tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC April 22, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT
that has begun to splinter and look at somebody like jeb bush, that may remain an intriguing figure. >> thank you all, "the rachel maddow" show begins right now. happy monday. >> happy monday indeed, remember this. >> the pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states. red states for republicans, blue states for democrats. but i have news for them, too, we worship an awesome god in the blue states and we don't like federal government poking around in the red states, yes, we have some gay friends in the red states. there are patriots who oppose the war in iraq and there are patriots who supported the war
in iraq. we are one people. all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes. all of us defending the united states of america. >> that was ten years ago. we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the united states of america. it is true. we are one people. but we are also still blue states and red states. that did not go away. except now it is possible that the blue state/red state thing does not adequately encompass the option for governance in 2014. but what we're seeing is the option for governance is not just blue states and red states, but rather blue states and red states and then oklahoma, oklahoma is like turning it up to 11. oklahoma is something else. wikipedia does the election maps that shows not just the vote but the strength of the vote, county by county for presidential elections.
this was how oklahoma voted in 2000, mostly red, just a bit of blue. this is 2004, bush versus kerry. this is 2008, mccain versus obama, and this is 2012, this is oklahoma trending over time. if oklahoma gets any redder it will start to blister and peel. it redefines the possible in state governments. take the issue of the minimum wage right now. in the last few months a whole bunch of blue states have moved to raise the minimum wage. states like connecticut, maryland, massachusetts, blue states have been raising the minimum wage or they're in the process of raising the minimum wage. red states, normal red states are not raising the minimum wage, even though it is a very popular policy idea. that created some awkwardness around this idea for some republican politicians.
new jersey governor chris christie is a republican politician who is basically governing in a blue state. he ended up vetoing a minimum wage rise that the rest of his state government had passed. and then the voters overturned his veto. and the republicans are afraid the minimum wage bill be raised by a ballot initiative, as well. so the republicans have been scrambling to try to pass a law that will let them block a minimum wage hike. a minimum wage hike which people in this state really like and that they know people would vote for if they get a chance. so faced with this popular policy of raising the minimum wage we have seen blue states raising the minimum wage. red states fighting not to raise it. but oklahoma, oklahoma is taking it to a new level. not only is oklahoma not raising the minimum wage, oklahoma is the only state in the country that has now banned raising the minimum wage. they're not just not raising it
as a state they're stopping anybody else from raising it, too. if your town or city wants a local ordinance to raise the minimum wage within your city limits or you want to require companies to offer paid days or sick days the state government has now banned any town in the state from doing that. see there is blue states, red states and oklahoma. take the marriage issue, as well. there are 17 states that recognize marriage rights for same-sex marriage couples, as well. some of those were decided in the courts. but blue states like illinois and hawaii and rhode island and washington state increasingly they're just passing the marriage laws between the regular process, that is the blue states, red states are not only passing marriage equality laws through the legislative process, red states are fighting to hold onto the existing marriage bans even though the courts are striking those bans down as unconstitutional.
so blue states are passing marriage equality laws, red states are fighting to hold onto their bans against marriage equality. that is normal blue states and normal red states. but in oklahoma, just being a normal red state is not enough. fighting to keep gay people from getting married is not enough. in oklahoma, that is not enough. the prospect of gay people ever having the right to get married brought oklahoma people considering the right to ban marriage for everybody. banning marriage for straight people, banning marriage altogether in oklahoma because the gays ruined it. >> critics are calling it a political stunt. supporters say it is what oklahoma wants. >> they're willing to have that discussion about whether or not marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all. >> representative mike turner says his fellow conservative lawmakers feel the same way, finding a way around the court's decision to strike down oklahoma's ban on same-sex
marriage by not providing marriage at all. >> would it be realistic for the state of oklahoma to say we're not going to do marriage, period? >> that would definitely be a realistic opportunity. and that is something that would be part of the discussion. >> oklahoma republicans proposing that their should not be marriage anymore. officially in oklahoma if the gays can do it, too. there are blue states, there are red states and then there is oklahoma. that is as far as the meter goes. when it gets to oklahoma some things are about to blow up. right? right now with oklahoma on this map you end up actually making the other red states look kind of liberal to the point that it makes them uncomfortable. but now, even oklahoma has out done itself. even oklahoma's republican governor signed a new law which makes you pay a special fee. it will essentially fine people for the crime of using solar power. if you want to use the sun instead of electricity, the redder than red state of
oklahoma has found a way to make you pay for that crime. this bill passed the oklahoma house on a vote of 83-5 after no debate. and tonight, the republican governor, mary fallon, signed it. in the house, the bill was sponsored by the same guy who wanted to ban marriage for straight people. but while his banning the law didn't go anywhere in oklahoma his sun tax will actually become law tonight. this idea, however, was not born in oklahoma, a couple of years ago the corporate-funded network of state legislator's called alec started to adopt the legislation for using legislation, they tried to say states get a portion of their energy from renewable sources. they tried to tax or fine people who had solar panels on their
house and are using electricity that way. so if you're concerned by energy, thinking we need to try to move on from oil and coal and gas and pick more sustainable ways of generating electricity, on the one hand here is the fossil fuel industry trying to destroy the sun, right, trying to destroy any chance of energy taking hold. on the other hand, maybe it is nice that they care, that solar energy is now viable enough to be a threat to the oil and gas and coal industries. they always say it is the four stages, first they ignore you, then laugh at you and fight you and then you win. well, they are fighting it, maybe that is good news for solar, what is fascinating about this oklahoma move tonight is that it is the first one of these that has worked.
here is an ad, an anti-solar ad put out by the lobbying arm for the electric utility companies. they have anti-solar ads because they have been running the anti-solar campaigns all over the country, the last ad we showed you was the utility group. this one was the koch brothers group's an ad against renewable energy in kansas trying to make the case that solar energy is just like obamacare. in arizona, they came up with a plan to fine people 50 to $100 every month if you used solar energy. imagine, solar energy in arizona, crazy idea, right? but the l.a. times this weekend had a nice write-up how barry goldwater, jr., and other republicans not affiliated with the koch brothers or alec joined against the bill and persuaded the all-republican state body
that had to rule on the issue to bring the solar -- to help pay for maintenance issues on the electric grid. in kansas, the koch brother's led campaign to kill the energy got as far as the senate this year but they were able to stop it in the house thanks to the fact that having some non-fossil fuel energy is actually a possible thing. 91% of kansas residents say they believe future kansas energy needs can best be met by greater use of renewables. 72% of republicans, 75% of independents and 82% of democrats say they all support a bill passed in 2009 to raise renewables to generate 20% of their electricity by 2020. those are huge numbers, look at that, 75% of independents, 72%
of republicans, 82% of democrats. that is really, really popular policy which the utility companies and groups like alec and the koch brothers networks are trying to kill all over the country. they are trying to kill renewable energy in the states and they have not succeeded anywhere yet except oklahoma, where they succeeded tonight. and where you will now have to pay a fine if you want to use the sun for power. here is the question. did these guys win? did the utility companies, and the koch brothers and the conservative outlets did they win for the first time in oklahoma because it is oklahoma? because oklahoma is so far off the ideological cart that at the don't just refuse to raise the minimum wage. they ban the minimum wage, and the reaction is to ban marriage for everybody because the gay people have ruined it? did warming yourself with the
sun instead of cold just become a punishable offense in oklahoma because it is oklahoma, and what happens there really just doesn't apply to the rest of the country? it is too off the chart. or is what just happened in oklahoma tonight, is it just first? is oklahoma the only one? is it such an ideological standout that it was the first to fall? or is it just the law and coming to your state soon. kansas, the home of koch industry saw a hard-fought battle to hold onto their renewable energy law. it got stopped in the house. how did they stop it in kansas? thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you, rachel, for having me tonight. >> so kansas is not oklahoma-level red but it is quite red.
why do you think that your side was able to fend off this anti-solar anti-wind legislation? how were you able to win in your state? >> you know, i would say, rachel, the opportunity for kansas to win on renewable energy really was centered around bringing together a diverse network of partners from all walks of life, regardless of whether they were in a red state. they all can see the economic benefits of the giant wind turbines that are now generating across our state. >> we reached out to the koch brothers to americans for prosperity, and they told us, sort of bragged they have spent $300,000 on the fight in kansas. they seemed sort of excited about their prospects of being able to win this one eventually. how far out-gunned have you been here?
can you talk about the resources about the argument in your state? >> sure, so the climate energy project is a very small nonprofit based here in kansas. we don't have a huge budget. we have a small amount of staff. we're fortunate to have our relationship that we've built in the last several years with a broad group of people in the agriculture and economic development. and chambers, and renewable energy advocates. really all focused around one goal, which is moving clean energy policy forward in kansas. and so although we were out-manned financially to the tune of probably ten to one, we were able to have manpower and lots and lots of volunteers reaching out to their legislators. >> when the koch brothers operate nationally, i think that people on the other side of fights from them are getting better and better at identifying
their hand in political arguments, being able to identify them in their networks as sort of undeclared funders in some of these fights. in kansas, which is of course the home of koch industries, i wonder if it cuts both ways. obviously they're a important employer in the state, not just with legislators but everybody who is touched by their business group in the state. i wonder if it ends up being a more delicate issue in terms of talking about somebody with such deep pockets fighting over issues in their state when that is also where their home is. >> it is different here in koch's back yard. but you know, when people see americans for prosperity running patentally false tv ads trying to try renewable energy costs to our former governor, kathleen sebelius, and to obamacare, it almost becomes ludicrous. you know, when they bring out
false information about the cost of renewable energy, when we know for a fact based on documents from our public utility commission that the renewable portfolio standards, those green energy mandates as they like to call them are not costing people in kansas the kind of money that these ads try to portray. >> dorothy barnett, executive director of the climate and energy project. your project is a case study for people fighting the anti-renewable entities around the country. thank you for helping us understand your work, we appreciate you. >> thank you so much. all right, lots more to come tonight, including the brand-new debu nu kt ion junction. [ julie ] the wrinkle cream graveyard. if it doesn't work fast... you're on to the next thing. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula
to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.
in 1961, the attorney general of the united states of course was bobby kennedy. in an october 1961, attorney general bobby kennedy gave a speech in chicago, illinois, where he told the remarkable but tragic tale of a parrot smuggler. and it was not the lead-up to a joke that involved a rabbi in a bar, it was actually a parrot smuggler. he told the crowd about the case of an american man who had been convicted of planning to smuggle parrots into the united states from mexico.
the attorney general said the parrot-smuggling man was a lawyer. he was a combat-wounded veteran of world war ii and he had never been in trouble before. the attorney general said he had a quote, loyal and honest family but for whatever reason the judge in the case really had it in for the parrot smuggler. attorney general robert kennedy said in that speech that the judge in the case thought that the parrot-smuggling lawyer was rude, rude and arrogant. he didn't like his attitude. and so the judge sentenced him to 11 years. 11 years in federal prison for the crime of conspireing to smuggle parrots. bobby kennedy heard about this guy's sentence and thought it sounded a little extreme. so he recommended to his
brother, the president, that the parrot smuggler's sentence should be cut way down. and his sentence was cut way down and he got sprung. bobby kennedy used the parrot-smuggler example as a tale for explaining that sentencing sometimes goes wrong. and he explained that we ought to then use executive clemency. we ought to use the executive power of the presidency to right the wrongs when the justice system cannot. in his time as president, john f. kennedy pardoned 472 people. when lyndon johnson became president he more than doubled the pardons, in 1974, president gerald ford commuted the sentences of everyone who had dodged the vietnam war draft. carter did one better and issued a blanket pardon for anyone who had dodged the draft. so it was not just making the sentences disappear. it made dodging the draft disappear as a crime, as well. the presidential power to spring people from prison and to essentially annul convictions is kind of a peculiar thing in our criminal justice system. right? it is kind of a kingly power.
the guy in the top comes in like a lightning bolt and declares somebody innocent. feels weird, but it is in the constitution that the president can pardon people and commute their sentences. the way it is done sort of seems like a black box. like it is the antithesis of the due process that at least is in theory at the heart of our criminal justice system. it seems like there is no process. but there is actually a process for these things. there is a way that clemency and pardons at the presidential level is supposed to work. and the process has not been working very well for president obama for a reason that you may find surprising. president obama has granted fewer pardons than any other president in modern history. in the first five years, president reagan pardoned one out of five applicants, bill clinton, one out of 19, under president bush, it was one in 16, under president obama, it
was one in 39, president obama has used this particular and peculiar presidential power less than any of his presidential predecessors. and if you want to know why it may be important to know about the case of clarence aaron who was in college and introduced a drug supplier to a drug dealer. he also, quote, was present for the sale of nine kimo grams of cocaine and the conversion to crack cocaine. he got $1500 out of the deal, and for introducing the drug dealers, mr. aaron got three life sentences, no possibility of parole. he got the toughest sentence, stiffer than the guys who actually bought the drugs, sold the drugs, supplied the drugs. it was such an obvious miscarriage of justice that eventually the prosecutor in the case and the judge who handed out the triple life sentence they both said they wanted clarence aaron's sentence
immediately commuted. the prosecutor and the judge advocated that the president should commute mr. aaron's sentence, shorten it and let him out of prison. but that did not happen. and according to the article in the washington post, it didn't happen because the guy who had something called the office of the pardon attorney, the office that reviews the situation and decides if it is warranted, that office recommended to the white house that clarence aaron should remain in prison. he got the judge under president bush. when he said he thought clarence aaron should continue to serve his triple life sentence he failed to mention that the prosecutor and the sentencing judge in mr. aaron's case didn't agree with that assessment. he kept it a secret that the prosecutor in mr. aaron's case that the judge and prosecutor had advocated for his sentence to be immediately commuted. that is really, really relevant information when somebody is
applying to get their sentence commuted. but that information was squashed and never passed onto the white house and mr. aaron's application for a commution was rejected. and the guy that recommended that clarence aaron's sentence not be commuted, has not been appointed by president obama but has been there the whole time. the inspector general for the justice department looked into what happened in that case and issued a scathing report about how mr. rogers handled it. after that report and all of the media attention, particularly from the pro public series, clarence aaron did become one of the lucky few to get an obama presidential era pardon. he got a pardon after 21 years, so for whatever reason, the whole time president obama has
been president has really seemed he didn't want to recommend that people get out of president prison. that this particular part of the criminal justice system be used. and maybe that is the reason so few people have been pardoned. the office of the pardon attorney since george w. bush has been president has been helmed by somebody who goes to great lengths to make sure nobody gets released that president obama recommends be released. there was something called the fair sentencing act which made it mandatory you didn't get more time in prison because of crack cocaine. that bill got the mandatory sentence. when prabz signed the sentencing act in 2010 it didn't help anybody who had already been put
in jail under the old guidelines. under the sentences now deemed to be unfair and unnecessarily harsh and frankly targeted toward minority populations. so signing that bill, that helped people going forward in terms of not getting those kind of sentences anymore. but it didn't do anything for the thousands of people sentenced under the old guidelines. today, the attorney general, eric holder, announced that the justice department and the white house are working together on new guidelines that will be used to recommend pardons or commutation of sentences. and the new guidelines will affect potentially thousands of people who were sentenced under the old laws, they said they will announce the new guidelines later this week and are recommending clemency for people who want to have their sentences commuted to accord with the new guidelines rather than the old ones, the justice department is lining up for applications for
people serving long sentences that they would not have gotten if they had committed the crimes today. another big change expected at the justice department, perhaps the big change is this, senior administration officials say they expect that ronald rogers, the current pardon attorney, the man scolded by the administration for mishandling the case, justice insiders say he's on his way out. so expect big changes this week to the way we as a country decide constitutes fairness and who we put in charge of helping to make those decisions. this will be a real test of those emerging new consensus that republicans and departments don't fight over crime issues the way they used to. when the details come out on wednesday it will be fascinating to see how the politics fall around them. watch this space.
the senate. she did not just turf out the cummins senator scott brown, she beat him going away, and badly. if there are two things to recall about the race one was scott brown and his campaign mocking elizabeth warren for being part native american. that was classy. the other was this chart. scott brown in that senate race was awash in wall street money. specifically money from the hedge fund and investment industry. scott brown got more money from the hedge fund industry than any other member of congress by a mile. and he still lost. but now, now scott brown is back. this time in a brand-new state. scott brown has just decided that he is running for senate again only this time he is running in the great state of new hampshire. massachusetts just a distant memory. new hampshire is now home for old scott brown. and in the opening weeks of this brand-new i'm now from new hampshire senate campaign scott brown has decided to travel to las vegas, whereupon he will attend a giant hedge fund conference. tada.
when the boston globe first reported this planned trip last week, scott brown's campaign said essentially we have nothing to speak about here, just speaking in a bipartisan event. but rather, the press revealed that not only is scott brown traveling to las vegas to speech at the hedge fund conference, turns out it is a paid appearance. he is being paid to speak at the hedge fund conference in las vegas. this is the kind of thing that helped sink scott brown in 2012. this is the thing that helped elizabeth warren become senator elizabeth warren. it was the senator who said wall street should follow the law. and in that narrative the people voting in the election chose the wall street sheriff over the wall street stooge. this time, though, in neighboring new hampshire scott brown is apparently more undeterred and even more shameless about it now. he is going for it and somewhere elizabeth warren has to be smiling.
and tomorrow night we'll find out for sure. because tomorrow, senator elizabeth warren from massachusetts will join us live. i'm really excited about that interview, that is tomorrow night. set your dvr, we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] this is jim. a man who doesn't stand still. but jim has afib, atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat not caused by a heart valve problem. that puts jim at a greater risk of stroke. for years, jim's medicine tied him to a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but now, with once-a-day xarelto jim's on the move. jim's doctor recommended xarelto. like warfarin, xarelto is proven effective
to reduce afib-related stroke risk. but xarelto is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. so jim's not tied to that monitoring routine. [ gps ] proceed to the designated route. not today. [ male announcer ] for patients currently well managed on warfarin there is limited information on how xarelto and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. xarelto is just one pill a day taken with the evening meal. plus, with no known dietary restrictions, jim can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto, rivaroxaban, without talking to the doctor who prescribes it as this may increase the risk of having a stroke. get help right away if you develop any symptoms like bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto with aspirin products, nsaids, or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto if you have abnormal bleeding. xarelto can cause bleeding, which can be serious and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto
and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto is not for patients with artificial heart valves. jim changed his routine. ask your doctor about xarelto. once-a-day xarelto means no regular blood monitoring -- no known dietary restrictions. for more information and savings options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.
happy birthday, queen elizabeth. she turns 88 today. today is her actual birthday by they're doing a public celebration for her on june 14th. see, if you're the queen, birthdays mean you get a parade including whole regiments of your army. this is the one from last year but she gets a fresh parade each year. and while being the queen of england is mostly a ceremonial kind of figurehead role, being the queen brings with it responsibilities. queen elizabeth met with a bunch of world leaders, including gandhi and nelson mandela and various presidents over the years. it was not quite as long as the time elapsed between popes, but
when vladimir putin visited the queen in 2003, no russian leader had made an official state visit to britain since 1874, since the queen was queen victoria. so vladimir putin's visit to see the queen was a big deal, a big deal of a landmark moment, an historic deal between the nations of great britain and russia. and for that historic state visit to britain, vladimir putin showed up late. he kept the queen waiting for 14 minutes. she was not amused. but apparently, president putin has a history of being late for everything. in 2012, he was 40 minutes late for a meeting with the german chancellor angela merkel, last year he had a visit with kerry, he kept him waiting for three hours. in november, he had a meeting with the pope, pope francis.
putin made the new pope wait for him for nearly an hour. and while we were talking about being late, it was not until last week that president putin said okay, we denied it before but those were russian soldiers who suddenly appeared in crimea before russia annexed crimea. before that, he insisted they were not russian soldiers. you can buy uniforms in shops on the corner. he said they were are just local defense forces. last week, finally, at his annual four-hour televised press conference, president putin mentioned that the soldiers with no insignias with their russian military vehicles and training, yeah, i admit it. okay, they were russian soldiers. he now admits that about taking over crimea. but when he is asked now about
whether he is doing the same thing in eastern ukraine whether those are also russian soldiers that he has sent not just into crimea but into other parts of eastern ukraine, for now at least vladimir putin says no, no, they are not russian soldiers, why would you even think that. "the new york times" published a theory this week about the unclaimed mystery soldiers who popped up all over ukraine, well-armed, who took over ukrainian government buildings in city after city in the ukraine's east, some reports show that yes, they do in fact seem to be soldiers, linking the men seen in eastern ukraine now to other russian military missions. for example, the guy i like to think of as the duck dynasty entrant in this event, this guy photographing neighboring georgia in 2008, in this case wearing his full russian
military uniform, including the special forces circle on his arm. he was allegedly spotted in two cities in ukraine. this time he is not wearing the insignia a, although he still has the beard. if this report is right, if russian soldiers are already in ukraine in big numbers does that mean the additional numbers who are amassed doesn't mean that russia has started already an invasion of ukraine? also, how important is it and what should we take away from it the fact that our own government, the united states government -- would be willing to meet with the ukrainian prime minister tomorrow? what range of options does the west have in responding in terms of what realistically comes next? will the united states be in a position to act alone or is the
u.s. successfully holding together an international alliance against what putin is doing now, which he will only admit a few weeks from now. joining me now is steve clemens, editor at large. thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> so if the new york times reporting is correct that the men wearing the uniforms without insignia are in fact russian soldiers, should we see that as a meaningful invasion? >> i think that is absolutely the case. that russia has in a softer sense than a full-scale invasion has invaded ukraine and is there to de-stabilize a government that is already weak. that is attempting to put together elections. and russia, whether it engages in a full-scale invasion or not is sending a signal that russia is in a vise. >> where is putin turning to these tactics where he denies there are soldiers and denies
there is evidence that anybody can get there and see it? >> well, i don't think vladimir putin is worried about what the west things. he is playing to a constituency in russia that sees him as a sort of ronald reagan in russia. he is the one establishing russian dignity and power on the stage. he is playing to that community and trying to link up various parts of the ethnic community. and actually, put in jitters to the nato countries that are feeling bolder lately. he is playing a geo-strategic game and basically making a bet that the west doesn't have what it takes to deter him. >> steve, with that point, though, if this is about swagger and it is about a domestic audience and wanting to be seen disregarding what the rest of the world thinks and doing what is right for russia, then why continue to be painfully coy about the fact russian troops
are there? he doesn't mind being provocative to the united states and the west? >> he has lied all the way through this where there was a period of build-up. where we saw the dramatic episodes inside kiev. he kept telling the western european leaders, particularly that sergei lavrov did with john kerry that russia would not invade. there are 40,000 troops amassed on the border of ukraine, through this he is duplicitous. why? i think he is basically trying to hedge his bets and create enough ambiguity. he doesn't need to do that. he can basically change the game for ukraine and change the behavior he thinks of other countries like moldova and other countries, without necessarily paying the cost. and this is not really
czechoslovakia in terms of russian invasion, at least this is the white house view, that this would be the same as afghanistan. so he doesn't know for sure. right now he is scaring ukraine and creating jitters. but he is not going full in, he may be afraid of what that means of tearing a nation apart. a civil war inside ukraine could turn badly for russia as well as for western europe. >> steve clemens, senior fellow. thank you for joining us, i really appreciate it. >> nice to see you. all right, de-bunked. straight ahead, stay with us. when you only have one hand,
[ zach ] i can't help out as much as i used to. do you need help? let's open it up. [ afi ] it's a swiffer sweeper. [ zach ] it's a swiffer dusters. it can extend so i don't have to get on the step stool. ♪ it's like a dirt magnet -- just like my kids. [ afi ] this is a danger zone. voila! i am the queen of clean! [ zach ] yeah, this definitely beats hanging out on a step ladder.
in front of the defense minister and everything. it is true that portugal has a new drone. but sometimes knowing something is true as a technical matter does not do the whole story justice. true, they've got one. but you've got to see it. debunktion junction's coming up. stay with us. one more time. one more time.
the mandate under the affordable care act that health insurance policies should cover contraception, things like birth control and iuds. you know that as background, right? well, this weekend on "face the nation" new york's conservative archbishop, cardinal dolan, said he supports the hobby lobby because of how widely available those kinds of contraceptives are now. >> is the ability to buy contraceptives that are now widely available -- my lord, all you have to do is walk into a 7-eleven or any shop on any street in america and have access to them. is that right to access those and to have them paid for, is that such a towering good that it would suffocate the rights of conscience? i don't think so. >> any shop on the street. okay? true or false, the kinds of contraceptives that are at the heart of the hobby lobby case are available, as the cardinal says, as 7-elevens or a shop on any street.
is that true or is that false? [ buzzer ] there is a chance that cardinal dolan has just forgotten how babies are made or, more accurately, how babies are not made. because while 7-eleven has a lot of what you need on any given day, beer, slurpees, taquitos, do yourself the favor of not walking into your local 7-eleven and asking them to fit with you an iud. and if you do know somebody who says they do get their birth control pills from 7-eleven, that probably explains why they have super fresh breath but also elevendy-hundred children. aisle 3. hot dogs, breakfast burritos, iud -- no, seriously what the cardinal said was false. next up true or false, the president of the aforementioned hobby lobby, that company, is now drafting bible curriculums for public school children. is that true or false? [ bell ] true. this is mustang, oklahoma just outside of oklahoma city, population about 18,500. and last week the local mustang,
oklahoma school board voted to adopt for mustang's public schools a bible course that was developed by steve green, the president of the hobby lobby. they say the curriculum will focus on the narrative of the bible, the history of the bible, and the impact of the bible. so not only is the president of hobby lobby draft bible-themed curricula for public schools, at least one public school board is now adopting that curriculum. and if you work for hobby lobby, they want it to be your boss who decides whether or not you'll be allowed to have contraception covered by your health insurance on the odd chance you can't get it at 7-eleven. all right. third. finally, the first female police chief in the history of latta, south carolina. crystal moore. 20-year veteran of the force. she was fired by the town's mayor last week for being gay. we don't have to fact check that. the mayor admits as much in a conversation that was secretly recorded by a local councilman. listen. >> i would much rather have, and
i'll say this to anybody's face. i would much rather have somebody who drank and drank too much taking care of my child than i had somebody whose lifestyle is questionable around children. because that ain't the damn way that it's supposed to be. >> it wouldn't be good to have the kids to be around, right? he'd rather have a drunk watching his children because drunk adults and children really have a sterling history. all right. but true or false here. police chief moore was fired by mayor jerkface who you just heard there because she is gay. and of course that is completely and totally illegal. [ buzzer ] false. she was fired because she's gay. but that firing was not necessarily illegal. many americans assume that there is a federal law that prohibits this kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation where your boss wants to fire
you just for being gay, but they're wrong. there is no such federal law. the bill that would do that, enda, the employment non-discrimination act that has languished in congress since 1994. good tuesday morning. right now on "first look," emotion overload. parents and loved ones facing unthinkable moments as their kids are pulled from the sunken ferry. change in the constitution? retired supreme court justice john paul stevens says six changes should be made. palcohol? the controversy over alcohol delivered in a powdered form. plus, president obama to visit washington's horrific mudslide. security concerns over just how that teenager snuck on board that jetliner to hawaii and jimmy fallon strikes again with an even funnier and creative brian williams rap song. well, hello and thanks for joining us on this tuesday. we want to begin with that heartbreaking ferry disasters