you the details of that story and the koch brothers, also trying to buy judges throughout the country. how? we'll explain tonight on theyoungturks.com. also on youtube.com/tyt. >> john: let me begin by saying congratulations to the nra for bravely opposing today's u.n. arms treaty along side their new bffs, iran, syria and you guys are awesome. healthcare immigration and gun safety bills can't pass in congress but a bill giving monsanto the right to genetically modify your food just sailed through. folks, i don't want to say our food is genetically juiced up but a bag of lettuce just won the tour de france. >> republicans mocking president obama for not closing gitmo are like lucy mocking charlie brown for missing the football. today is the birthday of linda hunt emmylou harris, sir alec guinness would have been 99 today.

500 years ago this very day spanish explorer ponce de leon first set sight on what came to be known as florida and kept their turn signal on for the whole rest of the trip. congressman charlie rangel and ask a tea partier. this is "viewpoint." >> john: good evening, i'm john fuglesang. this is "viewpoint." thank you so much for watching us tonight. if you were an nra executive like wayne lapierrre you might think you're having a pretty good start to the week. "the washington post" is reporting that congress is struggling to produce a plan to expand background checks on gun buyers despite 90% support for universal background checks in recent polls. forget about an assault weapons ban or curbs on high capacity ammo clips all popular with the american people. but at the white house press secretary jay carney, insisted

the president would keep on pressuring congress to do something. >> it is essential to the memory of the victims of newtown that all of the measures get a vote, that they are not filibustered and it is essential that action be taken. >> john: meanwhile an nra-funded task force released its own response to the newtown shootings today. the so-called national school shield plan would create a model law to let teachers and school employees carry guns. establish a training program for armed school resources officers. place at least one resource officer in every american school. require schools to have safety and security plans and ask the nra to establish national school shield as a permanent national organization. and who do you think gets to pay for all of this? you know who. and the best part is the nra wants their school resource officers hired based on background checks.

now, the nra says it needs time to digest the report it paid for and commissioned. as for background checks for gun sales, former arkansas congressman asa hutchinson said this. >> that's a discussion in the country that will go on while the debate goes on, we're trying to do something about school safety. >> john: in connecticut state legislators are really doing something about school safety. tomorrow, they expect to pass a tough gun control law that would require buyers to get state-issued eligibility certificates to buy a rifle shotgun, or ammunition. offenders convicted of weapons crimes to register with the state. universal background checks for firearm sales while also expanding an assault weapons ban and banning ammo magazines with more than ten bullets. not taking anyone's guns away. now that last limit on ammo clips wasn't enough for nicole hockley whose son dylan was killed at sandy hook. >> we ask ourselves every day every minute, if those magazines had held ten rounds, forcing the

shooter to reload at least six more times would our children be alive today? >> and at the u.n., delegates were asking themselves if they should, for the first time, regulate the annual $70 billion trade in conventional weapons and the answer was yes. it would require weapons exporting nations and america's number one to avoid exports linked to human rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. ban armed shipments harmful to women and children and publish yearly arms sales reports. now 154 nations voted for the treaty including the u.s.a. 23 nations an abstained including russia and china and iran north korea and syria all voted against it and the nra opposed the treaty, too. okay. so it wasn't a perfect day for our friends in the nra but it still plans to block the treaty from ratification in the u.s. senate. imagine that. it is not enough for the nra to ignore the will of americans now it is ignoring the will of

the world to say nothing about ignoring the will of their own members. it is all about profits. colin goddard is a survivor of the 2007 virginia tech shooting that saw 32 people killed. he now works with the brady campaign to prevent gun violence and sam seder is the host of ring of fire and majority report. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here tonight. >> thank you. >> john: colin 90% of americans, of the american public wants universal background checks. now it is looking like congress will not be going along with that. does this disconnect a power to the nra? is there something more at play here? >> the disconnect is a tribute to the lack of focus for the american people. people in d.c. don't think that we care about these issues, don't think we want them to do something. so they haven't been acting on it. that's the paradigm we've been change. we had 150 events across the country last week. we've been trending on twitter all day today. you know, state legislation is passing in places like colorado and delaware and also places having success in texas

new mexico. so things are changing on a fundamental level on the ground. that's what is going to need for us to succeed. >> john: by the way we see things being changed we still see one lobbying group hold more sway over our congresspeople than the will of the entire american population combined. sam, it is hoping for too much to think the people's voices will be heard? >> i think you're giving the nra a little more credit than they deserve. >> john: please tell me i am. >> part of this is the nra. part of it is a legacy in this country. politicians being afraid of this issue. and them not catching up with to the population like colin said. also, you have to think about 2014 here, all of the people being polled won't go to the polls. fact of the matter, the people who will go to the polls are probably more likely, i think to be rabid about an issue and so if this is an issue that's going to drive them to the

polls, more politicians perceive those who want a sensible gun control will go to the polls. that's why you see, you know, democratic senators being an obstacle in the situation in many respects, some republicans. so i think that's the real issue here is that the mobilization among the public has not reached washington yet. >> john: you look at what happened last week in this country with marriage equality. if the people lead, the leaders will follow. people were for it before barack obama came out for it as well. i want to ask you sam then you, colin how do you grade the president's speeches? we haven't heard specific critiques about the up-or-down vote he demanded in the state of the union ain't gonna happen. >> i'm not convinced it isn't going to happen. there will be a lot of amendments and there's a question as to what bill is going to make it to the floor. that seems to change on a daily basis. i think he's right to push this

call for giving a vote because there's a lot of electeds who don't want to take the vote. they're worried about it. that means that if there is a vote, they'll feel a lot of pressure to vote in favor of some type of legislation. but -- so i think it is early to grade the president. i think in this instance, i don't think he's doing such a bad job. he's going out to connecticut. he's going out to the country. he's taking it to the people. and so i think -- i think to a certain extent, he's doing what i would like to see done on a lot of other issues. >> john: the policies he's called for are not controversial measures but is it fair to say that harry reid has given the senators who were afraid of the vote cover by letting the filibuster still run the congress? or at least the senate? >> look, i think, you know, har harry reid said it was a big mistake not to reform the filibuster. i imagine he's seeing that again whether it is judicial nominations or this legislation. as far as i can tell, there does

not seem to be a strong desire by the republicans to filibuster. so i think that harry reid is headed to bring a bill to the floor he doesn't think it could pass. and you know, look, harry reid two years ago was really trying to woo the nra vote. i don't know if that's driving him now but he probably has more sensitivity than he probably should have to other senators who are worried about the nra. >> john: no disrespect to the politicians but colin don't you think if there is ever an issue you're willing to lose your job over, it is an issue like saving american lives. when you think about how president obama has been asking the public to push legislators call them and e-mail and advocate. leb in denver tomorrow trying to make the point to the local police academy. is there anything the public can do beyond demonstrations to help move this along and get through to our o legislators this is what the american people want? >> it is fundamental grassroots

engagement. not only do you have to write them and call them but meet with them in person, show up, tweet at them. this is not a one things you do one day and we've taken care of it now. this is a sustained activity and sustained engagement to take this to the finish line. we've gotten things out of the senate judiciary committee. that is a tribute. we're now at the next hurdle. we'll see how it plays out. if people keep engaging and jumping on this bandwagon that's moving, we're going to make some success. >> john: as a survivor of real and terrible gun violence, how frustrated do you get when you see congress dragging their feet on this or does it inspire you to work hard summer. >> it is frustrating for sure. you can't just let it remain frustrating. you have to do something with it. you can't let it be negative. you have to turn it toward something positive. it has been incredible the other people who have experienced gun violence standing up and speaking out and sharing their story. so many people in d.c. don't see

this problem with a real face and there are so many more people putting a face to this problem saying it happened to me. i live in your state. i live in your district. that's what's ultimately going to be what's needed to make this real for people. those people in d.c. who are humans who make the heart-to-heart connection as newtown shook us all. now it needs to happen again with real people and their constituents. it is happening. >> john: time and time again we keep seeing the nra get up there and block the human core connection doing everything they can to muddy the waterss, to take focus away. sam, when i saw the report today, what was the point of this? was it to detract from the fact that the issue was about keeping guns out of the hands of violent people? >> yeah. look, it was to muddy the waters. it was to make -- to shift the issue into sort of this false narrative that somehow when we

see the mass killings, that it is a function of it being a gun-free zone which is ridiculous. mother jones had a great report on that today showing not only is there no evidence to support the claims, there is evidence that contradicts those claims. >> john: exactly. >> this is a way for the nra to dominate the news cycle for for an extended period of time and for them to say we're engaging in the process and look somewhat reasonable. that's why they did it. >> john: to make up a lot of policies the taxpayer would have to pay for during a crippled economy that's contingent on the background checks they oppose. >> the nra at this point wants to debate about their proposal. so that steers the debate away from what really needs to happen. extending background checks. cutting down on these high-capacity magazines on these weapons that were made for the military. so it is a political strategy and if they have the money they go out and spend it and they buy the credibility on some level.

>> john: colin the connecticut gun control law that is going to pass is much stronger than anything the federal government has proposed. should advocates for sensible popular gun control legislation start going for the states and trying to make things happen on the state level if the federal government is not going to get in line? >> absolutely. and we are. what came out of connecticut was a bipartisan, comprehensive review that took several weeks that was looking at everything that you could possibly put on the table and ultimately it is going to pass with bipartisan support. and they're saying that this should be a model for other states. like i said, we've seen successes in places like new york and delaware. but also unexpected success in places like colorado and defeating bad legislation in virginia in new mexico, in texas, for example. so yeah, if we can't do it on the federal level we're engaging on the state level. the american people need to stand up and we're doing it. if we keep this up, we will change things.

>> colin goddard. sam seder is home host of ring of fire. it is not the time to despair. not the time to be a cynic. thank you for creating inspiration. >> congressman charlie rangel will join me to talk about the harsh world of sequester cuts.

>> john: it is time for our thing of the day. tonight is our world incident of the day. legos will no longer make its return of the jeddi jabba's palace kit even though it was just based on the jabba the hutt

scene in return of the jeddi which opened 30 years ago next month. austria's turkish cultural association said it resembled an offensive muslim stereotype with the vaguely islamic building design and hans solo frozen in carbonite. legos pulled the toy for reasons having nothing to do with the complaints but an international incident was inevitable. think about this. muslims from turkey living in austria got mad a company in denmark over a toy manufactured in eastern europe or mexico based on a movie filmed in england and america 30 years ago about a galaxy far far away. somebody had to get offended. if only the muslims had protested the dialogue, the whole world would be on their side. closer to home, for too close, the sequester is having real consequences even though the republicans said the government cuts would never happen and that it might actually be good if they did. we're now seeing two things republicans supposedly despise. small businesses are suffering and municipalities are being

forced to raise local taxes. joining me now is congressman charlie rangel from new york who is on the house ways and means committee as well as the joint committee on taxation. what a pleasure to have you here. >> good to be with you john. >> john: how can the american people hope to fix the damage being done by the sequester? is there a way out? >> when you said damage, i didn't know you were going straight to the sequester. the american people are very tolerant people. they complain but they don't do anything to change. take my word for it... a person in elected office, especially the congress, threatened to take away their jobs is a pretty high priority. but when people just complain and have no idea and don't care who their member is, it means the member can do the best he or she can but in any event the sequester should make every

congressperson apologetic because it was a nightmare that was created to say you adults don't have enough common sense to come together with a budget that you can agree to but you're going to have to. but if you don't then sequester will come and devour the economy and americans with it. all of you would be out of office. guess what. the sequester has happened. it is across the board. there's no company. and there's no family that would say that cutting by itself, saves money. it is what are you cutting? if you cut off a kid's education, eventually that's going to have a negative impact and you have to pay one way or the other more money. if you cut off preventive care or cut off an old lady's prescription and throw her an expensive -- throw her in intensive care unit, you have to

pay more money. no matter what you're talking about, if you prevent someone from getting a check because they say that we have to stop spending, it is no economic theory that laying off people from work saves money during the recession. because if they don't have disposable income, the local merchants can't sell and they are laying off people. so this idea is stubbornness, it is meanness and it is party control. but it doesn't make any sense. my biggest problem is that how tolerant the american people are of all of us. >> john: let me ask you, is this why our friends over at fox news keep talking about white house tours, white house tours would we'll ignore the human suffering from this? because if i'm a guy living in a red state and suddenly my local taxes are going up, suffering because of the sequester cheered on by republicans, it might make me rethink who i'm going to vote for in 2014.

>> surprisingly, that, too really works. when i got started in politics, anyone would admit they were so frightened and so scared that they would resort to negative campaigning. this was just bad -- it was morally bad. now, it seems as though people are willing to pay more to smear someone's reputation than they are to defend why they would want to get elected. so when you find people like fox, you can bet your life democrats are going to find someone like -- during the same type of thing and the poor person that's made up their mind which is most of americans those of us who look at liberal democratic programs already made up our mind. we're democrats. the fox people, they don't recruit. the poor people in the middle thinking that they're going to get their news, their information from television, they're the ones that are

getting the short end of the stick. and i don't know how the communications people made it so that newspaper and editors and writers who used to have things to say are so intimidated by advertisers who actually control. but america compared to other countries when it comes to international information candidate information i mean i was so glad i was a democrat in the committee, not that i don't have my own embarrassment, but i was embarrassed europeans would watch this and think that this was the leader of the free world. the tea party was actually dictating who was going to survive as a republican. and i need a healthy republican party for the system to survive. >> john: what's going to play out then? can the republican party survive if anyone tries to compromise with this president they're going to get primaried back

home. so is the party going to eat itself or will ultimately the tea party absorb and become a healthy, functioning part of a larger g.o.p.? >> you know, people, the change in the population, will devour the republican party and they'll be screaming and yelling no amnesty and just disappear. it could be, though, that there are a lot of people that don't believe that you have to be that type of republican. and god knows when i first joined the congress in the early 1970s, the people in the new york delegation, republicans and democrats, we were friends. we were more proud of being new yorkers, that got us in a lot of trouble. but we never got into problems with who was a democrat and who was a republican. >> john: aren't you still friends? your republican colleagues seem to be pulled in different ways. behind closed doors are they still convivial with you? >> no such thing behind closed

doors except behind republican closed doors and democratic closed doors. if you were to leave one to go into another meeting that ends it as to how the hell did you get over there. it is really rough. the reason it's rough is that anybody that wants to run for public office, they ask the professionals, the consultants they don't care. run as a republican or a democrat. once you tell them, then they start picking up negative information on your opponent. and by the time you get after the debates you don't like your opponent or any part of this political family. it makes sense he doesn't like you either. so you come to congress, briefed that if it's not your party -- your party has dues for not following the party line. and i am really amazed at the

churches and the synagogues, how they sit this thing out when their agenda is on the line. >> john: not all of them. not all of them. >> not enough to make a difference. those are concerned with same-sex marriage, they'll knock on your door and they'll hurt you. and the same thing applies to any type of abortion. you don't have to be catholic to feel the threat. >> john: two things jesus never mentioned when it comes to helping the poor. >> that's the problem. and it would seem to me that you know, poor folks cost a hell of a lot of money. they really do. unemployed people cost money. uneducated people could really be a national security problem much less economics for the country. it would seem to me with all of the ceos, whether they're republican or democrat, could say okay, guys, you've had your political fun but don't make the nation suffer as a result of it. this irreparable harm that

sequestration can cause and it is time to knock off come to the table and remember both of the houses, who is it that fears the tea party or who is it that can't deal with republicans so much that they're ready to put their feet on the line. >> john: you're the one would person to quote shakespeare and the party in the same sentence. thank you, sir. how exactly did we end up with what is known as the monsanto protection act? to begin with, we know who helped write it. monsanto. that's coming up next.

>> john: tonight on wtf idaho, we look at a bill proposed by senate majority leader bart davis that just passed. recordings of idaho state government proceedings will finally be archived. you see, until now idaho state house and senate sessions were available only briefly. it was a very short window for citizens who felt the need to see something that would bore them out of their freaking

skulls. some argued against the bill saying there was no point in preserving the footage that the taxpayers pay for because if people want to see endless interminalbly shots, they could watch any of the "star wars" prequels. some were all for archiving the sessions but wanted the authority to decide whether or not recordings of the floor proceedings should be released to the public at all. idea was to have hours of footage of stuff that nobody is watching like nbc's prime timelineup. they decided to let legislative sessions be streamed live online. this is also a cause for concern because videos of sweaty, doughy, midwest politicians talking about zoning laws are bound to go viral so the idaho state government web site could very well crash. wtf, idaho. your lawmakers work for the people and it is about time you allowed the people to see them in action. so to speak. now that you're archiving your sessions future generations will no longer be denied the opportunity to see how legislators passed the laws that ruined their lives. thanks.

(vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will let me say anything.

>> john: a seedy measure planted under the surface of the bill to keep the government running that was signed by president obama last week has now grown into a major controversy. the last second edition to the spending bill is being labeled by opponents as the monsanto protection act allowing farmers to plant genetically-modified seeds even as their safety to consumers is being challenged in court. this works out quite well for monsanto that owns 95% of the seed market and doesn't like that pesky legal system ever getting in their way. of course, monsanto helped craft the language of the provision sponsored by roy blunt and slip through the appropriations committee chaired by democrat

bash are mikulski. after a huge back lash spearheaded by the center for food safety and food democracy now mikulski issued a statement saying... unfortunately, that won't prevent these seeds from sprouting. for more on the potential impact of the monsanto protection act and how it came to be law in the land, we're pleased to be joined by colin o'neil, the director of government affairs for the center for food safety. thank you for coming on the show tonight. >> thanks for having me, john. >> john: i really wanted to talk about this. tell us why did this amendment get placed in a spending bill that had nothing to do with food safety and why didn't anybody in d.c. notice it first? >> well, frankly, this was back door special interest politics at its worst. this rider originally introduced by the house republicans last year in a spending bill was revamped by senator blunt and the late chairman of the senate appropriations committee daniel

inouye. really done behind closed doors absent any public transparency. it is only now the american people are realizing they have frankly been duped by the process. >> john: it is like pork but genetically-modified pork. why did monsanto desire the amendment so badly? how bad is this really for the rest of us? >> what this rider seeks to do is undermine the ability of federal courts to safeguard farmers and the environment from unlawfully approved and potentially hazardous genetically engineered crops. over the past six or seven years, numerous federal courts have struck down approvals of genetically engineered crops by the u.s. department of agriculture. essentially stating that they failed to adequately consider the environmental and economic harms that they may have. this rider essentially seeks to go over the heads and handcuff the judiciary and at the same time compels the secretary of agriculture to approve permits or partial deregulations for

planting of these crops even when they've been found by federal courts to be harmful. >> john: of course, this isn't permanent, correct? this is not the law of the land forever. >> this currently only exists and is the law of the land for the next six months during the life of the cr. however, if they have their way special interests would like to grandfather this into permanent law. >> john: i'm heartened by the outcry on facebook of so many americans aware of it and are bringing the fight to their legislators. what do you say to the criticism that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion and is a protection for farmers that have already planted a crop and now can't be forced to destroy it because of some legal dispute? >> this rider, when it comes down to it, has nothing to do with fairness for farmers or consumers. this is about special interests wanting to increase corporate profits, even when federal courts have recognized that those crops that they want to approve are harmful. at the same time you know, this is bad business as normal.

certainly policy riders are no secret in this town. however, i think the american public are disappointed in senate democrats. leaders on the senate democratic side have traditionally been a backstop against dangerous policy riders like this. namely harry reid and chairwoman mikulski. the american people are disappointed that the senate democrats would put forward a rider when it was absent in the house-passed cr a couple of weeks ago. >> john: in fairness, i haven't heard a lot of democrats getting up ever and talking about the danger of gmos. talking about what monsanto actually does with holding patents on living seeds. i mean is it unreasonable to expect they're going to get on the bandwagon now? >> well, this has really been behind closed door negotiations and issues like this, you're right, have not been at the forefront on capitol hill because of the special interests that monsanto and other biotechnology and agribusiness companies have. many of these members of congress are bought and sold by the same industry that they're turning around and supporting

riders for and we were very heartened to see senator jon tester senator gillibrand, boxer, blumenthal, a number of members of the senate come out opposed to the rider but frankly, they were left out of the process just as the american public was. we find that to be an abomination. >> john: who holds the majority of the responsibility for this legislation being slipped in and how do we hold them accountable? >> well, the american people have called on senator mikulski as the new chairwoman of the appropriations committee to essentially right her wrong and makes sure that this rider never sees the light of day past the six-month cr. it appears this is, in many ways, the last iteration of senator inouye's chairmanship and we hope that senator mikulski will have a stronger record on this issue. >> john: let me ask you the million dollar question, why do you think we hear so much protest about this through social media and not through the corporate news media heavily funded by advertising from the food industry?

>> look, consumers have the right to know but are absent labeling of genetically-engineered foods. they know neither the fda or the e.p.a. conduct long-term safety assessments about the health of foods or crops and they know about the back door politics here in washington, d.c. and they're finally -- this issue is reaching a fever pitch and they want to know more. they want their members of congress to do more and frankly they want to be part of the process. >> john: director of government affairs for the center for food safety colin o'neil, thank you so much for your time and service on this very important and very underreported issue. >> thank you john. >> john: okay. we already asked one congressman about the sequester. now, let's ask a tea partier. that's coming up next.

>> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." on social media today, i asked if all y'all had any idea of what was holding a lot of politicians back from supporting marriage equality at this point. mike rodriguez tweeted, it is because their reality is one

where corporations are people and homosexuals are not. good point mike. corporations are already allowed to get married except they're called hostile takeovers. polygamy as well but that's a whole other show. if you have a comment for the show, please tweet us at john fuglesang or use the hashtag "viewpoint" or post it on our facebook page. okay. immigration, sequestration and the gay marriage abomination. with so much going on in our country today you're probably sitting there at home saying to yourself, hey, self, what would a tea partier think of all of this? we could sit here and speculate all day or we could play another round of america's slowest-growing sensation -- >> ask a tea partier! >> john: big al jazeera bucks at work. news director for the tea party news network miss scottie nell hughes. let's meet our contestants. democratic contestant, contributor to forbes.com as well as an avid fly fisherman and the creator of the character

spike on x-men. >> that's true. >> john: it is rick ungar. and bachelor number two republican contestant, a writer and comedian starring in living in exile and author of the complete idiot's guide to comedy writing, please welcome jim mendrinos. great to have you back. >> thank you. let's play the game. topic number one. >> john: you asked for it, you got it. the sequester. on the topic of sequestration what would you as a democrat like to ask a bona fide tea party official? >> does the clock start now? >> we have the bell? >> virginia and texas. two of the strong holds of the tea party movement continue to look to be the two states that are going to be most impacted by the sequester. how do you explain tea party support for the sequester to tea party members in those states who are soon going to lose their jobs? >> that's always a sad thing when you hear anybody lose their job but let's face it. republicans, tea partiers, we're

the party of principle. we're not the party of punishment of politics. which is exactly what we're seeing right now with the obama administration. very simple. obama sitting here using the sequestration to punish those that did not go with him. have not necessarily voted with him or believe in his ideals. >> john: who was it that pushed the sequestration through the house? >> the house did vote for it. we're going to hold the house accountable? >> john: who pushed it through? >> the house is a majority. let's realize who came up with it? >> john: the name of the man who pushed it through the house? >> here's the deal. there are bad apples on both sides with this issue. this is the one thing -- >> john: john boehner. >> that's one of his guys. that's not one -- >> no. >> i get along with him on tanning issues but other than that, that's all i'm going to comment on. >> john: john boehner if scottie doesn't like you, you

have a problem. jim, who would you as a -- what would you like to ask? >> tea party an organization who wants to bring accountability and fairness back to politics. support any member of congress who helped to make the sequestration a reality. when those member salaries aren't affected by this vote, shouldn't their salaries be affected just like everybody else of the federal government? >> exactly. another issue. we can all agree on. representative desantis out of florida is proposing this. he does have a democrat who is also cosponsoring it. he has proposed the issue. it is amazing one of the first people who came out against it though nancy pelosi. that would be one of your guy's main women right there. >> john: i'm not a democrat. i'm the independent. can we agree we all feel the sequestration, should it be done with congressional pay slashes? >> any time. >> john: all four us agree. the same-sex marriage debate made its way to the supreme court last week. jim, i want to start with you on

this one. gay marriage didn't begin as a tea party issue. what would you like to ask a tea partier? >> let's talk about gay marriage as an economic issue. marriage has a huge impact on the economy both in the wedding phase and then in the spending patterns of couples once they become married. one year, $259 million. given its economic reach and private sector growth impact, what possible reason could have the tatter party have not to give its full support to gay marriage? >> haven't you enjoyed this topic blowing up? the democrats love to bring this up. the same reason why the republicans love to bring up the gun control issue because it unites us and splits the democrats. the homosexual marriage -- >> i'll bring it up. >> most people love it. that's why this is sitting here and growing. we're only talking about 1.7% of the entire national population. it is not like -- here's the issue you have to realize

though. >> hundreds of billions of dollars. we could break it down to a small percentage but it is hundreds of billions of dollars in economic impact. >> john: could the tea party take an official stance on marriage equality? >> it is not that we're against homosexuality. we're for civil unions. our issue is as a constitutionalist because it was not mentioned therefore it goes to the tenth amendment which takes it to a state issue. therefore, if you're against gay rights and homosexual marriage -- >> john: you agree with barack obama it is a states issue. you agree with barack obama. rick ungar? >> given the tea party's roots in libertarianism and such a strong belief the government should stay out of our private lives, how can the tea party not and i'm not going to say civil unions, who can they not support gay marriage? >> first of all stay out of my bedroom. i don't care who you are. 20 years ago, you would have

never -- >> stay in somebody else's bedroom. >> 20 years ago we never would have imagined this being an issue. >> 20 years before we allowed people to marry interrace. 20 years before civil rights. >> let's talk about 20 years from now. an older man wants to marry a younger woman. >> that's legal. >> plural marriages. >> a man wanting to have four wives. i'm all for gay rights. >> the arguments a lot of people use against gay marriage is that it is unnatural. there's nothing legally wrong with a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman. the underlying act isn't illegal as would be taking a child -- when you bring up the argument, it is a false argument. >> john: i give that round to jim. go ahead scottie. really quick. >> the issue is no -- justice scalia brought up the same point. when you're trying to redefine

marriage on a government constitutional side. you're going to force churches to marry people. >> separate people are talking. >> john: guys, i have the prop. topic number three. immigration reform. make it quick. >> immigration reform with a path to citizenship would pump a ton of money economically into the country long-term. we would start collecting taxes from these people. they would stop getting paid under the table so given the fact that it leads to money that can far outweigh what it would cost up-front, how can you not support. >> the people who are coming in are not highly skilled college-educated workers. let's say that right now. >> john: no, they're taking the jobs those workers won't take. >> we can't support the citizens we have right now. they're putting a huge strain on education or healthcare. if they were forced to which they should be instead of putting $40 million plus on food

stamps -- >> john: okay to do migrant farm work. >> let's make people work. >> john: okay. rick we're out of time. >> you made it clear the tea party doesn't support immigration. how do you support rand paul and marco rubio? >> john: we'll ask her that when we come back from a break. there will be time to declare a winner and the winner is going to be announced right after the break.

>> john: okay, really quick, five seconds, finish rick's question scottie nell hughes of the tee party. if rubio goes along with immigration reform, will the tea party cut him loose? >> nine out of ten we still like him and he's a heck of a lot better than hillary clinton. >> marco, you're doomed. >> today's winner, tea partier scottie nell hughes for being such a good sport. you will hate the rest of this because that brings me to tonight's f bomb. i've never liked it when people

say someone is un-american. it sounds like fascist talk. in free seat, the own thing that's un-american is calling someone un-american because you never hear people say that's very unbelgian of you. all of this for profit healthcare is uncanadian. but they sound extremely ungerman. that sounds natural. i'm not going to call our continued treatment of the prisoners at guantanamo bay prison un-american. even though gitmo has been operating too long. it costs too much. only mean people seem to like it. it weakens our nation. it is racist and it inspires hate and makes no sense yet it keeps begun going. it is like the o'reilly factor but with cages. obama ran for president saying if he was elected, he would close it. the american people said i would vote for that guy and he got elected and tried to close it. the republicans said no way. democrats said no way so obama fought back bay saying okay. it was like watching first term

clinton trying to let's gos serve in the military. you wouldn't know this from tv news but the about president's office in charge of shutting down gitmo shut itself down in january. lots of our republican friends are mocking obama for not chess closing gitmo. right now between 39 and 139 prisoners are conducting a hunger strike over their treatment at guantanamo bay. i don't mean like here when people eat a doughnut instead of lunch. life had been peace nfl gitmo over the past few years. the new commanding officer colonel john bog den has reimposed the practice of searching inmate's korans for contraband. they take their religion seriously when we say a giant bunny broke into the house to leave chocolate eggs for jesus. the col ne refused and now your tax dollars are paying to have prisoners strapped to a table

have a tube painfully inserted from their noses down into their stomachs and having a liquid nutritional supplement force-feed them through the tube. but i'm not going to call that un-american even though some of the same people who boast of loving the constitution support locking people up without a trial for over ten years. even though most of the guys were turned in for awards by their enemies back home. even though president bush released over 500 detainees and 86, write this down, 86 of the current prisoners have been cleared for release but are still locked up because democrats are so weak, they would rather keep innocent men in cages than risk being called weak. even though estimates are that there are six times as many prisoners on hunger strike as have been charged with crimes. even though our policy seems to be imposing our way of life on other people but not our way of justice, given our democracy but not our due process. i can't even technically call it america because it is not america. of course, we can't transfer them to prisons here.

then they would easily escape like manson. plus they might return to the battlefield, the one we're planning to leave as reported here last week, we've now turned bagram prison back over to the afghans. we held on to it so long because so many americans were afraid they would return to the battlefield. why are we still holding these guys especially the 86 that have been cleared america for release? because the biggest fear isn't that once released, they'll return to the battlefield. the biggest fear is that they won't because they were innocent guys in the first place. so i'm not going to call it un-american. stupid wasteful policies that don't make us safer make the rest of the world hate us and exist only to satisfy the cruelest among us, it is sad to say in this young century that's profoundly american. that's "viewpoint" for tonight. i want to thank my panel scottie nell hughes, devastated woman from the tea party news network, rick ungar from forbes.com and jim mendrinos. thanks for playing ask