Tucker: Big Tech trying to erase history through mass censorship

close

Video

Tucker: Big Tech trying to erase history through mass censorship

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host accuses social media giants of suppressing Hunter Biden investigation to protect his father

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" December 9, 2020. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST:  Good evening and welcome to TUCKER CARLSON
TONIGHT. It is official, you are no longer allowed to mention voter fraud
in public. If you don't believe us, go ahead and try it. Google will
silence you. 

In other words, the very people who rigged this election, with
unprecedented mass censorship of the entire country are now covering their
tracks by erasing history, and imposing even more restrictive censorship on
the American population. 

Dystopia anyone? 

We will have more on this unfolding nightmare of tech totalitarianism in
just a minute. But first for you, a FOX News alert. Joe Biden's transition
team has just released a statement. It is attributed to Hunter Biden and it
reads this way. 

Quote, "I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are
investigating my tax affairs. I take this matter very seriously, but I am
confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will
demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including
with the benefit of professional tax advisors," end quote. 

Well, a few of us knew that already, to be honest. Shortly before last
month's election, we reported on this show that Federal prosecutors had
opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings with
China among other countries. 

We knew that was true, which is why we said it. Other news organizations
knew it was true, too, but they didn't say it. They said nothing. 

They hid that news -- critically relevant news -- from their readers and
their viewers. They didn't want to hurt Joe Biden's chances of getting
elected. 

The Justice Department itself refused to confirm the existence of that
investigation for fear of being accused of political interference. So going
into Election Day, most Americans had no idea any of this was going on. All
they knew was that Joe Biden had dismissed the entire thing as a Russian
plot, and that large numbers of senior officials in the so-called
intelligence community agreed with that assessment. That's what Joe Biden
said at the debate. 

Again, what we're about to play for you is the sum total of information
that most voters in this country got about the Biden family's business
dealings with China in the weeks before they made up their minds in this
election. Watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES:  There are 50 former
National Intelligence folks who said that what he is accusing me of is a
Russian plant. They have said that this has all of the -- four -- five
former heads of the C.I.A., both parties say what he is saying is a bunch
of garbage. Nobody believes it, except him. Him and his good friend, Rudy
Giuliani. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Oh, so 50 former Intelligence folks have decided that it's
Russian garbage. It's just more Slavic disinformation. Just another example
of the Kremlin interfering in our sacred democracy. The Intel community has
decided that so just throw it in the circular file. 

Well, that's a familiar line. You've heard it many times before. In fact,
you've heard it every day for years. Russia. Yet, somehow you haven't heard
it much recently. In fact, for about a month and eight days to be exact. 

Democrats have about zero interest in highlighting Russian meddling in this
election. Assuming there was any Russian meddling, it was not very
effective. 

Apparently, Vladimir Putin let down his closest friend just when it
counted, poignant. In fact, the whole topic of foreign interference no
longer seems like a priority for the Democratic Party. Have you noticed?
Why? Because it's now clear to everyone whether they are willing to admit
it or not, that the real threat to this country is not Russia, it hasn't
been Russia for 30 years since the summer of 1991, when the Soviet Union
collapsed, and to claim otherwise is absurd, and was always absurd. 

The truth is that the real threat we face as a country is from the
communist government of China, which and everyone knows this, too, has long
been in bed with our Democratic elites, in some cases, literally in bed.
And yes, we're looking at you, Eric Swalwell, you lying creep. More on him
in just a minute. 

But back to tonight's news on the Biden family. How do we know for sure
that Hunter Biden is under Federal investigation? Where did the news come
from? 

Well, it came directly from the Biden transition team. They're the ones who
told us. The confirmation of this investigation was not leaked to "The New
York Times." It came right from the top of the Democratic Party. 

In fact, in tonight's statement, it included a message from Joe Biden
himself, affirming that he is quote, "deeply proud of his son." 

Joe Biden didn't specify why he was so gosh darn proud of Hunter Biden.
Maybe federal investigations are a rite of passage in the Biden family, we
can only speculate. 

We can be pretty sure that Joe Biden didn't want to issue the statement in
the first place. Why would he? Who would want to issue it? He issued it
because he was pushed. By whom? And for what purpose was he pushed? That's
the question tonight. 

Now, we don't know the answer to that. We do know that there are powerful
forces within the Democratic Party that do not like Joe Biden. They believe
Joe Biden is too male and too white and too wedded to the old ways, wedded
to politics, as it used to be back when there was a functioning
Constitution that provided checks and balances on power. 

People like that would like to displace Joe Biden and get right to the part
of the story where Kamala Harris and her sponsors at Google run the United
States of America, and it is hard to believe they are going to wait four
years to do that. We'll see. You heard it here first. 

According to what we've learned tonight from the statement, the
investigation into Hunter Biden is not related to his drug use, we
confirmed that as well. Instead, the investigation is based in part on
suspicious activity reports on foreign transactions. 

Now, keep in mind, in the weeks before the election, you were not allowed
to go on Twitter or Facebook and discuss those suspicious foreign
transactions. 

You couldn't talk about them even after Hunter Biden's business associates,
people like Tony Bobulinski came forward in public with evidence that those
were real. You had to be quiet and not tell your neighbors about any of it.
In case your neighbors might be tempted not to vote for Joe Biden once they
learned it. And they might have been tempted not to vote for Joe Biden had
they known. 

On this show, Tony Bobulinski revealed that Hunter Biden made deals with
groups connected directly to the Communist Party of China and he made those
deals with the blessing of his father, explicitly, the former Vice
President Joe Biden, who himself was profiting from those deals directly. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  The former Vice President has said he had no knowledge whatsoever
of his son's business dealings and was not involved in them at all. But
this sounds like direct involvement in them. 

TONY BOBULINSKI, FORMER BUSINESS AFFILIATE OF HUNTER BIDEN:  Yes, that's a
blatant lie. When he states that that is a blatant lie. 

Obviously, the world is aware that I attended the debate last Thursday, and
in that debate, he made a specific statement around questions around this
from the President. And I'll be honest with you, I almost stood up and
screamed "liar" and walked out because I was shocked that after four days
or five days that they prepped for this, that the Biden family is taking
that position to the world. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Again, that was Tony Bobulinski who is in business with Hunter
Biden, who met with Joe Biden to discuss that business with China. That's
what he said on camera. 

And at the time, they called it a conspiracy theory. CNN rolled its eyes
literally. They dismissed it as Russian disinformation. Most media outlets
deemed unworthy of mentioning at all. 

Now it turns out, all of them were lying. Again, if you're looking for
election rigging, look no further. That's what this is. 

They kept information from the public in order to influence the outcome of
the election. They rigged it. 

A few good reporters have been vindicated tonight, starting with the tough,
but beleaguered staff of "The New York Post" who took a massive amount of
crap for telling the truth. 

Miranda Devine is among them. She works at "The New York Post" and she
joins us tonight. Miranda, thanks so much for coming back on the show. 

So a lot of the things that you suggested in our conversations and in
pieces that you wrote for "The New York Post," turned out to be vindicated
by the Biden transition team. How does that feel? 

MIRANDA DEVINE, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK POST":  Well, it is so frustrating
and the timing, of course of that peculiar statement today is perfect,
because it comes a month after the election. So there's no real
consequences for Joe Biden. 

He just -- it's damage control. He throws out the garbage before Christmas
when no one is really paying any attention. And I mean, it's interesting
that Hunter Biden has made this statement, and it's quite peculiar that it
has been released by the Biden-Harris presidential transition team. 

You know, an official press release with Joe Biden adding his little plea
for sympathy, which he has used so cynically and successfully in the past
to try and shield his family's dodgy business dealings overseas by you
know, saying, "Oh, my poor son, Hunter has a drug problem." Well, that just
won't wash. 

And, you know, I think also that the timing of this statement coming just
one day after a really damning report from two Senate Committees Homeland
Security and Finance Committees with plenty of evidence including from
Hunter Biden's laptop and from Tony Bobulinski's revelations, which points
to an influence peddling scheme being run by the Biden family around the
world, but most dangerously, in China, and China is our number one national
security threat. 

And we now have a man who is compromised by China, who is heading into the
White House next month. 

CARLSON:  What do you make, and by the way, you make such a good point
about the cynicism behind his - my son is a drug problem, be nice. Millions
of Americans have had drug problems, they don't get a pass. No one should
get a pass for that. 

But let me ask you, what do you make of the fact that this story is being
carried by media outlets that just a month ago refused even to acknowledge
that this was a story? 

DEVINE:  Well, they buried it. I mean, they very successfully suppressed it
with the help of Big Tech. But now, of course, it doesn't matter because
Joe Biden, as far as they are concerned, has won the election. He doesn't
need that kind of suppression of a story, so they'll report just what the
Bidens want them to report and then move on, I'm sure. 

And it just shows that our story was correct and your stories were correct
during the election campaign, but at that time, they were dangerous to
Biden's re-election efforts. And we know that those suppression efforts
worked, because there are polls showing that almost half of Joe Biden's
voters had no idea about the Hunter Biden laptop story. And 10 percent of
them would have changed their vote, if they had known and that's in
battleground states, it would have changed the result of the election. 

CARLSON:  It's so funny. You see all of these Republicans jumping up and
down about voter fraud, there was voter fraud. There's no doubt old
fashioned voter fraud. But this is election rigging that took place in
public by the Big Tech companies, and they are not saying anything about
it. 

So it tells you something about their sincerity, I would say. I can't
resist editorializing. 

Miranda Devine, great to see you. I hope you'll come back. 

DEVINE:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Speaking of censorship and rigging the election, in a blog post
today, YouTube owned by Google vowed that its teams are working around the
clock to stop what it called harmful misinformation and harmful content. 

They said they are deeply concerned about quote, "making sure our platform
isn't abused to incite real world harm." Now what does that mean exactly
coming from a company that has caused so much quote "real world harm"? 

Well, YouTube explained, quote, "We will start removing any piece of
content uploaded today or any time after that misleads people by alleging
that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election." 

The irony here is enough to make you dizzy. The company that rigged the
election, by suppressing legitimate information in order to influence the
outcome of the election, more effectively than any foreign government could
ever do is now telling us to preserve our faith in the election, they need
to censor us more. 

So how exactly are election related videos causing harm? Well, YouTube
doesn't explain that they would cause harm to YouTube's reputation and
Google's reputation much deserved. We need to break this company up like
immediately. 

But YouTube does go on to boast that its censorship campaign has already
been underway for quite some time, quote, "Since September, we've
terminated over 8,000 channels and thousands of harmful and misleading
election related videos for violating our existing policies." They used the
word "terminated" by the way. That's not creepy or anything. 

Continuing the quote, "Over 77 percent of those removed videos were taken
down before they had a hundred views." What in the world is going on here?
Ask rational questions and you reach a dead end because there are no
rational answers. This is just flat out totalitarian control over the
population. 

So you can stream the film series "Loose Change" in its entirety on
YouTube. It's not a hidden video, it pops up quickly in search results and
appears high up on the page. The premise of that film is that the September
11 terror attacks were a false flag operation and that remote controlled
drones not passenger planes hit the Twin Towers. 

YouTube's algorithms, one that can smite election videos before they manage
to get a hundred views haven't shut that down. There's a lot of stuff on
there, by the way, on YouTube that's not only unsupportable, but fully
crazy. 

You can watch thousands of videos explaining how Russia hacked our voting
machines or mind controlled thousands of Americans with Facebook memes.
That's how dumb we are. A Facebook meme can take over your brain. 

One YouTube video from PBS today, which we pay for by the way and
shouldn't, goes into great detail about how Russia quote "swung the 2016
election." You're paying for that crap, state media. It's not true, but
whether it's true or not, isn't the point. You think Google cares whether
it's true? No. They care whether it has the right political message. That
does, so they allow it. 

There's another motivation here by the way, beyond helping their team,
Silicon Valley is trying to destroy the evidence of their own misdeeds. No
single group perpetuated more fraud on last month's election than the tech
billionaires who are now telling us there was no fraud at all. 

Harmeet Dillon is a Civil Rights attorney. She is one of the most dogged
First Amendment lawyers, there are a very few left in this country and
we're proud to have her on tonight. 

Harmeet, this is enough to make you feel like, wow, things are falling
apart. If they can hide the evidence of their own misdeeds, what can't they
do? 

HARMEET DHILLON, NATIONAL CO-CHAIR, LAWYERS FOR TRUMP:  Well, it is a new
development, Tucker, that they are hiding the evidence of their own
misdeeds, but anybody who has been watching what Google and the other Big
Tech giants have been doing for years is not surprised that their
algorithms are so on point that they are able to, as you pointed out, smite
the very video before it even lands in a hundred computer inboxes and, and
how they do that as for years, they've been writing these algorithms which
treat different things differently. 

So if you want to, for example, put out an anti-Semitic video or post on
Twitter, they treat that differently than an anti-Muslim video. This is
from evidence that has been leaked out of YouTube by its programmers. 

And you know, when you look at this situation, you understand, anybody
who's been there that for years, for 3.9 years, they have allowed false
information concerning the 2016 election to flourish, thrive and propagate
and that will continue for years to come. 

When you talk about the harm of an election and any misinformation, what's
the harm here? The election has already occurred. So why are they so
desperate to eliminate the evidence and eliminate discussion of it? 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

DHILLON:  You pointed out one, some of these tech companies, Facebook has
been known to have sent reminders to vote or reminders to register only to
Democrats right before the election. I would argue that's a violation of
the Federal Election Commission regulations. And you know, somebody needs
to take that up. 

But they want to shame people, they want to shame all these YouTube
creators who make their living off of being on that channel, and maybe they
should consider that, they want to shame them from ever saying anything
that violates the orthodoxy. 

It is a Pavlovian response that they're trying to elicit here to keep you
away from the danger wire, keep you away from the electrical fence. 

So -- and people will do that, because people's livelihoods depend on
those, and nobody wants to be called a crazy person or somebody who was
banned from YouTube. There's no pride in that and there goes your revenue. 

So this is about the next election and the next election. These are tactics
that Google appears to have learned from its, you know, cash cow in China.
They've been developing AI and intelligence over there. And in China,
people are followed around with these social credit score. 

So we don't want to see that in here in America, but we're seeing it right
now. Tucker, and it's very scary. 

CARLSON:  It's horrifying. Harmeet Dhillon, thanks for joining us tonight. 

DHILLON:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  The message in case you're missing it, it is completely true, is
that Google in its present state is incompatible with our democracy. You
can't have a democracy if Google exists as it does now. It's that simple. 

Well, also tonight, we're learning a lot more about Congressman Eric
Swalwell of California, his personal relationship with a Chinese spy. Some
of the details of that relationship are apparently are so salacious,
possibly so weird, that they're classified. 

But Mark Steyn is not fazed at all. He joins us to share what he has
learned about Congressman Eric Swalwell's personal relationship with a
Chinese spy, which is real. Straight ahead. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  We learned yesterday that Congressman Eric Swalwell of
California, a very high profile though young Member of Congress who has got
a seat on the Intel Committee carried on a personal relationship with a
Chinese spy called Christine Fang. 

But if you're wondering who is the real culprit here, who is really at
fault for this obvious breach of our national security? Rest assured it's
not the government of China, it is not Christine Fang. It's definitely not
Eric Swalwell. He's blameless. No, according to Eric Swalwell, here is
whose fault it is. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA):  The wrongdoing here, Jim, is that at the same
time the story was being leaked out is the time that I was working on
impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. 

And if this is a country where people who criticize the President are going
to have law enforcement information weaponized against them, then that's
not a country that any of us want to live in, and I hope it is investigated
as to who leaked this information. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  He doesn't want to live in a country where you can't sleep with
Chinese spies or let them put interns in your office. I don't want to --
that's not -- that's not the America Eric Swalwell knows. 

Well, to be fair to Eric Swalwell, of course we want to be, he has been
pretty consistent on this point. Spending personal time with Chinese spies
has never been an issue for him or for anyone else in the Democratic Party.
That's pretty common. 

But come within six feet of a Russian spy, that's where Eric Swalwell draws
the line. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

SWALWELL:  Stated plainly, the President's son met with a Russian spy. We
now have the best evidence of that. In our minority report, the Democrats
put out that Ms. Veselnitskaya was going all over the world and bumping
into Dana Rohrabacher, which is a sign of a spy, someone who tries to
create, you know, a coincidence encounter. 

And now we know that she was working at the behest of the Russian
government. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Oh, okay. Just so you know the standards, ladies and gentlemen,
get a pen. The President's son bumped into someone from Russia, therefore,
he is compromised. 

Well, given that, we asked Eric Swalwell's office whether the Congressman
ever bumped into the Chinese spy and kept bumping, if you know what we
mean? They responded with the following statement, quote, "To protect
information that might be classified, Swalwell will not participate in your
story." 

So whether Eric Swalwell bumped into the Chinese spy repeatedly is
classified. Mark Steyn is a bestselling author and an expert on classified
sexual encounters. He joins us tonight to declassify the story. 

Mark Steyn, it is great to see you. What do you make of Eric Swalwell's
classification standards here? 

MARK STEYN, AUTHOR AND COLUMNIST:  Well, yes, I hadn't actually thought
that bumping into Dana Rohrabacher is actually the very definition of a
spy. But on that basis, bumpity-bumpity-bumpity-bumpity bumper thing, I
think it was a dance craze in the 70s called doing-a-bump. 

He was doing the bump with this gal all over town, and it's tempting to be
comical about it. I mean, the actual F.B.I. eavesdropping where she is
making out with that Ohio mayor in the car, and the mayor says, "Why are
you interested in me? I'm 87 years old, and I don't seem your type." And
she says, "Well, I'm interested in improving my English." 

I believe that actually is from the pre-credit sequence of the 007 film,
"The Spy Who Loved Me," where Roger Moore is putting it to the Soviet
double agent and she says she's always wanted to improve her facility with
the English tongue. 

So there is an aspect of this that is just drawn from the most absurd
heightened notions of a spy drama, but at core, there's something serious
going on. 

The F.B.I., for example, when they find out she is a spy, why don't they
turn her? Why don't they just put them in a room in a safe house and say,
okay, you're working for us now. Instead, they go to Swalwell and tipped
Swalwell off that his bumpity bumping with the Chinese spy has come to
their attention. And he tells her and she leaves the country. 

That's actually an F.B.I. scandal and a Swalwell scandal. 

CARLSON:  Well, that's right. 

STEYN:  And that's interesting to me is we have all these checks and
balances, and none of them work. It's illegal for a foreign national to
give a hundred bucks to a presidential campaign. But it's not illegal for a
Chinese spy to be a bundler for Eric Swalwell and help take him from a no
nothing councilman in San Francisco to the literal Manchurian candidate in
the 2020 election. 

This is a scandal, both for the F.B.I. and for Swalwell, too. 

CARLSON:  So we know that Christine Fang bundled for Eric Swalwell, the
extent to which she bundled is classified. Is there some way we can
declassify this? 

STEYN:  Well, it isn't classified, is it? I mean, basically, Eric Swalwell
is asserting that his bumping and bundling is classified. Now everything is
over classified in this country. 

As you know, there is -- there are over four million people with top
security clearances. That's the population in New Zealand, wandering around
America with top security clearances. It is completely ridiculous. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

STEYN:  But I can tell you that the very one thing that is not bundled, is
Eric Swalwell's romantic life. That's not classified. That will be the last
thing to be classified. 

Everything is classified now, but the one remaining thing that isn't
classified is Eric Swalwell's sex life. The difference between this and the
Cold War days you know, the minute this came out and you were linked to an
espionage and you are on the Intelligence Committee, you are finished, like
Michael Straight. 

CARLSON:  Exactly. 

STEYN:  The American end of the Cambridge spies, he never recovered from
that. Swalwell is a disgrace. He is on the Intelligence Committee. He has
been compromised by the Chinese. And in fact, he embodies the way the
Democrat leadership has been compromised by the Chinese because whatever --
when you and Miranda were talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, whatever you
think that laptop discloses about Biden, you have to know Chairman Xi has a
zillion e-mails and texts even more compromising. 

CARLSON:  Of course. And Nancy Pelosi defended Eric Swalwell while
remaining on the Intel Committee today. It's hard to believe this is
happening, but it is. 

Mark Steyn, great to see you. 

STEYN:  No. Thanks a lot, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  So obviously, nobody trusts the people who run the country
anymore. But now in the middle of this endemic distrust, they are planning
to force you to take the coronavirus vaccine. It's so safe, they have to
threaten you to take it. 

If they do that, that could lead to a legitimate crisis. Victor Davis
Hanson is here to explain, next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  Well, the very same people who scream "my body my choice" and put
it on their t-shirts have identified a new cause tonight. 

A lawmaker in New York is proposing legislation that would quote, "mandate
vaccinations" if any of the serfs are foolish enough to refuse to take the
new coronavirus vaccine. 

What happens if people refuse? We don't know. In New York, it might depend
entirely on the color of your skin. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO (D-NY):  This has to be done in a way that protects
social justice. The healthcare system discriminates against black, brown
and poor communities; by effect, you have fewer healthcare facilities in
poorer communities. That is a fact. 

We want to make sure when we do the vaccine, that it is done in a just and
fair and equal way. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  So like most rational people, we're not against vaccines, were
for vaccines. The polio vaccine saved millions of children. But in this
very specific case, let's be clear. If the people in charge force the
population to take this vaccine, we can have a legitimate crisis on our
hands in this country. 

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joins
us tonight with his thoughts on where we might be going. 

Professor, thanks so much for coming on. What do you make of this? 

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION:  Thank you. Well, I
should say I'm not a doctor, I'm a historian. And I'm 67 and I have a few
health issues, so I'll probably eerily take the vaccine. 

But I think what they're trying to err on is that they want to encourage
people to get as 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent either who have been
infected with antibodies, but it's not as much as we thought, it's probably
30 million. So we've got another 200 million to go, and so we can get so-
called, you know, the taboo word, "herd immunity," and that means we're
going to have to rely on a vaccination. 

And we didn't think when this thing hit us in March, we thought, well, in
10 months, we'll have effective therapeutics that are coming, but they're
not here yet, that will just cure it or we'll have a vaccination early or
we won't have 300,000 dead. 

So they have to find the fine line, and behind all of this, Tucker is the
1976 swine flu epidemic, and that's when we were told that it was going to
wipe out -- it's going to be another 1918. It started in a military base.
Legionnaires' disease was attributed to it. We had to rush a vaccine. We
rushed a vaccine in nine or 10 months. 

I got it. I remember getting it and being very ill as a student from it for
about 10 days, and it made a lot of people sick. In fact, some got
Guillain-Barre syndrome and after 25 percent of the population was
inoculated, they said A, it is too dangerous or it has too many side
effects. And B, and more importantly, it didn't materialize. 

And that was unfortunate because it cast a pall over what's very necessary
for vaccinations. 

So historically, the courts have ruled that states have a right to -- in
19th Century put a quarantine on people, so sorry, you can't go to school
unless you've had a polio vaccine or you can't go to work unless you've had
smallpox and that was wise. 

But they usually adjudicated that by saying, are we in a pandemic and is it
a lethal thing? So get a flu shot, but you don't have to. We recommend
shingles, but you don't have to. 

And then COVID comes along and they don't know what to do because 99.5
percent under the age of 60 are not going to die from it. But maybe 13 or
14 percent over the age of 75 might and they don't know -- and it's very
infectious, but it does -- they don't know how to calibrate it. 

So you have people like this sounding off, we are going to coerce people
where the smart thing I think to do is encourage as many people as you can
and keep flexible. So you don't coerce people and you don't go back to 1976
and force people to do it or mandate it and then have it blow up in your
face, but hope that the 30 million that have antibodies or maybe it's more,
it might be 11 percent or 20 percent, maybe not vaccinate them historically
would say you might not want to vaccinate them first. 

Vaccinate people on the frontlines that are continually exposed to viral
loads, people over 60 and then give other people the choice and hope that
they vaccinate, but don't coerce them to and you're going to get close to
50 or 60 percent, and maybe like wane a little bit why that last cohort,
that's not as susceptible will make that choice for themselves, then you
can educate them, and hopefully they'll do the right thing and get
vaccinated, if it's safe. 

CARLSON:  We hope so. You can't treat people like animals. You have to win
them over. Threatening people doesn't increase trust. 

HANSON:  No, you have to win them over, and we didn't do that in '76, and
when the AIDS epidemic came out, people, I think were too hesitant because
they thought we don't want to go and rush in a vaccine or a new treatment.
Look what happened in '76. 

CARLSON:  No. That's a really good point. 

HANSON:  And that's what -- I think we are trying to balance the extremes
of both coercion and then just laxity and so far, I think people will make
the right decision. 

CARLSON:  I think so, too, if you let them. Victor Davis Hanson, thank you
for that. 

HANSON:  If you let them. Thank you. 

CARLSON:  So all of a sudden, you wake up and identity politics is playing
a role in the distribution of a vaccine that's not quite here yet. 

Identity politics also controls, to some extent, which businesses get
coronavirus relief funds they need to survive. 

In Oregon, for example, the state has created a $62 million fund that only
black-owned businesses can participate in. Business owners there have sued
saying they were denied stimulus money because they didn't quote, "identify
as black." 

So what's the effect on our society more broadly, of policies like this?
Shelby Steele spent a lot of time thinking about this. He's a Senior Fellow
at the Hoover Institution and writer of the documentary "What Killed
Michael Brown." We're honored to have Shelby Steele on the show tonight. 

Mr. Steele, thanks so much for coming on. So what do you think -- 

SHELBY STEELE, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION:  Thanks for having me. 

CARLSON:  At a time when Americans in huge numbers really don't trust each
other, what do you think the effect of articulating policies like this out
loud has on the country? 

STEELE:  I think it has a terrible effect. I mean, what we're -- policies
like this are basically where you are using racism, in order to somehow
cure or repair the damage done by historical racism. 

And so, it is the same precise sin being used over and over again and it
begins to corrode the values and principles that made America strong as
time goes on. It breaks our faith with our principles. 

CARLSON:  So you're saying that you cannot -- 

STEELE:  It can be corrupted by race. 

CARLSON:  You can't repair the damage done by historical racism by
committing new acts of racism? 

STEELE:  That's right. It is a futility even on its face. But again, it's
like any -- the bad racial habit that we have in America is -- and we have
always had different one form or another -- is to pick up race and use it
as a means to power. 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

STEELE:  It has no other function whatsoever. It is -- you can't work hard
and become a race. It is something I use in order to gain power over you. 

And so when you see something like this, then somebody is looking for
power. My guess is the political left wants again, to see blacks cast
blacks as victims of racial persecution, and therefore deserving of
entitlements and so forth. 

And so that's really -- that's really what it's about. It puts blacks in a
terrible position, because then they're stigmatized as inferior once again,
and it's bad for everybody. 

CARLSON:  The bad habit that we have in America and have always had is
using race as a means to get power. That is a perfect summation of what
we're seeing. Shelby Steele, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank
you. 

STEELE:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  So you never hear it and the people in charge hate to admit it,
but whether or not you get coronavirus, you're going to die in the end
anyway, all of us are. 

How do you deal with that fact? Well, you start by confirming it because
it's true. Mike Rowe has thought a lot about this. He joins us next to
explain his conclusions. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  Death is inevitable. That's the one thing that's for certain,
unfortunately a secular society and there has never been a mass secular
society in all human history up until recently, maybe because a secular
society has no answer for the most basic fact of life. 

And so the position of our society, the people who run it, is that life
must be preserved at all costs, even if that means locking everyone in
their room for nine months and killing people as they do it. 

Mike Rowe is not a religious leader, but he is a very wise man. He is of
course an author and television host. He has an idea called safety third
and we thought tonight would be a good time for him to explain it to us.
Mike Rowe, great to see you as always. 

Safety third. I don't think you have it in the right, but isn't supposed to
be first. 

MIKE ROWE, AUTHOR AND TELEVISION HOST:  Well, top five, for sure. Safety
third really began as a good natured attempt on "Dirty Jobs" to inject a
little personal responsibility back into the prevailing orthodoxy, which is
exactly as you have stated, safety first. 

And safety first, like so many well-intended ideas was a notion that simply
got a little ahead of itself. I mean, there was a real problem with
occupational safety in this country a hundred years ago, something had to
be done. OSHA came along, and a lot of people got behind it and introduced
a phrase that has become a bromide and a platitude, and that phrase is
"safety first." 

But of course, it can't really be true, right? I mean, no business exists
for the purpose of being safe. Businesses exist for the purpose of making
things and paying people money to work. You can do those things safely,
obviously. But so many companies spend so much time telling their employees
that they care more about their own safety than they do that something
really interesting, I think can happen and I saw this on "Dirty Jobs." 

Safety third really began as a one-hour special to look back at the
unintended consequences of what could happen on the job if safety were
overvalued. 

And this, of course, was very controversial, but it ginned up a great
conversation and allowed us to look at things like risk equilibrium and
homeostatic risk and all kinds of different things that impact our behavior
when safety is accentuated. 

And the levels of complacency, paradoxically enough that often infect us
when we are in compliance, completely in compliance, whether it's wearing a
seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet or a mask, you can be in compliance and
still not be out of danger. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

ROWE:  So, everybody on my crew was safe for the first two seasons, nobody
got hurt and we sat through dozens of mandatory safety briefings, all we
heard was safety first. By season three and four, we were breaking fingers
and toes and ribs. Everything went off the rails, we were all getting beat
up. Fortunately, no one too tragically. 

But what happened was we simply bought into the idea that our safety was
somebody else's responsibility. I started saying safety third is a reminder
to me and my crew that the minute you believe that you're in danger. 

CARLSON:  Well, I wonder and we're almost out of time, just give me in one
sentence. Do you think you'd be allowed to make a TV show with the title
"Safety Third" right now? 

ROWE:  No. That's the one word answer. But if you want a little more
insight, Google C.S. Lewis, he wrote an incredible essay back in 1948,
called "On living in the atomic age." And it frames the entire proposition
perfectly. As you said at the outset, nobody is getting out of this alive. 

CARLSON:  I'm going to read that tonight. Thank you for that. Mike Rowe, it
is great to see you. 

ROWE:  You too. 

CARLSON:  You remember CHAZ, of course. Are you ready for CHAZ, the sequel?
Well, there is one. It's a new autonomous zone. It's got everything: armed
guards, stockpile weapons, you name it. We'll tell you where it is and how
it's going, next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) 

CARLSON:  CHAZ: the sequel is here. Where? Jason Rantz, our longtime CHAZ
correspondent, Seattle radio show host joins us now with details. Hey,
Jason. 

JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RADIO SHOW HOST:  Hey, Summer of Love in Seattle. So I
guess the winter of discontent in Portland, North Portland specifically,
it's the Red House Autonomous Zone. A group of activists within Antifa
movement have set up basically a two to two and a half block radius around
a house that was lost to foreclosure after a two-year battle. 

The family is black and indigenous and so, the primarily white Antifa
residents believe that this is an example of gentrification. There's no
actual evidence that this is gentrification. However, there is a lot of
evidence that there's been a lot of crime going on as the folks refuse to
leave. 

Cops yesterday tried to remove them from the home. Finally, remove them
from the home except they came under assault, the officers, from a lot of
people who set up camp there. 

As they retreated, it ended up giving a lot of room to the Antifa
protesters to set up a camp, and right now they are barricaded. They've got
a stockpile of weapons. They've got armed guards. They've got a kitchen
ready so they are there for the long haul, as the Portland Police
Department are trying to figure out what exactly they're going to do. 

But they are amplifying the urgency of the messaging saying, you guys do
have to leave peacefully. We're not going to put up with this. So we could
potentially see action from the police in the next 24 hours. 

CARLSON:  It's happening because we are putting up with it. You get what
you put with. If you let your kids smoke weed at the breakfast table, they
will. 

RANTZ:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  That's the lesson. Jason Rantz, great to see you. And with that,
we are our out of time and Sean Hannity takes over. 

Have a great night. 

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS CHANNEL HOST:  I don't want to jump the gun here.
Did I just hear what you said? Kids at the dinner table -- I think I heard
it right. 

CARLSON:  You get what you put up with. That's the truth. If you let your
kids smoke weed at the breakfast table, guess what, they will. So don't let
them. How's that? 

HANNITY:  Listen to Tucker, mom and dad. Tucker is giving you good advice
for parenting. All right, thank you. 


Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 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.