Tucker Carlson: Why no one ever makes the economic case for mass immigration

People debate all the time about mass immigration. But what you never hear anybody do is make the economic case for mass immigration. And here’s why: Our country’s economy is becoming more automated and tech-centered by the day. It’s obvious we need more scientists and skilled engineers. What we’re getting instead are waves of poor … Continue reading “Tucker Carlson: Why no one ever makes the economic case for mass immigration”

People debate all the time about mass immigration. But what you never hear anybody do is make the economic case for mass immigration. And here’s why: Our country’s economy is becoming more automated and tech-centered by the day.

It’s obvious we need more scientists and skilled engineers. What we’re getting instead are waves of poor people with a high school education or less. They’re nice people; nobody doubts that. But as an economic matter, this is insane. It’s indefensible, so nobody tries to defend it.

Instead, our leaders demand you shut up and accept it. We’ve got a moral obligation to admit the world’s poor, they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer, dirtier and more divided. Immigration is a form of atonement. Previous leaders of our country committed sins. So, we must pay for those sins by welcoming an endless chain of migrant caravans.

That’s the argument. If it sounds like something some dopey sociology professor at Long Beach State thought up while half-drunk in the 1970s, you’re right. That’s pretty much exactly what it is. Yet, somehow, the immigration-as-atonement idea has become the official position of virtually every guilty liberal in the United States: our tech overlords who are also lecturing you; corporate America; Nancy Pelosi; and Paul Ryan. They all believe this. And anyone who disagrees with them is denounced as a bigot and fired.

It’s obvious we need more scientists and skilled engineers. What we’re getting instead are waves of poor people with a high school education or less. They’re nice people; nobody doubts that. But as an economic matter, this is insane.

What’s so amusing is that nobody ever bothered to explain any of these rules to the people of Tijuana. Tijuana is in Mexico, which means they’re Mexican citizens. By academic definitions popular in this country, they must be oppressed. Nobody on the American left ever imagined the people of Tjuana would display the classic symptoms of white privilege. And yet, when a caravan of Honduran immigrants showed up in their city uninvited, that’s exactly what they did.
 
"We do know of incidences of Tijuana and [in] other cities, that these people in the caravans are committing crimes," one protester said. "This is not about racism. We don't dislike a certain group of people because they're from another country. We're here because our government has not taken control of these invasions."

"Your country has to beware of these people because there are bad people," another Tijuana man told a reporter.
 
That sounds like a Trump rally. When did Mexican citizens start talking like this? It’s confusing, and of course, deeply hilarious and satisfying to watch.

What’s more predictable is how leaders of the caravan are starting to behave. Suddenly, they sound like community college professors from Long Beach – entitled, cut off from reality, highly aggressive. On Wednesday, a group of leaders from the caravan marched into the U.S. consulate in Mexico and demanded $50,000 in exchange for returning to their own countries.

Huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Nope. Cynical shakedown artists who’ve been watching too much CNN. No surprise there. When rich liberals tell you that America owes you a comfortable life, nobody should be shocked when you believe them.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on December 13, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: Democrats say border walls are immoral, don’t work. What about Israel?

President Trump has decided that the Republican Congress, during its final weeks in office, should fund a wall along our southern border with Mexico. It’s not a new idea, obviously. Trump ran for office three years ago on that very promise. Voters agreed, and they elected him. Now he’s demanding, unequivocally, that the wall finally get built.

At the same time, mand this is not a coincidence, the American news media has identified the single most racist idea anyone has every thought of in the history of America: Building a wall along our southern border with Mexico.

"The President went to the heart of what I call his "brown menace theory," saying these migrants, they're dirty people, they bring disease ," said CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

"Donald Trump is fixated on the southern border, as he was the day that he announced his campaign," said political commentator Angela Rye on CNN. "It is not about securing the borders. It is about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs."

So, it’s pretty clear: Border walls are racist. Unlike border fences. Border fences are not racist. They’re much easier to climb over. That’s why Democrats have repeatedly voted to fund them. You can have lots of border fences and still wind up with 22 million illegal aliens living in your country. We’ve proved that conclusively over the years.

Fences are the perfect solution if you’re trying to pretend you care about border security, while simultaneously encouraging much of the third world to move here without permission. Fences are awesome for that. Yay, fences!

But walls? As Nancy Pelosi has explained, walls are immoral. According to CNN, walls are nothing less than an attack on the human heart.

"A wall won't solve it. All that he's doing is putting up walls around people's hearts," Rye said.

"Don’t waste millions of dollars in taxpayer money for something that will not make us more secure," said U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

And that’s the other point Democrats keep making. Walls don’t work. They’re totally ineffective. Except in prisons. And the Vatican. And outside Barack Obama’s house in Washington. And in almost every upper-income neighborhood in America, where walls surround the front lawns of the homes where Hillary Clinton and Beto O’Rourke hold their fundraisers.

So, it’s pretty clear: Border walls are racist. Unlike border fences. Border fences are not racist. They’re much easier to climb over. That’s why Democrats have repeatedly voted to fund them. You can have lots of border fences and still wind up with 22 million illegal aliens living in your country.

But along international borders, walls are useless. A border wall would simply create a thriving new market in taller ladders. Jeb Bush used to say that all the time. Everyone in power agrees with him. They’re nodding vigorously from their gated communities:

A politicians like Chuck Schumer cite experts and say we can do border security without a wall. It’s wasteful. Walls won’t solve the problem. All the experts agree on this. They have briefed Chuck Schumer on that, and he’s passing on the news to us. OK.

Before we accept Schumer’s claim as fact, let's ask one question: What about Israel?

Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East. It’s the recipient of our largest foreign aid package by far. Pretty much everybody in Congress, on both sides, supports Israel, or claims to. Many of them are vocal about it, including Schumer. And yet here’s the funny thing: Israel has plenty of walls, and not just the famous one that people pray at. Israel has border walls, some of them tall and foreboding and made of steel.

Are Israel’s walls immoral? By Nancy Pelosi’s standards, why wouldn’t they be? It’s an obvious question, and we’ve asked it of Democrats repeatedly on "Tucker Carlson Tonight." Every single time, we get the very same answer: Israel’s walls have nothing to do with immigration. They’re defensive walls, designed to keep out terrorists and suicide bombers. There’s no comparison between Israel walls and anything Trump is proposing. Apples and oranges.

It’s an effective talking point. That’s why every Democrat repeats it. But is it actually true?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on December 12, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: NBC is disgusted by Trump, would never tolerate paying off female accusers – except under extreme circumstances

If the professional hysterics on cable news – Don Lemon and the rest  - have seemed a little more florid and jumpy than usual recently, there’s a reason: They’ve finally uncovered the president’s crimes.

No, not Russia collusion. Despite years of searching, there’s still no evidence that happened. This horrifying new misdeed they have uncovered has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin. Instead, it’s about sex. Here’s how The New York Times describes it: “President Trump directed illegal payments to ward off a potential sex scandal that threatened his chances of winning the White House.”

In other words, Trump paid off former girlfriends.

So, let’s assume that happened. We don’t know for certain that it did; we’d need videotape to prove that. For the sake of debate, let’s just say it did. Why would sending money to women be considered a crime?

Because, federal prosecutors and their lackeys on TV are telling us, Trump was running for president at the time. Therefore, his payments constitute a campaign finance violation, even though the money apparently didn’t come from his campaign. That’s the argument.

There’s no precedent for that argument, to put it mildly. Bill Clinton tried to keep his affair with Monica Lewinsky secret by giving her a government salary. Nobody suggested that was a campaign finance violation. Even when presidents have admittedly violated campaign finance laws, impeachment and felony charges never entered the conversation.

Barack Obama, for example, ran for president in 2008. His presidential campaign was found guilty of campaign violations involving nearly $2 million. That’s almost ten times the payments Trump made. No one was prosecuted for that. The Obama campaign got off with a $375,000 fine to the FEC.

The good people of NBC News are disgusted by what Donald Trump did. Paying off female accusers? That’s just wrong. As Nancy Pelosi might say, it’s “immoral.” It’s not something NBC would engage in or tolerate or countenance. Ever. Except possibly under extreme circumstances.

In 1998, Chuck Schumer was caught taking $1 million in “excessive contributions.” He also failed to properly disclose $6.4 million in expenses. The consequences of all this: Schumer paid a $138,000 fine. Chuck Schumer is still in the Senate today.

Senator John Edwards, meanwhile, funneled up to a million dollars in donor money to his mistress in the middle of a presidential campaign. He never spent a day in jail. Edwards was sleazy. He wasn’t a criminal.

For some reason, you haven’t heard any of this background on NBC recently. The good people of NBC News are disgusted by what Donald Trump did. Paying off female accusers? That’s just wrong. As Nancy Pelosi might say, it’s “immoral.” It’s not something NBC would engage in or tolerate or countenance. Ever.

Except possibly under extreme circumstances, like on those occasions when hiding the sexual misbehavior of its high-paid anchors seemed important to quarterly earnings. Or when accused rapist Harvey Weinstein called in for a favor. Or other times, too.

But those were entirely different circumstances because Donald Trump was not involved. And Trump is a very bad man, even though he once worked at NBC and made tens of millions of dollars for the company. But, again, that was different.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on December 11, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: What ‘crimes’ did President Trump commit in the Michael Cohen case?

If you’ve been watching television recently, you’ve probably heard the bad news: The Trump administration is over. Toast. Cooked. Done for good, along with it any hope of the middle class revolution 63 million Americans voted for two years ago.

The reason for this tragedy is simple: The president has been caught committing felonies. Legal experts without law degrees have had a lot to say on TV.

“If precedent means anything in the Trump era, Donald Trump will be — must be — impeached because of the crimes prosecutors say he committed in the Michael Cohen case,” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell said.

“Both parties need to get on board to pass articles of impeachment,” said Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s former 2016 campaign manager.

“You have conspiracy. You have obstruction. You have campaign finance,” said Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude on MSNBC. “You have emoluments … If the Democrats do not pursue this vigorously, they will be, in some ways, held accountable for abdicating their responsibility …  It goes to the moral question, the ethical question. Democracy is at stake!”

And U.S. Rep Maxine Waters, D-Calif. said, “This criminal must be brought up by the Congress of the United States for impeachment.”

There’s a lot of emotion there. But to sum up, we’re staring down the barrel of a constitutional crisis. And that crisis stems from what MSNBC describes as “the crimes prosecutors say the president committed in the Michael Cohen case.”

And which crimes were those? The relevant details were spelled out in a piece that ran over the weekend in the New York Times, under this headline: “Prosecutors say Trump directed illegal payments during campaign.”

The gist is this: Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has told federal investigators that he facilitated payments to two women who said they had affairs with Donald Trump. And then…. well, actually that’s it. That’s the entire story right there. Paying these two women, say federal prosecutors and their flacks at NBC, was a serious crime, a crime worthy of impeachment, if not indictment.

But, you might be wondering, how exactly is that criminal? We’ll explain that to you.

Let’s start by stipulating that everything Michael Cohen has told the feds is absolutely true. Assuming honesty isn’t usually a wise idea with Michael Cohen, but for the sake of argument, let’s do it in this case. Why is what Cohen is alleging a criminal offense?

Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed: Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. That sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make sense.

Oh, but you’re not a federal prosecutor on a political mission. If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you’d construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions. You’d do this even though the money in question didn’t come from, or go to, Trump’s presidential campaign.

Then you’d claim that Trump and Cohen violated campaign finance law because they didn’t publicly disclose those payments, despite the fact that disclosing them would nullify the reason for making them in the first place –which was to keep the whole thing secret. That is the argument you’d make, both in federal court and through your proxies on cable television.

It is insultingly stupid. But because everyone in power hates the target of your investigation, nobody would question you. And that’s what’s happening right now.

Screw you, America, and your stupid election. We’re in charge. That’s the real message here.

By this reasoning, any money a political candidate spends to maintain or protect his image while running for office now qualifies as a regulated campaign donation and has to be disclosed. That would include, in addition to an infinite number of other things, buying toothpaste and getting a haircut. It would definitely include the taxpayer-financed slush fund Congress has set aside to pay off its own sexual harassment claims. Yes, those now qualify as campaign contributions. They must be publicly disclosed.

Except they’re not disclosed and never will be. Why is that? That might be a question for congressional leaders, including, Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank, Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a very powerful man in Congress. What does Mr. Schiff have to say about Congress not disclosing the very same payments that Democrats say Trump should be impeached for not disclosing?

“There's a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him, that he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” Schiff said on another cable news channel.

So, to translate: Trump’s a criminal! He’s going to jail! For committing a smaller version of the same made-up crime that we in Congress have committed for years and forced you to pay for. By the way, we’re never apologizing for that, because we don’t have to and CNN isn’t going to make us. Screw you, America, and your stupid election. We’re in charge.

That’s the real message here.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on December 10, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: Our ruling class has clamped down on freedom of speech as never before

Freedom of speech. A lot of people voted for Donald Trump in the hope they’d have more of it. But two years into his presidency, the opposite has happened.

Our ruling class has clamped down as never before on personal expression. Gone is the free exchange of ideas we were promised as Americans. In its place: Mandatory, soul-deadening conformity. An entire population forced to repeat the same mindless platitudes, or else.

An axis of left-wing corporate power, academia, media, and lawmakers have all aligned to curb your right to speak freely – your right to think for yourself. When they control your words, they control your mind.

The left used to deny that this was their goal. However, they’re not even pretending anymore. They’re baring their teeth and snarling. Get in line or we’ll hurt you.

In a speech Monday night, Apple CEO Tim Cook pledged that his company, one of the biggest and most powerful in the world, will do whatever it takes to silence dissenting opinions. Here's some of what he said:

“Hate tries to make its headquarters in the digital world. At Apple, we believe that technology needs to have a clear point of view on this challenge,” he said. “There is no time to get tied up in knots. That's why we only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms.”

Hate. It’s a real thing and there’s a lot of it out there right now. But hate is also the word they use for views they don’t like, or questions they can’t answer. Cook's real message is simple: We are holy; you are fallen. Shut up and obey.

CEOs didn’t used to talk this way. They were in the business of selling products, not preaching sermons. Then, over time, conventional religion receded from public life, and people like Tim Cook and his fellow CEOs stepped forward to fill that void. It wasn’t an upgrade.

Apple has a lot more power than the Episcopal Church ever had, and much less humility and restraint. Leaders 100 years ago could tolerate dissent. They thought God would sort it out in the end — they didn't have to.

Members of our modern ruling class consider themselves gods. They render their own judgment. They view disagreement as equivalent to apostasy, an attack on the one true faith.

In New York, to name but one example, among many, a new bill in the state legislature would ban anyone who says something politicians don’t like from buying a firearm. Prospective gun owners would be required to give up their passwords and to show their social media accounts to regulators, who would inspect them for unapproved thoughts.

Does this sound like something the Chinese military thought up? Yes it does. But Democrats aren’t apologizing for it. One of the bill’s sponsors tried to justify it with the following explanation.

“If we make this law and you have to allow the state government to look at your social media posts, you could decide on whether you want a pistol license or not,” said State Sen. Kevin Parker, D-N.Y. “You don't have to have a pistol license."

True. You don’t have to vote, either, or go to the church of your choice, or be tried by a jury of your peers. What other constitutional rights will soon be contingent on saying the right things?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on December 5, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: The media storyline on immigration never changes — it’s mindless and predictable

For more than a year now, the media storyline on immigration has been as mindless and predictable as a Jim Acosta script.

The talking points never change, it doesn’t matter what the story is. It could be the caravan. Or family separation. Sanctuary cities. Even MS-13.

The details are irrelevant. Immigration is always good, whether it’s legal or not because immigrants are always good.– It doesn’t matter where they’re from or how much English they speak, or how they’ve lived their lives or what they’ve done before.

Immigrants are the heart of America. By definition, they’re impressive, much more impressive than actual Americans, most of whom are fat and racist. That’s Jim Acosta’s position. Or it was. You may have noticed that the other channels suddenly seem less eager to talk about immigration. They are de-emphasizing the issue. Why is that?

Part of the problem may be the caravan – which actually exists and is in Tijuana, Mexico right now. Now, this should be good news for Mexico. If there’s one thing we know about penniless Central American immigrants, it’s that they found a huge number of wildly successful tech startups, they’re at the heart of your economy.

And yet, the citizens of Tijuana don’t seem grateful for their presence. Instead, they look highly annoyed that their city’s been invaded by strangers. As the city’s mayor noted, when people enter your country illegally, many of them are criminals:

“These people are coming in violently, unrespectfully, not as good law-abiding citizen and that is what hurt us …It’s not all of them but yes a lot of them are not really nice people who want to work, who want to integrate into our economy, they are just troublemakers.”

“A lot of them are not really nice people, they’re troublemakers.” Imagine an American mayor saying something like that on television.

And it got more intense from there. Monday night on this show, a Tijuana city councilman told us that the government had to intervene recently to keep Mexican citizens and the caravan members from throwing rocks at each other:

“We had to bring them over here because the neighbors from – from that – from that part of town, it's called Playas de Tijuana, it's like Tijuana by the sea, they were getting mad and they even started throwing stones at each other.  So, we carried them over here like 360 but things got out of hand because it kept growing and growing.”

Throwing rocks at immigrants? That doesn’t happen in this country. It does happen in Mexico, though. People who live in Tijuana are not American, so they haven’t been told that expressing their honest views about immigration will get you fired. So, they have no problem saying what they really think and what they really think turns out to be very much like what Donald Trump really thinks, amazingly.

LAJEUNESSE: Should this caravan have been stopped at the Guatemala border?

TIJUANA MAN: Of course. I agree with that a hundred percent. They should have

SECOND TIJUANA MAN: Your country has to beware of these people because there are bad people.

THIRD TIJUANA MAN: They don't belong here. They're migrants. It's the same case as when Mexican migrants go to the US and they're undocumented…

TIJUANA PROTESTER:  We do know of incidences of Tijuana and other cities that these people in the caravans are committing crimes … This is not about racism. We don't dislike a certain group of people because they're from another country. We're here because our government has not taken control of these what we call invasions.

Now if you’re CNN, or MSNBC or NBC News or ABC News what do you do with an interview like that? You can’t put it on the air because it doesn’t make sense, according to the rules you’ve established. You can’t really argue that Mexicans are anti-Hispanic racists, that’s what you call everyone else who is opposed to immigration, so what do you do? Well, you just pretend that none of this is happening. It’s not real. And that’s what they’re doing. But that won’t work forever. People tend to notice obvious things, they can’t help it. And if they keep noticing obvious things, their views change. And that’s why the consensus on immigration is changing fast.

Even Hillary Clinton and John Kerry recently warned that mass immigration can destabilize countries, as it’s done in Europe.

They’re right, of course. It’s happening here, too.

A new analysis of census data shows that sixty-three percent of non-citizens in the U.S. receive some kind of welfare benefits. That’s not what they told you. But those are the numbers. – From the census. Even among legal immigrants, the best kind, the ones who become naturalized citizens, fully half are on government assistance. By the way, that’s well above the native average.

Now leaving aside the moral considerations, does it work as a math question? Well, it would work in a country with infinite resources. Is America a country with infinite resources?

Well, look around.

Every night, hundreds of thousands of our citizens, Americans, sleep outdoors on the street, they’re homeless. The country’s middle class is shrinking and dying younger. The third year in a row. Again, these are American citizens. Some of them probably think they should have first dibs on help from the government, but they’re not getting it.

And by the way, looking forward here’s a question that no one is considering. Will the mass immigration we’re watching now make this country richer or poorer?

In fact, the majority of our immigrants have only a high school education or less. Many of them know very little English, some not at all.

Now, that was a difficult problem to solve a hundred years ago during our first major wave of immigration. But consider what it means now, at a time when automation is killing entire sectors of our economy, how are immigrants, with low levels of education and low levels of English supposed to succeed in an increasingly high-tech, skills-based economy? And by the way, how about are our own vulnerable workers, do they benefit from the presence of these immigrants?

These are real questions. They are critical questions that Washington should be thinking about deeply and answering. But Washington isn’t thinking about them. And Washington can’t answer them. So instead they are trying to ban the conversation from taking place.

We’re going to try again anyway to have it.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on December 4, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: The Mueller probe and what we have learned about how Washington works

President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to lying to Congress. Cohen conceded that he was intentionally wrong. He lied about the dates of an abortive Moscow real estate deal when he testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee last year.

Cohen's plea was, of course, big news on cable television. The president responded to it as well. He called Cohen, "weak," and "not a very smart person."

Well, that's objectively true, of course. It's also worth asking why anyone would hire a weak, dumb lawyer. Someday, we'll get to the bottom of that.

But, for now, let's consider what we have just learned about how Washington works. Apparently, it's now an enforceable felony to lie to the U.S. Congress.

On one level, that is good news. We should take our own laws seriously.

Functional countries do that. Nations in decline set up sanctuary cities and ignore their own borders. Nor is it implausible that Michael Cohen might have broken this law or really any other law.

Nobody who knows him is shocked by the allegation. If Cohen was accused of running a cannibalism ring, you'd have to at least take the charge seriously. Anything is possible with that guy, so, three cheers for law and order.

The problem is if you're going to enforce statutes, you have to enforce them fairly and evenly. The law has to apply to everyone. Otherwise, it's not really the law. It's a political weapon.

Michael Cohen is facing five years in prison for telling Congress something that he knew was false. How often does that happen in Washington? If you watch C-SPAN, you know the answer. Constantly, all the time.

There are almost never consequences, by the way. According to one study, between the Second World War and 2007, a total of only six people were convicted of lying to Congress, six people in 60 years. In other words, the law is not enforced. And that's why people break it so often.

Here’s this sworn testimony before Congress from 2013. This is not someone you haven't heard of. This is the then Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, assuring the Congress, under oath, that the NSA absolutely does not spy on American citizens.

RONALD LEE WYDEN, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR FOR OREGON, DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER, DEAN OF OREGON'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION: Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, RETIRED LIEUTENANT GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: No, sir.

WYDEN: It does not?

CLAPPER: Not wittingly.

Yes. Clapper lied. He's a liar. There's no debate about that. And yet, he wasn't charged for lying under oath. In fact, Clapper got richer after he retired. CNN hired him as an Analyst.

Pretty much the same thing happened with Jim Comey, the former FBI Director.

In 2017, Comey claimed, again, under oath, that he had never been an anonymous source for news stories while he worked at the FBI. Here’s what he said when he told that lie to the Congress:

CHARLES GRASSLEY, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, IOWA, REPUBLICAN PARTY MEMBER: Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION: Never.

GRASSLEY: Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

COMEY: No.

Yes. Well, according to Comey's long-time deputy who would know, and that would be former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, what Comey said on the tape you just saw is totally untrue.

So, Comey lied to Congress. But nobody cared. Jim Comey went on to get rich as a pundit selling his book. — The same people rooting for Michael Cohen's destruction for lying consider Jim Comey a hero.

And then there's former CIA Director, John Brennan. Brennan lies constantly. That's well documented. In 2011, for example, rennan claimed that drone strikes overseas had never, to his knowledge, killed a single non-combatant. That was a total crock.

In 2014, Brennan lied and said the CIA had not broken into the computers of Senate staffers. And then, last year, under oath, before Congress, Brennan said this:

TREY GOWDY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR SOUTH CAROLINA'S 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, AMERICAN ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Do you know if the Bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as any – as part of any court filings, applications, petitions, pleadings?

JOHN OWEN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I have no awareness.

GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?

BRENNAN: No. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done.

Yes. That's a total lie, a fragrant lie, and a significant one about something that affects the life of this country. And yet, you know

how the story ends. Brennan was never charged with a felony for lying to the Congress. In fact, just the opposite, Washington rewarded him.

Brennan is now an Analyst for NBC News. He could be on the air on Thursday night telling you why it's so vitally important that Michael Cohen was charged with lying to Congress because we really can't have that. Rule of law, rule of law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Do you notice a theme here that connects all these stories? Yes, there is one. And it's simple. The well-connected can do pretty much whatever they want.

They can lie to the Congress with impunity, and they do. They can lobby for foreign governments without bothering to register, and they do. If they're rich enough, they can even, I don't know, molest children without being seriously punished. Ask Jeffrey Epstein. He did that.

None of this, by the way, is a defense of Michael Cohen. That guy's a creep. He may very well wind up in jail. But if Cohen does wind up in jail, let's hope he's just the first in a long series of prosecutions.

If the law is applied to Michael Cohen, then it has to be applied to people who have lied about things that actually matter.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on November 29, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: The word ‘Russia’ eliminates all rational thought in journalists

After two long years of the most expensive and wide-ranging independent counsel investigation in a generation, we should be close to nabbing those dastardly secret agents from Russia who supposedly hacked our presidential election. Are we? No, we’re not.

Robert Mueller's prosecutors are instead threatening elderly men with life in prison for petty crimes. Crimes that have nothing to do with spying or Russia or anything else that threatens America. The whole thing is a grotesque joke. But you'd never know that from watching cable television. Here was CNN on Tuesday, in all it's breathless stupidity:

ANDERSON COOPER: Potentially big news questions in the Russia investigation and the corresponding lack of answers from the White House

JIM ACOSTA: Any kind of collusion with the Russians…

DON LEMON: And then there's the Russia investigation…

PHIL MUDD: We know the Russians were involved in interfering in the election …

NYT's PATRICK HEALY ON CNN: From Russians offering, as we know, in the Trump Tower meeting some kind of dirt on Hillary Clinton…

ERIN BURNETT: The Russian hackers began to target Clinton's accounts…

DON LEMON: Fact. It's Russia.

Russia!!! Says Don Lemon.

The word itself is a kind of magical incantation that eliminates all skepticism and rational thought in journalists.

Whatever the claim is, they believe it wholeheartedly. Not just because they're dumb, though obviously, they are dumb. But because — Russia!!!!!! It's a spell, like “eye of newt.”

Just a day ago, on Tuesday, the Guardian newspaper reported that Paul Manafort, the former chairman of the Trump campaign, held a series of secret meetings with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, over a period of years.

It all sounded very sinister. But the problem is, there's precisely no evidence that any of that actually happened. There's a lot of evidence to suggest the story is false.

Assange is one of the most closely-monitored people on the plant, living in Europe's most heavily-surveilled city. Yet somehow nobody saw or recorded any of these meetings, which, by the way, everybody supposedly present denied ever took place.

The whole thing was absurd. Under pressure from reality, the Guardian quickly walked back its story.

Yet here’s the key part. The geniuses in the American press corps continued to act like it was all completely real.

The Washington Post's senior political reporter, Aaron Blake, repeated the Guardian's claim as gospel. So did John Campell of CNN, and CNBC's John Harwood, not surprisingly. Because, whatever. It sounded right!

Manafort would probably meet with Assange in Russia or London. Whatever. Who cares if he actually did?!

Keep in mind, these are reporters. They're supposed to be fact based. They’re supposed to be our watchdogs. They're not.

These people are just mindless enforcers of whatever the establishment line of the day happens to be.  They're intellectual thugs, dispatched to make the rest of us shut up and obey our ruling class.

Who'd believe anything they say?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on November 28, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: For the crime of forgetting, Jerome Corsi is facing bankruptcy and imprisonment

Jerome Corsi is 72-years-old. He has a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard. He has written two New York Times bestsellers about politics. He is the kind of person who could, and probably should be happily retired by now. Instead, he's facing felony charges from Robert Mueller.

How did this happen?

Earlier this year, the independent counsel

subpoenaed Corsi and seized his laptop and personal phone. – They had all of his communications. They know exactly what he did and didn’t say.

In September Corsi was summoned to an interview with prosecutors. They asked him if he'd ever tried to broker a meeting with Julian Assange in London. Corsi responsed, no. “I didn’t want anyone to see Assange.” So the prosecutors left the room to confer after Corsi said that. They returned and informed Corsi that he'd just committed a felony.

On Corsi’s laptop was an email chain — from more than two years before — in which he had been asked to contact Assange. Corsi forwarded that email to someone else.

Nothing ever came of any of this.

And, again, the Independent Counsel would know, because they have Corsi’s laptop and phone. They know that Corsi never left the United States and never spoke to Julian Assange.

Corsi said he forgot all about forwarding the email.

For the crime of forgetting, he is facing bankruptcy and imprisonment.

So ask yourself this question. How would any of us fare under this standard?

How would Robert Mueller fare under the same standard he set up for Jerome Corsi? Mueller is 74-years-old. What if the next special prosecutor seized his personal computer and interrogated him about every email he'd ever sent — or forwarded — going back years?

He'd probably be able to remember some of it. But all of it, to the letter?

Keep in mind, the slightest mistake would mean prison time.

Would that be justice? Or would it be its opposite?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on November 27, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

Tucker Carlson: Socialism with open borders is impossible

We just had a vacation, so we're trying to think a little more broadly about what's happening in this world. Here's what we came up with.

If you had to boil down the Democratic Party's long-term goals to the most important goals, the first would be this, and it's obvious, the federal  government ought to cover the essentials of life for most people, health care, college, housing, food, in some cases, a guaranteed basic income.

That's the program the Democrats espouse. Another word for it might be socialism.

The party's other long-term goal is the elimination of meaningful restrictions on immigration into this country. Get rid of ICE, accept most refugees, give citizenship to tens of millions of people here illegally. In other words, open borders.

So those are the Democrats' main priorities, a massive social welfare state and millions of new citizens from the third world. Nobody is hiding that. We're not making it up. They're saying it out loud. The problem is that those two goals conflict with each other.

You can either admit the world's poor into your country or you can give your own people more free stuff, but you can't do both. The math doesn't work. Socialism with open borders is impossible. It has never worked and it never will work.

Anyone who thinks about that for about a minute understands it. So, the idea is fatally flawed. The question is how do you sell a program that can never actually work? Well, you lie about it. You pretend that what's obviously true isn't true at all, and you are evil for thinking otherwise.

And, of course, that's exactly what they're doing now.

Here’s how CNN chief White House correspondent (and de facto DNC spokesman) Jim Acosta, earlier this month, scolded the president for daring to suggest that migrants from the imaginary caravan, should it actually exist, might try to hop over the U.S. border:

“Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on–

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well that's true.

ACOSTA: –for — but–

TRUMP: They weren't actors.

ACOSTA: –they're not going to be doing that.

TRUMP: They weren't actors. Well no, it's true. Do you think they were actors? They weren't actors. They didn't come from Hollywood.

ACOSTA: All right.

They're not going to be doing that, says Democratic Party flack Jim Acosta.

Turns out, that's precisely what they're going to be doing, and just did, over the weekend.

American authorities had to shut down the border crossing at San Ysidro, California right next to San Diego after about a 1,000 people tried to rush the crossing.

So, that's what the DNC channels told us was never going to happen. And, course, it did happen. And it was bad. Mexican riot police and the U.S. Border agents both came under attack from the mob, which threw rocks at them.

With no meaningful wall along the borders, authorities used tear gas to disperse the crowd.

Now, there is fairly recent precedent for doing that.

In 2013, a group of about a 100 people tried to rush the very same border crossing at San Ysidro. American authorities forced them back with pepper spray. Barack Obama was president at the time. And the incident passed with little notice.

Just five years later, there is a new president and an entirely different standard.

The left erupted over the pictures of the tear gas being used and accused the administration of moral atrocities. Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, got so worked up he suggested that American authorities had committed a war crime by using illegal chemical weapons.

Keep in mind, the same so-called chemical weapons are used against unruly American citizens all the time, and nobody cares.

But those weren't American citizens you just saw getting tear-gassed over the weekend. They were migrants. They were holy men on a sacred pilgrimage – a pilgrimage north. What happened to them was inexcusable. Cue the moral outrage:

BENJAMIN LOUIS CARDIN, SENIOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, MARYLAND, DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBER, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FOR MARYLAND'S 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Here we look at children get — being subjected to tear gas. That's the United States causing that. That's outrageous.

ANA VIOLETA NAVARRO FLORES, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We have seen the images of the children and the women and there has got to be a pragmatic and compassionate answer here that does not involve tear-gassing children. That is not who America is.

“That's not what America is” declares some random blowhard on CNN who has somehow been deputized to lecture you about what America is.

On the left, America is always one thing for sure, in every case, wrong.

This is what happened when an MSNBC guest suggested that federal Border Patrol agents must've been lying about being attacked with rocks.

LAUREN LEADER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, ALL IN TOGETHER: The only question is whether or not anyone actually threw rocks yesterday. NPR was reporting that actually it was relatively peaceful.

Yes. “Relatively peaceful.” Except for video of this scene, which somehow didn't make it into many news reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROWD PROTESTING)

(MAN THROWING STONE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So well, yes, it turns out they were, in fact, throwing rocks. But according to a lot of the analysis you may have seen today, it was in a “peaceful” way, gentle rock-throwing, really more tossing than throwing, playful actually.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROWD PROTESTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now, here's a different perspective. This is from someone who was actually there in San Ysidro and, in contrast to the people you just saw, is not a professional propagandist. Here’s how Rodney Scott, Chief Patrol Agent, San Diego Sector Border Patrol described it:

“I kind of challenge that this was a peaceful protest or that the majority of these people were claiming asylum. We ended up making about 42 arrests, only eight of those were females and there were only a few children involved.

The vast majority of the people we're dealing with are adult males.

One of the groups that I watched that one of the groups that actually, several of them were arrested, they passed 10 or 15 marked Border Patrol units walking east to west, or, west to east, I'm sorry, numerous uniformed personnel, as they were chanting, waving a Honduran flag and throwing rocks at the agents. If they were truly asylum seekers, they would've just walked up with their hands up and surrendered, and that did not take place.

What I find unconscionable is that people would intentionally take children into this situation. What we saw over and over yesterday was that the group, the caravan, as we call them, would push women and children towards the front and then begin, basically, ‘rocking’ our agents.”

So, there you have it. We'll let you reach your own conclusions about who is telling the truth about what's happening right now in our

Southern border. Check the video before you make up your mind.

But as you ponder it, step back and ask yourself some more fundamental questions: Is there a natural limit to this kind of immigration? How many resources does America really have to share with the rest of the world? Are we as rich as we assume we are? Are you?

How many poor people can we realistically accept before we're not that rich at all but increasingly resemble the countries from which these people are fleeing?

And, by the way, if accepting more poor people really makes you more prosperous, then what exactly has happened in California over the past 30 years, which, despite record levels of immigration, is poorer than ever?

Now, it's possible there are good answers to these questions, logical answers. On the other hand, if there are answers, why is the left trying to prevent you from asking the questions?

Adapted from Tucker Carlson’s monologue on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on November 26, 2018.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.