Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
We're at war against terror but this war like all wars.
We'll stand so that America can wage war on Apple's.
Apple keeping massive.
A war -- -- current.
What turns -- normal fat little late year old boy into a vicious hate crime committing racist.
So we can continue the war on drugs.
And start 10 in certain.
-- -- America's wars on food -- Business drugs and eight if you want to hurt another human -- You better make sure that the same color.
That's our show.
We start this show about America's wars -- their biggest war the war on terror.
First a strange question.
What is the right way to kill homosexuals.
Now what we have your attention I'll explain that I learned about the proper way to kill gays from former CIA director James -- He says it's a reason America's war on Islamic extremism.
Must continue no matter what the president said recently.
So ambassador -- please explain.
John -- to be with you when I was chairman of the board of freedom house says several years ago.
We had a group of American Muslims comment to us -- -- very disturbed because the saudis has sent some Wahabi -- moms with diplomatic passports.
To go to a number of mosques in the United States including there -- and they took away the perfectly reasonable construction materials for young people do who -- Muslim to learn Islam.
And I left today instead.
Set of materials that today the -- hobbies have printed up.
And I remember one section of those -- I wrote a forward to the book that was written about this.
It was the three ways that you was proper to kill a homosexual or from what hobbies in Saudi Arabia's -- it.
You could throw them from a high place.
You could -- the -- to death they had to or I could play and it it had to be high enough that they would feel the pain in the anxiety coming down.
Ride -- and would certainly die because it had to be high enough and the stoning is supposed to be with small stones -- so that it takes a long time in the big stone doesn't knock anybody out.
And then -- the other third way that the -- hobbies were saying was that you could to burn them alive.
And the Saudi embassy got very very upset at all -- said it was a mistake it was some old material we shouldn't pay attention to it but the next year it was the same.
We don't look -- this is not an exclusive -- from Muslim problem 400 day years ago.
My fellow -- Protestants I'm a presbyterian.
We're burning witches in in Salem Massachusetts -- what's your point here about the war on terror.
At that is it it is at least in part.
-- really important.
To realize that there is an ideological.
Side to it.
It's not just random violence when he didn't call it straight and stop getting bogged down in some of this nonsensical.
Notion -- being politically correct that's that's a way not to figure out how to deal but when what do you how what you wanna do kill a mall.
No of course not.
I think one needs to start out by not being politically correct one needs to start out by understanding.
Where some of the movements.
Are coming from and some -- that is some parts of Islam and we need to be we need to be candid about that.
The saudis have this big education campaign Wahabi schools where they teach stuff like that how to kill homosexuals.
When you are throwing the the these people are part are supposed.
Between about one and 2% of the world's Muslim societies control.
Close to 90% of the world's Islamic institutions and where the -- hobbies are doing the writing and the preaching it.
It tends to be really extremely hostile other religions -- sometimes to the point of that.
Of advocating violence in the form of Jihad and and so forth.
We yes we have to be be clear and straightforward about this.
But we're not gonna bomb all these people.
-- -- if we can't convince them to be more open minded.
When you wanna do.
I want us to be able to drive on something other than oil products.
We need to be able to tell OPEC much of which is is based in the Middle East.
That we do not have to keep shipping the money in order to drive our cars and our trucks.
So you say we can't kill them but we can bankrupt.
I'm suggesting that what we need to do.
Is to take away the power of monopoly.
That Lance boy old dominate transportation to the tune of about 9697%.
And -- that would indirectly.
Encourage people like the saudis and others.
To actually work for a living rather than lifting oil for two dollars a barrel in selling it to us for a hundred and to.
And what about what the president said about.
Bringing -- -- war now own and should we be spending what we're spending now on the war against terror.
Would drone as a weapon and today they got a visit from flying sniper in a way.
Day you have I think usually a lot less collateral damage if you -- -- Al-Qaeda leader with a drone -- if you attack him.
With say a bomb do we need to spend what we're spending.
Well I think that we may need to spend more -- we may be able to get by with less the point is to figure out what it takes to win.
And spend that.
Thank you admiral.
And it ambassador Woolsey.
Thanks -- so.
I agree with them and that I want America to have a strong military that protects us from fanatics who want to kill us but how big -- military is that how much do we need to spend we now spend.
Almost 800 billion dollars on defense about a fifth of our budget.
Chris -- vice president for defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute he says that's way too much.
It's a lot John it's more than we spent at the peak of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan was fighting the Soviet Union I'm glad we won that contest -- it.
So just -- was much -- that much greater.
And -- -- think tank made this video that compares our military spending to that of our allies so let's watch part.
Every year the United States spends 2300.
Dollars on the military for every citizen -- allies on the other hand spent 14 or less to defend themselves -- in short we agreed to pay big bucks to defend our friends who.
And in exchange they let us and that allows our friends to spend borrow more money and everything else.
We pick up the tab for global security spending and our allies free ride.
They would dare freeloading off of us were -- worse.
We are soccer and I don't blame them firing their situation of someone else is offering to pay for my security I'd let them do it too and that's what are our allies have done I think we have to remember when we started doing this was immediately afterward to these countries -- completely shattered by war.
And we were confronting a common enemy in the Soviet Union but some more along the line over the decades they got rich and we didn't.
Revisit why it is that we continue to defend them when they certainly can defend themselves.
Hard but they probably won't do all the things that we want our military to do and and that list is long we want to take.
Kill terrorists and train foreign militaries to kill terrorists right some countries are very good at that some even better than us a matter of fact many of the successful operations we scored against -- have been by other.
Organizations other militaries other countries.
In cooperation with -- so I think it's not.
Fair to think that these countries aren't inclined to defend themselves if we weren't.
People want the military to do much more to protect countries other countries from aggression to contain China can grain -- Right I think China is the big.
The boogie man out there it justifies a very large military because China's military spending a second to the world but still far about behind United States.
But here again we're discouraging China's neighbors from doing more to defend themselves and their interest and I think that's really short -- I ran threatens have a nuclear bomb and do who knows what -- that.
They don't have a nuclear bomb China actually does Russia has nuclear weapons many other countries a few luckily not very many but a few other countries have nuclear weapons Iran does not.
Iran is tiny relative to -- threat supposedly posed by China I think we need to kind of put these things in perspective we -- the navy to protect -- right.
And they go around the world and they defend the sea lanes from interception or being disrupted the question is.
The free -- -- -- benefit to many people and very few people would benefit from trying to close them in the few that would like to close them like al-Qaeda can't.
And if we did that instead of spending almost 800 billion we would spend.
Quite a bit less I think a good rule of thumb is what we were spending around the time of the 9/11 attacks which in today's dollars about 400.
Fifty billion dollars roughly around that.
That's a good start.
Of course back then we were still defending other countries that could defend themselves and so we also stopped doing that we can even spend less than 450 billion dollars but that -- And we would be saying absolutely.
Thank you crisp -- up next more war like that war over what you will eat.
We don't just want -- label they want and design.
And the war on hate itself.
-- -- -- -- DC the recent headlines senators blast apple.
Congress went to war against that evil technology company.
Apple is also one of the biggest tax avoid years in America most of your profits worship worldwide are sitting in three.
Irish companies that you control -- don't pay taxes.
And so on but what is second apple created maybe 600000.
Jobs in America even more overseas.
A huge amount of new -- Of course apple tries to avoid paying taxes there are countless tell them too because American taxes -- so crazy today and I avoid legally.
What any politician stand up for a business that makes -- appropriate response to big intrusive government.
Well thankfully at that hearing -- one senator spoke up.
I'm offended by the tone and tenor of this hearing I'm offended by the spectacle.
-- dragging in executives from an American company that is not doing anything illegal I say instead of apple executives we should've brought in here today.
A giant mirror.
OK so we can look at the reflection of congress because this problem is solely and completely created by the.
Right we did call and senator Rand Paul joins us now so did you.
Take some grief heard saying that from your colleagues like McCain Atlanta.
They may not have been too happy -- but I really wasn't too happy with the proceeding I mean really I think it's an insult to make.
Corporation officers come and raise their right hand read him the riot act for doing what everyone else does in fact I said.
Which one -- you politicians wants to come through and say you don't try to minimize your tax bill and who wants to come forward and say.
That you -- chief financial officer -- maximizes.
Your tax bill and I went on to ask one of the professors SA.
Do you take deductions on your taxes you try to minimize your tax bill legally.
And they -- answered yes I mean it's so ridiculous charade but it was insulting to apple.
They're the largest corporate taxpayer and our country I said we should have given them an award for paying so many taxes and -- creating so many jobs.
I'm glad you complain about this attitude of bringing in the CEO to kneel before congress.
That it's easier for apple Apple's popular but if you have a company that makes pesticide -- through an oil company.
They try to destroy you don't they see this is where the wealth comes from.
Well and they also say -- we didn't subpoena them.
But quietly they say if you don't come and we will subpoena you that committee is one of the few committees in congress that has the power to subpoena.
So no one's gonna say no to -- but I thought it was insulting I mean these are.
Great innovators who create jobs they pay a lot taxes and if you want them to bring home some of their worldwide profits.
From sales overseas.
Let's make the tax code fair where they will do it there's examples of -- working.
Why not just lower the tax and let them bring some of the money -- a lower rates.
And -- when your colleagues are chewing out companies -- complaining about their profit with a -- Did did they not see the connection between their rules and companies doing more business offshore.
-- talked total and they need to bring in a giant mirror and I I was imagining how funny that would be the to have a big twelve foot by twelve foot -- and have them looking in the -- to -- the problem.
That the two leaders of that committee the Republican and a Democrat that bit up -- for thirty years they've presided over this tax code.
The tax code is their baby so if it's forcing money to go overseas.
Like I said money goes where it's welcome in my being unfair when I say politicians have a war against business.
I think there's an attitude is is sort of like that hearing on apple.
What we should be doing and if we had a president that was a great leader of he should fly out to Apple's headquarters congratulate them for being great American company and say what can I do to help you -- and I did allow you to bring more money home.
What kind of tax rate would help that what kind of regulatory burden.
Is inhibiting you from creating even more products we should do that to every successful American company -- dragging them into Washington.
And excoriating them saying oh you're not paying your fair share.
Same -- wealthy people our country how do we get you to create more capital.
When jobs instead of saying how do we punish you so it is about attitude we have exactly the opposite attitude we should have.
Thank you senator Rand Paul.
Thanks -- coming up another kind a war a war on certain kinds of speech.
Even -- Whenever I hear about a hate crime I'm shocked and sound I give him.
I give it -- am I'm horrified when I hear about people being victimized so on the surface I should be glad that America wages a war on hate.
And that hate crime spring longer sentences and that police get more money to investigate them.
And that's how it shouldn't he says Paul is not -- wonder why he runs the fighting discrimination program -- a group called Human Rights First.
But Jimmy let's salvia is co-founder of -- prouder Republican gay efficacy -- says.
Wait a second hate crime laws are not useful.
But how can you say that you you you've been a victim yourself absolutely I was.
On a bike.
About a year ago.
And that guy came out into the streets he was in a pack of kids and he came out into the street and punched me and called me anti gay name.
And as I was trying to collect myself off the ground I was -- -- in my backpack from my phone.
And one of the other kids asked him.
Is that a gun is he going for a gun.
And I just let -- think that because it was that thought that I might have a weapon that turn the tide of that situation and prevented me from being a victim of a horrible violent crime.
And why not more protection with hate crime won't.
Well I just don't think there's any evidence that they're preventing crimes before they happen that's all we need to focus on we can't ignore the fact that certain.
Segments of the population are targets for violent crime simply because of who they are but we need to look at the evidence.
And and come up with ways to it actually help prevent people from becoming victims of crime rather than giving them a false sense of security.
That there's this -- out there that's gonna keep them from being a victim of a hate crime.
And I'd like to jump in here I don't believe that.
He crime laws are the sole answer to hate crime I think it's a criminal justice response when we step back for 12 I think were -- on agreement.
When the first main point.
And that is that violent attacks that target -- because their of their identity.
Runs fundamentally contrary to American values hate crime as the concept is an important one to recognize and to understand.
Because physically -- and so many crimes.
-- is the race or gender make a hate crime is perhaps a misnomer there really bias crimes in which people are targeted because of their identity what hate crime laws do is they embed it in the criminal justice system.
The notion of a hate crime which is a particularly.
-- just type of offense it requires law enforcement to document them to understand them to identify them.
And to release an end to prosecute them including in some cases we've enhanced penalties.
It also requires them to release data on an annual basis of -- the level of hate crime and that creates a broader understanding society about what needs to be done -- -- we're all about them.
Drowning in laws and America already we had.
The Civil Rights Act hate crimes for race religion national origin then we got the violent crime act which increased the penalties than Matthew Shepard was killed.
And we expanded it to sexual orientation and disability that Justice Department says.
Victimization is have been stable.
Has perhaps been stable but stable at a very high level.
I'm a recent report law make a difference the law does make a -- francs about oh there's a hate crime -- -- I can tell you I had a conversation with transgender woman in California.
And she said to me it doesn't.
No matter what the law says no law is going to change the fact that when some people look at me they see a man and address.
That's only gonna change with time and understanding.
And that's that's the the difference we're having -- we're not it.
Disagreeing over the fact that there's a problem.
Weren't disagreeing over the fact that the government's the solution on -- that this example reminds me of that don't contortions the police go through.
To be politically correct about this the FBI now has a hate crime manual.
And they say avoid offensive terms like sexual preference transvestite.
Cross Dresser so like what are they supposed to say.
Mitt what are we to gain from the I think people often feel it when their victim of a crime.
We we want -- society in which they feel comfortable going to law enforcement I think.
Victims of hate crime often come -- marginalized communities if they don't trust law enforcement to understand.
Their victimization and assure them that their crimes will be taken serious I'm off.
For being sensitive to victims I think that's important but.
I don't think it matters what you call somebody let's focus on policies and and things that we can do to prevent from calling them a victim.
Let let me bring in this issue in that anti hate crime commercial -- big -- in this segment actress Wanda Sykes said this.
To walking down the street and wondering -- this is the day that should give me.
Breathing -- -- -- because of her mom.
I would say to Wanda is passing a -- going to change the fact.
That some people -- down the street and wonder if they're going to be attacked simply because of who they are I don't think the law has anything to do with it.
It's it's a -- Raising awareness and not.
It may not be that every potential victim of a hate crime walks on the street in perpetual fear but I think religious people may not.
Mass or synagogue as frequently as they may have might like immigrants or -- attack may limit their movements.
I think it it runs contrary to.
Our freedom of movement which is a fundamental principle here in the United States.
I think you're right I just think we need to focus on what's gonna help prevent -- and the quality think what you think we have too many laws in America.
I think we don't have -- Enough hate crime laws I think there's more work I'm not gonna comment on that Paul -- -- that I want to end this segment with my point of you know so.
I hear is expressed by America's greatest philosophers.
That kids from South Park.
-- -- throws a rocket token black student.
The school plan to give -- two weeks detention.
But then the FBI came to say I'm -- it's a bit more complicated than that school -- you -- since the victim in this -- is African American.
This is considering.
What turns -- normal -- Little -- year old boy into a vicious hate crime committing racist and apartments lectured by the judge you want to hurt another human beings -- -- make sure that the same -- -- Then the kids complain that the governor.
If somebody killed somebody -- the -- could someone give somebody in a different -- it's a hate trends we think it.
I didn't -- -- the name another name to pick names like yeah.
Right on kids.
-- would -- what -- say about the war on drugs.
That war on the war in certain kinds of -- next.
Now the war on food.
Fool you may say what -- -- -- pretty much what I want.
Well except raw milk in fifteen states and in my town trans fats are illegal and so on but.
So that's minor stuff the bigger fight today is the war and something that sounds scary.
-- -- We don't just want -- label they want and kind.
We're tired -- are getting very sick.
People are getting very sick.
Would you most stands for genetically modified organisms.
You -- it already most coroner is genetically modified.
You think this is natural now this is a product of years of selective breeding corn used to be much smaller than this and much -- juicy.
GMO genetically modified means scientists figured out a way to change food by manipulating individual genes so.
Today most coroner hasn't gene that makes it taste bad insects.
As a result -- -- spray is much insecticide so.
But here's an example of a genetic modification that may not be sold in America.
Both these fish are eighteen month old Sam but the big one was genetically modified to grow twice as fast.
Allowing this would mean -- percent.
But we don't have that because the company that engineered the fish -- still waiting for approval from regulators and they've been waiting twenty years.
Good keep -- away from me says Jeffrey Smith who runs the institute for responsible technology.
No hole -- -- -- says Jason lost author of the food Catholics but.
Jason assistant natural apple to want.
So the reality is there's at that this version of natural food is sort of a mystery we've been.
Manipulating -- -- modifying food since humans have been on this this planet.
That ear of corn for example -- ancient ancestor.
Was no bigger than your thumb and it's only through selectively picking implanting certain varieties that we have that.
The sort of bountiful are really well today different its its its you know -- smoking with big G.
All selection is playing around with jeans what they're picking this play -- this when I'm putting it together.
In fact that traditional plant breeding is involving many thousands of genes that we often don't know what's gonna happen.
Modern biotechnology is picking one or two genes to try to put into your court to actually much more precise and our traditional -- he's sold it should make it safer Jeffrey what about that.
Well the FDA scientists -- Absolutely clear in the memos made public from a lawsuit.
They said that the process of genetic engineering is different and leads to new and different risks like new allergens toxins in new diseases.
They repeatedly urged their superiors to require study.
But the person in charge of policy at the FDA.
Was Michael Taylor Monsanto's former attorney.
Later Monsanto's vice president now back at the FDA is the US food safety zone so Monsanto was captured the FDA in this thousand person agency in and they're just.
In that tank with big business Monsanto has not only captured the FDA.
But as I travel to 36 countries.
They've done the same to many many countries where they have their people right and X rays and everybody you know not down that that the European Commission reviewed fifty studies has said no scientific evidence of danger -- -- You look at every major scientific authority on the subject -- CUS National Academy of Sciences the American Medical Association the European Commission the World Health Organization.
The food and agricultural organization these are all independent bodies.
An independent scientists it every one of those organizations has confirmed the basic safety.
A Biotech foods there has not been a single scientifically confirmed case of any illness or allergens.
From the approved varieties of Biotech foods that are on the market even though we've been eating them for over fifteen years.
Yet different what about that -- even.
Eating this stuff and we keep living longer.
Since GMO's -- reduced there's been a whole slew of diseases and disorders that are on the rise allergies asthma autism at center.
These are the type of disorders and diseases.
That thousands of doctors and parents are saying that when they take themselves or their families off of GM knows there's improvement but it gets better.
When livestock producers and veterinarians take livestock -- just GM -- or corn and shifted over to non GM so we -- corn.
-- livestock also get better in the same diseases and disorders.
That corn in your hand for example John it doesn't taste bad insects it pokes holes in their cells and kills them.
And now a study that's published in the journal of applied toxicology.
Finds at that same toxic.
Insecticide that we eat in that corn.
Pokes holes in human cells causing leakage so we have evidence that's being ignored by the FDA and the companies themselves that do these studies.
What you're doing is doing a lot of core relational analysis or is there a lot more Justin Bieber songs in -- -- -- that that to mean the Justin Bieber songs are correlated with but a rise in autism of course Miami Kansas -- yeah sure that's what country that I hope dot.
If it's really true that these crops are so battle livestock where livestock producers must just be -- they must be come to keep using it but let's go beyond dance because there's an in between point between.
Forbidding something and no -- site here's a commercial from a group that says if it's genetically modified.
If there's nothing wrong with GM those.
Why not put -- a little label prayed with GM rose.
Jason that seems reasonable it's cheap to label something -- try and I certainly have no problem with companies voluntarily labeling foods and and the great thing for consumer choice it is if you want to avoid your most.
There are lots of opportunities to do that by organic organics are certified to be produced without -- and it's an ingredient may be they are making out maybe they are but there are a lot of companies that make not you know -- the question is do we want to mandate.
I require companies -- put this label on the golf.
The trouble there is that -- the FDA mandates but in this label.
On food it's basically.
-- -- a signal to consumers of these products are unsafe -- our -- indicate all our major scientific organizations have desert and our consumers its missile that's misleading.
And the consumers into believing something that's actually false whole foods is says we're gonna do this voluntarily in the next five years we're gonna get rid of G involves everybody has to labeled GM -- Jeff is that enough for you.
No I think we need to actually -- -- is because the evidence is clear from independent scientists and even major regulatory bodies.
Around the world however when speaking about labeling.
It is simply not responsible.
To force GM -- on the population right now for example the wick program gives two million children.
Infant formula every one of those is genetically engineered and the parents don't even know.
One of the most ardent -- you know activists that started some anti -- movement mark Linus.
Recently came out and our cup conference and Oxford and said I finally dug into the scientific literature and I was wrong.
And he basically concluded that there's more danger of being hit by an asteroid then there is by being hurt by biotechnology.
Thank you Jason Luskin Jeffrey Smith coming up the war on drugs the new scares over -- In this PSA the kids keep watching television while their friend convulsions.
On the floor.
This isn't normal.
Really is that normal.
What you think you all may not be so.
-- -- That was one of the first commercials that warn people about drugs -- they amp up the message.
-- -- react this isn't your only goes to a.
Why -- some questions.
I know it's true that some drug users put themselves and their families through hell.
But if illegal drugs -- is horrible and addictive as we've been told then how come with the government's own statistics say.
Millions of Americans have used those drugs.
But only a small percentage.
Still use them.
Well the author of high price a neuroscientist.
Journey of self discovery that challenges everything you know about drugs and society.
Says drugs are not as addictive or as dangerous since the government media and made it out to -- Doctor -- heart so why should we believe you -- you look like a drug dealer.
-- drug dealers must be attractive as -- these days.
Well you should believe me in part because I've been doing this for about twenty some years doing this I mean I've been studying drugs studying the effects of drugs in people.
Olivier university and I -- bring people in for tests at Columbia University that's right -- study drugs like marijuana methamphetamine.
Crack cocaine and so forth.
And as you pointed out the data simply shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs don't go on to become addicted in fact.
Some of these people who have use these jokes go on to become president.
The -- president the president before the current President George Bush Bill Clinton follow those guys have used illegal drugs at some point in their life.
Aren't but all we know for sure is that they can use weed in May be dabbled in cocaine in a couple cases.
That the message now is -- Did crack and -- -- get worse and it's.
-- those are just they automatically -- The same thing was said -- -- marijuana in -- 1930s people say you go on the use this drug.
You go on to commit murder you go on to use Terrell reformat exactly it's so it -- -- reasons that that was allowed to happen because there were few people who had actually used marijuana.
The same is true when we think of drug drugs like crack cocaine today and methamphetamine.
-- this many people use those -- and so the rest when these stories he's incredible stories can be made up about these chances because people simply don't know.
But I have given thousands of doses of these shows in my studies and I'm here to tell you that.
The public has been misled in your laboratory you.
You get these drugs legally the DEA lets you have -- and you advertise and bring.
Users didn't and then you recruit.
Absolutely and we've jumped to all these levels of approvals and we recruit participants -- Craig's list.
We advertise and the village voice of world now crack users come on him.
What we say people -- used cocaine before yeah that sort of thing that's -- And I'm looking at the government's statistics here the number of people who ever tried drugs and who views in the last month.
And it seems like 95% of the people give it up the most addictive seemed to be marijuana and pain relievers where.
Use -- in the last month.
Yes so I guess when you say most of the people give it up I don't know if that's a way to really talk about this.
You you don't necessarily have to give it up in order to use to drug -- -- problems so there is.
Well there aren't the vast majority of people who use -- like cocaine.
Use it on the weekends -- muses on a monthly basis or use it.
On blue book every six months or something in their old jobs and hold -- -- state pay taxes they do all those sorts of things in this similar way that we do.
We use drugs like alcohol all of these the body doesn't recognize that.
-- Cycle active drug is legal or illegal.
Crack and meth or no worse than alcohol the problem that makes crack cocaine and methamphetamine so dangerous.
Is that things that are cut their cut -- to illegal Alan.
Whereas alcohol -- pretty sure that what you get what alcohol is pure alcohol the most -- struck today's math I see.
Pictures of meth users with no teeth I assume that although the other drugs were over hyped.
This drug -- really is just horrible and horribly addictive.
Earlier we showed part of this commercial where meth users watch TV while their friend overdoses on the -- This is normal.
-- -- It is.
This is propaganda that's.
And that does so much harm because people actually think that they're given the drug education about what you know start to commercials.
I can't say this strongly enough.
There are few things that has done more harm to our drug public education during commercials like that.
Kids -- -- tool in the government out they don't believe anymore not only do they to new government now they tune now people like me anybody who has.
Drug education they think that it's untrue because of the lack of credibility that we now have as a result.
Of the government would these.
Hysteria hysterical -- couldn't commercials.
What does more harm to America for drugs or the drug war.
Now one of the things I want to make clear here.
Is that drugs -- alcohol or will this crack cocaine they should be taken seriously because they certainly can produce some harms.
But do drug war.
That a drug war has done more harm to specific communities that's without a doubt.
But the reason why it's allowed to continue and as it has -- because.
The harm that it does or that the major portions of the harm it's happening in communities that we don't really care about as a country.
Doctor -- heart thank you next.
Might take on the government's war is and the IRS scandal.
Both are symptoms of the same disease.
Our last guest said kids now to -- the government's message about drugs because government lost credibility.
For years they told kids if you do drugs you're gonna die.
But then the kids saw their friends try things and mostly do OK so kids got skeptical and they should.
If the oxy clean guy tells you oxy clean -- staying zapped my my.
Without -- -- -- -- color is it better be true or you'll listen till next time toxic Lehman will go out of business.
But government never goes out of business.
It fails that nation building in Vietnam but tries again in Iraq.
He wages a war against hate this is considered a hate crime a war on drugs.
It wages war against certain foods he goes to war against almost every business.
Apple pays taxes but -- cartoonist Robert Arial points out the government wants to take much more.
The politicians demand more of our money they say -- -- accomplish wonderful things with it we can't.
Lately there's been so much fuss about Eric Holder.
Just cool with the IRS targeted Tea Party groups will they be fired will there be a special prosecutor.
Well my apologies to my colleagues but I don't much care who was fired or punish its.
Just not very important their job we'll just be given to another bureaucrat.
Some of them will be honest some won't are much bigger problem is that government now employs 22 million people.
41 million -- decent track the military in the post office that's millions and millions of people who are well people.
Most are good but some are bad and people in government have a legal right to use force.
Big government gives millions of people immense power over parts of our lives most won't abuse it.
But Howard does -- rocked some will be bad people and they will -- their power to torture people they don't like.
People who hold the wrong beliefs -- people who talk back.
Some of you won't get building permits maybe you'll be audit Souter denied a tax exemption.
Firing an attorney general won't change that only smaller government came.
But we don't have smaller government we have big government we haven't because when there's a problem.
People instinctively say.
Yeah this week.
That's why I wrote.
No hope they can't because government cannot -- it shouldn't try.
And the more things it goes to war against the more it grows -- worse off we are.
But -- government can't we can't millions of Americans give up drugs most without help.
Scientists experiment with food and we live longer.
Companies try to minimize their taxes and then use the money to produce wonderful things individuals.
Do that we can't.
But no they can't.
That's our show.
Thanks for watch.
Filter by section