thank you, both, for being here. >> thank you, lou. have a good weekend. >> thank you, lou. >> in our online poll 57% of you said you believe we are witnessing the death of political correctness. thanks for being with us. have a great evening. good night from new york. >> another mass shooting. john: isis attacks. what can america do about it? presidential candidates claim they know what to do. >> if i'm elected president, we will defeat radical islamic terrorists. john: but how? some candidates say the threat has already come to america. >> we should never take in refugees, we don't know who these people rebuke we don't know where they're coming fro. john: does it matter if the politicians say radical islam? >> i don't think we're at war with islam. we are at war with violent extremism. john: whatever words we use, it's important we find the right balance between safety and liberty. senator rand paul got our government the stop mass collection of person records.
>> get a warrant. get a judge to sign a warrant . john: many republicans say that's wrong. >> i think we need to restore the metadata program. john: paul is here to argue back, and we will argue over the best way to preserve liberty and security. that's our show. tonight. ♪ ♪ . john: we all want to be safe. we also want to be free. and now in response to terrorism almost every presidential candidate promises that he or she will protect us from isis. they'll say -- they'll do more than obama did. >> we won't degrade them, we will utterly destroy them, we will carpet bomb them into. >> the united states leading a
coalition to take out isis. john: yes, take isis out. but how? to utterly destroy isis as ted cruz just said he'd do, we'd have to find and kill every terrorist in dozens of countries. how is this possible? and might our attacks create more terrorists, new terrorists? we'll debate that tonight. but we start by debating what america can do to find terrorists here at home. the nsa had been searching for them by collecting our phone records, senator rand paul stopped the zeta collection by filibustering it. >> i don't have a problem for going after terrorists and getting their records. but you should call a judge. john: held the floor for ten hours, once in public support and the nsa did eventually end its mass collection programs. but now after san bernardino and the attacks in paris senator marco rubio accuses senator paul of gutting american intelligence. >> we want access to these people's phones records because it gives us clue who
they were looking with who may be involved in plots down the road. rand paul wants to get rid of that program. john: rand paul jones us now and he says those phone records would give us clues on people who may be involved in plots now. >> well, if senator rubio were present now doing a little bit more job, he would realize that this warrantless collection of data is still on going and has been on going through the paris tragedy, through the san bernardino tragedy, and also through the boston bombing. not one terrorist act was forwarded, not one terrorist was caught through this program and really what we've done is trade our liberty for a false sense of security, and i don't think marco rubio has it correct. i think he's just a little too eager to give up our liberty, and i don't think it has made us safer at all. john: later in the program a guest will say it takes two dozen government employees to watch one terrorist subject 24/7.
from that point of view if you're looking for guys who try to kill us, it makes more sense to look for internet patterns of phone calls. >> apparently it doesn't work, though, and apparently we've been doing it for a decade and we still have attacks. and if you want to see what would happen if we give even more freedom to the intelligence agencies, lebanon at france. they have our bulk collection, our warrantless collection, they have it on stai steroids, they have everything and yet the tragedy happened. most of the time when we stop them from attack, it's been from human intelligence. john: accepting the human intelligence's death and the collection may not have worked so far. but can you explain to people who -- what the problem is to say so what this stuff is flying through the air anyway. i don't care about if they know who i've talked to. the phone company knows anyway. >> the best thing about metadata is two stanford
students -- people put an app voluntarily on their phone to record their metadata, how long their phone calls and were who they called but 80% of the time they could tell religion, 90% of the time they could tell who your doctor was and they could determine what kind of medicines you were taking, what kind of diseases you have, that's personal information. i don't think everybody should see that. also your credit card information that's metadata. is it personal whether or not i gamble, whether i shoke smoke or whether i drink, what kind of magazines, if i read reason magazine, am i somehow to be followed because i believe in liberty in the free market. john: so far you haven't moved your fellow presidential candidates, here's governor chris christy saying next time an attack rand paul should be on the stand. >> he should be in front of hearings in front of congress if there's not another attack. not the director of the fbi or the cia. john: you should be on the stand. >> you know, that's pretty
juvenile. there's also people who politicians for their own sort of self gain will want to beat their chest and appear as if they're the most patriotic, but i don't think it's patriotic to give up your rights. i think it's patriotic in difficult times to say you know what? i will defend the constitution, i will defend the bill of rights and just because i am fearful or i don't want to be one of those who's going to spread in self fear in order to ultimately live in a police state. i just think that's wrong. john: well, let's talk about the refugees briefly. they inspire fear in some, donald trump has now said don't take anyone who's a muslim. you have said we should stop letting people be in from 34 countries. >> at least temporarily. if we can't get a handle on who's here and what their intentions are, i think maybe have to slow it down a little bit. john: so you might stop it for how long? a month? four months? how is what you're saying different from what trump says? >> ours isn't a religious
test, ours is based on areas of terrorism and areas of people who expect hatred for the united states. north korea is also on the list so ours isn't directed toward religion. it's directed toward a risk or threat of terrorism being imported into our country. but having rules about who comes and who errants and how easy or how hard it is to come i think is pretty reasonable and most americans do want that. john: thank you, senator paul. to continue this debate we're joined now by two specialist who have their own opinions, my fox colleague katie mcfarland says we should bomb isis, destroy their resources. but national security specialize with the institute says she fears more military action would make things worse. why? >> syria has five years being just a cauldron of violence with lots of different countries arming rebels, throwing more resources into it, more and more violence --
john: so ted cruz says we're going to take them all out finally, we're going to get serious. >> well, that's just not practicality. john: katie, you want to do more. >> look, i think bombing isis and taking isis out only part of the issue. john: how is that even possible? >> we went after militarily went out to pakistan, we got bin laden and moved to iraq, they went to iraq and now syria, now we're talking about syria, they're going to move to libya. it's not just a military solution, that's an essential part of it but a military solution but then you've got to have an economic part of it. a diplomatic part. john: all right. we all agree on that. but the military solution, don't we create more terrorists? more enemies? you kill the guys cousin, now he wants to murder me. >> only if -- you also have to destroy the ideology at the same time. john: how do you do that? >> here's the thing. the islamic state is now the magnet for any jihadi want to
be worldwide. this is a country the size of great britain, it has taxes, delivers southernly services, it has a budget, a well ordered and well equipped military. so what is the military solution? it's not going to be boots on the ground of 100,000 american troops, the only people who can do military solution are the people on the ground. now, the united states has quarterback, we all watch football; right? what would a game be like without a quarterback? everybody would be running all over the field. john: so we have to take the lead. >> yeah. but not necessarily militarily. we take the lead and say okay. you guys can do this, you guys can do that. >> i think part of the problem is when the u.s. takes the lead, it drives a lot of these young people, disaffected youth across the middle east and other places to say, oh, the u.s. is fighting us, we must fight then. >> so then what do you do? how do you solve it? >> we have to encourage regional powers to step up. john: president obama says we have mobilized 60 countries to
go after isil. >> well, most of those countries aren't engaged in the fight. the europeans have only stepped up in the last couple of weeks, the gulf states bombing in syria haven't done -- john: so we should back off since they won't do it. >> no. we have to tell these states that we're not just going to from the gap if you don't do it. these states are far more vulnerable to isis than we are. they have a much bigger stake in the game but every time we step up and offer some type of u.s. military support, they don't have an incentive to do it themself. >> if they want to fight, give them the weapons. john: wouldn't this backfire? they became the taliban. >> well, we aren't arming the. john: but you want to do it, and they're going to use those arms to kill us. >> let them be there. but there's two ways to kill a snake, you can cut off his head, or you can starve them. he can die either way, one takes a little longer. cut it off and then watch them -- john: what about the that? bomb their oil fields.
>> we're already doing it. in fact, in the last couple of weeks we started bombing oil trucks, which is relatively destructive, we are cutting off most of their sources of income but most of isis income comes from its own people. they are extorting the people that live inside their state. that money's not going to go away, and we can't cut it off just by stopping smuggling oi. john: finally does it matter if politicians use the phrase islamic terrorism? >> we can call it radical islamic terrorism if you want the same way that we could call irish terrorists radical terrorists. it doesn't actually help. it doesn't change anything in the long run, we're just giving it a name. >> we should be calling them islamic extremists because good muslims who practice the faith of 99% of the people who are good god-fearing muslims, they don't want to be associated with the others. so if we call the others out. john: why wouldn't george w bush do it then? >> i think he was wrong. i think he made a huge mistake. call it what it is.
if you don't call it what it is, very difficult to rally the people behind you to defeat it. >> the danger in doing that is that you demonize an entire group of people as donald trump started to demonize an entire religion. i think if we think of terrorists more as criminals, more as deranged people, the evidence and the research shows that a lot of time these sort of loan wolf terrorists would have done it for some other reason, they're not necessarily wedded to say ideology. john: well, a lot of them have been islamic. >> they use it as an excuse, though. actually a lot of the people that go out to syria to join isis aren't really muslim. they are converts, they are very unfamiliar with the state, some of the terrorists stop into syria were carrying islam for dummies into their bag because they didn't understand the faith. john: these are sociopaths who want to do something. >> i think isis is a cause, and it is calling to people,
and i think we can do a lot to under mine that cause and make it less attractive to them. but i think in the long run they'll be attracted to something else. so we have to stop the problem now before it spreads. john: thank you for you to join this argument, use @johnstossel on twitter, use the hashtag give me liberty and if you like the facebook page, then you can post on my wall. next. what france did in the wake of the paris attacks. my next guest says it's a threat to liberty far worse than america's done so far. sure, tv has evolved over the years.
john: after the terrorist attacks in paris, the french government wanted to do everything it could to prevent further attacks. so what can a government do? the media quickly reported that france was taking action. >> detaining about 200 suspects. >> stricter border control, heightened security measures. >> to detain people without a warrant. john: and that's what you see them doing here after a terrorist incident. when i'm scared, i want to see things like this.
i want to believe more police action will make people safer. but there's a reason france and america have constitutions and limits on what police can do. reasons ant anthony fisher has been watching what police is doing in france and appalled. >> yeah. i've seen abuses already, warrantless searches where the proprietiers of a burger joint had in the middle of the dinner rush had 40 cops in militarized weapons trash the entire place. john: they were searching for a hidden prayer room they heard about. >> yeah. that was the principle tech and when the owner offered to unlock the door, the police insisted on kicking it in and once they decided there was nothing there, they left and said hope you had a good night. >> . john: these terrorists murdered more than 100 people. what do you expect the cops to do?
>> i totally understand the need and the public demand for perhaps increased surveillance and perhaps an increased police presence. but throwing away all the year ideals that you stand for as a show of force isn't going to make it safer. john: the new security measures that are staying in effect for three months allow police to place under house arrest for any reason if there's series reasons for security. sounds reasonable. >> but there's no check on what those serious behaviors consist of. it's all arbitrary, done behind closed doors and really no legal right to refuse such a warrantless search or to have your organization shut down be or your speech quelled. there's really no -- john: they can block websites. >> they can block websites, dissolve groups, it's a show. it's like security theater in the bots how we overreact to one attempted terrorist attack
that involved shoes and 14 years later we're still taking off all of our shoes. it's a show of force. not really increased security . john: they can also copy data from any system. >> yeah. john: but then they said, no, you can't copy it from members of parliament, lawyers, magistrates, and journalists. >> yeah. john: the political class protects its own? >> yes. that's exactly what it is. as far as lawyers and journalists are concerned, they decided it's not worth the handful to try to kick in their doors or copy their dat. john: so people feel differently about this in the united states than in france. they've polled this and said are you willing to give up freedom and exchange for security? most americans say "yes" in 2001 they were polled after 9/11. 55% but in france after this terrorism, 84%. >> kind of unbelievable; right? john: no, i'm not surprised. people are scared. >> sure. but what i mean -- the disparity between those two numbers. i mean you remember the tenure in this country after 9/11. this poll was taken a week
after 9/11 and it was only 5%. i expected it to be much higher, only 5% of americans were willing to say that they would trade their liberty for security. now, i'm not trying to trying to discount the french people's emotions and feelings after the horrible atop of the last month but 84% is startling for a country that helped birth aenlightenment. john: it was interesting checking on the american media the only video we found that too many people being arrested was on msnbc. >> what about these individuals and what makes up the threat? >> they're activists and she says the government has put them under house arrest to keep them from demonstrating. john: hypothetical change activists. good this happen. lock them up. i'm fine with that. >> i do think everyone should have the right to free speech, even in a time of crisis as long as they're directly not calling for violence.
john: thank you, you can read his wonderful stuff at the wonderful reason magazine. next congress says the department of homeland security needs more money now. but why already they spend on things that have nothing to do with security. they're fighting movie piracy. countless merchandise. given lectures to st?
department now he's american enterprised institute, fellow for homeland security, you work there, i assume you support their great work. >> unfortunately, they don't do much great work. they've been in bureaucracy for the last 12 years, and i think as we saw a report come out today that they're the lowest of any employees. john: but why would then more? >> because it combines so many different sunglasses so make them more efficient, streamline. >> unfortunately, they didn't streamline, they just through them together in big alphabet soup and all he get is a mess soup. john: you worked there for two and a half years and monitored hallways wondering what was going on? >> well, they had, like, 30 buildings all around dc and you can't even manage it because the secretary's in one spot and everyone else is everywhere else. john: you wrote this book homeland security federalism, protecting america from outside.
this is a federal job, isn't it? >> it's not. there's an exponential component facing outside of our borders, but when you get to homeland the tip of the spirit are the local law enforcement. they know their communities, they have relationships in all the various places, they've developed the sixth sense, see -- john: just leave them alone. >> they know what they're doing. john: dhs has nearly doubled its spending since its creation and now both democrats and republicans say we've got to give them more money. >> the fbi and components of homeland security will need an increase in funding to help combat this threat that we see right in our homeland. john: he's the congressman who heads the homeland security committee. and we did have this terrorist incident so the reaction is we've got to give them more money. >> yeah. that's always the reaction of washington. we spend a ton of money, it hasn't worked very well, so let's spend more money and dig
the hole deeper and that's not the right answer. john: and if they were -- but looking at what they're doing, they're questioning a guy in a movie theater who they think might be pirating the movie. he was wearing google glasses just for the prescription on them, wasn't recording the movie, pulled him out, quizzed him for an hour, do investigations of pickpocketing, track down fraudulent america art, they instruct nightclub strippers to watch out for sex traffickers, why? >> why because they put together all of these agencies to have such broad missions and some of those missions are for things that is have very little or nothing to do with terrorism. we are now learning san bernardino, there were lots and lots of dots out there that once again our intel community missed. why do they keep missing? because all we want to do is poor more onto the haystack and that makes it harder to find the needle, we have to be smarter. john: what did she they're busy educating the strippers.
>> they're busy creating the strippers because strippers are a national security threat in america. john: dhs is also policing vendors who are selling counterfeit nba merchandise, the san ontonio spurs apparently had stuff that was counterfeit. >> this is why we've gone from 38 billion to 61 billion from 180,000 employees to thousand employees in about 12 years. it's just this growth of missions without any idea whether it actually works, keeps americans safe, has an return on investment that our tax dollars go into this thing. so we've got to get back to basics, it's how do we spend more money more effectively. john: but the politicians got a return on their investment. >> i was in homeland security, we used to sent out those grants that they talk about and there was a three-day notice requirement, we had to send congress notice that we were going to send the grants out three days from that date . john: work? >> why because they wanted to be able to scoop us and send press releases out in the local districts saying, hey, look what i brought home.
i brought out this grant to buy a s.w.a.t. unit. which is why we have to get it out of there and into the hands of local law enforcement and folks that know what they've been doing because they have been doing it for 100 years across america. john: thank you, matt. keep up the good work. next thousands of innocent people have been driven from their homes. it would be humane to let some of these people come to america. but what if they're terrorists? >> we're taking in people, we have no idea who they are, they have no identification, no papers, they're creating papers, they're making up papers.
chris capuano: you might feel like there's too many problems in the world or that, you know, you, as a 15-year-old, 16-year-old, can't really make a difference. giancarlo stanton: it's not always about you. it's not just one person, it's a group, it's a team. if we all show up together-- that's what it's all about. kari foley: i was a part of helping to build what it is today. neil kirsching: i'm really lucky to get to be a part of that legacy. chris capuano: just that simple act that takes, you know, five or ten minutes of your time is making a difference and is transforming someone else's life. giancarlo stanton: once you get there and realize how much you can change someone's life, it's one of the best feelings in the world. mauricio: i'd do anything to convince you just to be a part of this. giancarlo stanton: you guys keep doing what you're doing-- it's something special. chris capuano: get up and try something--just try it. just go to one event-- one action team event.
a "gallup poll" found most -- mark says we should oppose that, runs the center for immigration studies which wants less immigration. the libertarianist canon center, he says we should take in more than the 10,000 syrians. more? they might want to kill me. >> we brought over 3 million refugees to the united states since 1980. not a single one has committed an act of terrorism in the united states. look, if we're going to -- john: this guy in san bernardino wasn't a refugee. >> he was an american citizen, actually. and so you know, the point is that we can do vetting, we can bring people over, the important thing is that the risk of terrorism is so incredibly small, if we're going to abandon our moral values for this, the threat needs to be significant, and more likely you're going to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist in the united states.
john: so far, though, but if we bring in all these people, mark, i'll give you your shot. >> we're not letting lightning strikes in based on government policy. this is completely optional policy. let's get before the terrorism issue with regard to refugee resettlement. it costs 12 times as much to resettle a refugee in the united states as it does to provide for them in the region, in turkey, jordan or lebanon. john: we have a graph on that. the five year costs of resettling one refugee. $64,000. the u.n.'s cost if they're behind barbed wire. >> they're not imprisoned. john: $5,000. >> right. john: so keep them there? >> because number one, it keeps the whatever security issues there are, it keeps offshore, but in a humanitarian sense we're helping far more people. we're not -- money is not infinite. john: david, what about that? >> with all due respect to
mark's study, it's a complete joke. he divides the amount of money we give to the u.n. by the 4 million refugees, but the vast majority of the refugees aren't in refugee camps. number is bogus, if you look at number on the american side -- >> with all due respect. >> the fiscal costs to the american economy, he completely ignores the economic benefits of the refugees to the american community. john: lot of people come here and pay taxes and invest. >> start businesses, if you go to st. louis and cleveland and other areas around the country, you will see the positive economic contributions they're contributing, and he completely ignores those. john: steve jobs dad came from syria or was from syria. >> nothing to do with the refugees, was a sperm donor as steve jobs himself. john: he was a refugee. >> millionaire crony of the dictators, nothing to do with it. and 90% of middle eastern refugees, according to the government, are on medicaid.
we have the setup where poorly educated traumatized people are ushered into welfare dependency. that's not good for them, but also, and this is the key point, look, what we're seeing we're seeing 12 people floundering in the water, we're sending 1 person yacht to pick one of them up rather than throwing all 12 a life vest. that is a moral question. >> again, his study is bogus. syrian americans make on average more than the native born american. it's incorrect, they assimilate and outperform the average american. >> you're wrong. >> syrians are christian, they're not arab, the ones in the united states. only a handful of people admitted as refugees. john: before world war ii, america didn't want jewish refugees. >> were there jewish terrorist
groups shooting up people in paris? jewish supremacist groups trying to take over the world? no there weren't. it's an insult to compare. it is an insult to compare jewish refugees fleeing nazism to supremacist refugees. >> this is the same thing they said about catholic immigrants, jewish immigrants, the catholics are subservient to the pope and they're wrong then and wrong now about the muslim immigrants. there are 60 million refugees or internally displaced people in the world. john: we should take some. >> we're not going to take anything but the tiniest fraction. john: better than nothing. >> no, it isn't. what it is a handful of people winning the lottery, and we're spending a disproportionate sum of money in caring for those folks instead of leveraging that money we spend on refugee
protection to help people where they are, meaning they're much more likely to go home when the conflict ends there. they're staying in places that are more familiar to them. it's a false choice. the u.s. government has no moral obligation to support refugees here or abroad. what it does have a moral obligation to do is get out of the way of people fleeing violence and persecution abroad. that's why we suggested we allow private organizations to fund the resettlement. something that the government does not allow, but used to. john: if i say i want to take a refugee, i'm paying for him. he won't be on welfare. that's not legal now. >> it's not legal now. but it used to upon ronald reagan proposed a program in the 1980s. john: let mark answer. >> so change the refugee act. get the president to sign it, and come back to me when you do that. john: mark? >> did obama solve the problem? >> it's like saying if there is
less gravity, i could jump higher. john: hold on. mark, are you in agreement with what the presidential candidates say about refugees. >> if there's a rabid dog rung around your neighborhood, probably not going to assume something good about that dog, and you're probably going to put your children out of the way. >> if you bought a five pound bag of peanuts and knew in the bag of peanuts that were ten that were deadly poisonous, would you feed them to your kids? the answer is no. >> with dr. carson, i won't do brain surgery if he stays out of politics. john: do you agree with him? >> i'm not sure what the analogy was. >> we have the largest humanitarian crisis since world war ii. and the united states is banning 98% of all refugees from coming into the united states. the least we could do is allow american citizens to cover the cost resettlement which is something other countries have done would and do a world of
. john: some americans say we should just give up on this idea of welcoming refugees from syria and other parts of the middle east. in fact, we cannot coexist with islam at all. their values are too different from ours. this week donald trump said that we should stop admitting not just refugees but all muslim immigrants. most republicans balked at that but mark steyn says we ought to talk about it. he joins us from washington. joe, you support what trump said? >> well, i support having the conversation, and we wouldn't be having this conversation if trump did not say these kind of things. fact is an immigration policy, john, is supposed to work in the interests of the existing citizenry. john: so far it's meant a lot of people who are muslims, about 100,000 in the united
states per year. there are more than two million muslims here. you wrote an article, the barbarians are inside, and there are no gates. western leadership should give up on this idea, it will cost you your world and everything you love. but we're already integrating millions of these people. >> well, there is a point at which in europe islam is self-segregating, syed farook is very like kind of people we see committing terrorism in britain and europe, he's the second or third generation immigrant who is disassimilating, that's a wide enough phenomenon that we ought to be able to discuss it. john: we can discuss it. either we let people in or we don't. we have a good track record of letting in immigrants, including muslim immigrants am we let in less than 1% of the u.s. population, 10% in russia. 7% in france.
6% in germany. >> yeah. but there's a point at which it becomes an issue. if you have 20% muslim population, according to the freedom house rankings, you're a libertarian, john, according to the freedom house rankings of countries with muslim population of 20%, only 5 of them ranked as free. what happens then is you begin, the tension between liberty and universal islamic sharia law becomes the principal mediating factor in societal relations, and we see that tension in the netherlands, we see it in the united kingdom. we see it to a certain extent in parts of michigan. i certainly don't think after san bernardino that that is something you should import casually or carelessly. before 1965, this country took
the view that certain nations assimilated better with the united states than other countries. john: the white people from europe. >> if you believe -- yes. if you believe for example, that women should be allowed to feel sunlight on their faces, then that is -- that is very different from the wife that this syed farook procured himself. i would urge your viewers to looked at picture of these two returning to the united states. at chicago's o'hare airport, after he procured his muslim bride overseas. not just that she's a covered woman. if you look at his garb, he is not wearing the clothes of a man born in california, raised in california. a so-called homegrown american. if you looked at clothes he's wearing, that testifies to how
strong an islamic identity is, compared to so-called assimilationist pressures. john: nobody is citing him as a success, certainly. i ask my followers on social media how do we fight terror and personal liberty? and justin says -- mark a lot of people say we wouldn't have the problems if we weren't there. >> i would agree with the viewer to this extent, i don't think the security state is the answer to this. in other words, if you were to come up with a level of surveillance and the number of policemen needed to make us safe from this threat, it would bankrupt us and we'd no longer be a free society. i would rather be able to argue about the value of muslim culture, muslim attitudes to the women, muslim attitudes to throwing homosexuals off buildings and counterkillings, hash that out freely than
simply to quadruple the nsa's budget and quintuple the fbi's budget. john: freely on this program. thank you, mark steyn. >> thank you, john. john: now, we're at the point of the program where i sum it up, solve the problem. security versus liberty, when we come back. nobody move! get on the floor! do something! oh i'm not a security guard, i'm a security monitor. i only notify people if there is a robbery. there's a robbery. why monitor a problem if you don't fix it? that's why lifelock does more than free credit monitoring to protect you from identity theft. we not only alert you to identity threats, if you have a problem, we'll spend up to a million dollars on lawyers and experts to fix it. lifelock. join starting at $9.99 a month.
john: this is the end of my show, where i say what politicians ought to do to address the problem. drug crime, end the drug war. it's prohibition that causes the crime. there are no beer gangs no, wine gangs. unemployment. abolish the labor department and repeal your horrible anti-growth regulations. climate change. do nothing now, but wait until we grow smart enough and rich enough so we can do something, if climate change does prove to be a big problem. islamic terrorism, i don't know what to do, it poses a problem between security and liberty, there are no simple answers and i resent the constant bravado of politicians who imply that there are. >> we will utterly destroy them, carpet bomb them into oblivion. declare war on america, you are
signing your death warrant. [ cheers ] >> sounds tough, he's a leader, he gets applause. how is he going to defeat them? it's not clear. cruz is skeptical about nation building and sending in american soldiers. other republicans are eager to do that. eager for more war and more military spending. marco rubio says there's no middle ground. >> these are radical terrorists who want to kill us because we let women drive. because we let girls go to school. john: wait a second, some want to kill us because girls go to school, that's terrible. many more hate us and commit terror because we are in their countries. and for years, we've done what senator rubio now, and hillary clinton want us to do more of. osama bin laden said he attacked the world trade center because the united states was occupying parts of the land of islam. even paul wolfowitz, a big
proponent of the iraq war said america's presence in the middle east was a huge recruiting device for al qaeda. university of chicago study concluded the central objective of 95% of terrorist incidents was to compel a western state to withdraw from territory that terrorists viewsa theirs. now rubio and hillary want to send more americans to the middle east? i feel that's a recipe for much more terror. our president went on tv to join the "new york times" in proposing an even more useless and probably destructive solution. gun control. >> make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in san bernardino. john: please. gun control could have made a difference? i don't think so. also that phrase he used, assault weapon, there is no such thing. what clueless politicians call assault weapons are a rifle that looks worse to them. has a bigger stock or grip but
it's the same gun. anyway, most gun murders are committed by people with handguns not rifles. do the democrats plan to come into our homes and take 300 million guns from people? that would create a new form of terrorism. the hyperconfident politicians who say they have the answer. they don't. and maybe there is nothing more that america can do, for now. maybe we have to use police work to try to find domestic terrorists and stop them before they act, and recognize that we often won't. there will always be some crazy people who do horrible things. but we are lucky to live in america where, despite the killings in california, we are safer than we once were. mass shootings are not up, and murder is down, crime is down. and when we get scared, we should heed the advice that keith tweeted in response to my question about security versus liberty.
if there's a choice to be made, liberty needs to win. you're right, keith. that's our show. see you next week. and thank you for joining us. 53% of you say the unholy alliance won't help. kennedy: hello, friend. let's talk about poll numbers. i'm watching the polls predictably rise after donald trump's call for muslim bands. the two-sided hysteria was only helped donald trump and given him a great boost. south carolina worshipers fawned over their messiah and trump has a 0-point lead over his closest rivals. he took a stroll with reince priebus to explain this success.