so when they stay far apart from each other last spring in the name of public health, it was an enormous sacrifice whether or not we understood it at the tim. but because this was a trusting and law-abiding country, we obey that order. we barely grumbled about it. we assumed they knew best. 6 feet from each other. that was social distancing. it was the law and most of us follow the law. but where did that law come from? who the of the scientific research that determine 6 feet is that safest distance apart from other people that you could be? someone should have asked that last spring, but as far as we know, no one did ask. it turns out the research that form the basis of that law came from a german high genesis called carl flew. it was he who decided 6-foot separations were necessary for the spread of pathogens. the cdc went with his judgment. with the cdc did not tell us is that carl had been dead 100 years. his research on social distancing was published in the 19th century before most americans had electricity or indoor plumbing. so why is that research still guiding public health policy in this country in 2021? it is a good question. experts don't seem to have a good answer. last year when the top aerosol scientist in australia, like in social distancing regulations to a cold rich meal, a dogma was born and extremely difficult to change people's mind and change the dogmas. so dogma posing as science was all faith-based. and have massive consequences. millions of american school children have not been educated for a year because the cdc turned century old german theories about tuberculosis into a modern state religious faith. it is enough to make you sick. yes authorities are just that mediocre. but the most infuriating part of it all, not that they were wrong but that they won't admit they are wrong and apologize for it. watch tony fauci pretend as if f fun question, universal recognized principle like gravity or photosynthesis. 6 feet apart, everyone knows that, it is just science. >> everything on here, one way or the other points to physical separation, whether no crowds, . go out, wear a mask, stay 6 feet away from anyone. when you are outside, stay at least 6 feet apart from someone. i think if you stay 6 feet apart with masks, you can do what you need to do. every aspect of that ending the covert outbreak in 30 days has some aspect of physical separation, whether avoiding crowds, whether staying 6 feet away. >> tucker: if you stay 6 feet apart with masks, you can do whatever it is you need to do. of course it sounds so simple. that is why every elevator you get them to come every airport check in line you see, every convenience store on the floor . it is not hard to change every part of your life, every interaction you have with other human beings and it is totally fine, not a big deal. in state of washington, a high school tried their best to have addressed. the practice to conform to research from the 1880s. >> went naturally high school finding social distance solution to get the band back together. these so-called hubs set up in the band choir groups. individuals getting inside and then removing their masks to play their instruments. >> getting less oxygen is good for you. so get inside your little plastic pod like freeze-dried people. it is dystopia. the morning show presents in a chirpy way, isn't this great? it is not great. it is horrifying. but the kids had no choice. the science was settled. that is what we were told. it was settled until last wednesday when the clinical infectious disease said socialist 6b is not real and it's not a law. it was a guess and it is wrong. researchers looked at case rates into the district of massachusetts that required 6-foot distancing. and compared those with school districts that required only 3 feet of social distancing. researchers found there was no statistically significant difference in coronavirus cases between the two. and it wasn't just for students, it was true for adult staff members. the study also controlled for coronavirus rates and surrounding communities. it was not shouting research, it was real and the conclusion "lower physical distancing policies can be adopted with masking mandates without negatively impacting the student or staff safety." so this has massive implications. i mean, if you spend with hygiene research on the last social distancing if you state your credibility on that fact, wouldn't you apologize? now that the fact turns out to be a lie? but dr. fauci did not apologize, he just nodded and kept going. a new study from researchers in massachusetts this week found no significant difference in coronavirus spreading in schools where there were 6 feet of distancing versus 3 feet of distancing. but that 6-foot requirement, that is one of the main hurdles to reopening schools. >> right. >> does this study suggest that it is good enough for 3 feet? >> it does, indeed to. >> tucker: it does, not a big deal. just kept an entire generation of kids from learning it anything. let's just move forward with the new science. the charitable interpretation of the clip you just saw, tony fauci is learning something about science. despite what they tell you, science is never final or absolute. there is no settled science, that is an oxymoron. the real science is based on the evidence, which is always changing. they ignore partisan consideration. but tony fauci didn't. if he had, he would have already known this because the study and clinical infectious disease was not the first study to reach this conclusion. in fact, back in june of last year, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, the lancet not a small publication came out with the study on social distancing and found this "for the general public, that would include schools, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than a meter is highly effective." oh, so 3 feet was enough in june. they just didn't tell us that. other medical experts sing the same thing. in fact, dr. mark esper's for the public health systems at this, "i know 3 feet there is 80% reduction of the transmission of the disease." here it so it is not actually new information. it was ignored information. and we made policy on the basis of bad information not on the basis of science but on the basis of lies justified by 19th century research. so why are they telling us this now? here is one reason. the political balance of the country has changed. with biden in charge, they want to see the school reopened because the parents are upset and they should be. so all of a sudden, they are changing so called scientific recommendations. if that seems too cynical to be real, keep in mind they have done it before. last summer dozens of public health experts exempted blm from coronavirus restrictions. not because science demanded that blm get a pass but because they personally supported be a limp. the community, signed letter that will live forever in infamy claiming "the risk of congregating during global pandemic should not keep people from protesting racism. the scourge of white supremacy, is a legal public health issue that predates and contributes to covid-19." so you thought it may have escaped from a lab in wuhan that was in part funded by the u.s. government with tony fauci. so maybe tony fauci, the government might have something to answer for but now we learn from scientific community that racism caused covid. in june child home at hopkins jennifer muniz "in this moment the public health risk of not protesting demanded the end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus." again it is hard to believe a so-called scientists could write something like that on paper and not be held accountable for it. this was not the first time you have read this on their show. we should do it every single day as a reminder of just how insane a country can go and nobody says anything. that same month the governor of new jersey phil murphy praised the blm riots after george floyd memorial day. yes, a mandatory stay-at-home order and public health emergency of course that justified it. about murphy, he said the rioters were "taken to the streets peacefully to create a better future for our entire new jersey family." so murphy wrote that even as his official twitter page contained the command, wash your hands, stay-at-home. so to restate, if they can justify a riot on the basis of public health, it is healthy to burn stores down, to pollute retail outlets. a public health, what can't they justify? what aren't they justifying? our leaders and public health experts clearly guided, some of them anyway by politics. it is hard to digest that because it is monstrous, but it is clear. what is also becoming clear is how little these experts actually know about some of the topics they claim to be experts in purity up in the absence of political consideration. it is just very hard to know what this virus is going to do. the viruses are hard to understand. this one is no but no one will admit it. out of no where new stories pop up that have no explanation. here is one example, south africa. the most affluent country, epidemiologists with a surge of coronavirus' this year. turning around the world and south africa not under strict lockdown and a new strain, remember of the coronavirus? and no vaccine for it, for most people in south africa. so it seemed like the perfect place for what tony fauci might call a super-spreader event, a disaster. but that's not what happened. since mid-january, coronavirus infections and south africa have plummeted from more than 20,000 a day to about 1,000 today. less than 5% of coronavirus test and south africa are coming back positive. the question is why? what is going on in south africa? the answer is "we don't know." that is fine because science is designed to answer questions to what you don't know the answer. the problem is when people are in charge of the public health systems won't admit that they don't know. so all of this should prompt pretty tough questions for health experts in this country. one of those questions is "how effective is this coronavirus vaccine?" how necessary is it to take the vaccine? don't dismiss those questions from anti-baxter's ear don't kick people off of social media, answer the question, especially now. the administration would like you to take this vaccine. joe biden told you last week if you don't you can't celebrate the fourth of july. but it turns out there are things we don't know about the effects of this vaccine and all vaccines by the way. it's always a trade-off but in this specific case, germany, france, italy and spain not third world countries have suspended the distribution of astrazeneca. it could be linked to deadly blood clots. the fda and cdc were looking into reports that moderne and pfizer vaccine could be causing blood clots as well. the paper reported 1856-year-old gregory michael developed a severe case of blood disorder, platelets and his blood dropped three days after taking the vaccine. without those platelets his blood could not clot and he died of a brain hemorrhage after two weeks in the hospital. so this, should this scare you? we don't know but the rest of us deserve an answer. instead the leaders are acting once again as if the science were totally settled and you are not allowed to ask questions. you look at the vaccination rates in certain states and it is pretty clear some people are not taking the vaccine on purpose. if you want them to take the vaccine, don't berate them. don't issue more commands. calm their fears. by rationally explaining the benefits and the risk of taking the vaccine. that is how you deal with adults. but instead, they are telling you if you want to see your grandparents ever again, you will shut up and take the shot. >> if you and a friend or you and a family member or both vaccinated, you can have a dinner together. to wear a mask. you can visit your grandparents if you are vaccinated and they have been too. >> tucker: so instead they lecture us like they are our parents which they are absolutely not. if you do what we say you can visit your grandparents. you can have dinner together with a friend or family member. the patronizing never stops. as joe biden has told us, it is possible you can cook a hot dog in your own backyard in july if you are obedient. they tell you this is all about protecting the elderly and flattening the curb. the party of andrew cuomo actually wants to keep senior citizens a life is highly important. the question is, in real life, what happens if you are an older person and you don't obey? we have an answer to that. a 65-year-old woman in galveston, texas, learned on march 11th what happens when you don't obey. this was one day after the governor of texas lifted that states mask mandate and reopen taxes. that woman apparently news reports believed it was a free country and walked into bank of america branch and that is when to keep her safe texas police officers violently attacked her. >> you are taking away people's human rights. you're going to shoot me for trying to breathe? come on, dude. >> don't do that. oh, no! who do you think you are? >> backup, backup. >> ma'am, put your hands behind your back. if you don't stop resisting stop! >> are you going to get real here, really? are you going to get real? >> tucker: just to be clear, she wasn't trying to rob the bank. she didn't pass the teller a note saying she had a bomb or firearm, she just wasn't wearing a mask and the state there is no mask mandate. is anybody going to get real here, she screams and is thrown to the ground by the police that they did it to keep her safe. she was under the impression she could go into a bank of america branch in full compliance with the state law without being thrown to the ground. texas could be in trouble. but to be fair if that woman had read cnn articles, she had it coming. cnn tweeted out this piece today for example, it was called why you should wear a face mask even if your state doesn't require it. why? according to cnn, face mask or a sign of respect. oh, no mention of respecting people who don't wear face mask. they are not worthy of wearing a face mask. but wearing a mask will help the u.s. returned to normal. it is totally normal to shield your face from the people around you. that is not weird. it's always been this way. the science on decency wearing a sign is respect and if not you will be beaten in public for your own go to. and as the media will tell you, not just things mandate this sign of respect. over on nbc news, advertising readers how to behave at the gym unless they too want to get thrown to the ground. "instead of taking your mask off for a water bottle, slipped the straw under the chin of your mask. if you need to shower at the gym, shower as quickly as possible and only remove your mask when your face and head will get wet." nbc news is not telling you how long you are allowed to shower and how you are allowed to drink your water with your mask on. whatever you do, don't for a moment think they are making this up as they go along. this is science. don't dare question the competence of people that tell you to wear a mask a year ago. don't be disrespectful to public health experts. people show disrespect to public health experts. a professor at stanford one of the authors which highlights physical and mental effects of the lockdowns. he joins us. dr. think you so much for coming on. what is striking about the social distancing regulation change and recommendation change is they've been telling us this for a year. and it makes you wonder if they were wrong about 6 feet, which is enshrined on the floor of every public space in the country. what else are they wrong about, and why are they not just admitting it? >> the w.h.o. said 3 feet at the beginning of the epidemic. if you want to minimize the transition, probably 20 feet or 50 feet. it is ridiculous, right? what you really want is an adult conversation, you know, you're actually high spread spreading right next to each other. and if i'm hugging my child come i don't actually care that much about transition probability. it is important that i hug my child. i think we all need to understand the cost and benefit. i think dr. fauci throughout this epidemic has been blind to the cost of the edicts. so for instance, the 6 feet edict basically means how many children can't get an education. that is harmful. they can't get any education. children will not know how to read this generation because of this edict. is it worth the cost? that is the kind of conversation we should be having rather than you must obey this 6-foot order. >> tucker: so wide, why would you put -- and a more general question i would direct at dr. fauci but why would you put research scientist in charge of translating the science into rules that affect something as complex as human society? it's not just a matter of the science but how it's carried out in the real world. again, extremely complicated with all kinds of preceding consequences. >> there is no way to isolate the science of the disease spread from the fact that we are humans and we need to live like humans. and things that are valuable to us. you should not have people like me in charge of these kinds of broad conversations. we should not be silencing people who are skeptical about these edicts either. >> tucker: so why do we sit back passively and allow political leaders to lecture us that we need to accept science when i'm of course come a much more fluid concept than they pretend? >> i have talked about that the beginning of the epidemic. science to me is that process and i have an opinion about something. you have opinion and may be it differs. we find an experiment to resolve that difference, then we go on to the next disagreement. it is a fun process where you when i learn together. i might be wrong, you might be right. vice verse of the other time and the data tells us. that process of learning as we are talking the data. but instead of, science by edict, a way of population control. which i think is a vast misuse of public health and vast misuse of science as well. >> tucker: that is the best description i have ever heard, actually. thank you, doctor, appreciate it. so the cultural man in charge of facing the country besides dr. susan -- too indecent for children but luckily we learn what decent's was at the grammy awards. we will show you. just so you get a sense of what is decent in 2021. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: well, every generation decides what's fill with filthy and decides to and dr. -- they limited dr. seuss books earlier this month on dr. seuss' birthday. since then, the cultural vandals intra -- in control of cultural evolution with 13 skunks to peter pan and dumbo all filth! art though remains untouched. what do they consider art? that is the question. we learned last night at the grammy awards. here's a clip of the only portion we could play you. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: no more dumbo. it is to filthy. we get that instead. candace owens the author of "blackout" and a host of candidates. thank you so much for coming on. it is hard not to say they are trying to degrade our culture and her to our children. >> absolutely, tucker, dr. seuss gone, mr. potato head not enough gender available and we saw the supermarket as is traumatizing and aunt jemima, uncle ben last year because everything is traumatizing for children to look at but this, this spectacle virtually what we were looking at last night was being assimilated on television and this is considered feminism iconic, progressive and the way the world is going, tucker and if you don't see that you are a bigot. you don't understand this is the way the world needs to go. i 100% agreed that this feels more sinister. this seems not even left to right or political issue. this is an attack on american values come american traditions and you are actually actively trying to make children aspire to things that are grow test. this is not about diversity but perversity. we are celebrating perversity in america. >> tucker: they are trying to degrade us. if you think about all of the energy the professional class expands to extinguish political views and you've been the target of this, we have two no energy spent at all trying to contain pornography which is literally everywhere online. not just people having sex that would hurt your brain if you looked at it enough. but nobody says a word about this. for real, what does that tell you about their goals? >> they say many words, they called this is great, fabulous and children should be aspire -- aspiring towards. we have kids not learning hard academics in school. forget about mathematics and science, but you have these kids learning about critical race theory is, they should aspire to people like cardi b. you see that fundamentally the destruction of american values and american principles. it is terrifying. i think parents should be terrified this is the direction our society is heading towards. again we are weakening america. that is what we should be talking about a weakening of american society where it feels like we are looking at corrosion. we are about to see an end of an empire. america cannot survive or sustain under these values and principles. >> tucker: this is personal for you. you just had a son recently. i think you and a lot of other young parents start to think, how can we create something different? do you want to raise your kids -- in that is a sincere question in a world like this? >> people that follow me i'm seriously looking at homeschooling and make sure my kid will not be polluted with this. like i said, they are being taught that this is a form of freedom and every woman that looked at that performance, you know what my felt like i was a burn in a cage but after that i'm i'm inspired. i want to break away from the patriarchy. this is not patriarchy of keeping a woman down but displays like this, bleat and sexualization that is keeping women down in society. >> totally degrading and the people who say you hate women or something. who hates women, really? candace owens, i appreciate you coming on, that was great, thank you. so a lot of political debate about the role of the military and american society, not enough debate about the question. how competent is the u.s. military? is it ready for future conflict? the military up and down the line reduce standards to physical and intellectual competence. it is an observation. it is true. that has happened to family. the question is, how ready is our military because of the lowering of those standards? doug mcgregor is here to tell us, the state of the military in 2021. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: it turns out if you suggest pentagon lowering standards for troops, it is affecting our success to win wars. for political reasons, they don't like it. but that doesn't change the fact that is exactly what they are doing. in december the defense department signed off on 15 recommendations from so-called inclusion board appear those recommendations slated to be complete by the end of this month, march. according to the pentagon "chris miller signed a memo entitled actions to improve racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion in the u.s. military and exam of the culture of the military following the murder of george floyd in minneapolis." one of those recommendations was to "remove aptitude test barriers that adversity impact diversity." and now reportedly considering lowering fitness standards for female recruits. the military adopted a gender mutual test that scored men and women on the same basis of the idea of fighting the same wars. it turns out for more than half failed it so they apparently are ditching back. the question is whether or not this helps diversity, will it help us win wars and defend the country? douglas mcgregor is one who can answer that question and we are happy to have you want tonight. thank you for coming on. so the military is doing these things and has been doing these things for a long time in order to achieve political goals. most of us don't see the military as a political organization, but our last line of defense against foreign powers. do these changes make it more or less likely to defend the country? >> tucker, i think the last 20 years have had a profound negative impact on the military particularly combat that has had to go through these long occupations, long deployments, without clear missions and obtainable objections. as a result of this, we have also fought a very weak enemy. an enemy without air forces, air defenses, without army base and people reached erroneous conclusions about combat. and i think to some extent that is what is happening now. so there is readiness to accommodate pc demands from policymakers who frankly have a cocktail level of familiarity with the war otherwise senior officers would put up much more serious resistance. so the answer to your question is, i think these policies are detrimental in most cases and probably divisive. >> tucker: so the rest of the world is first paying close attention to this. we have been the world's first military for a long time. what is the view of adversaries and potential adversaries of these political changes that we have made to our military? >> none of our potential opponents whether they are in the middle east, northeast asia, eastern europe, doesn't make any difference. none of them would even think of any of these positions and policies under any circumstances. they are training for the super bowl. and i think that is important for us to understand. we have been fighting essentially playing against pickup teens. we are not training, organizing, fighting power to deal with the super bowl. they are. so i think what will work or won't work. >> tucker: i have to ask you, we will be doing a lot of this on the show but china is projecting power all over this hemisphere and in latin america and close to the shores and the bahamas. but it is the military or the pentagon aware of that? you almost never hear of anything the pentagon about what looks like obviously potential threats. do you think they are paying attention or should they be paying attention to this? >> actually come i think they are paying more attention. they talk about all the time because they link their budgets and core structures to this enormous chinese threat that they hype. i think it would make much more sense for us to talk to the chinese since we are the ones that carry battle groups up and down the straits of taiwan. we are the ones that are challenging the chinese in the china sea about their eyelids unrestricted believe for navigation. i think they are willing to talk to us and we can avoid collisions that way. >> tucker: interesting. i wonder after, you know, all of these political sort of obvious political expressions from the military if rank-and-file, the people that actually fight the wars are confident in leadership? is it possible to know that? >> it is able to be ascertained. but all i can tell you is until you fight a really capable enemy, you can make many assumptions about the force as erroneous. and i think that is where we are. we assume certain things will work because they worked in iraq or afghanistan. they have no chance of working at all chinese, the russians, the turks were a number of people. we need to come to terms with that and back away from some of the policies that i don't think have been carefully considered in that context. >> tucker: douglas mcgregor, never had a conversation with you and that i didn't learn something. i appreciate you coming on, thank you. so after the white supremacist armed insurrection january 6th, our media told us -- brian sicknick, we have been following the story because the facts a bit madder. the policies on the basis of thinking. what do we know? there's been a major development and we will bring it to you right after this break. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> tucker: the events of january 6th of this year at the u.s. capitol have been used to completely change not just our political environment in washington, but the country itself. it was an insurrection they told us by white supremacist. now, to justify their hysteria, they have told us again and again rioters murdered a capitol police officer called brian sicknick. they told us in precise terms how the murder occurred. >> off to officer brian sit there brian sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. they beat the capitol police officer with a fire extinguisher. >> he died after being hit with a fire extinguisher during the fight. >> he died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher. >> tucker: officer brian sicknick died, that is true, but the liars on television misled us about how he died. the truth is, we still don't know. today, two people were arrested for assaulting brian sicknick but not charged with murder because authorities acknowledged that they are not sure how brian sicknick died. now, the details of that day matter once again because pretext for changing this country. julie kelly is one of the few people who has been on the story in a forensic precise way to get to the bottom of what happened. america greatness, she joins us, julie thank you for coming on. two people arrested for killing brian sicknick. tell us what we know about his death. >> we don't know much at all. the ducey medical examiner's office refused to release the toxicology report on officer brian who died at the age of 42. we were told for weeks based on a lie, misleading fabricated report in "the new york times" published january 8th that he was killed by toil to trompe l'oeil list by a fire extinguisher. that made it into the house impeachment memo against the president. but none of it was true but it has all been a fabricated lie to mislead the american people and just buy the impeachment of donald trump and of course to criminalize not just the people at the capital january 6th, but over 75 million trump voters. so as you say, two men have been charged with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon, which is bear spray. but we still don't know, and we may never know if any attack or assault with bear spray led to officer brian sicknick's death on january 9th. >> tucker: so we are no closer and this is not in any way a justification for shooting anyone with bear spray whether an officer or protesters but we are no closer to knowing the truth why the officer died that day is the bottom line? >> we do not know. we may never know. the d.c. medical office may not let us know in the justice department this indictment may pivot away from really one of the most egregious lies in exploiting this man's death, adding to the heartbreaking tragedy of his family and how talking about what happened to him anymore. he has been used and everybody is moving on. >> tucker: that is exactly right. facts matter. i hope you will continue. julie kelly, good to see you. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: here is something that didn't make it into the script of the grammys. the detention facilities, children sleeping on the floor. kids in cages? we will go to the border and tell you what else they are ignoring. that is straight ahead. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: you've heard an awful lot of concern over the past four years from people in hollywood, for example, over the way that children brought here illegally are treated once they are in custody. you haven't heard a lot of concern about that recently, and maybe you should. tonight, migrant facilities at the u.s. border are now at 730% capacity. there are reports of children going without showers or beds. tularosa's is a senior writer with townhall.com, in nearby texas, near the mexican border, joins estimate with an upstate -- update. thanks for coming on. i know there's been a massive influx into the united states, what to the board detention facilities look like you might speak unfortunately not too good and the reason why, just that you mentioned before, they are way over capacity and that is simply due to the massive numbers of illegal immigrants that are coming across in sectors like the rio grande valley. on friday night i counted 263 illegal immigrants crossing the rio grande and turning them into border patrol in the span of about three hours. sunday night it was about 239, again, the same comment crossing the river into the hands of border patrol and the reason why as they knew they were going to be deported because either they were a family unit or they were unaccompanied minors. some of them were 8 answer right now we are seeing the consequence of the influx because there's an administration a place that not only has open border rhetoric but also open border policies in place. >> tucker: we just showed tape of a woman in texas, an elderly woman being thrown to the ground in a bank of america franchise because she wasn't wearing a mask. do you know anything about the covid screening that the biden administration is doing for people coming into our country illegally? >> so, covid tests are being administered in cities like brownsville and again, i can tell you just anecdotally hearing the people coming across on the groups, there was a lot of coughing, there was a lot of sneezing and whether or not it was covid remains to be seen because obviously they were exposing himself to the element on this long and very dangerous journey, and so there's just a lot of [indiscernible] that happened there so it's just a very dangerous journey that takes unfortunately we are seeing kids by themselves taking that journey. >> tucker: julio process for us at the border tonight, thank you so much. immigration into this country illegally has exploded. tomorrow we're going to visit one of the sources of it, we will be broadcasting from there tomorrow night. in the meantime, sean hannity takes over, 9:00 p.m., from new york. >> sean: where's the picture? i got a picture-free night. >> tucker: we are taking the night off! >> sean: thank god for small favors. tucker, thank you. welcome to "hannity" this monday night. another shocking news scandal as we come on the air this hour, 9:00 on the east coast, 6:00 p.m. out west. andrew cuomo, one executive just filed a brand-new ethics complaint raising is concerned of the governor and people around him were using a loyalty test to determine whether counties would get supplied with the covid-19 vaccine. as you can see the walls are closing in tiger by the hour for the new york governor. we have a lot more coming up, all the latest