let's look at our online poll results. we asked -- 79% of you said yes, said no, and we are out of time. i'm lori in for lou dobbs tonight. have a wonderful weekend. john: are politicians authentic or fake? >> i think all politicians are phonies. >> they're all phonies. >> fake. john: they sure want to look authentic. the democrats say some are authentic. >> checked the authenticity box. john: and only one republican is authentic. >> donald trump is real. john: the issues are real. >> there is a war on cops right now. >> police officers are being hunted. john: police and women. >> there's a within war on women. john: really? >> political reality, that's our show tonight.
. john: when i titled the show political reality, we put reality in quotation marks because so much of what politicians say and do is fake. their handlers try to make the candidate look good. recently the political class decided hillary clinton didn't appear authentic and likable. her campaign staff, i mean in the "new york times" ran this headline. clinton to show more humor and hearth. and rolling stone said clinton's fake populism is a hit. really? listen to her at the coffee shop in iowa. >> it's so exciting to be here! you know who says hello? senator harkin says hello. senator harkin told me to say hello! >> and you remember me. >> how are you, dear. john: you think she was really
excited to be here? i don't think so. i don't blame her or any politician for struggling to fake it. day after day of smiling at strangers, who can do that? but that's the phoniness of politics. political ads are phony, too. this election cycle, one candidate has run ads so honest, so authentic, i may vote for him. >> a president with the conviction to nod, the courage to point. >> and the experience to cram buzz words into everything. john: this candidate is gill full bright. >> here's the part i gloss over on issues. issues like education and making it good. the economy. and improving it by repeating the word jobs. john: he's obviously a fake, but message sure seems real. >> and blah, blah, blah, something to get votes from women and minorities. i'm honest gil fullbright and i
approve whatever marketing campaign they put in the message. >> the issue of representative graham lynn of represent dot us, you want to end corruption in politics. >> that's right, thanks for having me. john: i love your ads, your campaign to end corruption, how would you end corruption? >> a law that has three main parts. stops political bribery, ends secret money and gives every voter a voice. john: those are platitudes, break them down. >> stopping political bribery, should be illegal for a lobbyist to make a donation to a politician that is regulating them. we think that -- john: but that's speech. the government is huge, it regulates everyone. that tells industry that they can't speak. >> we think they should be able to speak, for instance -- >> speech is money in politics. >> so spending money out in the open, putting your name on it, absolutely. john: name every contributor. >> sure, if you put your
message out there. if you have a -- john: then the left can come after you if they say something you don't like. support marriage between men and women your life may be wrecked by somebody. >> this plan is popular with people on the right and the left. our campaign has 500,000 supporters all over the country. john: it is popular on the left, support comes from the hewlett foundation. most of the money, they're anti-coal, rockefeller foundation is anti-fossil fuels and anti-fracking group. tides foundation, these are socialist foundations that's why i'm skeptical. >> i can see why you are skeptical. our campaign, we have support from the right and left. john: your ad is certainly popular. a previous one for his senate campaign, 10 million views. the new one over a million in just one day. >> yep. john: so people want to see this kind of ad. >> this stuff strikes a chord with the american people because they know that the system is corrupt. they see it every day and tired
of being let down by top politicians who make the wild promises to them during campaign season and get elected and go back to representing the special interests. john: is there any real candidate close to the guy in your ad? >> i mean, it would be fun if there were. donald trump has a lot of the same characteristics. bernie sanders also has them. both have built platform on disavowing special interest money. trump is self-funded and bernie prides himself on small dollar donations. john: so trump is authentic? running as a republican until five years ago was giving money to the democrats. >> he's still a politician. john: let's look at another part of one of your ads. >> americans are facing all kinds of challenges these days. the 2016, all the presidential candidates, they got to talk a big game about helping you out, but i won't waste your time with that, the truth is we don't care about you. >> i'm an honest politician and i approve this message.
john: would you at least agree with us libertarians to say the best way to shrink the evil influence is to shrink government? they don't have so much power over all of us. >> i think all americans agree a more efficient government is better. john: smaller. >> smaller might be better but the reality is that right now in the last few years alone, the top 200 companies in political spending spent 5 billion dollars influencing our government and get 4.4 trillion dollars. they're not going to be giving that up so easy. they don't want a smaller government. big, bloated government works for them. john: so let's not spend 4 trillion dollars every year. >> this is exactly the problem. if we get rid of the corruption, we can go back to working on things like smaller government, simpler taxes, whatever you are fighting for. >> the biggest lobby is old people. they get the most money. >> i didn't know that. john: thank you, joshua. now back to the real candidates. who is most like gil? who's authentic?
i asked people in times square. >> politicians, are they authentic or phony? >> all phony. >> all fake. >> i don't believe a word they say, that's why trump is so popular. >> he says what nobody else is willing to say. john: which i guess means saying things like this. >> we are led by very, very stupid people! >> we will have so much winning if i get elected that you may get bored with winning! >> he is an authentic, i'm not sure exactly what. on the democratic side, the media celebrate two candidates as authentic, some pick joe biden for some reason, many pick bernie sanders. >> he has incredible degree of authenticity. >> he is viewed as the most authentic person in the race. he doesn't dress up. >> joe biden comes across as authentic. >> he checks the authenticity box. john: few call hillary clinton authentic, she'll be the first
to tell you. >> i am a real person! >> i had lunch with her once. she seemed real, but that's another story for the future. presidential historian david greenberg studies spin in political campaigns, a new book coming out called republic of spin. and real clear politics, rebecca berg covers that spin. so david, you looked at 100 years of candidates. has it changed much? >> this concern with authenticity goes way back. in the 20s, this was the age of ballyhoo as they called it. the newspapers were running big photographs. they wanted to show themselves to be human. so hoover was out there fly fishing, warren harding would do posing on the white house lawn with albert einstein and helen keller and whoever they could get to do a photo-op. this goes way back in media politics. john: rebecca? >> i see a lot of parallels between the historical examples and today.
i think of scott walker riding motorcycle around new hampshire wearing his motorcycle boots to the first republican debate. obviously, it didn't pan out very well for his campaign. but that's what he was trying to get out there. john: and it works? >> it does. what we see in polling is voters do care about authenticity in the presidential candidates. there has been polling that has shown voters care most about honesty and look at that as a proxy for authenticity in candidates. john: honesty over compassion, over intelligence. >> yes. so this is a specific poll from the "new york times" a number of years ago, and a third of people in that poll said honesty is the most important to them, and then it went down from there to intelligence and compassion. john: is honesty the same as authenticity? >> it's not. the trouble we have in politics and presidential politics is talk a lot about authenticity. we don't have data to show how much voters care because it's such a liquid idea what is authenticity.
to some people it means ideological consistency, to others it means who do you like? >> look, george bush, a lot of conservatives felt he was authentic, you could relate to and liberals say on the texas ranch, he bought that in 1999 before he was running for president. bill clinton struck a lot of democrats as authentic. you saw what you were getting. republicans called him slick willie. so there often is a partisan dimension how we perceive people to be authentic as well. john: here's the "washington post" david moranis's take on the clinton family of authenticity. >> you talk about authenticity. i always have called bill clinton an authentic phony. he is good at that. and hillary, if you look at it just as theater is a phony phony. john: he's a phony phony, nobody seems to disagree. >> that's a little unfair, i think hillary's problem is she's very guarded, reserved.
you know, she has difficulty being spontaneous. so those are questions like authenticity. john: she is the overwhelming front-runner. i don't care what the polls say, the betting predicts and she's a two-to-one favorite. >> i think you could argue, you're still -- that is the real hillary. she is a person who's guarded. who's cautious, and that's how she's excelled in her political career. >> she's cautious on the campaign trail. another republican i think of is mitt romney. john: or jeb bush. >> or jeb bush. when we look at authenticity we expect politicians to be likable, and so you can be authentically reserved but that's not enough if you're running for president. john: when i first started reporting, all the pundits said no candidate must ever look weak and vulnerable. when ed muskie lost the 72 primary because he looked like
he teared up defending his wife. everyone said candidates can't cry because that's weak. in 2008 hillary clinton cried. >> i have so many opportunities from this country. >> and her voice cracked a little bit. >> i don't want to see us fall backwards. >> she showed being human. [ applause ] >> this is very personal for me. john: pundits pounced. >> people perceive that as weakness. >> yeah. >> i think they will and should. >> it makes her look like her campaign is in trouble. >> the pundits were wrong, the day before polls showed her ten points behind. the next day she beat barack obama in the new hampshire primary. so an 11 point switch based on the opposite of what the pundits were saying. >> but that showed a human side of hillary clinton. that's what she needed at that point. john: how do we know she wasn't faking the tears? >> most politicians are completely inauthentic.
>> sincerity is everything, if you can fake, that you've got it made. john: it's a joke. >> it's a joke, jokes have a ring of truth and politicians have always had to sort of try to struggle to contrive, convey an after i being down to earth and unguarded and spontaneous. >> especially in a very awkward environment of the campaign trail. it is not a natural situation by any measure. john: it applies to television too, when i came to fox, the genius boss who had so much success says what works is an anchor's authenticity. you can't fake it. bill o'reilly is obnoxious on air and off, he is successful. let's play another piece from the fake candidate. >> this is a real person with real problems. i will promise to fix those problems. john: they always claim they can fix our problems. i asked our social media
followers what lies are you sick of hearing from politicians? on facebook ron answered -- would that be successful? >> good luck getting elected by saying i'm not going to solve your problems. john: you're not going to fix everything. >> you have to pretend the limits of the presidency aren't there, they don't exist. they are as donald trump said recently, a superman presidential candidate. >> the people most engaged in election are people who see something wrong in their lives in the world, in america's place in the world, they're going to turn to the politicians to make it better. john: the politician is santa claus and god and everybody, he can fix it. they wish for that. >> seems like our expectations of presidential candidates are a little in conflict. on the one hand we expect them to be normal people we can hang
out and relate with, on the other hand we expect them to fix everything for us, that's unrealistic. john: coming up, the war on cops, the war on women, the war on isis. what's theater and what's reality? but next, the debate whether immigrants steal our jobs. >> definitely. definitely steal jobs. >> we do jobs that americans don't do, like we do hard jobs. the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,
and that's what we're doing at xfinity. we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around.
. john: do immigrants take jobs from america? >> no. >> no. >> there is no such thing as american, we all came from different countries. john: there is no such thing as an america? i'm not sure what that means but the attitude angers who believe immigrants take american jobs, ask people about that, too. >> definitely. they definitely steal jobs. >> the taxpayers who are working today are paying for all of the people that are coming across. john: is that true? economist ben powell is the author of the new book "the economics of immigration." so, ben, is that true? he's saying these immigrants are paid for by taxpayers. >> they're responsible scholarly studies, look what
responsible taxpayer pays for in their lives and also look at the ripple effects through the u.s. economy. >> when economists estimate the gains for opening up immigration in the world economy, they're talking about on average a doubling of world gdp, a tremendous growth. john: it does impose a fiscal cost of 3,000 bucks himself. but the descendants of the immigrant have a positive contribution of $80,000. and certainly social security and medicare will go broke much more quickly if we don't bring any young immigrants. >> the social security and medicaid system are necessarily dependent on bringing more people in the system, it's a ponzi scheme, and immigrants helped prop up that. when we look at immigrants over the entire lifetime of paying of taxes, it's a wash in most of the studies. john: the people who say they take jobs, it's logical, they take some jobs. so what's your answer to that? >> yes.
on net, they don't take jobs. immigrants both take jobs and create jobs. john: the seen versus the unseen, explain that. >> you can take the camera i'm looking at right now and stick it on somebody who used to do landscaping and say i used to do this job and look, there's an immigrant doing that job right now. but also it frees up american labor to do the things we're better suited to do, and that creates jobs, those jobs are statistical, jobs are created because of technological changes, changes in resource costs. it's hard to stick a camera on the person who got the job but certainly real. think about what happened to the size of the labor force since the end of world war ii. massive entry of women, baby boomers and after 1965 immigrants into the workforce. we've roughly tripled the size of the civilian labor force but seen no long-term increase in unemployment as we almost tripled the number of workers and jobs. we have a limitless desire for goods and services, as we get more workers, we put them to work doing those things.
john: if you look at what immigrants have given us the list is amazing, google searches, ikea furniture, bicycles, blow dryers, basketball and football. hard to imagine how many jobs were created by the new ideas. easy to see the jobs lost. >> even the low skilled ones who don't create businesses that create jobs, perform tasks that labor is suited to than the american labor. the case for more immigration to the united states of an economic gain us to is the exact same as for international trades in goods and services, not about net number of jobs, changing the mix of jobs so the native born citizens do the work they're better served to do. john: in times square, immigrants told me we're not taking your jobs. >> americans don't like to do the jobs we foreigners do. >> we do jobs americans don't
do. >> americans don't want to do the jobs at the wages the jobs are hired at. they wouldn't exist. we've had cases where in response to increased border restriction, farmers couldn't get migrant workers across the mexican border and left crops in the ground to rot instead of paying higher wages in order to harvest it. john: people say this has worked in the past because we had mostly european immigrants. ann coulter says yeah when i gave her the list of all the things they brought us. those are people from europe. brown people don't invent things, show me the mexican google. >> you could plug in the world italian or irish or polish as you go back in time. when you hit a peak wave of migration, if someone's noticed net migration from mexico has turned negative. more are going back than coming here. trump puts up the wall, he better make sure there are
doors on both sides of it. in united states we have a shortage of low skilled workers around the world. john: donald trump says immigrants are criminals and many complain about immigrants committing crimes. >> we don't come here to do bad things. some do, but not all of us are the same. >> donald trump, he's like, he's so racist. he talks about mexicans, he talks about we come here, we kill people and we don't. john: some do. >> some do. but the vast majority come to the united states to make a better life for themselves and families. and seems to me a whole lot more sensible, instead of excluding all that might commit a crime, let them come here if they want to be workers in the american economy and if they don't have respect for individual life and property by committing violent crimes, send them back home. that is more sensible than saying we won't let any of you in because some of you might be bad apples.
john: thank you, ben powell. next, i debate a presidential candidate who wants more war, boots on the ground in syria and other places. ♪ the way i see it, you have two choices; the easy way or the hard way. you could choose a card that limits where you earn bonus cash back. or, you could make things easier on yourself. that's right, the quicksilver card from capital one. with quicksilver you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere.
the health care law gives us we're cracking down on medicare fraud. powerful tools to fight it. to investigate it. prosecute it. and stop criminals. our senior medicare patrol volunteers are teaching seniors across the country to stop, spot and report fraud. you can help. guard your medicare card. don't give out your card number over the phone. call to report any suspected fraud. we're cracking down on medicare fraud. let's make medicare stronger for all of us.
. >> we have to use airpower, surveillance, intelligence, and we have to rebuild the iraqi army. john: hillary clinton, vice president biden, and nearly every republican presidential candidate say we have to fight our enemies here, there, everywhere. one of the biggest hawks is senator lindsey graham. >> we need a ground force in iraq and syria, whatever it takes, as long as it takes to defeat them. john: whatever it takes, a ground force? i think that's self-destructive. so i'm glad that tonight i get to debate the presidential candidate. >> honored to be on your show, thank you very much. john: anything it takes, what does that mean?
>> whatever it takes, until they're destroyed. it's a religious war, they're motivated to purify their religion, destroy israel, come after us and you either hit them or they hit you. john: anything it takes meaning kill them all? fight them all? >> you kill as many as can you, you have to build up others, how do you win against radical islam? john: i don't think you do. >> i think you do. you're in a war, i mean i say we're in a war, what would winning look like? there will come a day, and i don't think i'll live to see it, where people in the region can contain the radical threat within their country, police forces and armies will be able to contain it. john: that would be nice, i don't see how we get there. you say soldiers on the ground in syria and iraq. how many american soldiers. >> i think we need 10,000, we have 3500. what i would do is increase the
american footprint to about 10,000, that would give you army aviation battalions where you have american helicopters flown by american pilots it would put us at risk but change the tide of battle. john: how would it change the tide of battle. >> having an attack helicopter flown by a pilot throws the enemy. 70% of the combat with bombs on the rack. john: because? >> we don't have good intel. john: spend more on good intel. >> put forward air controllers in the battle space to hit the enemy more effectively. going after the isil leadership morning, noon and night to put pressure on the leadership so they can't be as effective in terms of war plans and take it to them in iraq. john: how many other countries would you put american soldiers in. >> we have 9800 there. i would keep them there until conditions warranted their
withdrawal. john: the ukraine? >> i would arm the ukrainian army, i wouldn't put american boots on the ground but give defensive weapons. john: libya? >> we should have trained armys and police forces. john: my impression is when we do what you want to do, you can people, uncles and cousins hate us and we create more war. we're more at risk. >> not really. people in afghanistan don't want us to leave. if we weren't welcome there, and they had some insider attacks, but i've been there enough to know that the afghans want a different life. very few people want to turn their daughters over to the taliban and isil. to say otherwise is a slander against them. fighting and dying by the thousands to reject the ideology and our interests will help them be successful. john: when we went into iraq, we took out the dictator, when we went into syria to try to take out the dictator. >> and libya.
john: it gave birth to more horrible people. >> so if you could go back in time and know what we know then that we know now, land force into iraq was probably an overreach, getting saddam out of the way was the right idea because he was shooting at our pilots, he invaded his neighbors, gassed the kurds. libya is a good example where the people rose up against gadhafi. if you lived in libya you would have too. mistake was to leave too soon. john: and by bombing them, you're certain we won't make it worse? >> we have to have a military solution to isil. has to have a ground component, but the way you hold. john: won't it make it worse? >> i don't think so. john: if i were a bomb, i would want to kill the people who killed my cousin. >> not about killing the innocent people. if we don't stop the rise of isil and the blood letting in syria, it never ends without somebody stopping it. the nazis were stopped along
after a lot of people got killed. john: how about vietnam? was that worth doing? >> the domino effect probably looking back wasn't so much worth it. but this is a good war in this regard. the people we're fighting are crucifying children, they're destroying an entire religion called christianity. john: no question, they are a horrible, horrible people. >> this is a good thing we're doing to help people help themselves and make the world a better place. john: how are you going to pay for what you want to do? during the cold war when the nuclear missiles were pointed at us, we spent less adjusted for inflation than we spend now. >> we're not in a cold war, we're in a hot war. look what it cost us when the hijackers penetrated our defense spending less than a made. i don't know how much money we spent since 9/11. it's been a lot. it takes a committed jihadist to do a great damage to us. john: thank you, senator graham. coming up, from real wars to
. john: is there a war on cops in america now? >> i think so. >> it would seem so. john: certainly seems so listening to some in the media. >> the war on cops. >> there's a war on cops. >> there is a war on cops right now. >> a terrifying new threat to law enforcement. >> there's a war on cops. >> police officers are being hunted. john: they are being hunted says former new york police commander joe cardinale. really? hunted? >> sure they're being hunted, they're being targeted. you have people telling them to go out and seek the cops, the young cops, take guns from them, take their radios. john: clearly there's more
anger because of the black lives matter movement, the protests and if a cop in certain neighborhoods makes an arrest, there are people in his face taking his picture, often shouting at him, calling him a racist but there is reason for that. some of your colleagues had abused their power. >> not in every instance. i'll say the majority of them, 99.9 are done as effectively as they can be done. john: eric garner, who died, justified? was that right in the chokehold. >> if you look at it, it's not a chokehold. he's taking him down from behind. john: justified? >> i think most certainly. he's been arrested before, dealt with the police before, why this time is he fighting them. john: freddie gray in baltimore? >> all the cops, you think they're going to get a fair trial on this? when all the facts are in, there's going to be a lot of things explained. john: what about the tennis player james blake taken down? >> he was taken down, prior to that, my understanding of that
incident is he was identified by somebody as a person who committed a crime and wanted for a crime. john: right, identity theft. >> identity theft. john: an honest mistake, that can happen. why does the cop have to knock him down? >> maybe time was of the essence and he felt he was going to leave, so he took him down. that's the cop's decision to make that he has to use that force to take him down. john: if you look at tape, blake was just standing there leaning up against the building. why can't a cop go up and say excuse me, sir, you're accused of identity theft. turn around, i'll cuff you. why do you got to knock them down? >> the element of surprise works in your favor and you use it for that. john: what did a cop need to work in his favor, he's got a gun. >> should he take the gun out and point it. you don't know who you are encountering every day. until you walk a mile in a cop's shoes you don't know how you're going to react. every situation is different.
john: are more cops being killed? >> i believe so. police are being targeted. john: but if you look at the data, in 2015, 35 were murdered. if that pace holds, this year looks to be the second lowest number of murdered cops in decades. this is a myth, the killing of cops. >> there's no myth, 20,000 names on the wall in washington, d.c. that say different, all right? and 800 names on the wall in new york city that say different. john: cops get killed. are you saying this is unusually dangerous occupation? >> of course, it's an unusually dangerous occupation. john: we have a chart of the riskiest jobs. loggers, fishermen, commercial fishermen, garbage men are way more likely to be killed on the job than a police officer. >> and your point? john: the point is this is exaggerated. the police, you work under great risk, but not so much risk that cops should be doing
some of the things these videos show cops doing. one i just watched a woman in california knocked to the ground after being pulled over for an alleged seat belt violation. she probably talked back. she was charged with resisting arrest, but once the video was found, they released her. the cops never get prosecuted for it. >> that's not true. cops get prosecuted. when the facts are in, like in the garner case, when the facts are in, the facts, not what the public is perceiving, when the facts are in, and everything is said and done, all right, it's up to the grand jury system and the legal system to say whether they're going to bring charges or the not. believe me, in ferguson, if they found a shred of evidence, president obama sent eric holder down there to do his job. all right? he found nothing because there was nothing. it was overreaction and it came out at the end that the cop was justified. john: and i didn't bring up ferguson for that reason. i think he was unfairly smeared that cop. >> of course.
that went away, didn't it? it went away and nobody did anything to apologize. that cop's career is over because of that incident. john: thank you, joe cardinale. next, the war on women. >> the latest smear campaign is based on efforts by our opponents. >> another war on women. we can't call it anything else.
we live in a pick and choose world. choose, choose, choose. but at bedtime? ...why settle for this? enter sleep number. don't miss the columbus day sale. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. right now save $600 on the #1 rated bed, plus 24-month financing. hurry, ends tuesday! know better sleep with sleep number.
. >> is there a war on women? >> there's a republican war on women in america. john: what's in the war? what are the republicans do to you women? >> they are trying to take away all of our reproductive rights, take away birth control or access to abortions. >> that's a war on women, including democratic strategist jesse tarla. how is that a war? some people don't think. >> it's not a war in a traditional sense, i think the point they're making, this is a small piece of a larger puzzle about women put on the economic back foot because the fact we earn 78 cents on the man's dollar. john: the democratic platform is about giving money to people. >> no, it's not you. >> want more money for companies to be forced to pay
for the fact that you may choose -- >> we want companies to take care of employees to make sure they have a good quality of life. free market can't fix everything, we're not going to agree on that, you need a safety net and you need to consider people -- their lives. what goes on at home? >> if government doesn't pay for planned parenthood, that's part of a war on women? >> the government actually doesn't pay for planned parenthood to the extent -- john: 500 million dollars. >> but 80% what they get paid is from medicaid reimbursements, if they use the medicaid dollars elsewhere, planned parenthood wouldn't get the money. we're talking about a much smaller amount. john: some people consider abortion murder. >> that money doesn't go to abortion. we know the hyde amendment -- don't roll your eyes. i've heard that argument before, why do 49% of americans not want to defund planned parenthood. why do 47% of americans say it's the most popular political entity. john: most americans think it's free!
and most people i interviewed in times square supported you on this, they say government should give money to planned parenthood. >> planned parenthood gets 500 million dollars from the government. should they get more? less? none? >> more. we need more money. >> i think planned parenthood does a lot of good things and i think they deserve the money. john: they do some good things but some people were more sensible in my opinion. should planned parenthood get 500 million dollars from the government? >> no. definitely not. >> the less government we have involved in personal lives, the better. there shouldn't be any money in that particular area. >> i'm against the government fund anything private enterprise. john: where would they get their money. >> how about all the people who support abortions. >> your firm does work for bloomberg, he's a big abortion supporter. >> using the term abortion support ser misleading. john: jason alexander makes 50
million dollars a year. scarlett johansson, 35 billion dollars a year. >> they have a lot of celebrity support, absolutely. john: so get it from those of us who support the idea. >> i'm sure they give. if we're talking about medicaid reimbursements, this is about a woman's right to choose where she wants to go for health care. john: people consider this murder, they're forced to pay for murder. >> it's absurd! it's a protected right to choose it have an abortion. one in three women in this country will have an abortion in her lifetime. john: she should pay for it herself or get bloomberg to pay for it. >> planned parenthood does not take government funds for abortions, it's not about abortion rights it's about women's health. i understand planned parenthood provides abortions and they provide council as well, contraceptives, family planning, std screens, cervical screens, we know planned parenthood does not provide mammograms and that's something
that needs to be pointed out and swept under the rug but they will refer and you they will do breast exams. john: and they will do 300,000+ abortions. >> they will, which is perfectly legal. john: thank you, jesse tarlov. next, the political reality we should all fear including dopes like me who are slow to understand. >> 45, 45 secret service agents violate federal law, it's kind
. john: a political reality for me is that i got to pick my battles. government does so many things that make me hate and fear my own government they once made that list of 100 of them. when i did some, libertarians got mad at me because not on that list was the nsa's data mining, do i hate that the government lied about it, but given the terrorist a lot to kill us, i'm not upset they look for patterns and phone calls that expose the terrorists, but i believe they're looking for terrorists, not just trying to harass americans. after all, to break the law and use the secret powers to dig up dirt on me or other political opponents, that's risky. they probably would be caught because word would get out.
ben franklin once joked yes three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. today with the internet it's harder to keep a secret. i doubt government will use power to smear critics of america. maybe i'm totally wrong, naive. look what happened recently to congressman jason chaffetz. he's chairman of the house committee in charge of overseeing the secret service, and the secret service needs oversight. look at what they've done lately. >> two allegedly senior drunken agents were seen driving into the white house. >> breaking news in the secret service sex scandal. john: so what does the secret service do about those things? they conspire against their overseer. as patrick edington writes, chaffetz earned the hatred of many in the secret service for his investigations into the agency's many blunders. >> who are you holding accountable? >> we're going to wait. >> you're going to wait! that's the problem. that's the problem.
we're going to wait. john: okay. i get why some at the secret service hate chaffetz, but what they did next is just illegal. turns out chaffetz once applied with a job at the secret service and they rejected him. that was supposed to be kept secret of course, but it wasn't. chaffetz's personal information was leaked throughout the agency. recipients of the agents acknowledged in the hundreds. one reported that by the end of the second day he was sent a protection assignment for the president of afghanistan, and 70 agents at the briefing were talking about the issue. secret service supervisors knew that chaffetz's record had been accessed. yet with a single exception. we found no evidence that any of the secret service managers attempted to stop the activity. at least 45 agents broke the law. last sunday, chaffetz, now running for house speaker said
this to chris wallace. >> you had 45, 45 secret service agents violate federal law according to the inspector general. what is the attorney general doing? why isn't there a special prosecutor over there? it's kind of scary. john: it is scary, none of the agents had a legitimate reason to look at chaffetz's file. one assistant director ed lowrie e-mailed a colleague saying some information he might find embarrassing needs to get out. a clear attempt to intimidate or punish him for doing his job, overseeing the conduct of an agency under his jurisdiction, and this happened just a year after it was revealed that cia employees spied on computers used by senate staffers investigating the cia. no one at the cia has been prosecuted for this, and so far, no one at secret service. the irs went after conservative groups. no one's been prosecuted there either.
>> i want to trust the nsa, but government grows. abuses power and never apologizes. that's political reality. see you next week. now. >> a century old movie theater, passion of small town businessman. >> his dying words were, angela, don't let the theater go. >> that could be a long haul. >> anything that could go wrong went wrong. >> are final credits about to role? >> did he know you would step up? >> i didn't get to tell him. i am sorry. >> will there be an encore performance. >> do you think to yourself, i wish my grandfather would have left me the house. >> so many times more than you know.