[ ♪ music ♪ ] >> john: president obama has got a new budget and it does cut some social security, but apparently doesn't cause nearly enough suffering for the g.o.p. to support it. we'll be joined by congressman alan grayson. meanwhile, republican lawmakers are trying to find a balance between accepting some immigration reform while still remaining frightened of foreign looking people. our panel will take on rand paul's speech at howard university which almost went as well as michael richard's set on the apollo. and state of the art mail order designer drugs. we'll talk to the author of the

magazine piece. today is the 84th birthday of the great max von sydow who till doesn't have an oscar but lucky for us he continues to beat death at chess. and happy birthday as well to writer anne lamott and new kids on the block are on another reunion tour. this is "viewpoint." [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: i'm john fugelsang this is "viewpoint." good evening, president obama is having a dozen republican senators over for dinner at the white house tonight and i've got a pretty good idea of what's on the gene. the president unveiled a $3.8 trillion budget proposal for 2014 today part of a spending blueprint for the next ten years. and what sort of were you print is it? mr. president? bloom a fiscally responsible

blueprint for middle-class jobs and growth. >> john: and a blueprint with something for republicans as well as democrats. as mr. obama tries to make a deal that will replace the more than $85 billion in program cuts in the sequester with what he described as. >> smarter ones, making long-term restorms eliminateing actual waste and programs we don't need any more. >> john: in the extremely unlikely event the president's budget could pass congress intact it would cut spending by some $1.2 trillion over ten years, including $370 billion from cuts in medicare, and some $230 billion from social security. mostly by changing the way inflation is measured to determine benefit levels. the president's budget would also raise around $800 billion in new taxes including $154 billion from the wealthiest americans. $123 billion by changing

medicare rebates from farm suit tall firms and another $78 billion from cigarette sales. but the biggest issue is seniors seniors, and most people's with aging parents, is the president's offer to cut social security. >> very month independent senator bernie sanders didn't like it. >> they're walking down a perilous political path. >> john: tell us what is on your mind. social security and medicare are the two most successful anti-poverty programs in american history. meanwhile, tea party cosy senator ted cruz of texas may be sort of kind of likes parts of the president's plan. he told politico. >> i'm encouraged by any steps president obama is taking to save and preserve social security and medicare by cutting it. even speaker john boehner found

something maybe kind of sort of nice to say coupled with a warning. >> while the president has backtracked on some of his entitlement reforms that were in conversations that we had a year and a half ago he does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget. but i would hope that he would not hold hostage these modest reforms for his demand for bigger tax hikes. >> john: well, sorry mr. spoker the president said he will do just that. >> if anyone thinks i'll finish the job of deficit reduction on the backs of middle class families or through spending cuts alone that actually hurt our economy short-term they should think again. >> john: for more on the president's budget and the political battles to come i'm di lighted to be joined again by congressman alan grayson democrat of florida. good evening. you posted on your congressional

web page today the president's offer essentially to cut social security benefits for seniors some republicans seem to like at a. will democrats support it or support cuts to other social programs? >> the president specifically said in september of 2008 he would not change the formula for calculating the cost of living adjustment. that takes $1,000 $1,000 a year out of the pockets of 90-year-old. whether democrats will support it, i don't know, but they shouldn't, we have democrats who say in the grayson o'connell letter they will vote against cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid benefits. >> john: that's with the letter with the congressman credit california. are you getting support. >> we're getting a tremendous amount of support from the public. www.no-cuts.com, and signed our petition to the president saying they oppose cuts in

social security and medicare, medicaid benefits. >> john: let me ask you, is it worth he keeping the sequester cuts and foregoing any new revenues. >> that's not a choice we ever had to make. the social security is not responsible for the deficit. the fund has $9.1 trillion. it's the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. the social security fund has been operating at a surplus now ever since the fund was founded ever since the program was funded. we are. we're 25 year's of anything resembling a problem of any kind with the he social security system. under current law the beneficiaries can get everything they're entitleeled to. i don't know where we're fretting over what might happen in 2027 when we have americans looking for full-time jobs. >> john: we don't like to call these programs entitlements, we call them earned benefits. is there no compromise with the president if he doesn't offer

something like that up. >> that's not the way you should negotiate. the president offered something to nothing that was offered. we're not talking about things that are commensurate to each other. you cannot equate cutting social security benefits, breaking the problems that we have made to ourselves, the covenant that we make to ourselves, you can't equate that to having millionaires and billionaires and multi corporations finally paying their their. >> john: is president obama, is this an elaborate piece of political theater? is he taking a page out of dick morse's playbook and triangle do you latingtrianglelathing. >> this is no a sister soldier moment. the president will find through public polling that this is a

mistake. 90% of democrats and 80% of republicans are against this proposal. you'll find 65% of republicans are against this kind of proposal. it doesn't make sense from a policy point of view or even a political point of view. in fact, the president is putting at risk all the progresses made in identifying the republican party the party in favor of cuts to medicare and social security benefits. >> john: is there any chance by putting this plan for the he is helping the democratic party in the eyes of the american people by drawing very firm battle lines as to where liberals stand on what americans cedar need and need. and in the broader picture is he showing americans who is fighting for him? >> no, this is the approach that we'll save it by destroying it.

this is not the way to do it. there are so many other ways to put social security and medicare on a firm footing forever without harming beneficiaries now or in the further. this is not entitle reform. this is promise reform and it's evil. >> john: i have to agree with you, sir. do you think that he's making a lasting mistake that could wind up damaging democrats for years by putting social security on the chopping block will that doom the party in the eyes of medicine ratmoderates. i'm trying to understand what he's thinking. >> the logic is to give all the benefits that he sees a need to put these programs on some kind of lasting permanent basis that is fully funded, but this is the wong way to do it. there is a danger that he's causing permanent harm to the party. up to this point with the ryan budget we have one party that is for cutting social security, for cutting medicare. that's the republican party.

and for now one party against it it. people need and deserve a choice. if we go into the next election we have one party that is kind of sort of for it. that's not fair to the american people. we need people who will make a decision that is. i know what it means to be a democrat and a lot of other democrats do too. maybe the president needs to be reminded of that. >> john: the website to the petition is www.no-cuts.com. thank you for fighting on this issue. >> thank you very much. >> john: for more on the president's budget i'm pleased to be joined by david sirota co-host on the the "the run down with sirota and brown."

and the returning champion michael tomasky the special correspondent to the daily bees and "newsweek." michael, are the president's offer to the g.o.p. on social security and medicare political genius or malpractice. the republicans rejected most of this plan last december, did they not? >> they did. that's why i don't think this is total malpractice. it's certainly not political genius. i'm not as upset about this as i might be. it's not going to happen. the republicans are not going to accept a deal. as soon as obama continues to insist, as i think he will and he should on the revenue part of his budget, $580 billion in new revenues as long as he keeps that on the table and. so this isn't going to happen.

then the question becomes you know assumeing we just stumbleed forward without any kind of deal where does that leave things and what kind of commitment has obama made on behalf of the democratic party. i think grayson makes a pretty good point. his main point was now the waters are muddy. now there is not a party that clearly, clearly, clearly is against social security cuts. so i do think obama can back away from this. but it's going to be tricky. >> john: what do you think david, given the g.o.p. has already rejected any calls for new revenues is his whole plan d.o.a. and is it theater? >> i think mike's right, it is doa. if you believe in a three-dimensional chess idea which i don't, then you could say well make he's doing this to fire up the left, fire up the democrats to show that there is an opposition to social security cuts. i don't think that's what is going on. but if you see it that way, it's

one way to look at it. what i see the problem is a much longer term problem. going forward. now you have a situation where every republican from now on whether it's the president down to a member of congress can say i support social security cuts just like the liberal democratic president barack obama. that's a problem. >> john: it's a big problem but does he do liberals a favor? i'll ask both of you this. by holding himself up as the moderate in the middle. does he show the liberals are the ones fighting for your benefits. does he help the democratic party in the long term even though this hurts his legacy in the short term? >> maybe. that's kind of a generous way to ladyread it at this point you. >> i think the intention is to have an issue 2014. look at the extra mile i went to

be reasonable with these people. look how far i went. they won't accept one-third of the loaf two-thirds of the loaf. they want the whole loaf. that's what he's trying to do in 2014. the odds of the democratic recapturing the house in 2014 are pretty long. >> john: the problem is, again to go back to the long term is now that as social security gets debated year after year after year, now the democratic party president is saying we may have to cut this. which is if you think about it in the historic context is really frightening. ronald reagan was the guy. ronald reagan was the guy who said that social security has nothing to do with the budget deficit because it's paid for through payroll taxes. that truism remains true today. but now you have a democratic president effectively saying it's not true. effectively endorseing this false talking point that social

security supportedly has something to do with the national debt. >> john: even if he doesn't mean it. if he made this pitch safely knowing it would never happen, he has broken a promise. >> absolutely. he has harmed the democratic brand, which is based on that problem. >> john: david sirota salon.com contributor, and michael tomasky special correspondent with "newsweek" and the daily beast will be back in a few minutes in the program. thank you both. today was an action on immigration although you might not know that looking at congress. that's coming up next.

>> john: the gentlemen announced a bill to expand background checks on gun buyers. that's it apply current law to more gun sales including internet sales and gun show sales but not between friends or relatives. toomey points out this doesn't even count as gun control.

now no matter how much you love guns, you had have to be crazy to oppose this which is probably why groups like gun owners of america are doing just that. >> john: immigrant rights groups across the nation came together for what is called a day of action with problem making immigration reform one of the top priorities of his second term, it seems that a path to citizenship may no longer be such a far-fetched treatment for the nation's 11 million plus illegal immigrants. tens of thousands gathered in washington earlier today for the rally of citizenship. in addition to voicing their support, the rally put a face on a group of people who are often discussed as a mere numbers and statistics instead of millions of real you human beings who are cynically written off as illegals. the action takes place on the week of gang of eight is just about ready to release it's outline for immigration reform bill but it looks like the proposal will be delayed to next

week with several weeks of debate about that bill scheduled to start in early may. i'm honored to be joined by luis gutierrez who serves as chairman of the immigration task force. thank you for coming. >> great to be here this evening. >> john: i appreciate it. immigration reform as you know has been moving inspiringly quickly since november. although there are issues still being debated. now you and the hispanic caucus meet with the gang of eight today. i'm could you curious how it went. do you think there will an bill? >> yes, the senators discussed with us that they have a date of next tuesday. i'm excited and delighted and i can share that confidence with you since one of them said it at the rally today. senator bob mines menendez who has

been a leader on immigration reform. the senators don't share the specifics with us, a lot of specifics and details but they made it absolutely clear that they have a wonderful working relationship with their republican counterparts. they praise their republican counterparts and they said that they have, as you indicated earlier reached a viable way for 11 million people to reach--to legalize the first step legalize, get a work permit, driver's license, be able to travel, get yourself straight with the law, all right, and then ultimately have a path to citizenship. they've been able to do that. >> john: well, i can't tell you how reliefved i'm that the republicans senators are getting along with their hispanic friends. did they give you any specifics?

>> you know, the over all theme is 11 million to citizenship. so, let's put it in a little-- little--1400 people get deported today. yesterday, tomorrow, until we fix it. 1 point million have been deported over the last four years. there is a real sense of urgency of taking the 11 million undocumented who are exploited right? they'ren under class of workers which are pitted against american citizens. >> john: and always have been. >> and taking them and putting them in a safe place. right? what is a safe place. here is a work permit. go get your driver's license. go join an union if that's what you want to do. raise your family. you no longer have to fear being deported. remember, that half of those that legalized in the 1986 immigration reform which is amnesty of 1986 under

interestingly, ronald reagan, 3 million of them, half of them never applied for american citizenship. you cannot legislation late what is fidelity, right to a nation. you can invite people to have full protections in that nation, then there will be those who will decide. the majority of them will decide. but in order to never create a permanent under class, we had a civil war about that, we changed our constitution and way of thinking and there are more ways of changing our ways of thinking you can't have an under class which is what you will have if you just legalize. >> john: we're talking about grandparents who have been here for decades. let's say this bill involves leaving america and having to reapply. >> well, there are some things that we do no our conversations

the whole touch back thing that was there look, i introduced the first bill with senator mccain senator kensy. and it was flake mccain kennedy, that was 2005. let me say if you look at that bill, a bill that many thought was an excellent immigration bill, i'm not saying that this is going to be an identical, but it has the characteristic of reuniting families and keeping families together. people talk about the line. there is a huge line. there is a huge line of people who are american citizens trying to get their wives straight with the law. american citizens getting their wives straight with the law. grandparents getting their children straight with the law. it's about getting--for me, the most important thing and heartening thing is look, there is a road to american citizenship, you no longer

create an under class you expands and opportunities and responsibilities because they'll have responsibilities. i like the whole notion of american citizenship. it says they're just like me. yes they have all the protections just like me but they also have all the responsibilities. i think that--how would i say we the--weave a stronger fabric for the nation and we all have a vested invest to make sure this country thrives. >> john: congressman gutierrez thank you. i hope if it passes the senate it will pass through the house. thank you. i'm joined with david sirota and michael tomasky. michael, the final obstacle preventing this gang of eight will be the issue of farm workers. are we going to see real reform in the next few days? >> um, i don't expect to see real reform in the next few

days. >> john: moderate improvement? >> well, we'll hold on. i'm still a skeptic on this whole business. the farm workers issue is authority one and a tough one for them to find common ground on. you also have to think john, about the process through which this bill is going to make it through the senate and the house. when marco rubio threw up that roadblock a couple of weeks ago when chuck schumer said we're close, and rubio said, hey wait a second. that was about his view that we have to go through full committee hearing process and let every senator offer whatever amendments they want. well amendments are the kiss of death to a bill. everyone who watches the senate knows that. the way to kill a bill is to load it up with amendments one after another have a series of votes and make it so tangled and complicated that there is something in there to make everyone mad. now the house, it's not going to

get a majority of house republicans. i don't think there is any way that's going to happen. so boehner is going to have to bring it up again breaking this rule where the republicans need the majority of the majority. and can he survive that? that will all defend on a lot of factors, how much anger there is about the path to citizenship in republican districts and so. on. the process is going to be difficult. and it will take months in chambers. >> john: and no one is talking about the tea party. you've got so many congressmen terrified of being primaried whereinstates where this is not a big issue. they don't want the tea party to back them into a corner. >> that's exactly right. that speaks to gerrymandering. the house is incredibly gerrymandered. whether it's immigration, gun control or any other issue people have to understand that part of the problem is that gerrymandering. here's how it works. if republicans as they have,

draw the line so that many republicans in the house are representing districts with the winner of the republican primary as the winner of the general election that means the political motivation for so many republican house members is to prevent gun control pro nra candidate running to their right, and anti-immigrant challenge running against them in the primary. mike is right the whole hastur rule that's the fundamental question or one of the fundamental questions on immigration rejerome. >> john: and michael republicans just blocked the dream act a couple of years ago. were it not the changing demographics in america would we have seen anything like this, a compromise coming from the right? >> no, this is an attempt you know to maintain political survival on their part. and you know, if immigration reform does pass, it will be for

that reason. they're really backed against the wall on this question, and they can see the demographic clock as it were turning against them. now when push comes to shove and this bill is close to passage, will rush limbaugh be on his show every day saying, we should pass this, and i'm at peace with the path to citizenship. or will he and others like him be whipping people up or feeling frenzy and an at this and antipathy. >> john: i think you're right. let me go to you on the final comment. >> you're definitely going to see that in the talk radio area, in the conservative--the conservative media machine is definitely going to be trying to whip up that anger, absolutely. the deeper question is whether it will matter. i think there is a split on the right. you saw sean hannity say he

supports immigration reform. it's a question for media voices but also a question for those senators and congress people on whether they will simply ignore those media voice. that's where it will hit the road at the end of the day the question will be will certain representatives from certain states decide i would rather keep my job than get a republican elected nationally. david sirota salon.com contributor, and michael tomasky tomasky, contributor to daily beast. i can't believe i got you both on tv at the same time. thank you for your great analysis. >> thank you. >> john: okay, can you name all the designer drugs? how about the ones that were inevented today? how about the ones that were invented yesterday? that's coming up next.

. >> john: tonight's wtf ohio is all about anarchy in the o

oh-hi-o. ethan was sent home when he showed up in his kindergarten class that he was wearing a mohawk haircut. the teacher wrote a note saying the official said it was causing a disturbance in classrooms. i think it would be soothing to have a classmate that looks like travis bictle in taxi driver just as he's about to blow ajodie foster's pimp. wtf owe ohio. i units that you don't want to replace the sandbox with a more bit but monday ethan was allowed to return to school with a shaved head. now he looks like a creepy cross between jams bond villain and a banjo-playing kid from deliverance.

>> john: as quickly as you make drugs illegal someone is out there making new ones.

maybe that's why there are so many of them. an article in the new issue of new york magazine reports on a new boom in designer drugs material that is often legal and custom fitted to individual tastes. there is so many of these designer drugs they don't necessarily have cute nicknames like bath salts or ecstasy. some are just called four ace toxy det which supposedly feels likes psilocybin mushrooms and finding them is as ago as doing a google search. with me is vanessa corinther of new york magazine and author of "travels in the new psychedelic bazaar." >> john: who is creating these drugs? >> the chinese. >> john: the under word. it's not state sponsored.

>> it seems to be the same labs that are making off market viagra and other drugs that we consider counterfeit because they're not making big pharm any money here but they're just as good drugs as anything else. >> john: in researching this what kind of drugs are being made in china? >> almost all the psychedelic drugs sold in the united states are made in china. there are probably some lsd chemists working in the u.s. but other than lsd people think you knowknow precursor chemicals are coming from china. they're probably going to vancouver where the asian gangs are controlling them, then they come to the u.s. from there. >> john: this is like ebay for drug dealers. you can pick the kind of high you want, the experience you want and read reviews from satisfied customers. have there been arrest for

personal purchase and con supplies ofconsumption of these. >> no, these are more for dealers. unfortunately what has been happening with these drugs because they come in tiny amounts, people who don't have a home scale which would be most of us, don't understand how much to take. because they come in a powder generally. people are dying and yeah, very often the kid who gave his classmate these drugs, and they took it on a friday night he's prosecuted if his friends-- >> john: ifit takes a fatality. >> for sure. >> john: it's amazing to think when you talk about drug legalization it's all about regulation. for the first time ever in america, more americans support decriminalizing cannabis. if that were to happen what would be the future of services like the ones you discovered? >> i think they would go away because most of these drugs are actually inferior products to

something like cannabis. they're perfectly good, but they're not quite as good. >> john: they're knock-offs. >> they're knock-offs but just like handbags. they're not quite as good as the drugs we have. somebody said to me, and it's absolutely right. right now the drugs have won the drug war. this is a reason why the drug war needs to end. people will just get it in their mail now. they just buy it online. they buy something "legal" because it has a different molecule attached to the mdma diagram. >> john: i would have thought there would have been anxiety among americans putting your credit card information out there and buying this online. is it the fact that they can change a molecule and make it not mdma? >> john: sure, we have analog laws. anything that is related mdma is technically illegal.

but you know, no judge is going to prosecute you on some crazy weird chemical that nobody has even heard of. you know, that's just not going to happen. that's very confusing to a jury. the prosecutors do not like bringing those cases. >> cenk: what is the future of this industry? are they going to own everything in ten years? >> apparently. >> john: it's only going to get bigger. >> the dea or the fda made a big push to stop the chinese making human growth hormone and they were very successful in getting some of that stuff shut down. they may really try to tap this down. they may change some of our louis against these drugs personally i think this is just a sign that, you know, legalization of what we know and what we studied is probably a good idea.

>> john: i can't wait to tell everyone to read your story and to see how this story plays out. if china gets us all high how are we going to pay that debt off. >> right. >> john: what a pleasure, everyone should read the piece. >> thank you so much. >> john: whew, i don't know if i'm scared or inspired. i'll talk about drugs more with my panel of none experts coming up next.

>> john: there are reports that anthony wiener might make a political come back and on soldier media i squad all y'all ifasked all y'allif that was possible. and adam wrote make if he ticks it all out. that's not funny. and ana wrote his wife foregave him. that's all that matters. i don't think he broke any laws. that's true. not only did he not break any laws, it's the only political sex scandal without sex and imagine how long it will be

before he gets any. if you have a comment for the show tweet us or post it on our facebook page. all right, i held out as long as i could. but after a nice long adult conversation about drugs i need my fix. for those who go to a higher plane of drug conversation are our non-experts. paul mecurio will be appearing in connecticut at the kate theater and the bridge street live theater on april 12th and 13th respectively. and political satirist is julianna forlano making her debut. welcome. and you all know this man comedian and author of moment of clarity lee camp whose new moment of clarity web show can be seen at www.leecamp.net . should we distinguish between these now designer drugs, which are serious drugs and plants,

apparently that our loving god wants us to have. >> which we had during the break. i'm feeling good right now. why should these be held on the same standard. >> i miss the good ol' days when drugs made you want to eat doritos and not faces. but the larger issue for me there are legal things that are killing people that we're not regulating like smoking obesity andobesity. i think we need a psychedelic drug that makes you want to eat broccoli instead of fries. >> it seems that the chemists could make you feel any way. to make you want to eat broccoli. we should gete lily on this.

>> john: would your reaction be the same as if they came home with weed? would it be worse? is it equally bad? >> first i said i told to you bring weed home. why didn't you bring weed home. then they said, yes i think it's worse and this is obviously the whole country is moving towards legalization of medical marijuana. we have two states now. the thing that frightens me this is china's domain. this is one of our last core american industries, and we've lost it to china, and i blame the public school systems for neglecting science which has left our meth manufacturers filing behind the chinese. >> john: we don't know how many people have been inspired. >> couldn't china just stick to poisoning our cats and dogs? why couldn't they move forward. >> none of our drug laws makes sense. it used to be when it would

cause harm to you or society. but when you look at legal drugs, isn't anal leakage not causing harm to society? >> john: 52% of the american people now favor decriminalizing cannabis. i say that instead of saying legalizing marijuana. here is my question. that is the conservative point of view. it's only been illegal for some 70 years. would we ever see a president willing to do that? my whole point is the last three presidents have been vague at best about their drug usage. if these presidents thought it was bad to do these drugs and kept log people up for smoking weed why wouldn't they turn themselves in for breaking the same infractions when they were younger men. >> if big pharma said it was a good idea, they'll do it. >> you need big money behind it. gay marriage has made the strides that it made because

these politicians want a vote of of. >> john: of gay marrieds. >> if you incentivize them. it's okay to steal people's pension, but it's okay to spoke. >> john: this comes over to you lee, big pharma would have something say about this. cannabis is plants. it's going to put a dent in their pocketbook. >> or if they started selling black lights they could make money off it. the money is not there for them. it's also just a way to imprison so many people. the laws need to change so we don't have 25% of the world's prisoners in our jails. >> yes, we were talking just that and the prison industrial complex, something that our wonderful president that we all

respect, never mentioned. >> there was an off camera conversation, and one thing that needs to be legalized is marijuana. but they won't say it on camera. >> john: a brilliant man, i would vote for him in a second. speaking of legalizing drugs rand paul at howard university, an historyically black university. one guy was thrown out that was trying to put up a sign that howard university does not support white supremacists. he was asked about the civil rights act. >> i've never come out in opposition of the civil rights acts. >> cenk: really? >> i don't like the idea of telling private business owners i abhor racism.

but i believe in private ownership. >> john: so go for it. rand pal paul, i admire him for going. but it was very disingenuous. he was talking about how republicans helped set up the naacp, and ended slavery. no liberal republicans did that. it's been historically conservative democrats and conservative republicans who have opposed civil rights. >> and it doesn't matter who did what historically. it's who is doing what now. who is trying to marginalize voting. that's not the democratic party. they succeed when everyone gets to vote. but when people are marginalized who succeeds? who winds out of that. >> he went there to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. just someone else's truth. >> john: could this help? rand paul going to howard help the g.o.p. get the-- >> they call him the new republican which means you

excuse racism more than you excuse rape. there is this idea that i read through the speech as well and it just felt like a lot platitude. and he has to stand in front of the arc american and say its still their party. as an eye doctor that's bad vision. >> the government and authority should be out of our lives but he was glad to have them there when they were tackling the guy with the sign. >> john: we'll end now with nazis. up next.

you. >> john: time for tonight's f bomb there has been a lot of exaggerated inflammatory rhetoric about gun control recently. let me tell you settle, exaggerated inflammatory rhetoric is worse than hitler. hitler was really big on gun

safety laws. and the first thing that nazis did when they took power was outlaw firearms. if you don't believe me go on twitter and search hitler and gun control. see the response to senator pat toomey and joe manchin's bipartisan gun safety plan from the american illiterati. rush limbouses this for porn.rushrush limbaugh by the way uses this for porn because you may have to deal with fox likes this in your family or your job it's worth looking into. they did have gun licensing in germany before hitler took power. after germany was defeated they passed a law that panned private ownership of firearms and germany's left center government did confiscate guns.

in 1938 the nazi government almost deregulated the transfer of shotguns. permits were extended from one year to three almost and age of purchase was lower from 20 to 18, and they dropped the limits of firearms one could own. that's right hitler was anti-gun control. he did ban guns for some people--germany's views. they could not advantage of his relaxed gun laws. does that sound anything look like background checks for criminals or ban on high capacity ammo clips while duck hunting? right wing media is not going to tell though. they want their followers to believe that hitler was a liberal because he belonged to a national socialist party. but they were socialist only in name owns.

in '33 hitler took way ban labor unions took way bargaining rights and he substantially increased the germany economy and used the force to dominate the world and countries who never attacked him. we call that preemptive war. and hitler hat hate gays so much he could have had his own radio show. don't take my word for it. google all this stuff. the nazi big lie theory continues to play it out. somewhere in hell hitler is furious at these right wing american guys for painting his seam stac hexer on a black man. don't worry he'll tell them when he sees them. i would like to thank c