[ ♪ music ♪ ] >> later tonight, it's a whole other show on the "the young turks".com. "viewpoint" is next. you know what is next right now bye bye. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: so last week edward snowden was just another guy with a name that sounds like a game of thrones character. today he is the most famous whistle blower/leaker in the world, and americans are fiercely divided. is this guy a hero a traitor or both. the g.o.p. seems to have successfully wounded any chance at immigration reformish and americans are fiercely divided. are they doing nothing in congress to help the middle class? sabotageing themselves with the latino votessers or both. and this weekend over 1,000 right wing pastors chose the irs
to revoke their tax exempt status. and are americans fiercely divided, they are horrible americans, horrible christians or both. and the today is the bother of bobby jindal, and kim deal from the pixies and breeders. governor eliot spitzer and 300 years ago on this day bridget bishop was hanged near salem, massachusetts, for detestable arts called witchcraft and sourcerries. so at least george zimmerman can be sure he'll get a fairer trial than she did. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening i'm john fugelsang, and this is "viewpoint." thank you for joining us tonight. a former nsa contractor gave us
an idea who it's been targeting lately. >> the nsa targets the communication of everyone. it ingests them by default. any analyze at any time can target anyone, any selector anywhere. i sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge or even to the president if i had a personal e-mail. >> john: in the past tweak 29-year-old edward snowden had exposed two top nsa programs, which he discussed on "the guardian" website. the government checks e-mails and collection logs and the ns axe gotsgot direct access from microsoft, yahoo, google facebook paltalk, skype
youtube and apple. now so far facebook google, yahoo have actually denied at allowing the nsa access to their servers. james clapper condemned snowden snowden's leaks saying, quote: >> because it's so legal. snowden revealed a secret court quarter requiring verizon for information from the dates april april 25th through july july 19th including phone numbers, callers call times. before snowden revealed his role, they agreed that the leaker should go to jail. >> it's dangerous to us and dangerous to national security
and violates the oath that they person took. >> you too senator feinstein. >> john: we can agree on some things but mr. snowden has to be extradited from hong kong first. >> even if you're not doing anything wrong you're being watched and recorded. you don't have to do anything wrong, you just have to fall under suspicion of someone even for a wrong call. >> john: let's go to which william ben benny who worked at the nsa for two years but left because of its expanding program. what a pleasure to have you on "viewpoint" tonight. >> thank you. >> john: thank you. let's start with the big question. do you think mr. snowden is correct when he says that the nsa is targeting everybody's communications.
>> yes. there are several ways you can show that. one is the tim clemente when on cnn, he talked about the ability to go back and get phone conversations between. he's talking about all that information is collected and stored and from it they can pick and target anyone they want. >> john: now isn't the agency under the statute that created it supposed to focus purely and clearly on overseas communication, not domestic. >> that's correct. >> john: and mr. clapper was emphatic in telling congress they were not collecting communications from americans. >> yes and that's false. >> john: and is there anything about the prism program illegal? does the law allow this kind of data mining. >> no, because it's talking
about collecting everything off the internet, that includes americans' communication as well. they're easeily detectable and identifiable as americans. >> john: get please. >> the fisa, even when they go to verizon order from the fisa court judge, that was an order to turn over all their call records, that included every u.s. citizen that was part--has a verizon phone. the fisa court is called the foreign intelligence court. this is domestic intelligence that they're ordering them to turn over. i think they went a little bit beyond their chart juror do you agree mr. clapper was being dishonest when he told congress that they didn't collect american communications. >> i certainly do. >> john: is prism just part of a
larger spying apparatus. how else would they spy on americans? >> well, it's documented in court records about the nsa and the at&t facility in san francisco. it shows how they route the duplicateed copy of the internet fiberoptic lines. it pulls the data back together and would reassemble an e-mail or voice-over ip or anything coming across the internet. when it does that it can present it to nsa for storage. most of that data is internal u.s. communications. >> cenk: well then how does the prism program snowden revealed compare to the rising surveillance that helped trigger your resignation from the nsa?
>> well, my problem was even collecting the meta-data showing the call records of u.s. citizens everybody, which is what they were doing that showed their communities for their social network all of the people that they relate to, so you could do things like layout all of the people who are participating in the tea party and find out the key nodes in the tea party or the occupy group they could do it to them, too, and they can see how everybody is related to that tea party network. if any of them apply for tax free exempt taxation, they can figure out these are central to the tea party or not peripheral peripheral, or whatever the relationship is, and they can use that to target them. that's the kind of danger that is present in doing this, and in assembleing the government assembling that kind of knowledge about the population,
that's the danger. >> john: sir you heard of clapper say that mr. snowden's information is risking u.s. security, is he right? >> no, that's also a red herring. the terrorists already know we do all this stuff. publishing the fact that we do it in u.s. newspapers or u.k. newspapers is not going to change what they do. they already decided what they're going to do because they know we're looking at all these communications. so they're really trying to hide the fact that they're doing this from the u.s. public. inthe effect on the terrorists, it won't exist. there is no effect on them. >> john: as far the american people did mr. snowden reveal any information about programs that helped to save american lives? >> um, well the fact that we do that kind of analysis is--can
help us detect terrorists. but there is a way to do it without violating anybody's privacy. the government chose not to do that because we left those principles with them in 2011 and they threw them away. >> john: can you explain to the circumstances that led to you leaving the nsa? >> yes well, i originally thought i was going to leave simply because of the corruption involving money and contractors and the incestuous relationship involving the government and contractors. i was planning on leaving in january 2002. if it was going to take me that long to straighten out my records and give the archives, certain things like that. after 9/11 i thought i would stick around and help solve the problem with the terrorists and get the bad guys, so to speak. then in mid-october i found out they were taking in at&t billing data on all u.s. systems.
this is long distance billing which meant they were taking in on the order of 320 million records every day on u.s. communications. so i mean, it's also why nsa cannot answer, won't answer senator widen's question about how many americans are in your databases. even if you had could unique them between e-mail and the phone it's over 280 million and each of them are in there several thousand times. >> john: back in 2001 fall you knew the bush administration was collecting data on every at&t customer, does any of this revealed in the past few days surprise you at all? >> no. the prism program when i looked at it and read t i basically saw it as the way they supplemented the lack of or the incomplete collection they already had from the device they had already
distributed on the lines. in other words the capability to collect is only so much, and they can't see everything, so they were probably getting 80% of the network. so there was a 20% gap of information that they didn't have. they could get that by going to the internet service providers that has a record of everything that they service for a period of time, maybe a half year to a year. by taking that in, they can fill in that 20% gap and now they have a complete record of what is going across the internet. it's not just limited to the u.s. >> john: what they keep telling us mr. binney, everything that mr. snowden exposed was completely legal, would you agree with that? >> no, i would not. i've signed an affidavit for jewel versus nsa, which is challenging the constitutionality of nsa collecting all of this information on u.s. citizens. the government is fighting as hard as they can to keep it out of court. because they don't want it going
into the supreme court and being declared unconstitutional. if that happens the whole house of cards that they built around 9/11 and the fisa act and the operator act section 215 and their secret interpretation, all of that becomes unconstitutional, and the whole house of cards falls. even retroactive immune to the telcoms is unconstitutional and therefore not legal. that falls too. that means the telcoms would be liable again. >> john: the nsa as you know will continue telling us that prism and collecting all of this information was necessary to protect american lives, but you think by exposing prism was necessary to protect american freedoms. >> i think exposing it is necessary to protect the freedom, but let me tell you detecting the bad guys and
terrorists is not a function of collecting of u.s. systems. there are only two principles that i could tell you even the fort hood shooter and the bombers in new york, or boston, or any others, that is, one by taking what i call a two-degree principle. when you have a terrorist calling anyone in the united states that is one degree of separation from a known bad guy then you look at that fellow in the u.s. who he communicates as second degree. that two-degree is your target to develop terrorists in the country, or support networks in the country. the rest of the communication from the u.s. citizens you throw away, you don't even need. the other principle you need to do is look at things like jihadi sites. sites that promote jihad or violence against the west, and then luke at who is actually
accessing those sites. that would give you tips. all those that i know of have done that. >> john: it's a pretty safe bet anyone who visits the jihadi site, they will be monitoring their communications for quite awhile. before we wrap up, is there a distinction between a person who leaks information and a whistle blower, and if there is one which is edward snowden. >> i would say the distinction between whistle blowers and those who leak classified information has to do with thingsactivities that are legal and constitutional. when it's in the vested interest of the public to know that the government is doing that. that's a whistle blower. if you're leaking classified information about troop deployments, move, things like,--movements
that's a leaking of classified information, clearly. >> john: one last question, mr. binney, and i do thank you for your time and expertise. is edward snowden in your opinion, a hero? >> um, it's hard--it's hard to say. he made a personal decision, and he knew the consequences of it given the current administration which meant that he was going to be treated like bradley manly and julienne julienne assange he knew he would be treated as bradley managingmanning. he went to hong kong to avoid that. calling him hero, he he had a lot of courage to do this. i give him pluses for that. i probably would have done it
differently like going to the inspector general's office, first, and trying to make that that--make the case in that vein, and get those people investigating it and exposeing it it. >> john: i have ngo doubt that mr. snowden may wind up wishing he had made the same choice. thank you for your time, li'l, binney, for coming on "viewpoint." >> thank you. >> john: is edward snowden a hero a traitor or is he both at the same time. my panel of experts join me-to-discuss coming up next. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.
you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?
if you have a comment on the show tweet us, hashtag "viewpoint" or post it to our facebook page. joining me now to discuss the spy versus spy versus us situation are sam seder host of majority report on majority report radio. and l. joy williams host of this week in blackness in the morning and founder of ljw strategies. and our tonen republican, tom doherty, a bipartisan national public affairs firm mercury. another commenter on facebook page enid elizabeth wrote, it's a fine line between whistle blower and leaker.
so i i put it, ed snowden patriot, traitor whistle blowing hero? >> you don't take documents and leave the country. that's when you know you've done something wrong. a 29-year-old guy deciding what our national security policies should or shouldn't be doesn't sit with me well. he's announced to the world stuff i knew we already did. that's where the end of this, he didn't shock me with any of this. >> john: he broke the law. >> yes, we can say that. it's whether or not we deserve to know this information. was there something in harm's way, so all of that, as people are trying to define what was his intent in terms of releasing this information. as tom mentioned and as you mentioned, there was no bombshell, there wasn't anything that we didn't know, except maybe the access to the big
internet companies, i don't know if we knew directly. to this point at this point i don't think we know the full extent of that as well. i think what his releasing the information brings up more questions for the american public on for us we have to decide the balance of power that we're going to give government, and our privacy versus our security. >> john: i never imagined i would wake up and see republican and democrat senators holding hands and calling the guy a traitor and seeing glenn beck and others holding hands and calling him a hero. sam, i rely on you to tell us on tv the answer to the simple matter. >> yeah, you have to rely on radio. this crosses ideological lines. if you look at the polling democrats and republicans have basically flipped based on who is the president at the time whether or not they have a problem with this type of nsa
spying. i think it's--i think it's a little bit more complicated than to say whether the guy is a hero or--i think it's quite clear he didn't commit treason. to commit treason you have to help out the enemy. we've had everyone on this panel say this is stuff that we already knew. i'm not convinced that. >> john: to say that he's felon and a hero. >> well, clearly he has broken the law. but the question becomes whether or not he's a legitimate whistle blower. i think there is sufficient question as to whether or not what the nsa is doing if not legal? have we gone beyond statutory limitations but it's arguable arguable if he's legal and what the nsa mandated and there is a fourth amendment question. we have never tried this question in a court of law
because, of course, no one ever had standing as to whether or not they knew they were subject to this type of spying. you couldn't walk in to court because the court would say you can't prove you've been spied on. it's top-secret, so you don't know. the guy probably fits under the rubrick of whistle blowing you just had a whistle blower on your show, and thomas drake, and a half dozen other whistle blowers. even if they're legitimately whistle blowing, you will be prosecuted. i would leave the country too. >> john: and go to a country where they respect privacy like china. >> no, but i would go where there is a clear shot at not being extraditeed. >> john: did he know he was have to do the time for civil
disobedience. >> we don't know what is going to happen to him but thomas drake is not working at an apple store, and they said his claim was accurate. he was lucky that he was onlying in an apple store. the whistle blowing system is not working properly enough. >> john: discuss this on my facebook page. i want to read another viewer comment. eddie wrote, i feel if you in any way supported the patriot act or the ndaa you have lost your right to pitch about this stuff. is that right? are the only ones allowed to debate this are the hardcore base and the libertarians? >> yes the republicans like myself were very supportive of the patriot act. >> john: plenty of others. >> right, plenty. i have no problem with the government listening to my phone conversations, reading my
e-mails, i do not care. i do nothing wrong. i do have a problem if that information is used to be shared with the rest of the world. that is a slippery slope. >> there are two things on that. one, i think you read a poll about the amount of people, american citizens, who are fine with it. i think it was something like 51% who are fine with it. because of the same view that tom said, i'm not trying to blow up the country, so i'm fine with it. but then it brings up that other conversation that tom just mentioned as well, who has access to this information and what is it being used for. >> john: bus when it's used down the road. >> right, when you look at the detail of it and who he was the access he had and the contractors who were used, then it begs the question who has access to this information. >> i didn't realize the amount--the one concern i get out of all of this in looking at the numbers, there are 700,000 american government workers who
have top level security clearance. there are another 400,000 private sector who has the same clearance. that 1.1 million americans. >> john: who have access to top-secret information. >> that's where my concern comes in. you know when that many people have it at some point they're going to say you had that late night conversation with john, and we know what you discussed. >> john: that's why it doesn't matter if his leaking it saved lives or liberty they're going to make him go away for a long time. >> they are. the story with bradley manning as well. there was maybe 2 million people who had access to that information if they had wanted. then, you know, there is another issue. the fief efficiency of this. they're storing this for down the road. >> john: it was designed to keep it safe but now if the cops pull anyone over at any time, they're
not wearing a seat belt by the way, can i look in your trunk. >> this guy was making $200,000. what i think we're see something a self-licking ice-cream cone here. this also came up with the original nsa whistle blowers. they were whistle blowing not against some type of law breaking but what they perceive to be corruption. the outsourcer of a private company and bringing up this information that they thought was going to be useful, and the most balling of a system that they had prior to 9/11. >> this is nothing like ellsberg. because ellsberg was bringing out illegal activity, and according to the nsa this is all legal. stick around. we're going to be talking about immigration reform and more sexy stuff right after this.
and you weren't covered. oh, and your car is a time machine. [ beeping ] ♪ ♪ would you go back to when you got that less than amazing policy and go with esurance instead? well, they do have tools like coverage counselor to help you choose the coverage that fits you. it's like insurance from the future. actually, more like insurance for the modern world. thank you! esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.
bipartisan solution to a tough problem. >> john: our panel has stuck an around with us sam seder majority report radio, l. joy williams of this week in blackness, and tom doherty of the political party that dare not speak it's name. [ laughing ] >> john: do you believe that the republican party and the senate and the house will recognize the political reality and necessity of immigration reform and do something? >> i think that particularly in the house that the incentive structure for most of those house members are to vote against this. i think their base is too nativist, and the attempt to reverse the president obama executive order, the dream act i think it's indicative.
it was 221 republicans voted for that, and i think that's pretty indicative of where they see their strength is in terms of their elections. for house members it's one way and for the senate it's different. >> john: tom you're the guy to go to on this. if you're siding the--if you're advising the house and the senate, what do you do. >> it was in 1998 when i was talking for the governor in new york. they were way ahead of the curve. too bad they didn't take this up 15 years ago. that's why he got 38% of the hispanic vote. i think rubio in the end he's balking about a couple of
things, but everything behind-the-scenes says he's on board, they're going to make changes, etc. but once the house gets the piece of legislation that they have, and the pressure is on them, boehner recognizes it will be the death of my party if the house republicans are the ones to finally say no on immigration reform. it will be the death of my party. that's why, while i think you're absolutely right will you get an overwhelming majority of those votes? no. >> john: it will squeak through? >> you'll get enough of the republican votes you'll get the boehners the world who are smart and get it, it will pass the house. >> john: what do you think? >> to tom's point i think republicans need this. the conversation is always been do-nothing congress, can't get anything done. on an issue like this where the g.o.p. is having a problem in terms of communicating and welcoming in people of color across the country, this is needed. and it will be an interesting test to see if boehner will be able to rein people in and say
we're going to push it. i don't have faith that that's going to happen. i could be wrong, and i'll come back on this show and say i was wrong. but i think, you know, i'm skeptical that this is going to actually happen. >> i think we're going to see the rule broken again exceptionally you're going to see boehner put this out there. if it does get through, it will be with the majority of democratic votes and a handful of republican votes. i'm not convinced that there isn't sort of a third subset of republicans who will vote against it, but want it to pass, and want to get it off the table so this isn't a constant issue that keeps coming. >> john: isn't that because they're terrified of being primaried by the tea party and if they are pro i immigration reform they'll be seen-- >> the republican base has this problem. it's not going to go away. >> it's a horrible problem. >> the only way for the problem to go away is for it to pass.
>> you're much better to deal with it in off-year than to have this issue come back next year. get it out of the way. deal with it. talk to your constituents, etc. otherwise, i'm telling you my party-- >> john: let me ask a question of all three of you. marco rubio said that legalization of undocumented workers is his top priority. my question did what would an american economy look like without illegal immigration. let's be honest. doesn't our economy depend on it? >> absolutely. look at those who are picking lettuce in arizona.
>> i come to the conclusion that they don't understand--what drives me crazy there are 11 million people who crossed the border illegally. i understand that, they did it for a better life, they were hungry shouldn't we be applauding that? the idea is we're not sending them back. >> john: obama said-- >> yes but we have 11 million here. let's put them on the tax rolls and let's-- >> john: i would vote for than. on the border there are two signs. one says stay out no trespassing, and the other one says help wanted. i want to thank this sensational panel for making me look smart. sam seder, l. joy williams, and
>> way back in the midst of time in the late 1980s a television host morton downey jr. turned the polite oprah and phil donohoe talk show genre upside down and spawned a new gladiator style circus that took issue driven discussions and turned them into the no-holds barred fight. earning him the title our father of trash television." a new documentary goes behind the camera and the act to explore who morton downey jr. really was and how he became so popular. >> rise up! >> it was a provocative show. >> i would puke on you!
>> he would take no prisoners. >> he would provoke confrontation. >> get out of here. >> the audience finally erected a spokesman that identified what their needs dreams and frustration. >> he's not afraid to open his mouth. he's not afraid of anybody. >> it's a lynch mob. >> should we hang this kid? >> john: joining me now is jeremy newbeger, codirector of "evocateur: the morton downey jr. movie." i would watch this show all the time with my girlfriend when i was a teenager. i loved this show even though i found mort repugnant, i don't think anybody has done what he had done.
he turned political discussion into a gladiators pit. people loved it. how would you describe the impact he had on tv? >> i think there is a little piece of mort in every loudmouth jerk you see on television today. if they're doing an act where it's provocative and they're screaming at each other, they have morton downey jr. to thank. did he it at a time when television was completely polite. donahue was doing shows about women's feet. he came on the scene and disrupted it. it's hard to watch anything now on one of the cable channels where they're arguing without thinking about morton downey jr. >> it's true. i don't know which shows on the left get away with that right now, but even the shows on the right even have come close to replicating it. decking al sharpton, and shocked the apollo theater. it's been said without morton downey jr. there would be no glenn beck, hannity or limbaugh
do you agree? >> i totally agree. there are differences. as we were discussing before we came on air, he had a live audience that was part of the act, and he used them to the max. they would come up and speak at the podium called "the loudmouth." they would look at the guests and berate them. you never see that. >> john: i guess on the left, bill maher has a live audience, but he doesn't engage them. glenn beck could have done this, but he never engaged an audience. he became a cult following. >> i was part that have cult following. >> i did, too, even though i never agreed with anything he said. it was so entertaining. what did you think did he to get this tremendous popularity. >> it was the time. the economy was bad. things were polite on tv. he was a construct of bob pitman who said i want tocracy the joe
pine show, from the 60s. they found mort. one of these right wing talkers. they plucked him from obscurity put him on the stage and it just worked. the guy was super funny very entertaining and he could flip a switch and start screaming at a guest in a way that you hadn't seen before. >> john: how did they conceive this circus at expect of this show? >> they modeled it after joe pine but mort's charisma and stage presence evolved into the morton downey jr. show. it started in the new york market for seven months before it went national and then in 1988, a huge rating success. he was on the cover of every magazine. >> cenk: yes. >> and then quickly a year later. >> cenk: as a filmmaker what drew you to this particular guy as a subject. >> our directing team, we all
watched the show, and we had an aepiphany at lunch. you watched the show? we used to talk about the show with our friend at high school after it aired at 11:00 p.m. it was the water cooler thing. we wanted to figure out who owned the tapes and who created the show. it was bob pitman. he wanted to create something for that same young audience and it appeal to us. >> john: you talked to mort's daughter kelly. how did she describe her father? >> kelly loved her father. she had an unique perspective. she lived with her father and his third wife when he was doing the morton downey show. she was there as he started to become more and more popular. from her perspective it was a different person than the nice, kind daddy who was there for her as a little kid. it was jarring to watch him
screaming in someone's face. she vocalizes that in the film. >> john: while the show was very homophobic even while his brother tony who suffered from h.i.v. and in the final chapter it involved him in a bathroom incident. he came out with a swastika on his face. what happened to him. >> the infamies tawana brawlly hoax. a 15-year-old girl who pretended to be kidnapped and raped by four white guys. and it caused a huge stir. it was on a lot of news programs. there were 20 episodes directed to it on the morton downey jr. and she was represented by al sharpton and her lawyers. then it came out that she made it up, she scribbled the kkk on
her body in feces. she took it a long way. and morton downey, whose show started declining he staged a hoax. i think that's where it came from. >> john: because the swastika was backwards as if he did it on himself in the mirror. >> someone who saw it all go down, and you'll get the true story of what happened that day. you can imagine what the guy is thinking. >> john: i can't wait to see this film. i have a dream of doing a show like this with the audience from the left and i would like to see a charismatic right right wing guy bring it back. >> i would love to do this show. >> john: thank you so much for joining us. what a pleasure. everyone go see it, even if you hate the mort. organizations that received special rights under the law are doing everything they can to make sure some americans can't achieve equal rights. it's right wing churches against the gays. my commentary coming up next.
to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? (vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.
>> john: gay marriage isn't about special rights. it's about equal rights. special rights are for political churches that don't pay taxes. and so brethren we gather today to talk about the brave efforts of a great homophobic day of homophobic followers of non- non-homophobic jesus. here we have a separate of church and state. but if the churches obey the irs code and don't support or oppose any political parties they don't have to pay taxes. for some gay-hating churches that's not enough. they want to rub it in the irs's face. see, funneled mentalist christians don't think they're better than you. they think god thinks they're better than you. they want to be political and
still not pay taxes because we noho mowphobes who like to take it both ways. last year the pastors told their congregations to vote for mitt romney. daring the irs to take them on and some even sent the irs a video of their sermons. see, if they wanted a country founded on conservative government, no gay marriage and a conservative tax system they could have moved to iran. but they insist on staying here. does the irs really go after churches? they do if they're liberal. they went after a pasadena church who preached against the right wing, jesus clearly said forgive us off our trespasses. these folks will tell you we're not haters, we're just trying to defend traditional marriage like
in the bible. but one man one woman marrying for love is a recent phenomena. we're talking about multiple wives. which may sound great at first. but king solomon had two wedding anniversary as day. and after that we may be looking for wholesome guy on guy action. jesus never said anything against gay people and when the guy jc said render under to caesar that which is caesars, he was telling people, just pay your damn taxes. but that was the hippy jesus in the bible and the right wing christians say you don't have to follow jesus as long as you follow what you think he said. tragically nothing that these guys did this year is slightly illegal. these pastors think they were
acting in civil dis disobedience. all that contempt of law for nothing. that's why we hold them up as the holy untrinity. fake christians warning of a fake danger so real bigots give them real cash. if god didn't like gay people he would stop create something many of them. and own in america can americans use the freedom of religious for douche bagry. i would like to thank my guests and my panel sam seder, l. joy williams and tom doherty. we'll see you tomorrow, good night mom.
connecticut. >> joy: tonight nsa whistleblower edward snowden coming forward to say big brother is watching. plus my hollow rollers panel is trying to figure out why so many hollywood celebrities just happen to be atheists. all of that and more tonight on "say anything." [♪ theme music ♪] >> michael: the nsa, the irs drone, attacks, the kardashians,