tv Tucker Carlson Tonight FOX News September 5, 2017 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
thank you for being with us. we promise we will never be the establishment destroy trump media. we will be fair and balanced and give you the other side. we will see you back here .rtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtrtha maccallume you back here at 7:00, tucker carlson is up next. ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to tucker carlson tonight. the administration today said it will suspend daca, president obama's program that grants special work permits and amnesty from deportation to illegal immigrants who arrived in this country as minors. you might think the move would set off a national debate about immigration, the pros, cons, how much of it we will need going forward, but no. instead the educated classes became completely hysterical lecturing the rest of us about the racism of the middle of the country. watch this. >> we can think about the policy issues, this is really red meat,
it's really speaking to a kind of deep-seated cultural anxiety about the changing nature of the country. >> people who feel threatened by immigrants and they are using this concept of unconstitutional -- >> he might do away with daca, another moral line that he will be crossing, which is something that would be advancing white supremacy agenda and also against what the majority of americans want. >> tucker: this isn't just demagoguery, though it is that. it's also nonsense, whatever you think of the effects of daca, no administration could continue it because it's illegal. u.s. immigration laws are pretty straightforward. if you are in the country illegally you were supposed to leave. if you think that's mean or counterproductive or unfair take it up with their legislators. only congress can change the law. the president is bound to faithfully enforce the laws of the united states. he, or any president, can simply invalidate those he doesn't lik like. former cabinet secretary
gutierrez doesn't think this is a meaningful distinction but if you want to live in a constitutional democracy where laws are more powerful than men, nothing is more important than that. to our leaders there is indeed something more important than that. political power. they have concluded that mass immigration means new and reliable voters and that means more power for them. if they need to support the rule of law to get that power they will and they have. in states across the county politicians actively boast about ignoring the law. they unilaterally declare federal statutes and their city, they part agents from buildings. they give drivers licenses and tuition to people who are here illegally. they refused to process immigrants for crimes that have nothing to do with immigration, in effect giving preference to illegals over their own citizen citizens. congress is a little better, they look away at the laws they pass. obama decided to take this reasoning to his national end point. the openly ignore the law by
creating daca. like almost everything you hear from washington that was mostly propaganda. people came here illegally at 15 were just as eligible for amnesty as those who arrived as infants. it deficient in new york daca qr both medicaid and cash assistance. this isn't simple about daca. it was indefensible, but it was one manifestation of an ominous. the global defense has given up on the concept for more than two millennia. borders, citizenship and the rule of written law itself, all abandoned in favor of the worldwide rule of unaccountable technocrats. just today from a "washington post" reporter and proud illegal alien jose antonio vargas, posted a picture of his fake social security plod down my on twitter. they are not pretending anymore. watch this.
[indistinct] >> tucker: we need to make it clear that immigrants and immigration are here to stay. >> you are about to graduate into a complex and borderless world. >> secretary clinton said this, my dream is a hemispheric common market with open borders sometime in the future. is that her dream? is not what she wants, open borders, and open market? >> i'm glad you ask it that way because i don't think we can dignify documents dumped by wikileaks. >> that's fair. is this document accurate, did she tell brazilian bankers -- >> i have no way of knowing tha that. >> you could ask her. >> tucker: she did, in fact. by the way, nobody was talking like this ten years ago, at least in public. this is all happening pretty fast so it might be worth
pausing to think through the consequences of these new attitudes. if borders, laws, citizenship, they are big things to give up, especially when they are done by executive fiat without giving a boat to the masses who actually deal with the actual consequences of these changes. when you refuse to control your borders you are saying the country doesn't belong to its people. but to the whole world. you give away citizenship to anyone who wants what you are saying citizenship isn't worth anything. is that really our position now? congressman henry cuellar is it congressman from texas. >> thank you so much, it's been a good time talking to you. >> tucker: the united states should always allow minor illegal immigrants to stay in the country? and to get amnesty and citizenship for they should be deported under certain circumstances, what are the rules you are pushing for here? >> first of all i don't believe in open borders, i think country has the responsibility to enforce its laws.
no if's or about it. number two, the question we had before is when we talk about dreamers, are we talking about we have a problem with the implementation of this, should it be executive, congress, or do we have a basic issue with the public policy? in this case we're not talking about criminals, we're talking about kids, the average age of them the age of six. we educated them, so what do we do with those individuals, do we express a -- prosecutorial expression discretion? we have to look at what's in the best interest of the country. >> tucker: it's a tough question, nobody is saying is not a tough question and that's why we are having this conversation, but by acting, or by explaining her position you are setting a rule that people can look back and say there's the role. so what is the role?
people will continue to come here underage, brought here by the parents for a long time to come. what should we do with him? should be always let them stay if they are under 16? what you think we should do? >> first of all, again we start off with the basic premise, every country has to enforce the laws at the border. second of all -- >> tucker: if we are going to enforce our laws we say you have to leave, leave now. that would be enforcing our laws, but we are not doing that. >> then we look at the circumstances. do we have an individual that violated the law, the parents get that. what are we going to punish the kids because of the sins of the parents that they committed 20 years ago? we educated those kids, we spent millions of dollars. >> tucker: i get it by the way i'm not minimizing what you're saying because i think these are real problems and they are. but i'm wondering going forward is this going to happen a lot, every year for decades, anybody
who makes it across the border with children in tow by the standards you are articulating gifts to stay, is that what you're saying. if that's not what you're saying that under what circumstances are we willing to say leave? >> kids have been here, some of them for 20 years or longer. when it comes into those newly recent individuals, i think we have ice working on that to make sure that we enforce the laws of those recent immigrants that have come in. if somebody has been here 20 years or so, they got here, they've been educated, we spent money on getting them educated, going to college, some of the military members of our military, some of them are teachers, what are we supposed to do, just go ahead and throw them out? >> tucker: here's what we should do, it be clear with the rest of the world what our rules are because otherwise -- daca did in 2014, a ton of families from central america. what are we telling the rest of the world, that as long as you
hide successfully from ice for 20 years you can stay? what's the time limit? how long do you need to evade the law before we give you citizenship? what is the rule, i think it's fair to ask what the rule is. >> exactly. there's been this prosecutorial discretion that both democratic and republican administrations have used for many years. let's go back to what happened to coat years ago, three years ago. we were enforcing the laws and fact i was one of the ones that thought we ought to make sure that we apply the same rules to everybody like we apply it to the canadians and the mexicans, they come in, we treat them a particular way, everybody else gets treated very differently. i feel that we ought to enforce the law. we do have some people here that have been here for a while. what's in the best interest of the country, do we just go ahead and kick out individuals that have been here for 20 years that were here -- >> tucker: with respect to or not answering -- i don't think what you're saying is crazy but you're not answer my question.
i sit three times on four enforcing the laws but then you're not four enforcing the laws, you are for making exceptions to the laws. >> again, with all respect, i am. we start with the bases, we enforce the laws that we have. we look at circumstances, we look at prosecutorial enforcement -- >> tucker: how many years do you have to stay here? how many years to have to stay here before we kick you out? >> again this is something that i think congress will have to debate and this is why i feel that congress -- we are going to be debating this. >> tucker: you are in congress, what do you think the time limit should be? >> this is again something that we will be looking at and i think we ought to be looking at this. the same thing -- >> tucker: you don't have an opinion on it? >> if i ask you, should you be responsible for the sins of her parents that they committed 20 years ago? this is something that we all need to have a healthy debate and we are going to in congress.
>> tucker: let's not be demagogic about this. you are a lawmaker. i'm just asking at what point do we stop enforcing the law? how long does the person have to evade getting caught -- you are not going to answer the questio question. >> you made a comment, let me finish. >> tucker: okay. >> nobody is to demagogue the issue. i'm trying to give you what we need to do. we start out with a basic premise, we will enforce the laws. we agree on that. if you want that's the permits were starting with. >> that's the basic premise. we enforce the laws. the question is what we do about the special circumstances. when you look at the law, do we have an issue -- >> tucker: you are spinning. i've asked you the same question four times, which is at what point do we decide we are not going to enforce these laws? you won't answer the question.
>> you keep asking the same question. >> tucker: i'm getting frustrated because you are debating the question. >> you keep asking the same question i will give you the same answer. >> tucker: what's the standard? the rest of the world wants to know how do i get past the laws of the united states. if i stay there long enough than the laws are waves and i get government benefits, my kids get state tuition, i get amnesty and become a citizen. what's the standard, how long you have to stay here? 26,000 people unemployed in the state of texas, it's pretty high. why would you want a single job in your district to go to someone here illegally, one of the so-called dreamers before it went to an american citizen? i don't understand that. >> it's very simple, the same demagoguery that you are not talking about. we give the chaps of the americans and any american that
doesn't want the job, we will give it to somebody that wants to do the job. these people have been here for many years, a lot of them didn't even know. >> tucker: you got 8% unemployment. you think what none of those people want the job? >> it's a lot lower than that. it's actually a lot lower than that. it's a lot lower than that. >> tucker: i just read that about 4 minutes ago. >> you put it into black and white type of situation of course we want to get -- we want to create jobs but remember these folks got extreme vetting. if you want to talk about extreme vetting. >> tucker: 's you are saying that none of the 28,000 -- 26,000 people in your district want a job that one of the dreamers has, they don't want that, is that what you're saying? >> of course they want the jobs. >> stomach >> tucker: why would you be given preference to someone here illegally? >> they are not here illegally. they are not here illegally. of course we want to create job
jobs. and those members are helping, their working, military, what are you going to tell one of those dreamers in the military defending your rights right now? >> tucker: i'm for them. i'm just asking a question about the unemployment rate in your district. i'm for the military. >> what you tell a dreamer, with all due respect that defending your rights right now, defending your rights as an american. >> tucker: look, i respect people who are serving our country, no matter where they are from. but i'm not talking about them, as you know. >> what do you tell them? >> tucker: i would say give preference to the americans before the illegals. >> the military soldier -- >> tucker: we are out of time. i would say thank you as i say to all of my guests. thank you, congressman. we are now joined by the executive director for the center for immigration studies. this is being kicked to the congress. a lot of members, the republican leadership are for farrakhan.
speaker of the house basically said that he is. what you expect the congress to do with that? >> this is not something i would bet on. if i had to bet, there's a reason the republicans are called the stupid party, i think they will screw it up. this kind of two scenarios. one is they do nothing and don't pass anything. but if they pass something that's kind of two scenarios. one is they do with the gang of eight folks and what apparently paul ryan want, which is just a plain amnesty for the people who have daca. formalizing obama's illegal grant of amnesty to these people. maybe dress it up with a little bit of enforcement, lipstick. a little money for the wall or something but that for me is a nightmare scenario because they give away the leverage of daca, get nothing in return and this is maybe even more important, they pass the amnesty for the daca without any measures that
would limit trying to contain the damage that comes from any amnesty. so my ideal scenario is the amnesty, just quick, clean, quick rip off the band-aid, give them a green card. but they passed two important measures as part of that deal that limits the damage. one is because every amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. >> tucker: as we seen repeatedly. >> would be to mandate the online system that helps weaken the magnet of jobs. so that tomorrow another parent with a 3-year-old doesn't come here illegally. won't be able to. the other thing is that every amnesty causes a surge of legal immigration download because of the way our family chain migration works. you sponsor your relatives and then he sponsors his relative and it goes on forever. we would have to have some of the elements of senator cotton
and senator purdue's bill which tries to modernize illegal immigration system and slam it down. if you had those two elements combined with the daca amnesty, that i think would be good policy and good politics. the question is is anybody in a republican leadership willing to push for that? and i'm not sure that's the case, unfortunately. >> tucker: do you know anyone who is? the speaker of the house. >> senator cotton has spoken out in favor of it. senator cotton, he is on the record as saying this is a case to make for amnesty at the daca. but only if it's combined with the rate and e-verify. i think that something the white house is also talked about in the general sense. my concern is the white house doesn't have a legislative strategy. they didn't think this out ahead of time, they are just bouncing it back to congress, which is where it's supposed to be. the president has a role in kind
of giving them directions and this is what we would like to see, let's talk about it. i don't know if that's happening. maybe it is, but it doesn't look like it. >> tucker: they had no choice, they are being sued over daca. daca is illegal, no matter what you think of it. >> there's no question it's illegal. >> tucker: good to see. from charlottesville to california, statues are under attack across the united states despite the fact that they are not real. up next will talk to dennis gregor, who says they are preventing work on former serious issues and maybe that's the point that in the first place. plus, was bernie sanders a macedonian agent all along? with a new expert excerpt from hillary clinton spoke to blame sanders for defeat along with the russians, the macedonians, the texans along with others. hurricane irma has become one of the most powerful storms in history, believe it or not.
comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's up to 16 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to faster downloads with internet speeds up to 250 megabits per second. get fast internet and add phone and tv now for only $34.90 more per month. call today. comcast business. built for business. >> tucker: the city council in charlottesville, virginia, is voting tonight on whether to remove its statue of stonewall jackson. one month after antifa and the albright rioted over the fate of the robert e lee statue. both monuments are currently covered with burqas to protect the very sensitive people of charlottesville from fainting at the sight of them. similar statue battles are being fought in dozens of cities across the country. the radio show host dennis, at
the battle over statues is him as a distraction from real life. thanks a lot for coming on tonight. >> always good to be with you, tucker. >> tucker: thank you. >> the thesis of my column is very important that i set this out at the outset. those who did not fight real evil site statues. this is part of a rule of life that i established many years ago. i think it's a defining characteristic of the left, not of liberals necessarily but on the left. that is they don't fight the biggest evils, the fight made up evils instead. they didn't fight communism, they fought anticommunism. they don't fight islamism, they fight islam a phobia. this is another example of that. real evil, the left is awol. statues, they don't fight back and they are immobile, you will not get hurt smashing a statue. so this is their big battle. >> tucker: why not just fight real evil?
wouldn't that be more productive? >> yes it would be done, look, this is a very tough question, why don't people fight real evil is one of the great philosophical questions of life. why do they fight little or evils? i think in part, a to say it because there are some nice people all over the political spectrum, but i think ultimately it's tough to fight real evil. the left fights for example religious fundamentalism in america, those nasty christians. but when it comes to the ayatollah, they are pretty awol again. the really bad religious crowd they have nothing to say about so who do they fight? really tough people like franklin graham, these are the three over my stomach real threats to america. wherever you look, that's what the left us, they don't fight the real threats. >> in the coming theocracy, remember that. you don't let your wife drive a
car, that's totally fine, that's a different culture. but i wonder if refusing to fight evil is in complicity with it? >> in the final analysis if you hate reagan more than you hate brezhnev, then you -- what they were were anti-anti-communist. when ronald reagan said it was an evil empire of the left went ballistic. >> tucker: i remember. >> it was a simple truism. >> tucker: it seems rooted in us. i hate to reduce it to this because i'm not trained as a shrink. i was a russian history major. >> me to! >> tucker: a lot of it seems like working out of psychological impulses. under underlying a lot of this seems to be the defeat of the left to be virtuous. i have proved that i'm a good person and you are not. >> there's proof to that. the self-esteem movement, we talked about this but i was there at the beginning, it was
founded in my state, california by john vazquez. a liberal democrat, a member of the state senate in california, i had them on my show and he said to me, this was not hidden, he was a wonderful man. he said when i realized when i was in therapy that i lacked self-esteem as a kid so i realized how important self-esteem is and you are right, this is truly acting out some psychological phenomenon of his own life and it turns out that the movement, the self-esteem movement has been utterly destructive. i have prefer that too. everyone watching should ask the kindest, finest adults i know the following question. did you have high self-esteem when you were a child? every single good, kind person will say no. >> tucker: of course! that's totally obvious! i love that. >> this feeling, this moral
virtuosity, i fight nancy's, i'm a, i've written one of the most widely read books explaining anti-semitism. i helped smuggle them out of the soviet union as a kid. i do not fear the of america. they are a nonissue in my life. >> tucker: they are losers! i totally agree. dennis, great to see you. thanks. cnn seems happy to keep the belt employed as a host even as he egged on antifa violence. up next we will talk to jeffrey lord, who said that network has big double standards for his employees politically
>> tucker: last week we spoke on the show about val, he hosts cnn united states of america. the same time he was labeling his political opponents as a psychic, a week ago he was in berkeley, california, egging on antifa. they later violently attacked from supporters, watch this. >> as they leave, goodbye! you have to stand up for the black people or the brown people or the lgbt people of the immigrants for everybody every day! >> tucker: what is that? that guy is hosting a show on cnn. pretty bizarre. shortly after the segment aired and will raise those questions we were contacted by pharmacy
and political commentator jeffrey lord. he notices there's a distinct double standard at cnn, to put it mildly to what he can get away with and the rules imposed on him when he worked at cnn. jeffrey joined us tonight to explain it. thanks for coming on. you saw that val tate, what was the first thing you thought when you saw that? >> i was asked when the candidate donald trump was here in the area, i was in a holding room while he finished a television interview and i was asked by jared kushner if i would introduce them. i declined because i wasn't sure that that was a good idea -- a good thing to do in terms of cnn standing up there speaking to a rally and introducing a candidate. the next time he appeared here i went to the rally and told cnn ahead of time that i would be there and that i had been asked previously and it's conceivable i could be asked to introduce him now as president-elect of
the united states. i was asked not to do so, not to speak nor to introduce it. just when i saw that cliff i thought that was a little curious. >> tucker: it's amazing. you were a commentator, he was hosting the show there. you weren't planning to egged on violent lunatics dressed in black, but address the mainstream political event. you were told not to but he wasn't allowed. he wasn't punished anyway. we called cnn to ask about this and they didn't get back to us. do you think it's strange for a news organization to decline comment on a new story? >> they have their standards. i know they are unhappy with me. i was fired from cnn for mocking nazi-style tactics from media matters against when i knew perfectly well -- >> tucker: explain what happened. this is one of the reasons i'm against twitter because it seems like it's designed to create problems like this. he tweeted something that looks
really ugly out of context. explain what the context was pathetic. >> the context was i had written a column and had used the sentence in there that the american spectator was unable to confirm that media matters redrafting of the first amendment and the two words sig heil. cnn immediately took at the wrong way. they have the right to hire and fire everyone they want. i'm not sure they understood that i was aware that this group had been -- had gone after a businessman in new york, a general by the name of mark stevens, who by the way is jewish and terrorized his business. >> tucker: just to be clear, you were using that -- you were using that term as a way -- you are not endorsing that term?
>> correct. tucker, i believe that it's okay to mock people who use nazi-style tactics, to mock nazis. white separatist, white supremacist, the ku klux klan, neo-nazis. these people have no role in our american civil society. i found it interesting that the president was being accused of not calling out people by name. i called out people by name and i got fired for it. >> tucker: i was just confused by it. i don't work at cnn anymore and i don't look at twitter. they were accusing you of a grain with a term that you used when in fact you are using it to mock the person you are corresponding with, correct? >> in a sense that the way it appeared to me. they said it was indefensible. as i said, i've written this in a column that appeared in the american spectator two days earlier. there was no reaction. why would there be? i've gone on record about these
kinds of things. i have plenty of columns out there. >> tucker: it sounds to me like if you were prevented speaking at a trump valley, kamau bell is cheering on antifa, there's a double standard at cnn depending on what your political views are. >> yeah. certainly it seems that way to me. i'm not big on -- needless to say -- firing people. maybe we've entered this whole new world of twitter here. how do you have robust debates with people -- i was very adamant about calling these people out because of their tactics, because of what i knew they had done terrorized him. his business, et cetera. as i say, he's jewish. it's deeply offensive and deeply wrong and i spoke out about it. >> tucker: good for you. look, i'm not calling for kamau bell to be fired, having been fired are not calling for anybody to be fired. i would just like to know what the rules are. when did it become okay to cheer
on -- thanks a lot for coming on and explaining that to us tonight. >> come tucker. >> tucker: in her upcoming book which you have doubtless preordered but not seen hillary clinton lays blame according to excerpts we have, heavy blame in fact on senator bernie sanders for defeat last fall. with sanders in lake with the macedonians? we will talk to a former clinton advisor and get to the bottom of this brand-new
>> tucker: those of you keeping a list at home for the villains hillary clinton has blamed for her loss last fall, there were the russians, jim comey, the macedonians, there was sexism, there was dumbness from the middle of the country and now bernie sanders has made the list. in newly leaked excerpts from her forthcoming book, "what happened," the former secretary of state says sanders' lengthy primary challenge did
"lasting damage" to her campaign and pave the way for trump's unexpected victory. she also called many sanders supporters sexist and he only ran in order to disrupt the democratic party. a former clinton advisor and he joins us tonight. the obvious temptation for me is to point out how deeply sad this is an to play shrink and she needs help and when is she going to blame her husband, she probably artie does. i'm not going to do any of it. if i won't deal with the facts of her claims. how are bernie sanders' bearded, sandal-clad, often gender-neutral hypersensitive supporters sexist? i don't understand, how are they sexist? >> tucker, there was a lot -- if you went on twitter and in the blogosphere to kind of support her claim. you like including the macedonians in this litany. as if somehow the russians, who the intelligence community say
metal general election and the outreaches that donald trump shows zero interest in getting to the bottom of this. >> tucker: to beat up on the poor macedonians. we'd spoken to actual macedonians. we didn't let this matter lie because we're journalists. we went out and found macedonians. if you knew the deep resentment they feel towards her and her neighbors, it's a whole can of worms are not going to open. how are bernie sanders supporters sexist? this is the week sexist group aa history of sexism, what does that mean? >> bernie sanders got up so easily in the campaign and all the postmortems about what happened, somebody who talked about nationalizing the banks, the oil industry and telecom. i guarantee it is not one of your viewers knows that because nobody during the campaign talked about that. >> tucker: he said it every speech. >> talking about naturalizing the banks, the oil companies and
telecom in his speeches. >> tucker: i'm not defending bernie sanders' silly socialism at all. i do think you are allowed to have opinions that are different from hillary clinton. you are allowed to try and break the monopoly she had in the democratic party. indeed it turns out legally you are allowed to run against her in the democratic primary. that's a real complaint, that someone would dare run against her. >> here's the complaint -- you are belittling it. >> tucker: intentionally. >> great. one-third of the people who voted for sanders and then trump had voted for hillary, she wins. if the jill stein voters had voted for hillary in wisconsin she would have carried those. if the point is not about the clinton monopoly on the democratic party, the point is that bernie is let his people by all of these policies that no policy expert thought he could deliver on. these people were idealist or some of them were desperate.
they badmouth turned to the end. some voted for jill stein, some voted for gary johnson. same on bernie sanders for not doing more to bring them along. >> tucker: may i ask you a question? >> -- responsible for the policies we have. >> tucker: okay. as it occurred to you that bernie sanders had a lot of kooky ideas, i agree, but he sincerely believed that a lot of them. and saying next to hillary, who believes only in her soft, utterly transactional and totally shallow and not super bright to be honest. his sincerity diminished her because it reveals her to be the careerist that she is. is that his fault? >> i hear everybody talk about what a terrible candidate she was. i hear from surrogates talking about what a marvelous candidate -- >> tucker: i don't think she was a terrible candidate. i don't think she would be a good president honestly. >> the terrible candidate got
over more 3 million votes in a fantastic candidate. you can belittle her intelligence, you're the only person that has intelligence who believes that hillary clinton is not a smart person. >> tucker: maybe she's smarter than i am. i don't think she is dumb anything undressing i followed hillary, a newspaper in arkansas 25 years ago. i followed them pretty close it for a decade, i've never heard her say one thing that wasn't banal and conventional. i'm being sincere. i haven't heard her say one interesting, insightful, thoughtful thing. it takes a village to raise a child, it's and boring. >> somehow or other 48.2% of the public got behind her and only 46% supported trump. it's amazing to me what people say electorate supported trump and he therefore should do x, they didn't. give him credit, he won the election. i don't deny that. the virtue of this book will be
a reminder that the russians could metal with our system, they are now public enemy number one and the fact that -- look what putin said that about north korea. >> tucker: it's the russians. i want you to come back and we will have a long russia conversation because now i'm finding it pretty country. great to see you tonight, thank you. google's censorship web keep spreading wider and now it's trying to control tech companies it doesn't even own. up next we will talk to the founder of gab, a free-speech social media app that has been banned from google's app store because google does not believe in free speech and it'soooo. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want.
when this bell rings... ...it starts a chain reaction... ...that's heard throughout the connected business world. at&t network security helps protect business, from the largest financial markets to the smallest transactions, by sensing cyber-attacks in near real time and automatically deploying countermeasures. keeping the world of business connected and protected. that's the power of and.
media platform that operates in a way similar to twitter. it presents itself as a pro-free-speech platform so it's been popular with my lowly anapolis, other figures who have been centered on twitter, people who believe in free speech. it's an uncensored platform so recently google banned gab from the google store. claiming that the company was engaged in a speech because people were refusing to use it. the founder and ceo joins us tonight. i just want to state that, according to google you have a responsibility to police the political views of people who use your app and because you don't they are kicking you off. >> correct. when we founded gab about a year ago we founded it specifically to avoid this purpose. i didn't want to police speech. i believed in free speech for everybody, individual liberty for everybody in the free flow of information for everybody.
>> tucker: but they don't? >> correct. what's happening in silicon valley right now is they are using these arbitrary hate speech policies which is standing right out of germany and out of the e.u. and they are applying it to the entire internet. at the left likes to say if you like the hate speech policies facebook and twitter why don't you go build your own, so that's what we did and now what we don't like they are doing is you are not allowed to do that either. you are not allowed to have your app in our app stores. you have a duopoly of google and apple not only control 95% of the market both on mobile hardware and on software distribution on that mobile hardware. how are we supposed to compete, how are we supposed to build an alternative platform when we are not allowed to be in these app stores? >> tucker: this is a nightmare scenario that people talk about when you study them monopolies or's in class. they control everything to the extent that they crush any
innovation, and a diversity, that's what we have now, isn't it? >> absolutely. what we are seeing is a pretty classic duopoly. apple and google controlling and owning 95 plus percent of mobile hardware and mobile software. i'm a big believer in the free market but i think that the free market is rigged by these two companies and i think that gab is a pretty solid example of that anticompetitive behavior in action. >> tucker: this is the least free market imaginable. it just to be totally clear, the people who have been banned and i'm aware of from twitter or facebook, these are not isis recruiters who are trying to convince others to go on suicide missions. these are people like milo, who you might think is offensive or outrageous but is not advocating violence, rate? >> here's the thing, too, if not even big names like that, it's your aunt, your little cousin.
facebook is banning over 1 million accounts a day now for hate speech. this is absolutely absurd. who are the silicon valley tech giants, these modern-day robber barons, to tell us as americans what the first amendment -- what we can and cannot talk about, what opinions we can hold and who and who not we can vote for? >> tucker: i don't know why the government is standing back and letting this happen. it's scary. because they are bought and paid for, that's why. gab, that the alternative. thanks a lot, andrew, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> tucker: back in a minute with an updated track for hurricane irma, you totaled your brand new car. nobody's hurt, but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels.
the storm is already in the caribbean. it could curb north and hit florida. we will stay on it, of course. . "the five" starts right now. >> dana: hello, everyone. i am dana perino. it is 9:00 in new york city and this is "the five." today, the trump administration announced it's putting an end to daca, president obama's controversial program. under president trump's plan, daca will begin phasing out six months from now. in the meantime, the president is urging congress to act on the issue. >> i have a great heart for the folks we are talking about. a great love.