>> michael: spend more money, of course. this is the war room, i'm michael shure. >> michael: tough times for house speaker john boehner. this is what a rebellion sounds like at the u.s. house of representatives. >> the yays are 1 5. the nays are 234, the bill is not passed. >> michael: that's a bill despite speaker john boehner's

support. a test that he clearly failed. boehner faced an up-hill battle trying to obscure enougher republican votes. 52 republicans defies boehner by killing the vote. if the senate can get it's act together on immigration, all eyes will be on boehner as the bill could head to the house very soon. it turns out that the senate is, in fact, going to get it's act together on immigration. a new plan with a catchy name. border surge with a support of both parties. bob corker and john hoeven of north dakota, wrote the new agreement in hopes of softening g.o.p. opposition. the republican colleagues argue that the original gang of eight proposal didn't do enough to supremesecure the border at mexico.

this new border surge deal calls for 20,000 new border patrol agents, doubling the agency. here's bob corker on msnbc this morning talking about that. >> for people who are concerned about border security. once they see what is in this bill, it's almost overkill. i think that's the issue that people have. i think everyone working together has come up with a way to deal with that issue. so i do hope that we can send it over to the house with the momentum. >> michael: look a smidgen of reasonableness. the deal also features other previously debated ideas. immigrants on tourist and

student visas would not be available for obamacare. even though this new agreement is winning some republican support it can't win them all. many g.o.p. senators say this deal does not do enough. >> apparently plan-b is to breck up this corker-hoeven amendment very very quickly, have a lot of hoopla about border security and try to pass it then with amendment of 60 votes. let's look at the details of the amendment. let's read it before we vote on it. i think once the american people do they'll understand as they came to understand about the underlying bill. it does not truly fix the problem. >> michael: as the bill grinds its way to the senate, house speaker john boehner hinted at the looming house battle. >> this is a very difficult issue. if it weren't a difficult issue

it would have been dealt with some time over the last 15 years. so political football has been kicked around and kicked around. my job is not to try to impose my will on 430 members. my job is to try to facilitate a discussion and build bipartisan support for a product that will address this broken immigration system that we have. >> reporter: speaker boehner said that before his foreign bill vote failure, i think we all know he could not impose his will even if he wanted to. joining us from washington, d.c. is "newsweek" daily beast correspondent michael tomasky. >> michael john boehner we've talked about him a lot this year, as he lost control of the

house now, and is this a little bit of a death nail for his speakership, in a way? >> i think it's probably premature to say that with any certainty, but this is pretty bad. it was known that democrats were going to oppose this foreign bill because of the deep cuts to the food stamp programs, but the fact that he could not get enough republicans to secure passage does look pretty bad. then you flip forward to immigration, and of course the big question is whether he'll be willing to pass a bill with less than of the majority of his len caucus. there is no way on earth that 116--i think that would be 50% plus one 117 whatever it is, there is no way on earth that number of republicans are going to support an immigration bill. if it were to pass the house it would pass with the vast majority of the 200 or so democrats, and a handful of republicans. will he let that hope happen?

vote happen? if he let's that vote happen for the sake of john mccain and lindsey graham and many others say are his party's presidential hopes, and those against the wishes of the caucus, then yeah, i think we can start talking about the beginning of the end for him. >> michael: it's hard to call it his caucus after today. he may want to flip them a little bit of a bird by doing that, by bringing it up for a vote. >> yes. >> michael: let's keep talking about immigration. vice president joe biden is talking about immigration that is getting lost in all this border security debate. >> it's not just legalization, it's defining a clear path, an unobstructed path if you play by the rules to be able to gain citizenship. the same citizenship that renews the spirit of this country over and over and over again.

>> michael: you know when you get whisper joe you know it's pretty serious. is it possible that they will allow legal status but not citizenship because of legal pressure? >> they could do something like that, yes, and this is exactly the point. bob corker said in the sound bite that you played in the introduction package, he said, for those who are concerned about border security, this should answer all their questions. but corker knows, and you and i know, and everybody watching this knows that border security isn't really the chief concern of the republicans in the house. path to citizenship is. they just don't want it. they don't want there to be a path to citizenship for these 11.5 million folks. it's very possible that the house tinkers with that in their version, and if they don't have the path to citizenship then

the it falls apart. >> michael: all the numbers they got out of 2012 with latin voters, this we're so intriangle intranjent on this issue. there are so many people in this party, it's a great point this, is about the path to citizenship which i think comes back to race. who eventually is going to listen? >> it's a tough question. you know there, are people, plenty of people, i guess, in the house of representatives who think along with tim hokemp from kansas. what we need to do instead is get more white people to vote. now that's a recipe for even acrimonyious elections a.

and b i think its self defeating for the republicans in the long term as the latino share of the vote grows. but a lot of people i guess believe that. >> michael: you know the supreme court is not only self-defeating, they issued a defeat in the arizona case for people who take that spirit with them. i guess that's progress as well. senate democrats are finally speaking a language that republicans respond to, which is money. this new border security deal will add $30 billion to $50 billion to the immigration bill. with the market getting crushed today, is this the g.o.p.'s idea of a stimulus package? >> yes yes, i guess it is. that's a good point. well you know, their consistency is not their middle name. i have to say in fairness, you know, if the republican argues that we were promised that the border would be secured in 1986, and it wasn't, that is a fair

point. i have to give them that. if they want to push for tougher border security measures, i think democrats should give a little bit on that as they have in order to get more republican votes. so we actually see it short of--this is well to the right of where we were even a few years ago when bush was the president and john mccain and ted kennedy were pushing the legislation. but it's where we are. it's where our politics are. and if that's what has to be done to get a bill, i guess it's what has to be done. >> michael: and we talk about the importance of this border to these republicans that are republicanning the border. the view from the other side, and the view within the country from latinos soon report shows mexican latinos living in the united states make up two-thirds of all latinos living in the

country. >> it's a real flash points, and the only leverage the republicans feel they have, i guess, is to ask for tightened border security measures in exchange for granting the citizenship. >> michael: you know, i want to talk a little bit about what you wrote. you called--you coined a phrase "the rage caucus" and the political maneuvering of rand pal. you quote:is this progressing exactly the way michael tomasky expected it to progress? >> i should say yes to that, i suppose. >> michael: yes, don't disagree with--right. but it is michael--the rage machine

will kick in harry reid wants a vote pretty fast here. it's just become known today, we really don't know the full extent of the particulars that are in this deal. so that's going to get out. and then the right wing talk, on some level michael, this has always come down to will the right-wing base tolerate enough republican legislators being for this compromised legislation. >> michael: we're about to hear david vitter, who is full of irony.

coming up on tonight's show, mitt romney received a digital beat down in in the last election. he also received a messaging beat down and an electoral beat down. but tonight we focus on the digital thumping. and then a group of high school seniors show up, plan a kegger and spend the rest of the day firing spit balls at scalia. so the faith of prop 8 remains undecided. and later sarah palin's first week back to fox news has been a blip on her career raider but a boon for fact checkers nationwide. it's a thursday in "the war room," and we'll be right back. young turks! i think the number 1 thing than viewers like about the young turks is that were honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw

the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv!

we have a big, big hour and the iq will go way up. (vo) current tv gets the conversation started weekdays at 9 eastern. >> i'm a slutty bob hope. the troops love me. tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. (vo) sharp tongue. >>excuse me? (vo) quick wit. >> and yes, president obama does smell like cookies and freedom.

(vo) and above all, opinion and attitude. >> really?! this is the kind of stuff they say about something they just pulled freshly from their [bleep]. >> you know what those people are like. >> what could possibly go wrong in eight years of george bush? >> my producer just coughed up a hairball. >>sorry. >>just be grateful current tv doesn't come in "smell-o-vision" >> oh come on! the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo)only on current tv. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> michael: president obama's obama's 2012 campaign team recruited a dream team of techies while republicans got their butts kicked. democrats are still strategizing on winning the next digital war while the republicans are franticcally trying to catch up.

in san jose they'll brain storm on how to spread their message on the web. we had howard dean right here in the war room before he headed off to networks nation. >> this is the not the thing that koch brothers stand for. >> michael: that's not what the kochs think. they're co-hosting a hack-a-thon to attract bright, conservative minds. urgent-leaning techies will be problem solving for the g.o.p. the republican party is divided who should run the g.o.p. foray into the digital era, they have looking at companies like digital works but the koch brothers have other ideas and they may be on to something. this week's hack-a-thon could foreshadow how much digital

g.o.p. will have in the next election. formerly on the romney digital campaign treatment, thank you for joining us in "the war room." tell me, what do you hope to achieve with the hack-a-thon. >> the real goal is nonpartisan for example so half of our judges are from the democratic party. the goal is not to push a particular party. the goal is to connect people who believe in liberty. we believe that both sides of the aisle can agree that we believe in liberty whether it's social or economic liberty. all those here believe in the power of technology and we think how we can push liberty. immigration has been close to a lot of people in the valley, and we know a lot of applications are coming up, and a lot of people want to work on that problem. whether or not it solves the

problem for the g.o.p. i would love to see that, but it's a mix of both sides. >> michael: this hack-a-thon is backed by people who back the g.o.p. so when you say its nonpartisan you have people who are participating from the other side, from both sides but, in fact, it's funded by people who don't want to see democrats--what is going to bridge that. >> i can't speak ck on that issue. but the answer to that is open secrets, open gov, open foundation. we have other partners who want liberty for all parties. whether or not ck thinks that, i can't speak to that. their involvement is the same involvement as open secrets and facebook. >> michael: i mean i feel like i can speak for ck, so i will say that i know how they feel

about this. i don't want to put you in position to do it. i will take over for that. tell me, though, is this--stepping away from the politics of it, and going into the fact that, listen, are republicans afraid, and as experience has shown they're having a tough time breaking into silicon valley, and they're clearly under represented and they're not a big demographic. is this part of wooing people as well? >> i do agree that the g.o.p. definitely has a messaging and an outreach problem. i do think that the party takes a very strong corporate approach to the way they try to engage people, and in a sense like we need more the value of grassroots, the valley of connecting people and the power structures that exist in being able to reach people. >> michael: you were just in d.c. so you experienced it firsthand, is it really worlds apart, or do you think it's

closer than people think? what did you walk away with? >> to be fair its worlds apart for both earths. ofa was a real outlier. if you talk to both parties with their own technology, the democratic side is very much open to grassroots and adopting new technology but a lot of congressmen, congress women on the democratic side suffer from the same technology deficit because it's a problem in d.c. they just don't want to--d.c. generally has a different valley system than the technology world. in the technology world it doesn't who you are or where you come from, it's generated by results. and d.c is more how long have you been here. >> michael: of course, stepping away, clearly the democratic party has had better success in that way. >> mm-hmm. >> michael: i'm just wondering

if it's a greater distance between the republicans in washington and silicon valley than the democrats? >> i would agree with that. the democrats are much more willing to hear the position of the digital people or technology people. but 30 years ago the scenario was red. that reflects how engaged the libertarian side in having been able to connect and the shift of messaging over the course has disengaged the valley. >> michael: andy barkett now the cto of the g.o.p. what do you think is the first thing on his list? >> to get the party together to do something as a team. i think there is a lot of back and forth, like you mentioned the rove initiative i think

what he is really trying to do or what he should do is try to bring together all the committees, get the cohesive division together. he now does represent the technology side. >> michael: yes, get the party together, you see them defying their speaker this morning on a vote, and it just seems like it's every part of the republican party art now there is a fracture that needs to be bridged, and maybe that's what he's going to be charged with. you look at these rivalling factions within the party, do you think that is ultimately going to hurt the chances of success at least in the short term with this project? >> with the technology project? >> michael: yes. >> i think that's going to be a challenge, and they're going to have to overcome. the best thing he has by far the most technological expertise in d.c. he has great credentials for being he an engineer manager. every party goes through these

stages. when bush ii was in power, they felt they didn't have a leader, they didn't have a message. when you don't have a strong force as president that's in your party these things can be happening. i think a lot of people see him as a savior. >> michael: that's a difficult place for him to be, but exactly what the party needs. quickly before i let you go, you worked on the romney campaign. you were in boston. the entire republican party did what they call an autopsy on the campaign. what was war digital autopsy that did the party do wrong that you would like to see the party do. >> i contributed to that report, and my main analysis was a culture problem. the way they recruit people to join the campaign, the way they value and prioritize things, what metrics matter, those

things are--those are the things that lead to a successful campaign. as you talk to the folks to them digital was not a toy in the corner. it was the campaign. it was the core of everything that they do. that was my suggestion to them. hire the right people. make sure that you are making decisions properly and investing in the right things, and plan for the advantage--it's massive. before it was just fundraising and messaging. now it takes time to build infrastructure, and you cannot do that now within the primary season and then in general. you have to do it a year and a half out. >> michael: which is part of embracing that too. that's the whole thing. is understanding that and the culture problem, and i would argue the culture war too. it's what is holding the republican party. have a good weekend with your hack-a-thon. thank you for coming into "the war room." up next turned away. women have a right to choice,

although that's not always the way health clinics see it. we'll put light on a rarely reported problem right after this.

>> michael: republicans are gearing up for an all-out war against reproductive rights. earlier this week the house has approved a law that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. don't worry it won't pass the senate, and even if it did

president obama would veto is right away. they are upping the ante. the section senate approved a bill requiring almost impossible standards for abortion providers. women rights advocates say up to 32 clinics would have to shut down if the bill becomes law. the texans for life coalition say this will give women better choices. >> if there are fewer clinics they still have a choice. ifomen go to mico, they will go to the next city over where the clinic is safe and clean and the tools have been sterilized properly. >> michael: i guess going to mexico is technically a choice. pro-choice advocates responded by dressing an orange jail jumpsuits and old fashioned clothes because texan republicans are turning back the time on rights.

planned parenthood said the law will force them to close at least run wisconsin one of wisconsin's four clinics. the war on rights still continues. tracy author of the study on abortion rights called "turned away," we welcome you inside "the war room." tracy, tell us a little bit about this war on women's reproductive rights, and how this 20-week ban goes up against what we know as roe v. wade? >> well, women have been accessing abortions in large numbers, one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime. 1.3 women need abortion services every year. we were interested in this large assault on access to abortion. so for a long time the fight was really about trying to affect

women's decision making, heavy waiting periods, producing consent laws that had inaccurate scientific information. but the recent attacks have been to shut down the clinics. we were interested in what happens to care. what happens when women seek abortion and can't get them and end up with a baby they weren't expecting to have. >> michael: when i hear that there is four in wisconsin and there is only one in the entire state of mississippi. those are frightening things. the other side, are they doing a good job? at first they were chipping away withat it with late-term abortions and now early abortions. they are attacking at all angles and they're worthy opponents. >> the goal has always been abortions. we know it's not about the status of children. if it were about the status of children then you would see a living wage, you wouldn't see a reduction in food stamps, you couldn't see restrictions on

public assistance. it's really about galvanizing a very politically active base that has become the sort of mainstay of the republican party. so it serves a nice political tool. the other thing you can pass an abortion law every year. you can feed your base and in a sense you don't have to do anything about it. it doesn't cost your state any money. it harms women and they're not a part of your voting pool. it serves as role in politics, and as the republican party has begun to fractionalize on other issues, marriage equality immigration, you see them hunker down on the abortion issue. >> michael: tell us about the aspect of the war that your focus was on, what does it mean to actually be turned away. >> it means that women show up at a facility to obtain an abortion, and they're just over

the gestation limit. it's either because the law has been set or that's as far as that provider can go because that's how far the facility will allow them to go. we were looking at clinics where there was no other clinic within 150 miles. in a sense when you're turned away from that facility you end up having a baby. >> michael: that's just literally being turned away. there are no other option. what are the long-term affects on women who are turned away? >> we find really two consequential affects. first, women are having abortion because they know they can't afford another child. it turns out they're right. the baby they're not expecting are three more times to be in poverty two years later. the second, it takes a physical toll. if you have ever been around someone who is pregnant, you know the last part of pregnancy takes a lot on the body. they have more loss days of work, more long-term

hypertension and more long-term negative consequences. those are the two big hits that we see. women are enormously resilient they say that abortion harms women and they regret their abortion and it brings illness and we find no evidence of that at all. >> michael: let's move on to the politics that have. when i hear you talking about the long-term effects it is so chilling. then you hear people like scott walker who was sent to the governorship of a big state and say things, he is supporting mandatory transvaginal tests for any woman who is seeking abortion. this is what he said: tell me why a man in wisconsin has any include about that. >> it's hard for to you imagine that women are doing this as

agents of their own lives. there has to be duped or they don't have information. so scott walker thinks if women are forced to view their images of their fetus, that some how they'll discover that they're pregnant with something. i don't know if he thinks that they were pregnant with a cat or a dog but they'll discover that they're pregnant with a baby and then they'll change their mind. we've been doing research on this subject and we find that half women voluntarily to the ultrasound and many feel that it helps to reinforce their decision. it doesn't illuminate that they don't know what they're doing. so the real harm to these laws, and it's already in place in texas is that they mandate that the ultrasound be done the day before by the physician of record. so now the abortion becomes twice as expensive because. you create all kinds of structures around payment.

you can't charge for the abortion at the same time the you charge for the ultrasound. while the mandate for the procedure is always problematic the real harm is what it sets up in our thinking about women's decision making and what it makes as structural in inabilities to offer care. >> michael: yes, that is the real underlying problem the structural problem. quickly, what will obamacare mean to--it's almost peer in january. what will that mean to women's health? >> it will mean a lot to women in contraception. no copay for contraception is an enormous success for women. unfortunately it's not going to mean anything to access to abortion. they carved abortion out in 1976 with the hyde amendment. >> michael: he had another family on the side, we can--the hypocrisy, it's not new. it's been going on for years.

>> and now we're seeing states ban private insurance coverage of abortion. if nothing else the affordable care act has done a lot for women afford to in regard to abortion. >> michael: coming up on the show next week, hopefully the supreme court will hand down a a ruling on prop 8, it's long and winding road that brought us to this moment. >> well, we face the painful day of the voters of california by a bare majority. saying even the families that we form are not equal under the law. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden

agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us.

very, very excited about that and very proud of that. >>beltway politics from inside the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. >> michael: welcome back inside "the war room."

the supreme court will make it's most important ruling in a generation. whether or not to letcal prop let california california's prop 8 stand. it was the most watched vote in 2008. it passed and thousands of gay doubles had their rights taken away from them. as we wait on pins and needles for their decision to come out next week, we have "the campaign." it tells the story of a campaign. let's take a look. >> if you can take the rights away from one community, what stops you from taking the rights away from another community? >> vote no on 8, thank you. >> you know, i've been raising all this money i want it to work. it's frustrating. >> it's akin to dinking from separate drinking fountains?

>> no, i don't think so. >> taking rights away, it's so personal and so painful. >> michael: joining us now is the filmmaker behind the campaign christie, thank you for being with us. you interviewed many of the people that were fighting for this. was there anything that surprised you about them? about the volunteers you met? >> so many things surprise me about these folks. i was struck with their passion and with their motion. it made it a story i couldn't let go of. people from all walks of life. there were literally grandmothers there. there were very young gay kids who had just come out and this was their first experience to be out around other people. i think the sense of community and what people were looking for in that campaign did surprise me, and it was beautiful. >> michael: yes, you know. i want to take a look at a moving and exciting clip from

the film, which is the night before election day, when people are get something pumped up. we know now in retrospect the disappoint that awaited, but let's take a look at this and get a piece of this energy. >> one thing that i learned in the 50's and 60s is that anger can be your friend. obviously you don't want to go off on people when you're talking to them. but if you take all that anger and frustration, every time you heard a fag joke, every insult, every eyebrow raise, every elbow nudge, you take that and catalyst into your kick. vote no. >> michael: when you see that, and you see the energy there you know, did these people think that they were going to win the next day? or was it putting a best face forward? >> i think a little bit of both. i think that there was a little bit of suspension of disbelief.

when you get to that point you know what's ahead of you, it's election day and it's going to be a long day. it's been a long several months. you go into it thinking, i know we're going to win and that's what gets you through the day. but people had a range of feelings. some people felt there was no way they were going to win. and others felt, this was the moment. 41 states had these bans before california passed prop 8. so in that sense it wasn't a surprise at all. but in another sense, it's california. >> michael: that's the thing. it's california. i naively at the time did think it was going to be good news. i say naively because i thought oh my god this unbelievably black american is going to run for presidency. he's going to win and steamroll california. i was very wrong because black voters in california split their votes in many cases. did you see that? did you get that sense when you

were making the film? >> actually, as it turns out black voters did not vote for prop 8 in a percentage any larger than any other groups. what happened was progressives went out and at the end of the day, he obama was going to win. and those who planned to go in said we're not going to argue. >> michael: i would have argued at the beginning of the day that he was going to win, and vote any way. one of the real curiosities in your film for me was you felt the support in the gay community wasn't as strong as you thought. explain that to us? >> there was an apathy taking place, especially here in san francisco. i think there was a sense that it was inevitable that prop 8 was not going to pass. that was the strongest sense. we were coming off of a victory of this court case, the gay ban in francisco had been overturned after many years.

it was exciting. there was a high around that, and i think it took while to adjust to the reality that this right was going to be taken away. >> michael: it is amazing. prop 8 passed 52-48. so much has changed even in the last five years, i want to ask you about that. a new poll shows 48% of californians now want prop 8 to be overturned, and 35% want it upheld. that's how much has changed. how much did president obama and his global acceptance of gay marriage and endorsement how much did that affect this? >> i think obama's endorsement of gay marriage had a huge effect. he was a little controversy during the prop 8 fight. he came out and said he was against proposition 8 but he said marriage was between one man and one woman like many presidents before him.

that was troubling to many people and that was used in robo calls the night before the election to get out that vote. so that a sitting president would come out and say i believe that gay and lesbian americans deserve the same rights as everyone else is huge. >> michael: and one of the intangible advantages of having a president say that. we expect a ruling next week. you're not a diviner of the supreme court, but you know the issue pretty well, christie, what do you expect to happen? there are a couple of outcomes that are possible. >> granted, the supreme court could do whatever they want but i think that the sources that i'm really paying attention to feel that the court is going to overturn prop 8 by saying that the opponents don't have standing. so that basically they're not going to rule on the merits. therefore, prop 8 will be overturned, and same-sex couples in california will be able to get married. that's a best guess given the questioning that took place.

>> michael: is there something to kicking the can down the road? that's a great ruling, but is it also saying we need more? >> in a sense i think it's kicking it down the state. i think that's where they're comfortable leaving it. i grew up in mississippi where same bans have the highest in the country. >> michael: that makes sense. christie herring we look for that film. coming up, war room trivia, brett erlich and much, much more stick around. (vo) current tv is the place for compelling true stories. (kaj) jack, how old are you? >> nine. (adam) this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. way inside. (christoff) we're patrolling the

area looking for guns, drugs bodies ... (adam) we're going to places where few others are going. [lady] you have to get out now. >> lots of terrible things happen to people growing marijuana. >> this crop to me is my livelihood. >> i'm being violated by the health care system. (christoff) we go and spend a considerable amount of time getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories. (vo) from the underworld to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> occupy! >> we will have class warfare. (vo) true stories, current perspective. documentaries. on current tv.

>> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind...

real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv. >> michael: we started the show tonight with the farm bill and how it is showing cracks in speaker boehner's leadership. it is also a fascinateing bit of depression-era constitutional history. it's the agriculture adjustment act, i knew you know that. the act was passed in 1933. three years later the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional because agriculture was the rule of the states. nownow you know that. let's welcome in our good friend brett erlich. what is going on today and i have a feeling it has to do with sarah palin. >> yes, it does. she has been back at fox for

four days and they have had to issue lengthy corrections of things she said. take a look. >> the affordable care act. i'll say that again the affordable care act. the results making our premiums more expensive with death panels to boot, and hiring 16,000 to 17,000 armed irs agents to implement this act. >> a couple of points of clarifications. she said 16,000 to 20,000 new agents, fox news.com said it's 2,000 new employees. but in addition the death panel she raised again it has been spiked from obamacare. >> they said they were going to save money when sarah palin didn't come back for this year they said the rumor is that she was getting paid less. they didn't want to offer the big contract. she's taking a big cut. they'll lose money by having to

have someone come on and clarify everything that she said. >> michael: can you believe people in alaska said they she would be a great governor. >> it's charming how she's wrong all the time. moving on to the movie " "despicable me ii" coming out july 3rd, but you have to wait that long to see the story of death ray. two men were arrested for making a death ray and shopping it around to local synagogues as a way to target muslim terrorists and shopping it around to the klu klux klan as a way to target their enemies. if you're looking for an amazing read you have to go to www.timesunion.com. it's a three-page spread about these guys, and how they tried to make this death ray which shoots radiation at your friends or your enemies or your frenemys to make them sick to their stomach it's fantastic.

>> michael: a and it has not come out yet. >> no, it hasn't. when i went to find photos of these suspects, i was expecting to see drawings of gru from "despicable me." they have been passing new ordinances to make it illegal to discriminate against people based on gender orientation. the g.o.p. is trying to make the state disorder those local ordinances. so the quote comes from cornell r aser who told someone: so sorry, gay people, you can't wear those tutus that you always wear to work. >> michael: brett erlich, as always. thanks for making us laugh.

have a great weekend. thanks for joining us here in the war room. "the young turks" are next. everyone have a great and safe night. you know who is coming on to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (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. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. ♪ theme ♪

cenk: 11 million people live in the shadows and they live here in defact owe amnesty. >> i don't know how anybody can argue that the reason they're not supporting this legislation is because we haven't addressed securing the border. >> we are on the verge of a huge break through on border security. cenk: we have the break through. we crossed the border. it turns out senators have agreed to a deal. there is no voting yet and the house is going to block it and all that fun stuff but they