Tucker: Democrats want to eliminate the suburbs

close

Video

Tucker: Democrats want to eliminate the suburbs

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host says Biden administration's infrastructure bill is meant to ruin the suburbs

This is a rush transcript from "Tucker Carlson Tonight," June 28, 2021. 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.

In early 2009, more than 12 years ago, the Obama administration made a surprisingly probably unprecedented accusation against Westchester County, New York, a pretty liberal place. According to the Obama administration, Westchester was an instrument of white supremacy, not the good liberals who live in Westchester, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and many others. No one accused them of being bigots.

The problem was the buildings they lived in, all those single-family homes row upon leafy row set back from the street, well-tended lawns, and mailboxes. Those were all examples of racism -- literally structural racism, and the only solution the Obama people announced was much greater density, more subsidized housing complexes in Westchester, more high-rise apartment buildings, maybe some drug-addicted vagrants living on the sidewalk begging for change.

Only if Westchester County became more like the Bronx could it become non- racist.

Well, this was all something of a surprise to the people who live in Westchester, again, most of whom are dutiful liberals. They didn't realize they had a white supremacy problem. Between 2000 and 2010 for example, according to the census numbers, Westchester's black and Hispanic population had risen by more than 50 percent. So, how could the county be racist? It didn't seem to make any sense.

In court, the Obama administration explained their reasoning. They singled out Westchester's practice of standard zoning. That referred to county regulations that restricted the height of certain buildings and limited the placement of sewers to protect the drinking water. It sounds reasonable.

But according to the Obama administration, those were restrictive practices. Restrictive practices as a legal term that under Civil Rights law means they were racist, and because they were racist, the Obama administration withheld more than $20 million in Federal funds from Westchester County.

If the county wanted the money, it would have to construct 10, 000 low- income high-density very non-racist apartments. So, this battle, it didn't get a lot of news coverage, but it went on for all eight years of the Obama administration and in the end, to its credit, Westchester fought back because they could afford good lawyers and they eventually won in court.

But many places couldn't afford good lawyers. They are not as rich as Westchester, so they had to relent. Under pressure from Federal ideologues, communities in Oregon and Minneapolis, for example, with very little news coverage abolished single-family zoning. This all happened in recent years.

The question is why is it happening? The goal isn't to eliminate racism, the goal is to eliminate suburbs. So, rather than improve the lives of people who live in crappy places, the idea is to destroy the lives of people who live in nice places. Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to eliminate the suburbs?

Well, there's a very clear political reason. Suburbs are typically purple, politically. Republicans can win just as Democrats can. But if your goal is to make the country a one-party state, you'd want to change this. You'd want to make suburbs into cities and if you did that, you'd win every time. Democrats win cities.

Of the 10 biggest cities in the United States, Democrats run nine of them. Of the 50 biggest, they control two-thirds. It doesn't mean they're good at running cities, they're not, many of our cities are on the verge of collapse. People are running away from them, but making cities better is hardly the point, winning elections is the point.

Democrats are happy to admit this. Here's Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts from yesterday. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AYANNA PRESSLEY (D-MA): This is about human and physical infrastructure, progressives in Congress have been leading this fight. Care economy is infrastructure. Climate justice is infrastructure. Housing justice is infrastructure. Transit -- public transit is justice infrastructure, and so these bold investments must be made to support workers and families in order for us to have a just, equitable, and robust recovery from this pandemic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Housing justice. It sounds like a term that maybe Ayanna Pressley just made up. What does that mean? Well, if most people were asked, they would say, it means you're not allowed to prevent people regardless of what they look like or where they are from, from moving into a specific neighborhood and that's true, that's been Federal law for a long time, more than 50 years. You can't discriminate in housing sales, and you shouldn't be able to.

But that's not what she is talking about. She is talking about something very different. She is saying, if neighborhoods look different, then by definition, they are racist. If one is nicer than the other, you have to make it less nice or else that's not equity.

The Obama administration was on this early. In 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development under Obama issued a final rule on what it called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Now, according to the H.U.D. Secretary at this time, Julian Castro, the Fair Housing Rule was simply intended to enforce the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The law that makes it illegal to discriminate in housing sales or in renting on the basis of race. Again, that law has been on the book a long time and it's not controversial.

But that law also requires local jurisdictions that receive Federal money to take steps to affirmatively further the goal of eliminating race discrimination in housing. Huh.

This is a complex word play, but here is what it means. Under the Obama administration, H.U.D. went one important step further. According to Julian Castro, the existence of quote, "concentrated poverty" in urban centers as opposed to the suburbs constituted de facto evidence of racial discrimination. In other words, as long as there is a place that's poorer than the place you live, the place you live is racist. That's insane, but on the basis of that assumption, they move forward.

And local jurisdictions were told to eliminate single family zoning and increase density in business districts and if they didn't comply, they might lose millions of dollars in community development block-grants from H.U.D. That was a very radical step and most Americans were unaware it was even happening and people who live outside the cities are very against it, including faithful Democrats. None of them were for that.

If they wanted to live next to Section 8 housing, they would have stayed in the city in the first place. So, people hate this idea. Suburbs are very complicated organisms like everything humans build. They've developed over a century, in some cases, more than a century -- for good reason. To have Federal ideologues come in and destroy them is very threatening to people. They're not for that.

Again, even Democratic voters are not for that and of course, Joe Biden understands that. He is not a genius, but he knows what people fear. So, when asked about it during the last campaign, he lied. Watch Biden reassure you that it is racist even to suggest that he would want to change America's suburbs. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), THEN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look what he's doing now, the President, he is kind of scared because an awful lot of suburbanites are now deciding they're going to vote for me, at least the polling data suggests, as opposed to him and he is talking about you know Biden is going to -- what he's going to do, he is going to send all these folks out to suburbia. Then, they're going to end up with houses out in suburbia and apartments in suburbia.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Yes, well a lot of suburban voters did vote for Joe Biden partly on the basis of that claim, that he wasn't going to send a lot of people to the suburbs, but that was a complete lie. Now, Joe Biden is preparing to do just that.

Now, at the time, his defense was that the H.U.D. rule by itself was not enough to restructure and eliminate suburbs. Local communities that didn't want to comply with the rule could simply refuse H.U.D. grants. They'd lose millions of dollars, of course, but they could survive.

What Biden didn't say is that the H.U.D. rule was just the first step in his new infrastructure plan, which you can read online and you should, Biden calls for dramatically expanding the Federal government's power over suburbs. The plan calls for implementing the provisions of something called the Home Act. That was a bill first proposed by Cory Booker of Newark, who is a lunatic and reckless.

That legislation goes much farther than anything the Obama administration even attempted. It would cut billions of dollars of Federal funding to any local government with quote, "ordinances that ban apartment buildings from certain residential areas or set a minimum lot size for a single family home." So, you under this law, if you're a town are no longer in charge of how long large your lot sizes can be. You have no control over anything. What's the point of having a local government at that point?

But it goes farther. The Home Act doesn't simply cut off H.U.D. funding to suburbs that don't comply with its equity rules, it prevents states from getting Federal transportation grants of any kind if they refuse to allow high-rise apartments or other high-density zoning in their suburbs, and that's very different.

Unlike a H.U.D. grant, that is money that states have to have. They can't refuse it. States need Federal transportation dollars to fix their streets and highways, and by the way it is their money anyway. It was dutifully sent to Washington, it is every year by citizens of their states, but the Biden administration is in no mood for negotiation with suburban homeowners -- screw them -- with their decent schools and crime-free streets, living in their little 1950s America.

According to the principles of equity, those people must be bigots, by definition. They are living better than people who live in densely populated cities are living, therefore we must crush them. This is not a conspiracy theory. Very soon, it could be the law. Read the bill.

Abolishing the suburbs is a major part of the Biden administration's infrastructure plan. That legislation is still being negotiated tonight, and it's not final, but already, the media are rushing to defend it. What shills they are. What liars.

Here is "U.S.A. Today" for example. "U.S.A. Today," the nation's largest quote, "newspaper." Quote, "Biden's proposal would award grants and tax credits to cities that change zoning laws to bolster more equitable access to affordable housing. A house with a white picket fence and a big backyard for a fourth of July barbecue may be a staple of the American Dream, but experts and local politicians say multi-family zoning is key to combating climate change, racial injustice, and the nation's growing affordable housing crisis." Really?

Because if you wanted to fix the affordable housing crisis, maybe you would prevent foreign governments from buying up residential housing stock, which they are doing or Blackrock from buying up single-family homes and turning them into rentals. Maybe you would make some effort to loosen the housing market a little bit, but they're not doing that. They're doing just the opposite.

So, you may ask yourself, can the Federal government really ban you from having a suburban home with a backyard celebrating the Fourth of July with your kids all the name of climate change and racial equity? Can they prevent suburbs from having roads if they don't build low income housing projects?

Well, under existing Civil Rights law, a plan like this only works if the Feds can prove that your roads are somehow racist, and that is exactly the case they've been making right out in the open. Why has nobody noticed this?

It's not just the Obama administration that says roads and buildings are racist, Pete Buttigieg is now saying it, too. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

APRIL RYAN, THEGRIO.COM WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The interstate system was built to keep certain groups in and certain groups out, so it was built on a racist system, correct?

PETE BUTTIGIEG, U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Yes, often this wasn't just an act of neglect, often this was a conscious choice. There is racism physically built into some of our highways.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Eisenhower's interstate highway system is now racist? Really I-95 is? Route 5 is racist? Tell us how, Pete Buttigieg. Does he even believe that? No. No one believes that, just like nobody believes that Westchester County is bigoted because it has rules about where you can put a sewer drain.

It's not about racism. Stop with that. It's about power.

For Democrats, the goal of this infrastructure plan is permanent control over the Federal government and for multinational corporations like BlackRock, the point is driving down the costs of homes even further and building more apartment high-rises in the suburbs. That has been the goal of the most powerful people in the world for some time.

In fact, it was just a few years ago, it was 2016 that the World Economic Forum released a video explaining and we're quoting, "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy."

What's less clear is why more self-described conservatives, their job though is to conserve things like America's self-respecting independent middle class aren't objecting to this. It's not that they even notice it is happening, they are negotiating this bill.

The future of the way Americans live is at stake and you never hear them say that.

Luke Rosiak of "The Daily Wire" has noticed. He has been covering this story, maybe more intensely than anybody. He joins us tonight. Luke, thanks so much for coming on.

So, at the core of this, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong and expand them on this one sentence, but the core of this legislation is a total remake using Federal power of the way millions of Americans live. Am I overstating that?

LUKE ROSIAK, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "THE DAILY WIRE": No, you hit the nail exactly on the head. Zoning is the most basic thing that local governments do. Towns know which area should be sort of the town square, the quaint little village where you can walk places, which should have more of a natural feel, where you preserve, you know, trees and big yards.

And the government -- the Federal government has no role in this. In fact, if residents of those towns wanted to change their zoning, to do the kind of things that you talked about, they could have done so, they don't.

CARLSON: Right.

ROSIAK: The voters don't want it. And so the Federal government is now printing money and bribing them -- bribing local officials to betray their own constituents with these stimulus funds.

No one wants this. It's really important to say, people of both parties like living in the suburbs. That's why they move there. The majorities of every racial group choose to live in the suburbs, the majority of immigrants choose to live in the suburbs.

CARLSON: That's right.

ROSIAK: And so Democrats have been talking for decades about urbanism and mass transit and it's going to be so efficient, if we can all live in these stack and pack concrete jungles because you won't have to run the utility lines as far, it'll be very efficient and things like that.

And now, they are suddenly reversing course and they are saying, you know what, it's actually bad to live in cities. There is a lot of minorities there and it's not fair that they have to live there because they are very undesirable. It's hot and crowded. And you know this concrete -- the concrete really heats up in the summer and it's not fair. They don't have nature.

So, let's all take them and put them all in the suburbs. How are we going to fit them all? With large buildings.

So, it really is equity in action. Equity means forced equal outcomes by taking the worst outcome that no one would want and making sure everyone has it.

CARLSON: That's --

ROSIAK: And so the idea --

CARLSON: That's it right there because like if you're -- if you're mad about Lake Forest, why don't you fix Chicago? If you hate New Canaan, why not fix Brooklyn? Like why don't they fix things rather than destroy them?

ROSIAK: Right, and there's no indication people from the suburbs want to go live in -- people from the inner cities want to go live in a housing project plopped down in the middle of a single family neighborhood. But what this bill would do, two things, you can put apartments anywhere in single-family neighborhoods, your next door neighbor's lot could literally be turned into a town or to an apartment building.

Or let's say you live on like a tenth of an acre where that's too small, maybe that's why Blackrock is buying up entire neighborhoods. You buy three or four of those and you consolidate them and you build an apartment building.

The second thing is, historically there's -- people have different preferences. Some people prefer convenience, some people prefer privacy, and so people have one acre, a quarter acre. This is all going to be doubled. They are dramatically increasing the population density with no debate.

CARLSON: That's shocking. Any Republican who votes for this ought to be primaried, for real.

Luke Rosiak, thanks so much for joining us.

So, Joe Biden told us recently that the single gravest terror threat we face is not Islamic terrorism ISIS or al-Qaeda as the government has told us for 20 years now since 2001. It's not the brutal mobs of race extremists who burned and looted our cities last summer, BLM and Antifa, as if you'd been paying attention, you would assume it would be, of course. They are the ones who burned the cities. No, it's none of that.

The main threat we face as a nation Biden told us is white supremacy, white American terrorists, and our law enforcement and Intelligence Agencies have concluded that. The President said it's an established fact and then he stopped. Strangely, that's all that Biden told us. He never said who those white supremacists were.

He didn't explain what they believed or what they planned to do to America. He announced no arrests of any of them. He didn't name a single person or organization.

So who is the white Osama bin Laden? Joe Biden didn't say. Neither did his Attorney General Merrick Garland when he reiterated Biden's claim several days later.

So, the rest of us were left to wonder: who exactly are these domestic terrorists? We still don't know the answer, and neither do many long-time F.B.I. agents as we learned this weekend when we spoke to a couple of them.

Biden's claim is absurd, they told us. It's not even close to true.

In recent years, there have been so few crimes committed by avowed white supremacists that the F.B.I. strongly considered dismantling the office within the Domestic Terror Division that investigates white supremacist groups. As the agents we spoke to put it, the number of cases the program manager had didn't justify his position. There was nothing for him to do.

For decades by contrast, the greatest domestic terror threat has come from radical environmental groups. They commit the most crimes. Look it up.

White supremacists meanwhile are at the bottom of that list and Federal statistics prove it. Americans are in fact much more likely to die from a lightning strike than at the hands of a white supremacist. White supremacy may be ugly, many opinions are, but it is not a meaningful threat to the nation and claiming otherwise is a lie.

So, why does the Biden administration persist in telling that lie? Well, it's a racial attack, obviously. It's waged for partisan political purposes. You tell black voters the Republicans are the KKK and maybe they will keep voting for you. That's the idea. It's certainly easier than fixing Chicago or raising test scores, which they should be doing.

But there's also a deeper significance.

The Biden administration is signaling a very real change to actual Federal policy. The war on terror now ongoing for 20 years has pivoted in its aims. The war on terror is now being waged against American citizens, opponents of the regime.

We saw this on display on January 6th. We told you a couple of weeks ago based on language and publicly available indictments that the F.B.I. clearly had foreknowledge of the riot at the Capitol that day and the agents we spoke to this weekend confirmed that is true, quote: "The F.B.I. had sources in that crowd -- confidential sources, snitches. That's 100 percent certain."

But it's not just political protesters the government is spying on. Yesterday, we heard from a whistleblower within the U.S. government who reached out to warn us that the N.S.A., the National Security Agency is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air.

Now, that's a shocking claim and ordinarily, we'd be skeptical. It is illegal for the N.S.A. to spy on American citizens. It's a crime. It's not a third world country. Things like that should not happen in America.

But unfortunately, they do happen, and in this case they did happen.

The whistleblower who is in a position to know repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and e-mails. There's no other possible source for that information. Period.

The N.S.A. captured that information without our knowledge and did it for political reasons. The Biden administration is spying on us. We have confirmed that.

This morning we filed a FOIA request, a Freedom of Information Act request asking for all information that the N.S.A. and other agencies have gathered about this show. We did it mostly as a formality. We've also contacted the press office at both N.S.A. and the F.B.I. We don't expect to hear much back. That's the way that usually goes.

Only Congress can force transparency on the Intelligence Agencies and they should do that immediately. Spying on opposition journalists is incompatible with democracy.

If they are doing it to us and again, they are definitely doing it to us, they are almost certainly doing it to others. This is scary and we need to stop it right away.

Farmland is vital. You need it to eat, but you'll never guess who owns most of the farmland in the United States. It tells you a lot and we'll tell you who it is straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Well, Bill and Melinda Gates are getting divorced, you may have read, and needless to say are in the process now of dividing their property. That property is not just a time share in Cabo and a place out in the desert, it's nearly 300, 000 acres of American farmland spread across 18 states. It's enough to make Bill Gates the owner of more farmland than anyone else in America.

Why does one man own that much farmland? And why that man specifically?

Pedro Gonzalez is the Associate Editor of "Chronicles," a magazine of American culture and this is a key question of American culture. We're happy to have him on tonight. Pedro, thanks for coming on.

So, I mean we're told that, you know, you're rich, you can buy things. It is like, why should the rest of us be concerned by the fact that Bill Gates owns more farmland than any living person?

PEDRO GONZALEZ, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "CHRONICLES": Today, 50 percent of American crop land is rented by farmers who don't own their land and this trend is going to grow. Our children will have less access to ownership and the independence that entails.

Americans right now are competing for scraps of their own country with ruthless corporations and financial institutions and creeps like Bill Gates who is the single largest private farmland owner in the United States, but he does this all over the world.

Gates funds projects and activities in the name of progressive causes, of course, but in reality these all serve select corporations in which he has financial interests. He also does this with your tax dollars through public-private partnerships. He is buying out your future with your money.

Another Gates project is monopolizing seeds through the use of intellectual property laws and regulations, transferring control of food production into the hands of corporations. Gates says you'll just have to get used to the taste difference of engineered food while he enjoys the real deal paid for by his financial investments in the synthetic stuff.

This is a big deal and it's strange that no one is talking about it. The G.O.P. still seems scared of confronting big capital, but it matters because you don't need to pass legislation to change the way that we eat, what goes into our food, how we grow our food or how we live our lives if you simply can seize the land in the means of production.

The monopolization and financialization of everything nullifies the democratic process. We've seen this before.

In Rome, laws were passed to prevent the wealthy from buying up too much land, but the rich flaunted those laws, alienated and impoverished everyday citizen farmers, worked their tracks with slave labor and in effect the extreme concentration of land and wealth then killed the Roman middle class like we're starting to see it doing now.

CARLSON: It just seems like the people in charge miss the basics, so you've got to worry about you know, who controls the food? Who has the guns? That's why if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff levels like a racial attack against 60 percent of the country, it's a concern. He's got all the guns.

And Bill Gates has all the food. Why does nobody kind of get down to like the things that actually matter? That matters.

GONZALEZ: Maybe because there are so many people who have a vested interest in this and I think neither political party is really serious about this, probably because in some way or another, both political parties can somehow profit from this. Politicians on either side ultimately are unified in the sense that they all have vested interests in these things.

Regardless of their rhetoric on the outside, Biden ran as a kind of revolutionary socialist and maybe he is in a way, but it's pretty clear that corporations like Blackrock are benefiting under the Biden regime.

So in a sense, we are seeing the same thing with Bill Gates where Bill Gates is doing something that's terrible. It is consolidating all this wealth and power and resources, but no one seems to be doing anything and when that happens, and especially when everyone is so quiet about something like this, it's happening at such a large scale, it's probably because a lot of people have something to gain from it.

A lot of people that again are telling you that they're on your side.

CARLSON: And as I read "The Washington Post" today, don't -- stop criticizing the billionaires. You know, they're good people. You're the problem, Pedro Gonzalez. Great to see you tonight. Thank you so much.

GONZALEZ: Thanks for having me.

CARLSON: So, Sandy Cortez is obviously a fire brand. She is a revolutionary. She is also a very sensitive person. She was so distressed by the QAnon army's insurrection of January 6th, the white supremacist uprising that she has been in therapy over it ever since.

But here's the thing, you're the hysterical one. She just told us that. We've got the tape. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Sandy Cortez of Westchester is, of course, our generation's Che Guevara. She is a radical revolutionary, but she is also very sensitive and because she is a narcissist, she is afraid all the time. Narcissists are always afraid. For example, Cortez was nowhere near the Capitol during the insurrection of January 6th, but in May, she conceded that she has been in therapy ever since because just being in the same city as the insurrection was really traumatizing to her.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You have this transition period of escalating violence, which really culminated on the 6th for which, you know, was an extraordinarily traumatizing event that's not really being discussed. It's politically sensitive. You know, no one wants to say, oh, boohoo.

But there are Members of Congress that served in war.

MARIA HINOJOSA, LATINO U.S.A. HOST: So, you're doing therapy?

OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes. Oh yes. I'm doing therapy, but also, I've just slowed down. I think the Trump administration had a lot of us, especially Latino communities in a very reactive mode.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

CARLSON: Notice how she goes up on the last syllable of every sentence? Did she get that from NPR or something? That's a "Morning Sedition" tic, I think. She's listened to too much "Morning Sedition."

Anyway, Sandy Cortez says that despite the fact she is in therapy for an insurrection she wasn't at, if you're worried about getting killed in our increasingly dangerous cities, you're the one who is hysterical.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We are seeing these headlines about percentage increases. Now, I want to say that any amount of harm is unacceptable and too much. But I also want to make sure that this hysteria, you know, that this doesn't drive a hysteria and that we look at these numbers in context, so that we can make responsible decisions about what to allocate in that context."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: This is a Member of Congress like so many other cowards in Congress who literally built a freaking wall around the Capitol and called in the army after the insurrection of January 6th because they were so afraid, because they're cowards. And yet, she is saying, if you're worried about getting pushed in front of a subway train or shot in Times Square as someone was yesterday, that you're hysterical.

It's worth noting that in that clip, Sandy Cortez was talking to a Congressman from New York called Jamaal Bowman. Bowman also wants to defund the police and yet this weekend, "The New York Post" caught Jamaal Bowman hiring private security for his own home.

How shocked are you? Is Candace Owens shocked? We're about to find out. She is the host of "Candace" and we're very happy to have her on tonight.

Candace Owens, I just don't -- I don't want you to be hysterical about this crime thing, okay. By the way, I'm just asking. Can you get taxpayers to build a wall around your house and call on the National Guard to protect you as Cortez and the rest of the Congress did?

CANDACE OWENS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I cannot, unfortunately, and I will tell you, I am live from D.C. tonight, Tucker, and I have to tell you that Miss AOC led a protest in front of the White House today about climate change.

She was in a crowd of people maybe about 500 people, it's 98 degrees. I mean, her therapy must be working is my point. I mean, I can't imagine suddenly you're terrified to be around groups of people, the insurrection was so bad and then you just host an insurrection outside of the White House, and so it's just ridiculous.

So, she's such an actress, but I do want to point this out because I think it's so frustrating. Definitely, people outside of D.C. are looking at the situation and going, we all know what this is. We all know that AOC is a bad actress, but do the Republicans know this? They actually recognize that AOC is actually doing a very good job because what her job is, is to act and to pretend and to distract while they work, the Democrats are working, I've said this in this program before and I will say it again in very clear terms, they are working to federalize the police force.

Democrats are working to federalize the police force, okay, so what AOC is doing right now is making sure that people don't pay attention to the crime and pay attention to instead the white supremacy boogeyman.

It is the same thing when we look at Kamala Harris. Everyone is, oh my gosh. What is she doing? Nothing at the border. Yes, nothing at the border is Kamala Harris's job. Her job is to make sure there's an influx of illegals coming in.

The Democrats are winning right now, so at the same time that we're mocking her, we have to recognize that AOC is actually winning because she is accomplishing what she is meant to accomplish -- get people focused on white supremacy, get people focused on the insurrectionists while at the same time they federalize the police force and they change the fundamental demographics of this country to make sure that they can also simultaneously federalize elections down the line.

CARLSON: It's such a good point and it can't be said often enough and I fall for it too. She is so infuriating and childish that you just get caught up in the details. Oh hysteria, I'm in therapy because of the insurrection and you missed -- I missed the point that you just made, which is of course, you're meant to get caught up in the details, so you miss the big picture.

Thank you for saying that.

OWENS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: Candace Owens, a very smart person.

OWENS: Absolutely.

CARLSON: I appreciate it. Thank you.

So chaos just broke out at a day spa in Los Angeles when a biological man walked into the women and kids section with his junk hanging out. Most people kind of went along with it because you know, they don't want to be bigots or anything, but one woman decided to call the obvious -- the obvious she said it out loud -- kind of a hero, I've got to be honest.

We'll show you her response, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: The Wi Spa in Los Angeles won the coveted Best Family Fun Spa Award that was back in 2010. This weekend though, their reputation was put to the test -- a man, a biological male walked into the female kids section of the spa with his genitals exposed. Most people didn't say anything. Nobody says anything anymore, they don't be called names except one woman and she was not afraid to point out the obvious.

Now, we probably redacted or bleeped out some of the vulgarity in here which I personally think is kind of key to her response, but it's still amazing. Here's what she said about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's okay for a man to go into the women's section show his penis around the other women, young little girls underage, your spa, Wi Spa condone that. Is that what you're saying?

Like I asked. It's so -- he could stay there. He could stay there?

What sexual orientation? I see a [bleep]. It lets me know he's a man. He is a man. He is a man. He is not no female.

He is not a female, sweetie.

Okay, girls down there, other women who are highly offended for what they just saw and you did nothing, absolutely nothing. In fact you sided with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: I saw it. He is a man. Yes, you're right he is. Why don't more people say that? Tammy Bruce is the host of "Get Tammy Bruce" on FOX Nation. We're very, very happy to have her on tonight.

Tammy, there's just something about the -- someone noticing the obvious in a moment when that's illegal that just it made my day, I have to say.

TAMMY BRUCE, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, and in that case the jerk had no clothes as opposed to the Emperor and you can't ignore that, but here's my concern. That's in California and there's all kinds of rules and regulations, which no doubt impact that business about who they can tell which room to use or bathroom or spa room, so that's a major problem.

But my concern here is, is that the average transgender person and I have perhaps more transgender friends than some of the people watching the program and they are also appalled. This is not what anybody wants for somebody who is going through the complicated experience of changing their gender, that's a serious dynamic and you don't need --

The last thing you need or you're looking for is the confirmation of using a bathroom or walking in front of a bunch of women and girls to confirm your identity, so I think that the gay community in particular certainly, the transgender community has got to tell that the gay political leadership to stop using us as this weapon to try to keep people divided.

But the problem is, Tucker, when gay marriage was approved and Americans were saying, okay, sure, let's do it. Suddenly, how are you going to raise money? Suddenly, there has to be another controversy. It is like, oh no, yes, there is gay marriage, that's fine, but they still don't want you in the bathroom or in the spa.

I mean this has got to stop because none of the transgenders want this, nobody was worried about bathrooms. That's a jerk who goes to do that. That is not someone who is looking at their identity and handling situations appropriately. That was very different and now, people are drawing conclusions and making judgments about the gay community and the transgender community, which they should not do because that is not what those people want, it's not what gay people want.

It's what jerks want and I love what that woman did, coming up, defending herself, defending the minors, much like adults are doing at School Boards these days, realizing that certain adults who are political don't have their best interests in mind and don't care about children and I think right now, the transgender community like with Caitlyn Jenner needs to speak up about fairness and about what we really stand for, what the gay community does, what other minorities do, and certainly what the transgender community likely stands for here.

CARLSON: Yes, what about everybody else? I mean, what the hell, you know, I mean, yes, Tammy, thank you. Appreciate it.

BRUCE: My pleasure, thank you, dear.

CARLSON: So, you've seen all these little outbreaks of racism on campus and a lot of them have turned out to be fraudulent, like a lot, maybe most, maybe all pretty much. Certainly that was the case at Smith College Northampton, Massachusetts.

A former staffer at Smith was there. She resigned over it. She is a lifelong liberal, a sincere person, but a fact-based person, and a decent person and what she saw at Smith changed her life. She joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: In the summer of 2018, a highly privileged student at wildly overpriced Smith College in Massachusetts named Oumou Kanoute claimed that she had been harassed by a school janitor and security officer for eating while black. So, Smith College did a big investigation and ultimately determined that nothing racist has happened.

Kanoute in fact was eating in the closed dormitory and was told to leave. But her accusations lingered in the air and in the end destroyed the lives of several hourly workers at Smith College. The school didn't do anything to protect them.

Jodi Shaw watched this happen. She is a lifelong liberal. She worked at Smith College as a librarian and seeing this changed her views forever.

We had a long and fascinating conversation with her on the latest episode of "Tucker Carlson Today." Here is part of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JODI SHAW, FORMER LIBRARIAN AT SMITH COLLEGE: I mean, the College immediately sprang into action saying -- we immediately apologized and I said okay. That's an apology, so we are now assuming that this was a racially biased incident and I still didn't think too much of it.

But then the student named two other employees who weren't involved, like not the custodian who actually called campus police, but two other individuals and named them on her Facebook page and these two individuals especially one of them was harassed for a long time and the College -- so much -- so the College engaged in an investigation and even though the investigation found no evidence of racial bias -- and this was a very thorough investigation.

We are talking 35-pages, single spaced plus 70s pages of exhibits. I mean, they did everything -- there was video, audio. They went back in all the campus police records. They were very thorough and they found nothing.

And so, in the meantime, these two other students had been -- sorry, these two other staff members had been named by the student because she didn't know the identity of the person and she --

CARLSON: What did she say about them on her Facebook page?

SHAW: She called them, I think, racist cowards or something like that. Sorry, I can't remember, but it was not --

CARLSON: But basically said, they were racists.

SHAW: Yes, she called them racist. Here are the racist people who called the campus police on me.

CARLSON: Had they called the campus police on her?

SHAW: No. One of them, Mark Patenaude, a custodian, hadn't even been in the building that day. He had actually worked a shift and then left before this incident even occurred and then Jackie Blair was working in the dining room and she had actually -- the student had come into the dining room and Jackie knew the student was supposed to be there, but she was like, okay, you can come in and the student got food and left.

And Jackie didn't see her again for the rest of the day, but the student, I guess, got it in her mind that Jackie had somehow been involved.

And so this -- as you stated, this was on "Good Morning, America," so this was a big news item, so to now have your face on a student's Facebook page where it has a thousand eyeballs on it, you can imagine the vitriol directed towards these individuals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: So, you hear these stories but you never hear what happens afterwards, when the hoax is exposed. Smith College's behavior, well, hardly out of the ordinary for elite schools is shocking and Jodi Shaw's take on it is fascinating and heartening. Really worth watching.

That's on "Tucker Carlson Today." It's on foxnation.com. It's pretty easy to get there, and I hope you will.

That's it for rest tonight. We will be back tomorrow night at eight and every night, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

Thanks for joining us. We will see you tomorrow.

Sean Hannity takes over from New York for the hour.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.