Close this search box.

Tucker: Scientists are pushing ‘human engineering’ to save us from ‘climate change’

This is a rush transcript from “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” June 22, 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. Happy Tuesday.

A few days ago, “The Wall Street Journal” had a really interesting event you may have missed. It was called the Tech Health Conference. During that event, one reporter had a question for the head of Google’s Health Division, a man called David Feinberg. Why, that reporter asked, was Google censoring searches for information about the possibility that COVID had in fact escaped from a laboratory in China.

Feinberg began by admitting the premise of the question. Yes, Google was in fact hiding information from its users, he effectively conceded, but it was for their own good. According to Feinberg, Google didn’t want to quote, “Lead people down pathways that we would not find to be authoritative information.”

“Authoritative information,” you’ve heard that phrase a lot in the last year and phrases like it. Authoritative information is the opposite of misinformation or disinformation or worse, a conspiracy theory. It’s really important. All you’re allowed to see is authoritative information. So, it is worth knowing in this and many other cases what is it, and in this case, where did Google get its so-called authoritative information?

Well, in this case it got that information from a group led by a noted man of science called Peter Daszak. If the name sounds familiar, Peter Daszak is the person who almost single-handedly stopped all public speculation about the lab leak early in the pandemic last year.

Daszak did this in one swoop by organizing a letter to “The Lancet,” that’s one of the top scientific publications in all of science, stating as a known fact that there was no possibility this virus, the coronavirus, COVID-19 could have come from a lab in Wuhan. There was no chance.

Well, many people believed him and they stopped looking. It was in “The Lancet” after all.

Almost no one asked, unfortunately, why Peter Daszak particularly might be saying this, and of course, we now know the answer. Peter Daszak himself was funding research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan and he was doing that using American tax dollars supplied to him by Tony Fauci.

According to one grant that Fauci approved, Daszak was authorized to conduct, quote, “virus infection experiments” across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice. Why humanized mice? Well, because they mimic human beings.

Daszak and his collaborators wanted to make viruses more infectious to people. He didn’t hide this.

In December of 2019, Daszak appeared on a podcast on YouTube which is owned by Google by the way, to brag about how easy it is in the lab to manipulate bat coronaviruses.


PETER DASZAK, FOUNDER, ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE: Coronavirus is a pretty good — I mean, you’re a virologist, you know all of this stuff — well they — you can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily and it is this spike protein that drives a lot of what happens with a coronavirus, zoonotic risk.

So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this — insert them to backbones of another virus and do some work in the lab.


CARLSON: So, really, in one of the great kind of head hitting moments in recent history, we learn that the guy directly tied to bat virus experiments in the lab in Wuhan was the very same guy telling the entire world that there was no possibility this virus could have come from the Wuhan lab.

Conflict of interest, anyone?

It is absurd. It is beyond belief.

What is amazing is that Google knew this. The evidence was right there on one of its own platforms, YouTube, which it owns.

So, why did Google continue to rely on Peter Daszak, of all people on Earth, to decide what the rest of the population could know about the origins of COVID? That is the answer.

Tonight we know why. It turns out that Tony Fauci was not the only one funding Peter Daszak’s research on bat viruses. Google was funding that research, too.

It sounds unlikely, but we know that. We know it from a new piece in “The National Pulse” which published the evidence, and here is the evidence. Peter Daszak admitted it in print. We don’t need to speculate, it’s right there.

Beginning in 2010, several of Daszak’s research papers explicitly acknowledged that they were funded by Google. One of those papers was observational study that analyzed the transmission of viruses from bats to humans, in this case, in Bangladesh, quote, “Proximity of bats to human populations may facilitate the transmission of viruses either through direct contact or through food-borne routes.”

A decade later, Google was still paying him, in this case, Google paid Peter Daszak to take his study of bat viruses to Guangdong Province in China, home of the now famous bat caves.

While there, Daszak used Google’s money to study the quote, “Perceptions associated with transmission of pathogens with pandemic potential in highly exposed human populations at the animal human interface.” End quote.

So, yes, Peter Daszak knows an awful lot about bat-borne pandemics. In fact, it seems likely he is implicated in one, and Google is likely implicated in it as well.

So, together, Google and Daszak worked to keep critical, factual information from the public as nearly four million people from around the world died from the virus. It’s a horrible story and someday, perhaps soon, we will learn all of it.

But in the meantime, as we await the indictments we fervently hope are coming, the whole ugly story makes you wonder bigger things. For example, how many other dangerous potentially world altering experiments are going on right now in this and other countries funded by the secretive daisy chain of government health agencies and powerful NGOs? Experiments you have never heard of, but that could change your life forever.

If they can engineer bat viruses to make them more infectious and whoops, they escape from a lab, what else are they doing?

You’re not supposed to ask that question. You’ve been commanded to trust the science and get back to watching Netflix, plebe. Only Neanderthals ask questions.

And honestly, that has been the arrangement in science for quite a while now. You pay for it, we do it. It’s all good.

But why should that continue? Now, that we know that liars and moral pygmies, people like Tony Fauci and the soulless bots at Google HQ are running global science, maybe it’s worth being slightly more inquisitive about what’s happening in labs around the world. Why not? It could affect us.

For example, take a look at this tape. It’s from an annual conference called the World Science Festival. A few years ago, the conference featured a Professor of Bioethics and Philosophy at New York University called Matthew Liao.

Liao was among the most influential bioethicists in the world and that’s a fact that will amaze you once you see this tape. Here is Liao explaining that climate change can be solved with something called human engineering.


MATTHEW LIAO, PROFESSOR OF BIOETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: My view is that what we need is a really robust ethical framework and within this ethical — robust ethical framework, we can — I think there’s a way going forward where we can do this ethically.

But there’s actually a lot of opportunities for this to solve big world problems. So, one thing is the climate change and there — I’ll just use, you know, sort of climate change is really a big problem. We don’t really know how to solve it, but it turns out that we can use human engineering to help us address climate change.


COOPER: Okay, here is a tip. Anyone who uses the phrase “robust ethical framework” wouldn’t know ethics if they got in the shower with him, and you know that for a fact because he uses the phrase “human engineering.”

Human engineering? The name alone should make you pause and take a deep breath. People are not bridge abutments. You can’t just add rebar, pour a few yards of concrete, and improve the human condition, much less the human soul.

People are living beings. They are alive. They can’t be engineered.

Liao, the eminent bioethicist seems unaware of this.

So, we outlined some of his proposals in a recent paper in “The Journal of Ethics Policy and Environment.” In that paper, Liao suggests a solution to the problem, the pressing problem of people eating hamburgers. People like hamburgers it turns out. How can we get them to stop eating hamburgers?

Well, not by convincing them that hamburgers are bad. That was the old way. That’s how democracy worked. You would tell people something and if they believed you, they did it; and if they didn’t, they didn’t, because it was their country, it was their government. It was self-government.

But it turns out that’s too time consuming. The new model is, we just use pharmaceuticals to make people comply. If your kids are getting uppity, dope them out, and they’ll obey. And Liao proposes a nationwide system like that, a pill that would make people nauseous at the site of red meat.

Now, given that climate change is an existential threat that is limiting our time on Earth to 20 years or 12 years or six months or pick your exaggeration, it’s pretty hard to believe a pill like that would be optional. It would be mandatory pretty soon.

Does that sound like a dystopian fantasy? Oh it’s not, because Liao is deadly serious. Watch him explain at the World Science Festival.


LIAO: So, here’s a thought, right? So, it turns out that we know a lot about — so we have this intolerance to, so I for example, I have milk intolerance and there some people who are intolerant to crayfish.

So possibly, we can use human engineering to make it the case that we’re intolerant to certain kinds of meat, to certain kinds of bovine proteins. So, that’s something that we can do through human engineering. We can kind of possibly address really big world problems through human engineering.


CARLSON: “Human engineering.” Why do we laugh at Alex Jones again? Sincere question.

But again, says the bioethicist, human engineering is the answer. But wait a second, you ask, human engineering? That’s kind of creepy. Didn’t we try this kind of thing in Europe 80 years ago, and at the time, didn’t we agree we’re not going to do that ever again. True.

But bioethicists have short memories. In any case, climate change is a pressing emergency, so we don’t have time to consider the consequences of our response to this existential crisis.

So, here’s an idea says Liao at the World Science Festival, let’s fiddle with the human genome to see if we can make human children smaller than they are now, a race of dwarfs. They would eat less and they’d be cheaper to transport, and that would reduce greenhouse gases.


LIAO: So, it turns out that the larger you are, think of the lifetime sort of greenhouse gas emissions that are required to sort of — the energy that’s required to transport larger people rather than smaller people, right? But if we’re smaller just by 15 centimeters, right, that’s a mass — you know, I did the math and it’s about mass reduction of 25 percent, which is huge, and a hundred years ago, we’re all on the average, smaller, exactly about 15 centimeters smaller, right?

So, think of, jus, you know like lifetime greenhouse gas emissions if we had smaller children, right? And so that’s something that we could do.


CARLSON: Imagine if we had smaller children, little tiny children? Think of how little they would emit in greenhouse gases. Think about how easy be to pick them up, juggle them around, control them. All we need to do is experiment on human children and we can solve climate change. That was at a public conference five years ago. Nobody said anything. That’s where we are.

Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. In fact, what you just heard is less ghoulish than some of the things happening in labs right now. This is what science looks like when it has been completely decoupled from wisdom, and from decency, and from Christianity.

It is a science fiction novel come to life, except it’s real.

In fact, Google might be funding it right now.

Mike Gallagher is a Wisconsin member of Congress. He is a Republican. We’re happy to have him on tonight.

Congressman, thanks so much for coming.

So when can we expect — we’re getting piecemeal, the story about how these experiments took place, who funded them and what they may have led to — this global catastrophe. When are we going to get the whole story, do you think?

REP. MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WI): Well, luckily the dam is breaking. Even scientists that previously signed “The Lancet” letter are starting to admit we need to investigate the lab leak hypothesis, but there’s still a lot more we need to do. We need to immediately declassify all the relevant intelligence and release all of the grant information related to any U.S. taxpayer dollars that went to Wuhan.

Because what we’re seeing now, Tucker, is a troubling pattern whereby the scientists, the social media companies, the useful idiots in the American media try to stuff so many inconvenient facts down the memory hole that it finally got clogged. But even still, were it not for the work of a few reporters with integrity, a few Members of Congress, a few commentators like yourself, right now, the Democratic Party would be trying to nominate Fauci and Daszak for the Nobel Prize because these companies like Google, which by the way has an AI center in China, they look at the control that the Chinese Communist Party has over censorship, over what people think, what they share, what they write and they don’t look at it as a dystopian future to be avoided, they look at it as an aspirational model, a goal to be attained, a tool with which to crush dissent and enforce orthodoxy.

And if that’s the road we go down, well then, science no longer exists because science is all about dissent, disagreement, questioning hypotheses, at times crazy ideas. Heliocentricity was a crazy idea when it was first talked about. We have to stand up to this.

CARLSON: That’s right.

GALLAGHER: We can’t allow Google to do our thinking for us. If we want to do that, we might as well throw in the towel now, accept our new Chinese communist overlords and get to work, get a head start on our social credit score before it’s too late.

CARLSON: Man, hard to believe you’re a sitting Member of Congress, that was just so nicely put, and deep and I think completely true. Why doesn’t the leaders — I feel like the leadership of the Republican Party kind of waits around to be called racist and thinks of ways to like you know, let’s have Juneteenth, maybe they’ll stop criticizing us.

Why not use this issue on which you are right, you have the facts on your side, and the moral weight on your side to put the other side on the defensive? Like why aren’t they declassifying these documents, seriously?

GALLAGHER: Well, as Congressman Jordan has pointed out, we have a special committee to investigate coronavirus, the response to it and yet the committee under Democratic leadership in the House has refused to investigate the origin of the disease itself, which is absolutely absurd.

We have to — just declassifying intelligence is a start to a much broader process of initiating selective financial and technological decoupling from China. It is time to choose which team you’re on. Are you on Team America or are you with the communists right now?

CARLSON: Boy, I just think that you’re exactly right on that. Congressman Gallagher, I appreciate your coming on tonight. Thank you. From Wisconsin.

So, polls are about to close in the New York City Mayor’s race, it is the Democratic primary, but it’s basically the race.

FOX’s Trace Gallagher has the very latest for us tonight. Hey, Trace.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CHANNEL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Tucker. Shootings in New York City are up 77 and Progressive New York mayoral candidate, Maya Wiley thinks the solution is to trim the NYPD budget by a billion dollars. She claims it’s not really a cut, just kind of cutting the fat with no effect on safety.

Wiley is also open to the idea of disarming police and thinks enforcing curfews is a waste of money. Then there’s her push toward diversity. During her time in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration, Wiley was in charge of directing government contracts to businesses owned by women and minorities.

When Wiley took charge, only 5.3 percent of government spending went toward those businesses, and when she left three years later, the spending had somehow dropped to 4.9 percent. Even Al Sharpton took a swipe at Wiley saying the goal is to get minority contracts up, not down.

It’s unclear if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was aware of Wiley’s fail at City Hall when she endorsed her, but the progressive push has lifted Wiley into the top three of the Democratic primary and that’s important because for the first time, New York is using rank choice voting, that’s where voters list their top five choices, and if a candidate gets more than 50 percent or first place votes, he or she is the winner.

But with 13 candidates, somebody getting 50 percent highly unlikely and that begins the process of elimination where each ballot, that last place candidate is then out, and their vote goes to the next person in line and then so on and so on.

Add that messy math to the fact that absentee ballots aren’t due for another week and we should have a winner in this race sometime mid-late- July — Tucker.

CARLSON: Why not just have an election? Trace Gallagher, that was the clearest explanation I’ve ever heard of rank choice voting which I still don’t understand, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

T. GALLAGHER: Yes, you bet.

CARLSON: Well, you’ve heard for years now that the most racist thing you can do is ask someone to show ID before voting. It’s the new Jim Crow.

And with that in mind, you will never guess who has just changed her mind on voter ID laws. It’s an amazing story. We’ll be right back.


CARLSON: Well today, Joe Biden demanded — demanded — passage of something called H.R. 1. It’s the very first piece of legislation Democrats sponsored. It’s the For the People Act. That ought to make you nervous. That law would allow Democratic operatives to go door-to-door collecting mail-in ballots. It would legalize voter fraud.

Democrats have said for months that if you oppose this, then you’re a racist. You support Jim Crow.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Making it harder for younger, poorer, non- white, and typically Democratic voters to have — to access the ballot.

Shame, shame, shame.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): This is why when the states start to enact these kinds of voter suppression laws, what I call steal your vote laws …

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): … is to try to deny people of color, young people, poor people the right to vote, people with disabilities.


CARLSON: The right to vote — like you can’t go to the polls, like people have for 250 years. Are you joking? These people will literally say anything to increase their own power. Even the weak sisters in the Senate didn’t buy it on the Republican side. It’s got no chance of passing. Republicans blocked it today using the filibuster.

So now, in the complex dance that is the legislative process, Democrats are suddenly open to a compromise offered by Joe Manchin of West Virginia and that compromise would include voter ID laws that virtually every person in America, including majorities of black people for whatever it’s worth support.

You need one to cash a check, why not to vote? And yet, it was just a few weeks ago that Stacey Abrams, the Oracle of Georgia was telling us “that’s racism.” Now, she is telling us, oh it’s a good idea.


STACEY ABRAMS, FOUNDER AND CHAIR, FAIR, FIGHT ACTION: No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting.

Voters without a driver’s license or state ID must surrender their personal information and risk identity theft just to receive an absentee ballot, and then there are the 200,000 Georgia voters who don’t have either ID and the putative free ID that is not free when you factor in the cost of transportation and the cost of underlying documents.


CARLSON: It just makes your head spin. Brit Hume is FOX News’s senior political analyst, by virtue of his wisdom, not age. He joins us tonight.

Brit, I just need a sane person to balance this off in one sentence. I feel like I’m going crazy.

I’ve sat on this set for the last five years, in fact, I’ve even been called a racist for saying that people ought to show ID before they vote, as you would if you rent a car, stay in a hotel, or fly in a plane. Now, they’re telling us they were always for that? Have I gone insane? Did I have a stroke? What is this?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHANNEL SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the clip you just showed of Stacey Abrams who is one of those saying that, you know, no one was ever really opposed to this proves that people were and she was one of them.

The problem they’re having now, of course, Tucker, is that voter ID is wildly popular. It means something on the order of 80 percent according to one current poll and that poll reflects earlier polling on this issue going back a number of years. People think voter ID is a good idea and the bill, H.R. 1 or S. 1 if you’re considering it in the Senate would loosen voter ID provisions all across the country, which a number of states already have.

So, we already have voter ID requirements. In fact, it would say that well if you didn’t have a voter ID, you could swear out a statement saying you are who you say you are, which seems to me wouldn’t be terribly effective, but that’s what the bill was saying and that’s one of the reasons why I was opposed, and one of the reasons why Republicans felt quite safe in opposing it.

CARLSON: If you wanted to restore the public’s faith in clean elections, indeed if you wanted to have clean elections, why wouldn’t you have the elections we’ve had for hundreds of years, where you go to the polling place and vote on a paper ballot. There’s a record of how you voted. There are neutral observers there to make sure that no one cheats. Why wouldn’t we do that?

HUME: Well, one reason why we wouldn’t do that is that I think it is believed by Democrats, you heard Chuck Schumer categorizing some of them, some of their voters that the easier you make it for people to vote, the more of their voters will turn out and vote, and elect them.

So, they want to make it, you know, very easy and they refer to all of these bills that are being enacted around the country in various states as restricted. Well, every voter law, every voting provision law is restricted to some extent. For example, we don’t allow people to vote by phone or to vote over the internet.

Well, why do we do that? We do that to protect against the kind of fraud that would arise when you make voting so easy that anybody can do it and it becomes, you know, not simply easy to vote, but hard to cheat. It becomes easy to vote and easy to cheat, and that’s of course the tension there between those two things.

CARLSON: Yes, let’s people vote telepathically. We also want to point out just in the interest of our comprehensive news coverage here in the hour that it is in fact your birthday, Brit Hume, and we want to wish you the very happiest possible birthday a man can have. Do you have any words of wisdom for our viewers?

HUME: Well, yes, I would have this word of wisdom for our viewers. If you get to be my age and I’m not going to say what it is, take good care of yourself because you’ll have aches and pains and I have them.

You also will find, as Joe Biden has and I have to some extent that your memory ain’t what it used to be, nor is the color of your hair as it was reflected in that photo you just put up there, still thank you for those good wishes, Tucker. Thank you very much.

CARLSON: Man, you’re doing better than anyone else I know at your age

HUME: Well, thanks.

CARLSON: Brit Hume, the Great Brit Hume, thank you.

HUME: You bet.

CARLSON: So, in news from Washington tonight, we now know that Eric Swalwell, the Member of Congress from California is looking for someone and we want to pardon the euphemism here — to expand his brand. That’s right. Swalwell is looking for a brand expander. We’ll tell you what that means after the break.


CARLSON: We try to get things right on this show, but when we make a mistake, we correct it immediately, and we’re doing that now.

For several years, we have told you that Eric Swalwell was the single dumbest Member of Congress. The absolute dimmest of the 535 herd animals who make your laws. We meant it when we said it, but things changed — the facts on the ground. They are different.

Cori Bush was elected to office and Swalwell lost his throne. It’s sad, but Swalwell still serves with distinction. He is the only elected official in Washington, we can say with confidence has had sex with a Chinese spy. That’s not nothing. We’ve got time to think from time to time. He is probably sitting in the house steam room bragging about it. Swalwell is that kind of guy.

Of course, Swalwell is no longer having sex with that particular spy. She has fled the country ahead of Federal investigators, so there’s a hole in Swalwell life where a sexy spy once was. Hence, the new job posting that Swalwell’s office has just announced.

They’re looking for someone to quote, “Find creative ways to expand the Congressman’s brand,” apparently that’s the euphemism they’re going with, “Hey, baby expand my brand.”

Swalwell claims he is a progressive, but he’s got some pretty old-fashioned requirements for the brand expander. He wants this person to be a woman, not a dude, not a trans-person, but a verified chick preferably someone with a quote, “diverse background and lived experiences.” What kind of lived experiences is Eric Swalwell talking about?

Well, this is a family show, so we’re not going to speculate on that, but you can imagine what he is talking about, meow. Hot times with congressman spy sex.

So, alert your daughters. This is not a job they want.

Beijing, send your best.

So, things have changed completely at our centers of learning, our elite college campuses. Joel Peterson understands the problem well. He is a professor at Stanford. He is also the former Chairman of JetBlue and possibly because he had a successful life before he got to campus, he has been willing to be honest about what he has seen there.

He has got a brand new piece called “My Road to Cancellation.” It appeared at “The Deseret News” and we are happy to have Professor Joel Peterson join us tonight. Professor, thanks so much for coming on.


CARLSON: So before — I won’t go on about how I’m grateful that you’re here and asking why so many other Professors aren’t, but again, thank you for doing this. Tell us what happened to you and what you learned from it?

PETERSON: Well, it all started really when President Trump was elected and I had several students come to me and say they needed time off. They had been triggered by the election and they couldn’t take their exams and at first, I was a little disappointed that I hadn’t thought of that when Nixon was elected to President, when I was in college.

But I got over that and then one thing happened after another where they started making excuses and were triggered for various things. Finally, it culminated in them reporting me to the Dean and the Dean calling me in and then I let that go.

So, several years had gone by, but then this spring, a student actually posted on Twitter that white people should be eradicated, and that troubled me a little bit, but I still didn’t say anything until a Jewish student came to me and said that he felt kind of threatened by claims of racism and I thought you know, somebody has to speak out.

CARLSON: And so you did speak out and what — I mean, if someone can get up and call for genocide against a racial group and it’s just seen as business as usual, it tells you the environment you’re living in. How did people respond when you finally said, whoa, this is crazy.

PETERSON: Well, I think there were two kinds of responses. There was one that was sort of the social media response, which is sort of limited to 140 characters or maybe 280, if you really are feeling your oats, and it’s all about outrage. It’s about the narrative, and it’s where people aren’t only triggered, they are hair triggered.

And then they are the more thoughtful response that you find with faculty. I had one fellow tell me that 200 faculty members had written the President a letter including four Nobel Prize winners, so I think people are taking it seriously and seeing the problem as a real one.

CARLSON: Just to be clear, written a letter on your behalf supporting you.

PETERSON: No actually written a letter uh that really reflect what they decided in Chicago. The University of Chicago has a kind of an anti- triggering warning where they say to students, if you’re here and you don’t feel your views are really threatened, you’re in the wrong place. You should go somewhere else.

CARLSON: That’s right.

PETERSON: And so rather than protect students, you know, they’re actually willing to have them be triggered, have open free debate, exchanges of ideas, and whatever — that really doesn’t happen as much on the coast.

CARLSON: Yes because people coming out of institutions like the one you’re describing are not ready to lead a country, I don’t think, and I appreciate your speaking out. Joel Peterson Professor at Stanford, thank you.

So, Chris Rufo is a researcher and he dared to expose critical race theory for what it is, it’s anti-white racism, obviously. Now watch the hit pieces targeting Chris Rufo. They are everywhere all of a sudden, as expected, but Chris Rufo is still standing. He joins us after the break.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The more you kind of dive into that, the more I’m really realizing how deeply rooted racism is into like my everyday thought process.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A living embodied anti-racist culture does not exist among white people. White people have got to start getting together, specifically around race.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: White accountability groups are really helpful.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There’s a period of deep shame for being white.


CARLSON: This is really sick and it’s a complete dead end that will tank the country if we allow it to continue. Everyone is created equal in the eyes of God, and if you don’t act that way and judge people based on who they are and what they do, the choices they make, and instead judge them on the color of their skin, it’s over.

That’s very obvious. It’s been obvious to people for a long time. In fact, it was universally acknowledged up until about 20 minutes ago. But “The Washington Post” owned by Jeff Bezos and “The New York Times” and a few other big outlets like CNN and NBC are leading the charge in the other direction.

The video you just saw which is deranged was released un-ironically without scolding comment by “The Washington Post” on Friday as part of a new series it calls “The New Normal.” Then a day after the video went up, “The Washington Post” published a hit piece on a journalist called Chris Rufo.

Now, no one has done more in this country than Chris Rufo to expose so- called critical race theory for what it really is, which is racism, unadorned. It’s systemic racism if there ever was it. He has said that clearly and they hate him for it.

“The Washington Post” made so many errors in the ridiculous little hit piece that they had to post a list of corrections. Over at MSNBC, however, the race lady has not issued any corrections including lying about how the F.B.I. was on the case of the hackers who rearranged her blog or whatever – – what a liar. She thinks that Chris Rufo and anyone else who doesn’t like critical race theory is — can you guess? Yes, you guessed it.


JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: We’ve seen a growing movement to reframe how American history is taught in public schools. Well some parents who are opposed to critical race theory as new curriculum aren’t too pleased.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just because I do not want critical race theory taught to my children in school does not mean that I’m a racist, dammit.

REID: She actually does. It is just another example of Republicans turning kids into a wedge issue, just like their politically motivated attacks on transgender youth who just want to play sports.


CARLSON: Immigrant parents come to this country, I’m sure they were nice people, send their daughter to Harvard, and that’s what you get. It really is — our system produces the worst people. They’re not the worst people when they start, most people are decent when they start. But our institutions at the top of the society produce people like that and that’s the problem.

She went on to say that Chris Rufo was only disagreeing with her because he wanted to get on her show quote, “This is a weirdly aggressive way to get yourself on TV, Christopher. Why not just contact my booking producers like a normal person rather than going through with the white man demands option.” What a bigot she is, and an unhappy person. My word.

Chris Rufo is in fact one of the most effective journalists and filmmakers in the country and we’re happy to have him on with us tonight. He still remains. So, Chris Rufo, I’m surprised you’re not in hiding after “The Washington Post” and MSNBC have decided, you know, you should shut up. Be quiet, Chris Rufo.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO, DIRECTOR, DISCOVERY INSTITUTE: Yes, absolutely. No, I’m eating this his pieces for breakfast. It is really not fazing me at all. I’m laser focused on my mission and the fact is that “The Washington Post” spent three weeks, they deployed two reporters trying to attack me, trying to undermine me. It backfired spectacularly.

They had to retract or add six paragraphs in the story. They had to reverse one of their key accusations against me. They admitted to fabricating a timeline of events that was key to their story, and then they really couldn’t provide any evidence when I challenged them, claiming that they didn’t have an audio recording or a transcript of the quotations they used and had falsified.

So, it doesn’t bother me one bit. I think it really shows that we’re having an impact. We’ve woken up millions of parents to the dangers of critical race theory. They are now starting to take action in School Boards across the country and these neo-racist bigots are starting to get worried.

CARLSON: What’s so crazy is that you’re the opposite of the radical here. You’re the moderate. You’re defending a national consensus that existed in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected President and “The Washington Post” said, and everyone said. This is proof that people are judged by what they do, by what they believe, by the content of their character, not by the way they look or how they were born. That was the whole point.

And you’re defending that and you’re the crazy person.

By the way, we should say we’re going to do this on tomorrow’s show, two people were arrested today, apparently at a School Board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia. When I think, at least in part, inspired by your reporting they went to say, whoa, you can’t teach my kids this hatred, this garbage. Do you think that will continue?

RUFO: Yes, it’s absolutely going to continue. We’re seeing it around the country and I think it’s really important for viewers to understand the difference between equality and equity, which is really what we’re talking about here.

Equality is the idea that everyone is created equal, that everyone should have equal protection under the law, but equity, this idea that sounds good, it sounds soft and fuzzy, actually means something totally different. It means that they’re trying to divide the country into competing racial groups. They are using active racial discrimination, which they call anti- racist discrimination to try to achieve equality of outcomes.

And listen, regimes in the 20th Century tried this approach of equity. It left body counts in the tens of millions and we shouldn’t try it here. There’s no chance that this will succeed and we have to know exactly where it is starting, which is in our schools.

CARLSON: Please don’t shut up. You know whatever they do, whatever cost they extract from you personally and I’m sure it’s already been high, it’s worth it. You’re doing a public service that’s really important and it is crucial, so I hope you’ll keep it up.

Chris Rufo, thank you.

RUFO: Thank you.

CARLSON: So, according to the World Health Organization, a new lockdown may be coming soon. You’ll never guess why they’re going to lock you down this time. We’ll tell you after the break.


CARLSON: This is a FOX News alert. Two parents were arrested tonight at a School Board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia. This is new video out of there, which shows the arrest.

You obviously have to ask, what crime did these parents commit? They showed up because they were given space to speak. So, many parents showed up to speak and to decry the baldly racist ideology that’s been crammed down the throats of their children, poisoning an entire generation of children that the School Board shut it down, apparently and arrested people who didn’t leave.

It’s a big story. We plan to investigate it further. We’re going to have the latest for you tomorrow night.

So, we’re learning more now about the sad toll of the corona lockdowns in this country. According to Joe Biden though, we could get another round of lockdowns. These, for a crisis that’s every bit as bad as the coronavirus, may be worse. That crisis, of course, says Joe Biden is climate change.


JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, I’m pleased to announce a team that will lead my administration’s ambitious plan to address the existential threat of our time, climate change.

Folks, we’re in a crisis just like we need to be a unified nation in response to COVID-19, we need a unified national response to climate change, and from this crisis, from these crises, I should say, we need to seize the opportunity to build back and build back better than we were before.


CARLSON A unified national response. It’s involuntary, that’s the one thing we know. What does it mean? Well, we’re learning that a World Health Organization staffer has written a report saying that a climate lockdown could be called for, just like a COVID lockdown, a climate lockdown.

Marc Morano is an author who has written a lot about climate change. He founded Climate Depot. He joins us tonight. Marc, thanks so much for coming on.

A climate lockdown. Now, I would laugh this off the table except we all just lived through the last 18 months, so we know that anything is possible. What does this mean exactly?

MARC MORANO, FOUNDER, CLIMATE DEPOT: Well, you know in my book “Green Fraud,” I detail two chapters on this, Tucker. This is — the climate activists were first of all jealous when the COVID lockdowns happened. They were beside themselves saying how is this happening? Everyone from Greta Thunberg to John Kerry, U.N. officials, and then they started saying, we need to follow this.

If we can shut down for a virus, we can shut down for climate, and that’s what we’re seeing. There’s even academics in Australia proposing adding climate change to death certificates, and Bill Gates has said the death toll will be greater.

So, they’re following every step of the way and it’s not just, you know, a professor here or someone in academia, we have a major U.K. report coming out. We have an international agency report that came out calling for essentially the same type of lockdowns, everything from restrictions on your thermostat to restrictions of moving. You know, you can only fly in a climate emergency when it’s quote, “morally justifiable.” You know kind of like a lockdown, you have to justify going to the store for essential services.

They’re going after freedom of movement. They’re going after private car ownership. They’re going after everything it means to be a free person and turning it over to the administrative state.

CARLSON: Would this include shutting down the iPhone factories in China? Would china and India participate in this climate lockdown? Or is it kind of you first, America?

MORANO: Well, you know, as we know the lockdowns had never been proposed. We felt like lemmings following the Chinese Communist Party in terms of them recommending lockdowns. The World Health Organization went after it. The World Health Organization employees are now recommending these climate lockdowns.

The one country that won’t be affected is China. As you say, as we’re sitting home binge-watching Netflix, we’re not going to be able to have the freedoms we used to have. In the U.K., they propose CO2 ration cards that the government or employers would monitor your CO2 levels. You know your energy use, your travel, the type of car you drive.

If you exceed a level, you pay penalties. If you’re under, you get credits.

This is the world, a CO2 budget for every man, woman, and child on the planet has been proposed by a German climate adviser. This is our — this is what we’re looking at.

You know, I talked to a German who talked about East Germany. They used to have these kind of restrictions in East Germany before you could leave the country, but we’re talking about proposing these now on Americans within the country, and we had this of course with COVID. They were talking about bans on interstate travel at one point, a national ban, some of Biden’s advisers.

So, anything is possible. Chuck Schumer is urging Biden to declare a national climate emergency just like a blue state governor, he could have emergency powers.

CARLSON: I feel such a deep shame that Americans complied with what we’ve just been through and I hope that they will not comply with this. I really do.

Marc, thanks so much for coming on.

MORANO: Sure. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: We’ll see you again, for sure.

We’ll be back tomorrow, every night, the show that is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

And now ladies and gentlemen, drumroll please. Taking over for us tonight from a city in transition, Sean Hannity.