schumer and Steny Hoyer and all of the sort of the - the elderly mandarins of the Democratic Party, how much do they hate AOC, would you say?

MURDOCK: Probably a whole lot. I mean this is the first time she's been in office. She's not even 30 years old. I was (ph) talking about her being president, she's obviously way too young to run. And yet, every time she opens her mouth, she gets tremendous attention.

CARLSON: Yes.

MURDOCK: You know, radical ideas like, "Hey, let's abolish ICE." That was a crazy idea six months ago. She came out for it. Now it's a standard plank in the Democrat Party. So, she says - I'd say I think she's basically--

CARLSON: You're totally right.

MURDOCK: --running the Democrat Party right now, remarkable.

CARLSON: She's everything they deserve.

MURDOCK: That's it.

CARLSON: Deroy Murdock, great to see you as always.

MURDOCK: Great to see you.

CARLSON: Thank you.

MURDOCK: Thank you.

CARLSON: Well in the wake of the March for Life, Planned Parenthood is hitting new highs in revenues and in the number of abortions it commits, and that you get to pay for involuntarily. We've got the new numbers on that after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well during the 2016 election, you may remember, Republicans promised their voters they would defund Planned Parenthood if they were given power. Well voters gave them power, but the Party never delivered it, in fact, never really mentioned it again. Whatever happened to that promise?

Well Planned Parenthood is still around and still getting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year. 2017 was an especially great year for Planned Parenthood by their grotesque measurements.

The organization committed 332,000 abortions. That's a 11,000 more than the year before. They also took in just under $564 million in tax dollars. That's $20 million more than 2016, in case you're keeping track, and we are.

Tammy Bruce is a radio host and President of Independent Women's Voice and, obviously, one of our favorite guests. So, Tammy--

TAMMY BRUCE, INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S VOICE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

CARLSON: --what I think is interesting about this is not only did the Republicans in Congress not do what they promised to do when they ran, but actually the problem they described got worse. So, how did that happen?

BRUCE: Yes, you know, this is what is fascinating to people and why there's been a general revolt, I think, within the Republican Party. They hear promises for years, almost patronizing attitudes, placating the masses on the issues that matter to us.

And, you know, it's - it's not even whether or not you're pro-choice or pro-life. This is about the--

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: --the allocation of hundreds of millions of - of tax dollars is an example the L.A. teachers went on strike because they've argued they don't have enough money for enough teachers for - for the library, for textbooks, and yet, hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood.

And I'll give you an example of why it's corporate welfare. In 2015, revenue over expenses profit, $77 million. In 2016, profit $98 million. And then in 2017, a whopping $244.8 million profit of - of revenue over expenses.

In the same year that you note that - that we gave them more taxpayer dollars. So - so this is about the use of our taxpayer money, but also on an issue where there is not agreement in the United States, where abortions are not something that Americans think.

You know, I don't think - for me, this is about keeping Americans - keeping government out of our lives, out of our medical care, right?

CARLSON: Right.

BRUCE: But at the same time, it's the 21st Century. And that the power of saying "No" is the important dynamic here when it comes to making choices about what informs the future of our lives.

And - and, look, so it's - it's across the board, people, women, no matter what your position, should be appalled at this kind of money being used.

But then, at the same time, you've got a - a ruling in Texas that has lifted an injunction from the State of Texas where they want to pull back some of the - the money that the State gives them, and now they're going to be able to do that because of questionable practices in the Planned Parenthood there--

CARLSON: Well exactly.

BRUCE: --in - in Texas.

And all women deserve, no matter who is giving you medical care or any other medical healthcare framework, we deserve to be told the truth about what's happening. We deserve honesty. We deserve companies that actually follow state and federal law.

Everyone should want more from every medical provider. And in this particular case, when you're looking at the kind of profit we're dealing with, Planned Parenthood doesn't need federal funds to exist. But they use it to say, "Well, this is, you know, we need this to exist," and then it becomes a--

CARLSON: Well exactly.

BRUCE: --political argument. It becomes their--

CARLSON: Well it's the--

BRUCE: --their way to get out the vote politically on the Liberal end (ph).

CARLSON: It's a campaign arm of the Democratic Party. Is the NRA going to get--

BRUCE: That's exactly right.

CARLSON: --a half a billion dollars in tax payer? You know--

BRUCE: That's right (ph).

CARLSON: --we've been trying to book Paul Ryan on this show. I'd be interested to ask like "What did you do for two years?"

BRUCE: Yes.

CARLSON: "Do you remember the promise that you made?" He's busy, I guess. Tammy, thanks so much. It's great to see you.

BRUCE: Sure. He was busy not repealing or replacing Obamacare. We know that too.

CARLSON: That's true. He had a lot on his (ph) plate.

BRUCE: Lot yes, he was very busy.

CARLSON: Pretty good.

BRUCE: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you, Tammy.

Well the movement against abortion has some reasons for optimism. Last Friday, the same day as the March for Life, you just heard Tammy mention it, a Federal Appeals Court lifted a Lower Court's order that blocked Texas from kicking Planned Parenthood off Medicaid.

Texas' efforts were prompted by undercover videos showing how Planned Parenthood harvested fetal tissue for profit. That's not creepy or anything.

David Daleiden is the Founder of The Center for Medical Progress, which produced those videos, and he joins us tonight. David, thank you very much for coming on.

What I find so interesting about this story and the reason, I think, no one ever wants to talk about it, is that you could be for legal abortion, and still look at this and think, "Well that's like the most grotesque thing I've ever seen in my life."

DAVID ROBERT DALEIDEN, THE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS FOUNDER: Yes, it's horrific. At Planned Parenthood, it's abortion first, abortion always, and capitalizing on their abortion program no matter what.

So, as you've just heard your previous guest talk about, not only is Planned Parenthood raking in more taxpayer money than ever before in their latest annual report, bringing in more money from private donations than ever before, and also doing more abortions and making more money off of their abortion program than ever before.

And as the videos that I did with The Center for Medical Progress show and the Federal Appeals Court from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has now determined definitively, that the undercover videos show that Planned Parenthood resorts to criminal abortion methods to harvest more marketable body parts from their abortions.

And this is something that's horrifying to normal everyday Americans. It's something that treats their patients as if they're just harvesting pods or a cash crop for Planned Parenthood.

And it's something that's against federal law. And that Planned Parenthood is still under active federal investigation by the DOJ on account of, so there's no reason that this is--

CARLSON: So what does that mean? I mean I think - it looks to me like you - you just caught them flat-out doing that. It's dehumanizing--

DALEIDEN: Yes, I agree.

CARLSON: --it's grotesque. Nobody wants to live in a country where that happens. It's also illegal. You can't sell organs.

DALEIDEN: Yes.

CARLSON: Why has no one been indicted for this? I'm sincerely confused.

DALEIDEN: Yes. Well, you know, it is really interesting. So far, at the very least, there were two very good Congressional investigations done, multiple criminal referrals that went to state and local and federal law enforcement.

So far, at least in Southern California, the District Attorney in Southern California did bring an initial case against two of Planned Parenthood's business partners in Southern California that was the - the first successful prosecution of a note (ph) of their baby parts trafficking network, it resulted in a $7.8 million settlement, shutting the companies down, and they admitted guilt for selling body parts for profit that they harvested at the local Planned Parenthood.

So now, everybody's waiting for the U.S. Department of Justice to do their job, and hold Planned Parenthood accountable to the law, the same as any other organization, the same that we would expect for any other organization that's in violation of federal law, which is something that, again, a Federal Appeals Court has now looked at the evidence and said this is - this - this is probable cause that this is going on.

CARLSON: This isn't even the argument over Roe v. Wade.

DALEIDEN: No.

CARLSON: Or even over abortion itself. And you would think that Republicans in the Congress, if they actually paid attention, could win this debate because who's for that? Who - who could possibly be for that?

DALEIDEN: Yes. Not a - not a lot of people are for it. And certainly, the people who are for it don't want to say publicly, and don't want to proudly get on your show--

CARLSON: Nobody (ph).

DALEIDEN: --and say that they're for it. But even if--

CARLSON: And they're, by the way, they're welcome. Anyone who's for this - I can barely even describe it, it's so repulsive. But if you're for that, you always have a spot on my show. I'd love to hear why you're for that.

David, thank you--

DALEIDEN: Thank you for having me on.

CARLSON: --for doing important and deeply unpopular work.

California won't save its failing middle-class. It will save people from hearing harmful pronouns in the legislature. Pronouns kill, the message from California, after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: An update tonight on the dysfunction of our Federal Immigration System. According to a recent report by the Associated Press, in the past decade, the U.S. government has approved more than 5,000 requests to bring child brides into this country.

Child brides! That is not a euphemism. That means girls younger than 18 and, in some cases, much, much younger, too young to sign contracts, too young to vote, too young to be forcibly married, transported to this country to marry men typically far older than they are.

In one case, highlighted by the AP, the husband was 48 years old. The child he married was 14. Is this legal?

Well for most Americans, it would not be legal. All but a few states have a minimum age for marriage. But those laws do not apply to immigrant spouses. For them, there is no minimum age.

Naila Amin was forcibly engaged to her cousin at the age of eight. At 13, her family flew her to Pakistan to conduct the marriage ceremony, and then told her to petition the U.S. government to allow her adult husband/cousin to enter this country. That petition was granted.

Let's be honest here. This is not a mere cultural difference. No 13-year old child can meaningfully consent to marry. In the United States, if an adult has sex with a middle schooler, we call it rape.

But when government bureaucrats grant immigration petitions, they don't consider that. They consider only whether the marriage would be legal in the person's home country. Pakistan has a very different definition of marriage and of rape than the West does. Many Americans may not even understand how different.

By sanctioning Amin's forced marriage at the age of 13, America became an accomplice to sexual slavery. In order to escape bondage, Amin ran away from home and spent the rest of her childhood in group homes and in foster care.

American officials apparently don't care about her or any of these girls. We know that because this sort of thing happens all the time. There are at least a 150 cases of American officials helping a minor child unite with a spouse 40 years or older.

This is an attack on American values by American bureaucrats. There's a reason why almost everybody was disgusted by the allegations that Roy Moore may have romantically pursued young girls. It's creepy, and it's wrong.

And, by the way, Americans have always felt that way because this has always been a civilized country. Records from 17th Century New England show the colonists felt that way too. Even then, they were not marrying children.

Americans view child marriage as backward and predatory because it is. Yet, at the same time, our immigration officials are doing what they can to normalize it and bring it here.

Will Congress do anything about this? They easily could. Democrats say they're the party of women and of women's rights. Why not prove that? Why not introduce legislation in the House tomorrow? Just write a bill that bans the importation of children as spouses.

Republicans would support that. The President would sign it. It would be a rare bipartisan achievement, something that benefits America, and also sends a clear message about what sort of society we are and plan to remain.

But, of course, Congress won't do that, just like they won't take MS-13 seriously or stop giving citizenship to the anchor babies of Chinese tourists. There is no American value that is so precious that our leaders won't throw it away for the sake of more immigration.

Well lawmakers in California haven't gotten around to fixing the State's infrastructure, its housing crisis, its homelessness, its vanishing middle- class. But they are at the forefront of another fight, re-writing grammar.

Last week, the Chair of the State Senate Judiciary Committee announced that only gender-neutral pronouns would be permitted on her, or rather, their committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANNAH-BETH JACKSON, D-CALIF., STATE SENATOR,: So that we are using what my grammar - grammar teacher would have had a heart attack over. We are using the phrase "They."

My grammar teacher is long gone and I won't be hearing from her. And if any of you--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Them. From them.

JACKSON: From them, exactly, from they.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Jason Nichols is a Professor of African-American Studies at the University of Maryland, and a frequent guest on this show, they join us now. Oh, my - I assume you is still allowed. So, it's good to see you.

So good (ph) - I - I just I'm really struck, as a function of human nature, but the Left is especially susceptible to it that any dumb trend that comes along is accepted immediately and mindlessly by people who should know better.

JASON NICHOLS, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: Like MAGA hats?

CARLSON: Well MAGA hats have a very specific - you - you may disagree with them, but like they're calling for the election of a specific person. But like all the dumb people decided one day like pronouns are bad. And then, we just sort of go along with it. Why?

NICHOLS: Again, Tucker, I - I don't think that what they're saying is pronoun - nouns are bad. They're saying that you should be referred to the way that you choose to be referred to. So, someone who is a - a man who identifies as a man, yes, we can call that person "He."

Someone who identifies as a woman, that person can be "She." But a person who is gender non-binary, they can be they, or shim, or sheer (ph) or whatever pronoun they choose.

CARLSON: OK. So, in general, I kind of agree. I call people whatever they want to be called.

NICHOLS: Right.

CARLSON: You get married. You change your name. I'll call you by that name.

NICHOLS: Exactly.

CARLSON: Whatever! I think that's your right. And - and - and out of respect, I - I go along with it. That's not what they're saying. They're saying that you're not allowed to use gendered pronouns. That's very different.

NICHOLS: Yes. And - and I - and I actually find that problematic. I - I believe that people should have the opportunity to choose what they want to be called. I mean that's - that's the way, you know--

CARLSON: But there's a problem here. This is - this is California. So, you've got more than 10 million people in California speak Spanish at home.

NICHOLS: Right.

CARLSON: Spanish is a gendered language.

NICHOLS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: That means it is structurally transphobic. Will they allow Spanish to be spoken, again, a gendered language, in the Committee room?

NICHOLS: Well there are - there are people, at least in the United States, who are, you know, there's Latino, Latina and Latinx, so they're trying to make it a little word gender-neutral as well.

CARLSON: But the - but that - that's in English. I mean that's how English speakers describe it. But there's no effort to impose these ludicrous rules on Spanish. And, by the way, why not call California Californix? I mean if we're really kind of remaining consistent here?

NICHOLS: Yes, well, I think California is the name of a place, and California can't choose how it wants to identify.

CARLSON: But they're not letting us to. In other words, in - does it strike you - again, I think we agree that if you say, you know, I'd really like you to call me this, out of politeness and decency, which I'd sincerely believe in, I will, OK?

NICHOLS: Right.

CARLSON: But they're forcing people to say something stupid. Shouldn't that be the point where the rest of us say, "I'm not playing along?"

NICHOLS: Well, see the - the problem is that you're calling that stupid. I don't - I don't think it's stupid to - to say - I mean there were people many years ago who said, "His name was Cassius Clay. We're not going to call him Muhammad Ali. That's stupid."

And to me, it's like, no. Whatever you want to be called, whatever you choose, that's--

CARLSON: Again, again, I'm with - I'm with--

NICHOLS: --that's your name or that's your pronoun.

CARLSON: --I'm for calling Cassius Clay, Muhammad Ali because he wants to be called that.

NICHOLS: He's not Cassius Clay. He's--

CARLSON: No problem. I agree.

NICHOLS: --Muhammad Ali.

CARLSON: No problem. This is for - this is a command that requires people to refer to others who have not asked to be called this by a plural pronoun, when it's a singular person.

NICHOLS: Right.

CARLSON: It's grammatically incorrect. It's awkward. It's dumb. It doesn't serve the interest of anybody, and it applies to all of us--

NICHOLS: Well see--

CARLSON: --but everyone's too afraid to call it what it is, which is insane.

NICHOLS: Well look, first of all, language - language is living and breathing. It changes. It shifts. If you listen to how people talked in the 1920s, they don't talk how they - they don't speak English the same way they speak English today.

So, I mean things--

CARLSON: But isn't that an organic process? That's not because some terrified little bureaucrat decrees that you must say this on paying a (ph) punishment.

NICHOLS: Yes, I - I would (ph). Hey, we're in agreement about decreeing that you have to speak one way or - or use a pro - a particular pronoun for everyone. I don't like mandating specifics (ph)--

CARLSON: Right, exactly. So, we're in agreement.

NICHOLS: --at all.

CARLSON: So then let's do - very quickly, assess like the response. Why - we both agree with this. Why don't both of us, next time we hear this say, "You know what? No. I'm not playing along with your fantasy like leave me alone please."

NICHOLS: Well, no, I mean, look--

CARLSON: Are you afraid to do that?

NICHOLS: I--

CARLSON: I think you're afraid to do that.

NICHOLS: --no, I - I'm not afraid. If I were there, I would say, well I prefer, he. But, you know, I will call someone who wants to be called they, shim, sheer (ph), whatever pronoun you choose.

CARLSON: Sheer (ph)?

NICHOLS: Yes, that's another one.

CARLSON: OK.

NICHOLS: But not quite as popular. But if you want to--

CARLSON: Ha-ha. Sorry.

NICHOLS: --if you - if you want to call - be called something--

CARLSON: Yes, yes, I agree. Look, I agree.

NICHOLS: --you know--

CARLSON: I just don't think that we ought to be coercive. But they always get coercive, don't they?

NICHOLS: Yes. I - and I think that that is problematic.

CARLSON: Amen, OK. The - the fire of freedom burns brightly in your heart, and I appreciate that. Professor, great to see you.

NICHOLS: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thank you.

NICHOLS: Always fun.

CARLSON: Well we have even more information tonight, and we think this is important, and we're going to report it whether people mock us or not. The Pentagon's top-secret program to investigate UFOs, that's real and we've got details after the break.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UFO FLYING SOUND)

TEXT: THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

TEXT: THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Top secret Pentagon Research Projects have long been the stuff of conspiracy theories, but some of them are real. They actually happened, and they're worth knowing about.

For example, this week, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Defense Intelligence Agency disclosed that it had, in fact, funded research into UFO-related techno - technologies.

This would include the invisibility cloak, warp drives and anti-gravity. The DIA spent $22 million from 2007 and 2005. The program apparently was initiated by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Nick Pope is one of the world's experts in this. He once investigated UFOs for the British government. He joins us tonight. Nick, thanks for coming on. It does sound like the core assumption of this research was that UFOs are real.

NICK POPE, BRITISH JOURNALIST, FORMER MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yes, it really does.

This is something of a bombshell, I think. For months, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the DoD have been trying to spin this story as, "Well it's just about advanced aerospace weapons threats."

But now we have this document, which shows quite clearly what they were looking into. And it's nothing to do with airplanes. It's - it's, as you say, anti-gravity, invisibility cloaking, wormholes and warp drive. Some of this is about space travel.

CARLSON: These ideas are derived from objects that the U.S. government observed in space, presumably?

POPE: Well we still don't know much of the story. We really only have a handful of papers and documents on this. I got this from the DIA's Office of Corporate Communications, and we're still trying to digest what this means.

There are 38 papers that they produced under this contract, Defense Intelligence reference documents, looking at things, which frankly sound like science fiction. And yet, they're not. Our tax dollars have been spent on looking at this.

And, you know, there's one of these papers, which absolutely is - is critical. It's looking at something called the Drake Equation. And the Drake Equation is this is supposed to be a way that astronomers can calculate how many intelligent civilizations there might be in our galaxy.

Well, look, if this is not a UFO program, if this is just about Russian and Chinese aircraft, what the heck are they looking at that for?

CARLSON: Why wouldn't the U.S. government just say - I don't think it'd be especially controversial. We believe it's possible that there are other forms of life in the universe, and we're looking into it. Why hide that?

POPE: Well I hope that's exactly what they will now say. I think we know that this - this letter, which I've now acquired and which has been released under the Freedom of Information Act, we know that this went to Congress.

We know that the Armed Services Committee is looking at this very seriously. They're also looking into those videos that we've talked about before of the Navy Jets--

CARLSON: Yes.

POPE: --chasing UFOs.

So, I think the real question is what's going on behind the scenes. And I'm hoping that in the next few weeks, maybe months, Congress is going to say more about this. The Armed Services Committee will speak out and, maybe, we'll have public hearings at which all this will be revealed.

CARLSON: So, former Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who was for many years in a position to have access to this information for certain, has basically said in public, "I - I know a lot. I think this is real." But he hasn't gone farther than that. Have you spoken to him? Has anyone spoken to him?

POPE: I've not spoken to him personally. But I've seen some of his interviews. I've seen his statements. I've seen one of his documents. And for anyone who's trying to say, "Well this isn't really about UFOs. It's about next-generation aircraft, missiles, and - and drones," no, it isn't.

Harry Reid has made it perfectly clear this is about anomalous objects in our airspace. And--

CARLSON: Yes.

POPE: --call them UFOs, whatever you like, you know, we take them seriously. The government has been looking at this.

CARLSON: Why all the lying? That's what piques my interest. It always piques my interest. Nick Pope, thank you for all the work you do on this. The non-crazy--

POPE: Great (ph).

CARLSON: --sober-responsible (ph) work you're doing. I appreciate it. Well that's it for us tonight. And let me just say, there is an awful lot of lying, and none of it happens by accident. All lying in Washington is designed for the benefit of the people telling the lies, and it's a tantalizing clue that we ought to press a little more, and so we will.

We'll be back tomorrow night, the show that is the sworn enemy - the sworn and sincere enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink. DVR it if you can figure that out, and congrats if you can. And above all, have a great night.

Sean Hannity, from New York, right now, five seconds early.

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.