♪ theme ♪ >> i permanently have no idea what year going to talk about today. it was a dead news day. >> dead newsweek, really. >> dry as a bone. jacki: yeah. >> it was page 20 on the newspaper looking for some shred of something to discuss. i don't know. may be jacki has some news.

jacki: president obama and the first lady are in senegal. today they visited the presidential palace and a bilateral meeting was held followed by a press conference, then visited what was once a slave trader post. the goal of president obama's trip is to highlight democracy. he is expected to travel next to south africa and tangania. the president is monitoring nelson mandela's position. supporters leaving flowers and messages outside of the building. his family is calling his condition critical, but stable.

the south african president changed his schedule. that is seen asen indication of how critical he is. >> student loan interest rates will be going up. all new loans would be fixed to the 10 year treasury bond rate plus 1.85%. democrats tom harkin and jack reed along with others will introduce legislation today to freeze the current rate for another year. it's the same thing the senate did a year ago. it's not likely to get a vote before congress bolts for the

july 4 recess. the rate would be retroactive which could work to when students will sign student loans in august. 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 there is any chance we'll ever hear the president even say the word "carbon tax"? >> with an opened mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned great leadership so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter) >> cutting throught the clutter of today's top stories. >> this is the savior of the republican party? i mean really? >> ... with a unique perspective. >> teddy rosevelt was a weak asmatic kid who never played sports until he was a grown up. >> (laughter) >> ... and lots of fancy buzz words. >> family values, speding, liberty, economic freedom, hard-working moms, crushing debt, cute little puppies. if wayne lapierre can make up stuff that sounds logical while making no sense... hey, so can i. once again friends, this is live

tv and sometimes these things happen. >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

cenk off air alright in 15 minutes we're going to do the 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. 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 we have to fight hard to make 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! >> welcome to the show. it's the "stephanie miller show." i'm hall sparks filling in this week. we've only got a couple of days left. jacki: no! >> yes just today and tomorrow, jackie. all the big stuff happens when she's away. >> we're going to stay on another week so we can fix the student loan rates and we can

climate change and shut down key stone pipeline. jacki: done, yeah. >> those will all go away as long as steph isn't on the air. wouldn't it be funny if she unfortunately was this kind of twilight zonish lynch pin for the right and they're all sitting around a fire, cooking marshmallows over the body of one of them that didn't obey or something, i don't know what they do at the bohemian grow. as long as we keep stephanie miller on the air we'll have power. now the rituals. pack the s'mores before we do evil. carl calling us to talk about i guess the hangover from the legal ramifications of doma. i'm sure by this time, you have perused the scalia dissent.

>> oh, was it a dissent that he wrote? >> i don't know that he wrote it. my terry is that he dictated it on a phone call with rush limbaugh. it reads like something media matters, like they were listening to rush and they copied it down. >> yeah, arglebargle after all. >> legalistic arglebargle. >> it sounds like a game from hasbro. >> yeah. jacki: if you liked boggle. >> gay people in a little dome as they try to get married will walk up to the podium. >> they throw a red robe over your head and beat you with clubs. >> right. >> yeah, it was -- anybody who didn't expect scalia to be a bigot has never watched the supreme court. >> right. >> what i found interesting is the same thing i found interesting when he dissented 10 years ago in the sodomy case.

he wrote exactly what's going to happen next and exactly how it's going to happen. when kennedy wrote the case 10 years ago in the dissent scalia basically said and now we're going to have. >> gay marriage. >> marriage. that's what's going to happen. now that we have this decision, scalia has written in his dissent, and everybody should read it precisely how it is that we are going to achieve marriage equality nationwide. i used to think that it was likely to happen within, you know maybe 10 or 15 years. i'm actually thinking it will probably happen in the next five years. >> he said like in a foreboding end of a twilight zone movie with a question mark at the end of it, perhaps next session this will lead to federal protection of gay marriage. perhaps next term, that's what

it was when they come back. arguably, this is the case, rachel went off on this last night, basically his arguments a lot of people were reading them he's reading them like it's everilations and open the seventh seal and gay people are raising children. you know, and a lot of people were just listening to his argument as fearful statements and going yeah, that's kind of fine with us. yeah that's exactly where we're headed and there's no real problem with that. why should there be? it rolls up into icky. he actually says homosexual sodomy when he's referencing the other case. he doesn't say the communal laws surrounding sexual behave. he says homosexual sodomy. jacki: which is different from regular sodomy how? >> there is no difference.

it's that gay people were treated differently. there were a handful of states that still had sodomy laws, and only i think three of the handful it applied to everybody. all the other states, just to gay people. >> right. >> i'm wondering if it's going to be worth going through all scalia's dissents. >> it is a great window into the rights view of what this is about. it's the perfect example. >> if we allow this, next thing you know, people will have zipper technology. >> emotionally amish is where he is. >> i like emotionally am issue. it's my favorite punk bad from the 1980's. jacki: they could never get tony to play. >> he's got all six albums. >> the interesting thing though is that he is horribly angry. his argument in the beginning is

that it doesn't deserve to ever be a case in the first place that they didn't have the grounds, because they weren't harmed and he asserts that because the majority says that the, you know, the reason they have jurisdiction to deal with this is because it intended harm upon a group. and he says people who support doma don't intend harm on any group. it was called the defense of marriage act. they're just defending marriage, they're not trying to stop gay people. >> i'm surprised he didn't put some cap van chu's. jacki: nogi. he's using the smarter technology that the right wingers are using these days. no no, no. perhaps you have mistaken my intentions. we don't have anything against gay people, we are just protecting marriage for straight people. we don't hate gay people.

ignore everything that's ever been said about you. >> exactly. then the irony that he is making his case. he read it from the bench being a complete jerk in the whole thing. his argument is this was never meant to harm people. the people making argument against doma are saying people against doma are bigots and saying horrible things about them and that is not the case. the people who supported doma came out and said immediately gay marriage and gay relationships of sinful, that they will lead directly to the destruction of society that the people involved are sick, that this is a slippery slope to pedestrianpedophileia and animal sex. they came out and did exactly what they said they weren't doing. jacki: immediately afterwards.

>> i agree. not everybody is against doma. everybody else who knows what doma is and are in favor of it, yes, i think they are bigots. people may be sitting in powerful places in robes deciding the fate of people over these types of laws that don't see that. i think they're woefully ignorant bigots. >> he said having children biologically is the root of marriage and that's why we have marriage and to give it to gay people undermines that entire idea. now, i will agree with him on one front is that if marriage itself the construction of marriage is a tribal act to trace lineage to avoid incest. the idea is we've got to know

who's kids are who's because they're all running around in a small space and we need to know which ones are related to which ones so they're healthy. they caught on of making a list of who's having sex with who and check with us and only have sex with that person for a while at least. that's the whole purpose of the actual structure was kind of an anti incest guard. >> that's maybe where the idea of mo nothing my comes from more closely. the idea of marriage was, you know ear muffs jacki was how we treated women like chatle, to transfer your property, your wife, your daughter, 13 heads of cattle for jacki for example. jacki: i'm worth 14. >> the crazy thing about this

is, this is the least of the changes to the traditional marriage that have occurred over the last hundred years. far more things have, you know, changed the institution of marriage. i mean what's a bigger change, allowing two gay people to get married and have marriages that are precisely the same as straight people, or allowing spouse a to have dominance over another and all of a sudden deciding they will have an equal partnership? >> absolutely. the idea that you shift from property to partnership is huge, drastic shift. you're absolutely right. there also was and we have to take a break and i want to make sure everybody knows, karl frisch and bull fight strategies will fight on as we move toward to in evident sable future scalia is predicting, the federal protection of marriage. >> i think it is scalia's i have

a dream speech for everyone else. i have a nightmare. it's the same one every night. i don't understand how i'm losing the conversation. i yell the most in the room. the question though becomes do you think he's right about the next term of the supreme court real quick? >> maybe not the next term, but certainly in the next few years. >> yeah, because all the couples that get married in california and massachusetts. >> several lawsuits are working their way to the court already. >> all they've got to do is move to utah. thanks so much, appreciate it. we'll talk to you again. jacki: bye karl. >> coming up next, representative mark tecano calls in to talk about the supreme court ruling. he is an out gay member of the state -- legislature, so we will talk to him about his involvement and the future of the movement. we'll be back after this.

>> it is the happening spot. >> it's the "stephanie miller show." documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> occupy! >> we will have class warfare. (vo) true stories, current perspective. documentaries. on current tv.

(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. >>current will let me say anything. ♪

>> welcome back so the show. i'mal sparks filling in for stephanie miller. we are doing our best to soldier through this non-newsweek. jacki: i have an update. the bidding is now up to 18 cows a mule and some goats. that's apparently what i'm worth. hal: there's a guy, i don't know if people can see but there's a guy out in the hallway now shepherdy looking dude with a bent knobby stick and a bunch of livestock. she looks good with, yes this is perfect for me.

jacki: 18 cows, a mule and a goat. i have a small apartment. hal: they go to your dad. jacki: my dad doesn't want them. he lives in a high rise. he doesn't want them. hal: you know, coin money was initially in vented for prosecution and the exchange of do youries at a certain point for literally the purchasing of women, because not everybody wanted chickens in trade for sex all the time. the people in the tribe started talking and going um, i noticed that carol has a lot of chicken a lot of chicken doesn't raise a single chicken and the chicken guy is always over at her house. what's up? so coins were a better way of going look, you take this, you can buy whatever you want. jacki: the better to hide the whole chicken thing. >> belly dancers from that part of the world have little coins hanging from their jut fit

because i'm so good at what i do. jacki: really? >> there's a great book, it's like the little book of money or whatever it's all about monetary history it's pretty terrific. some of its theory, but some historical fact that you may not know. the idea was that the exchange for -- that's why they call it the oldest profession, because it was literally the job that was created for the exchange of money. jacki: really? >> yeah, because of the social idea of like i don't have any chicken. i don't know what i can do. jacki: i've given away all my chickennens. hal: what else do you got? i make a wicked omelet. i don't have eggs. they're all gone. part of it, that's where that came from. that being said, same-sex

marriage i guess at a time where it was not that uncommon. men were land holders and had you power and if two of them wanted to join their fortunes together. jacki: is that the euphemism joining their fortunes together? hal: because they had stuff women weren't allowed, men were. if two of them wanted to get together, the town had a vested interest in whether or not you guys were going to stay together. jacki: ok. hal: because you put your farms together start working together, people start working on your fields and then you leave, everybody gets mad and kind of like now i don't know who i work for. they would stand in front of the whole town and say we promise to stay together. jacki: really? same-sex couples. hal: same sex couples. this idea that somehow same sex relationships for marriage is new is ridiculous. by the way the -- yesterday's rush limbaugh freak out was

classic. do -- i don't know that we have a rush clip today. i'll see if i can dig one up. his argument yesterday and it was amazing after the ruling came down and we left the studio. i said i'm going to see what's going on. rush started giving us a history lesson on where he thought the you know, the -- how this gay marriage thing started in the first place this whole debacle began. jacki: ok. hal: his theory was and you can listen to yesterday's show on his website and check me if i'm wrong, i guess they tribe the show at some point. his argument was everything was going along fine with hetero sexual marriage. it had been around for thousands of years the cornerstone of society, there was nothing wrong with it. this is from a guy who had three. two? four? jacki: a lot, more than i had.

>> multiple. he's enjoyed it so much, he's tried it a couple of times. he's arguing everything was fine with straight marriage. cornerstone of society. jacki: toll works. hal: all of a sudden one day these are his words gay people decided they wanted to get married and basically threw a monkey wrench in the whole thing. all of a sudden out of nowhere gay people just decided i want that too, and therefore you have to give it to me and now they're messing up our whole society and our whole legal system and using the supreme court and the liberals to crowbar it into existence when it had no purpose. jacki: i have yesterday to hear an explanation of how two men or two women getting married impacts your heterosexual marriage. hal: that was exactly the result in many ways of the majority opinion yesterday. the people who were bringing the case were not victims who were saying that, you know, prop eight should be legal and doma

should be legal or were not victimized by it's being taken down at all. the people fighting against it were having their rights limited. there is some religious liberty stuff. i don't understand wheres legislation of belief at some point, which is really what the michele bachmann's of the world are going for. jacki: in the words of nancy pelosi who cares. hal: can we play that real quick. michele bachmann said that god defined marriage and man cannot and the supreme court thinks they're god but they're not. they asked nancy pelosi what she thought. >> michele bachmann essentially said that the decision today cannot undo god's word. your answer to that? >> who cares. >> who cares what michele bachmann thinks? hal: here's the thing though. i have news for rush limbaugh.

gay people didn't come up with the idea of i want to be married at all out of the blue, ok? many of them were in long-term relationships and quite happy to be in long-term relationships and weren't necessarily clamoring for the rights of marriage until they came up during the aids crisis of the issue of not being able to see their partner die. >> it's the federal rights afforded. >> you don't know you're being denied until you find yours confronting it. that was the wake up call, rush. that was the moment, when they couldn't go into the hospital room or i.c.u. and hold their partner's hand while they were passing away. that's why this is necessary. that's why this is an attack on them. we'll be back with representative mark tecano from the great state of california. doing the things that i'm given to doing anyway, by staying in

touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. i've worn lots of hats, but i've always kept this going. i've been doing politics now for a dozen years. (vo) he's been called the epic politics man. he's michael shure and his arena is the war room. >> these republicans in congress that think the world ends at the atlantic ocean border and pacific ocean border. the bloggers and the people that are sort of compiling the best of the day. i do a lot of looking at those people as well. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people, but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them right?

♪

>> that's it, man game over, man! game over. hal: that was a -- i think that was michael savage. jacki: was it? hal: no. with us on the line right now is representative mark at takano. hello, representative, good to have you with us. >> good morning hall. good to be with you. hal: certainly a historic day yesterday, i'd love to hear your take on where we are where we find ourselves and where we're headed. >> well, where we are is all californians who want to be in same-sex marriages can do so, and the federal governments will

now recognize those marriages not only in california, but wherever same-sex marriages are legal. hal: right. again, we've been reading some of scalia's dissent. he's certainly having a clutch the pearls moment in dealing with where he thinks this is going, and his idea that he thinks it's going to under equal protection eventually lead to federal protection for gay calls. i agree with him. i'm just nod afraid of it. how do you feel about the future of it? >> well, you had a three part question there. i feel jubilant. i don't think justice scalia really should be afraid of it. he has his own reasons for being afraid, such a terrible thing but really, this is really a magnificent reaffirmation of our

nation's ideals. that's how i see it. it's been an -- we began an imperfect union. we've become a more perfect union over time, including white males who were poor, who were originally not considered really competent to be full and equal citizens of the nation and we expanded the meaning and reach of the constitution to include women, and people are color and now, this generation of americans now understands that laws -- laws, such as those that prevented gays and lesbians and same-sex couples from getting married, those laws only serve to oppress. the ties that bind is a phrase

that justice kennedy used in the lawrence decision. he's shown us all to be, you know very eloquent -- a very eloquent justice. hal: during the questioning period what audio did come out he was even asking at what point did the public attitude change is this it was like he was looking for a hinge moment from a historical perspective, like when did we hit the tipping point and is it now an inevitable thing and are we now voting on inevitably. >> our country, public sentiment changes and evolves.

i've been back and forth on that long plane ride from california to d.c. and d.c. back to california. i've been reading the book "the team of rivals." you know, just to think that our country, that so many young men enlisted as members of the union army and fought over the principles of savory, people came to the point where they would lay down their life for another person's rights is a very inspiring story of our nation. to understand that same-sex marriage really hinged on so many straight people coming to understand that equality and freedom, those principles are meaningless unless they extend to everybody. hal: yeah. >> and i'm just so moved and

inspired by that, really. you know, the moment that i think started it appear right after prop eight passed, and i had i was a high schoolteacher. a group of students came to me in 2008 in the fall of that year or -- maybe it was 2009. they said mr. takano, we want to start a gay-straight alliance at this high school, but no teacher here has the time or they just are kind of hostile to it, even the idea of starting one on campus. it's the first time i had seen students themselves decide to take it into their hands. they were outraged at prop eight. i noticed a shift in students, just that they had taken it up, young people had taken up rights and same-sex marriages as the

civil rights issue of their generation. i began to sense that hey, you know, this might even be a moment when i. hal: a generational shift right. >> it even caused me to think of seeking higher office again. hal: it certainly is inspiring when you see that happening, you see a ground swell. you are right to say that we the country, a lot of opponents to this have argued that tradition in history dictate the future regardless, that we are -- we have a definition of marriage, it's been that way for a very long time and that it's got to stay that way. my argument to them is well, we used to have permanent forms of government, we had two man arcky andmonarchyand theocracy and

the shift was as drastic as how they perceive marriage. this is indicative of the american experiments not contrary to it. >> right. they root authority and tradition. they're interested in order and just not having things fall to anarchy. the argument gets to be out of control and hyperbolic that america itself is going to fall apart if gays are allowed to marry. you know, actually, interestingly enough i find that among my lgbt friends when

you think about marriage is a very conservative institution. it's about stability and gays and lesbians want to be a part of that. they want stability in their lives. you know, this whole experiment of being open and out and, you know understanding the meaning of what it is to be -- understanding yourself as a gay person or as a lesbian bisexual transgender i think many in the community have began to understand that it's meaningful important relationship to them as well. to be equal was to respect yourself and to respect yourself and demand respectful relationships that you're in. hal: it's curious to me that the arguments against it seem to be that it softens the structure of marriage, the institution the

concept that the social stability that comes with its when the exact opposite would seem to be true, that you would have an entire swath of people who desire stability and to help, you know, to bond together for a long term, reliable relationships from a social standpoint. >> it's an affirmation of monogamy, that you take yourself out of the running for all these different possibilities this is a very conservative attitude.

i think it's a great day. yesterday was a great day for our country and i think it's just kind of funny a one wag that i know says let's let the gays marry. they should suffer like the rest of us. hal: that seems to be kind of a running gag with a good deal of my friends actually. it doesn't necessarily do much for straight marriage at the same time. most of my friends who are stand-ups, their material has done more damage to the institution of marriage, my male married comic friends. jacki: their own marriages. hal: discussing their marriage on stage has done more damage to gay marriage than anything could ever do. congratulations and thank you for your continued support of this, as well.

i saw your statement yesterday about how far we've come and however we have to go yet. i just appreciate it a lot and i think many people do. thank you so much and thanks for joining us today. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> there he is, representative mark takano of the great state of california, representing quite frankly a big district that is, you know, not a big california me trop listen like san francisco or l.a. or san diego that you would think has a lot of people and therefore is very liberal riverside area. jon lovitz is going to join us. jacki: how exciting. hal: after the break. he has a new vod cast. jacki: a blog. hal: you know the difference between a blog and vodcast is? you can charge for one. we'll see if that's what he's trying to do. by the way, jon lovitz and i performed in dubai together.

he was there when i got the religious police called on me for part of my show. jacki: this will be interesting. hal: more when we come back. i'm hall sparks, and this is the lovely jacki schechner and the warm and inviting tony. >> coming up after this commercial, i will be talking even louder. >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show." ♪

(cenk) it's go time! it's go time! it's go time! go time. you know what time it is. go time! it's go time. it's go time. what time is it rob? here comes the young turks go time! it's go time. oh is it? oh, then it's go time. anybody? anybody? what time is it?

oh, right. it's go time! current tv is the place for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv. ♪ >> welcome back to the "stephanie miller show." i so love this album. this is doug paxel.

it was great to be part of the production team and see it happen. i'm singing background on a couple of the songs. i'm just say that go. don't panic. >> on the line with us is jon lovitz and against my better judgment, i'm going to bring him on the air. how are you? >> great how are you? spectacular. i don't think we've spoken at length since you and i went to dubai together. >> you know what happened during that show, they said i don't know if you know this, but they said don't -- they said don't make fun of the people there or anything. we said got it. i don't know if you know this, but as you and i performing together stand up and you went first. hal: yeah. >> you were on stage and you said, doing a joke, nothing

disrespectful, you said mr. calisa. a guy in the audience went nuts. >> ran out yeah. >> i don't know if you could hear it. he goes call the authorities call the authorities. i'm like oh, god he's going to shoot me. we're in dubai this is not good. the police came and took him away. it was like a -- it was only one guy got upset. all you said was mr. calisa. >> i was referencing because we were staying in that to your, the burg dalisa. he was given $10 billion to finish the to

your. they named it after him. the gift shop still had things that had the wrong name on it. i was being a character being kind of dismissive of him. that was the whole purpose of it. that was enough. this dude threw his arms up and walked out. by the time the cops got there. jacki: did you just keep going? >> i finished my set and walked off stage and people were going oh ok, the police are on their way. you go up and introduce john and come down here. it was bad. [ laughter ] >> so that's our history. that's jon and i. now jon. >> 800 people for something, one guy got upset. hal: yeah. >> he flipped out. hal: by the time the cops got there, i was already out in the lobby taking pictures. they said go backstage. i went out. by the time they realized i

wasn't going backstage they went where did this guy go. i was taking a picture of an enormous sheik and his wife, who i could not touch but he wanted my picture with him. i was taking a picture with this important chic. they said if that man is not upset with him he did not say anything bad. they wagged their finger at him. he said i did not get upset. i thought others might get upset. you weren't supposed to bring up jews at all. you got a little nervy. [ laughter ] >> i know, but the class clown you know what i mean, you're not supposed to bring it up, well now i have to. hal: right, you were doing your bob saget is gay song right as they were walking up. i was like no! it was amazing. jon, i had the joy of performing

at your club, as well and i've always been a huge fan approximate i want to let people know about your love it lovitz or leave it. now we drop you when i'm trying to do your sales pitch. >> can you hear me? >> go to johnlovitzcomedyclub.com for the details. you go there this saturday at 8:00 i'll be doing it on stage with dana carvey. jacki: how cool. hal: what about the vodcast. >> that is it. hal: doing it with dana carvey on stage. never mind.

>> we record it, and there's a you tube channel, jon lovitz vod cast network. it will also be on itunes. i'm excited to do it. i love doing radio. you're doing it right now. don't you like it? >> i do. i do. the ability to express a long form idea is very helpful. like you always, right when you finish, you think you'd be exhausted, but you want to keep doing it for another two hours. >> and you're filling in for stephanie miller? hal: yeah, all week long. >> hellaphanie. hal: es conflating us. jacki: jon, do you have a different guest every week, like dana this week, but a different guest every week? >> yeah, i do it once a week, i

do a live, different guest every week. once a month i do it on the stage at my club, and the other times, we have a state-of-the-art vadcast studio. you should come by and see it. it's incredible. hal: i insist, it would be great. >> it's brand new it's really exciting. hal: i think it's great that you're broadcasting. >> we'll have other shows. we have f.y.i., we have sports shows, all kinds of shows comedy shows. it's very exciting. i know hall, you're going to be at my club apparently. not sure when. >> i want to say august, but i'll have to look it up. i think they just brought the offer to me, so we'll do all the mechanics. i will announce that. >> thank you. hal: jon, it's always great to

perform with you such a funny guy. we're up against the break. we'll be back with some really interesting snowden news for the snowden fans. jacki: it gets me excited. >> tony found the clip of rush limbaugh that i was talking about, and yeah, you did. you grabbed it for me. i appreciate that, while i was yapping. we're going to play that four, his reaction to doma, where straight and gay marriage came from is hilarious. we'll be back after this.

hal: now we're on. now we got to stop talking about what we talk about during the break and talk like we do news for a living. jacki sheckner is here with the news for real. jacki: i have real news. if ecuador grants asylum to snowden, there may be economic consequences. senator bob menendez who heads up the foreign relations committee will block a renewal that ecuador doesn't need to be awarded for bad behavior. blackmail is being accused.

snowden meanwhile still in the transit area of the moscow airport, russia claiming since he has not crossed a border into the country, he can't be extradited. snowden is traveling with legal advisor sarah harrison and neither is booked to fly out in the next few days. >> the gang of eight are hoping tonight's the night they can get a final vote on the bill. yesterday, an enhanced bored security amendment passed by a vote of 69-29 doubling the number of agents along the u.s. mexico border, calling for 700 miles of new fence and authorizes money for new radar and unmanned drones. the additional security measure secured and additional 15g.o. approximate p. votes. some republicans remain convinced it's just expensive and ineffective. >> the supreme court's ruling on doma and that it's unconstitutional does fix

married same sex couples get the same benefits at heterosexual couples, and now can apply for visas. patrick lay he has with drown his amendments to fix this in equity. the house will work on reform independent of what the senate approves. republicans say tackling reform for political gape is the wrong way to go. i thought that's why they were doing it. originally. they'd rather prioritize government spending and debt reduction, taking on those issues first. i'll probably get into this a little more next hour. the new acting head of the i.r.s. is testifying in congress again today answering questions from the house ways and means committee again about the agency scrutiny of group seeking tax exempt status. warfare put out a report monday. we'll get into that a little after the next news brief. back after the break.

>> no, they said "make us a turkey and make it fast". >> (laughter). >> she gets the comedians laughing. >> that's the best! >> that's hilarious. >> ... and the thinkers thinking. >> okay, so there is wiggle room in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> she's joy behar. >> ya, i consider you jew-talian. >> okay, whatever you want. >> who plays kafka? >> who saw kafka? >> who ever saw kafka? >> (laughter). >> asking the tough questions. >> chris brown, i mean you wouldn't let one of your daughters go out with him. >> absolutely not. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me? >> absolutely! >> (singing) >> i take lipitor, thats it. >> are you improving your lips? >> (laughter). >> when she's talking, you never know where the conversation is going to go. >> it looks like anthony wiener is throwing his hat in the ring. >> his what in the ring? >> his hat. >> always outspoken, joy behar. >> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> only on current tv.

this show is about analyzing criticizing, and holding policy to the fire. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal, or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i'm given to doing anyway, by staying in touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. i've worn lots of hats, but i've always kept this going. i've been doing politics now for a dozen years. (vo) he's been called the epic politics man. he's michael shure and his arena is the war room. >> these republicans in congress that think the world ends at the atlantic ocean border and pacific ocean border. the bloggers and the people that are sort of compiling the best of the day. i do a lot of looking at those people as well. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people, but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them right?

>> you can tell so much about a person from the way they live. just looking around, i can tell you're a genuinely dirty person. >> do not go in there! woo! hal: welcome back to the "stephanie miller show." i'm hall sparks. on the line with us, i guess waking up with the doma hangover is david bender, political director for progressive voices.com. how are you, sir? >> i am original hangover, that's a bad series of movies. this is reality. i got to say the strangest

thing happened to me yesterday hall. hi jacki. jacki: good morning, love. >> the strangest thing happened. i found myself agreeing with antonin scalia. hal: i found myself, too just differing in tone and temperament. what particular part. >> i was rereading it now just to see if i remembered exactly what he said and this is the money quote and he's absolutely right. some will despair at today's decision. that is the nature of a controversy that matters to much to so many. the court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. we owed both of them better. i dissent. you know he's right. hal: on that particular part?

>> optic part, because what they did is in essence what they've been doing with voting rights and ipsa many cases they punted. it was a great thing and there will be practical changes in people's lives literally now couples that were one part facing defortation, now the federal government will stop doing that. these are wonderful things, but the truth is, now in california, the 13 states that will allow same-sex marriage will be able to create laws and protections based on that. the other 37 are not told that they have to do this, and this is the exact opposite of what happened in loving versus virginia in 1967. they were told it's unconstitutional to say that

blacks and whites cannot marry. that's not what this court did. hal: right absolutely. it did not open -- it opened the legal door for it, but it did not go so far as to say openly what the reality of the legal precedent they were setting was. basically, they laid down the groundwork that federal protection of gay marriage is coming and it's sort of an unstoppable force but we're not going to actually make it -- put it into effect. jacki: is it fair to say that that wasn't the part of doma that wasn't in question before the court. from what i understand, it was only part of the defense of marriage act that was under consideration based on the case before it. >> it's very unlike the supreme court to expand on something like oh, let's call it citizens united where they took a very narrow case. hal: used it as a crowbar. >> a huge crowbar. hal: here's a clip of rush

limbaugh explaining that gay people just really have no business picking a fight about marriage in the first place. check this out. >> for all of human history marriage was that between a man and a woman and everything was hunky dori. everything was fine. people who supported marriage weren't bigots on sexists or racists, they were just people with triumph of emotion over logic. they get married over and over again, but that's all it was. there was no hatred associated with it. there was no nyanya, i go do this and you can't. there was no impugning people who didn't get married. they got married if they wanted to and they raised family, the family tree and that's the way it was everything was fine for thousands of years.

then all of a sudden one day homosexuals decided that it wasn't fair that they couldn't get married so they began to agitate and stir things up. hal: right that's it. so all of a sudden. >> all of a sudden. hal: gay people. >> it just happened. hal: gay people just decided that they were going to agitate. jacki: yeah, the gay agenda had to start somewhere. [ laughter ] >> wouldn't you love it if rush actually new anything -- anything -- about history and understood that marriage up until, you know, really this century was a transactional thing, had nothing to do with love it had everything to do with property. hal: purchase. >> acquisition. that's the history of marriage. if he even knew back to say the 1950's and 1960's, when the three divorces that he's had would require him to go to reno

and spend six weeks because divorce was a much harder thing to do than it is now in the era when rush limbaugh one day decided, you know, divorce would be easier, i'm going to do it a lot. let's do that. hal: right. >> talk about an institution. hal: later on, we'll play a little bit more of where he goes, you know, where we've got a clip of rand paul bringing up his concerns with glenn beck, another great thinker on marriage equality on their issue with polygamy. polygamy was outlawed as part of the idea when things were still based largely on property rights. the idea of being a look, we'll put up with the richest guy in town buying the prettiest girl in town, but he can't buy them

all. not that women weren't property, was that this guy was cornering the market on all the hot chicks in town. that's why we got mad about polygamy, not because of an imbalance in relationship, but that somebody was hoarding. >> we're back to talking about stephanie now? hal: i would actually like to play this for you david and get your response. of course, we're still talking with david bender, political director of progressive voices. progressivevoices.com should be in your book marks. you can listen to this one mine and lots of others. let's play this, this is rand paul talking to glenn beck, highball is wearing a boy scout uniform during this whole conversation. >> again, i don't know paula deen's. hal: the other clip. he is wearing a boy scout

uniform when he's talking to paula dean. >> rand paul. i believe i sent it to you tony. hal: rand paul makes the assertion that -- he goes -- glenn beck is pushing his whole what's the difference between whether it's one man or one woman or two women and one man i don't know what website he's looking at in particular, and that's when rand paul says or who says it has to be human at all. explain to me, david bender how the right has an issue with understanding consent because they immediately go to children, goats and dogs, like that, from gay marriage from two adult males or two adult females or two adult bi-schools or transgender people, what have you. jacki: all human. hal: all adults. jacki: all human. hal: all capable of making adult

decisions, over 18, this whole thing that is necessary to have a normal marriage in this country insofar as the structure of it to i'm going to marry a pet that can't speak couldn't in any way give consent, but somehow that will be ok. basically, they think that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to the legalization of rape of humans and animals because consent to them doesn't factor into the thing where you say i do. explain this to me. it's driving me nuts. >> well, my dog is cooking breakfast for me right now because as my spouse, that's what he does every morning. hal: sure. jacki: don't even give people that ammo, david. you know that's a slippery slope right there. >> well, look, he doesn't do a very good job of cooking breakfast, lets be clear. opposable thumbs really help. here's the truth. they make things up. that's what they do.

the essence of fear mongering is to take things which are not true and scare people with them. it always involves, and by the way, this is not a new phenomenon. the same thing happens when we had the bans on interracial marriage. it will break down society racial mixing is going to be the end of america. we're going to see the destruction of everything we care about. they used the same language about unit cohesion to say that we should keep the military not integrated back in the 1940's, because whites could not be a foxhole with blacks without somehow losing -- hal: i don't know, i'm fighting. >> exactly so this is not a new phenomenon, and it was a lie then it's a lie now. it will be repeated over and over again because hey that's how they make their money. hal: right. well said.

>> rush limbaugh is a carnival barker. you know if you want to look at bearded laid, you know, you go into his tent. hal: that is no way to talk about glenn beck and it's not a full beard it's just a goatee or something. >> glenn beck is not a full beard. hal: no, not in any stretch. ford, glenn beck does not have a full beard. >> to sum it up, this is a positive step for the country. it is a great thing for californians. they simply punted and sent it back, it is a great great day and we should be happy about that. hal: yes. they could very well kneecap the entire process and everybody start from scratch. >> but exactly what representative takano said earlier, we are always slowly steadily trying to build a more perfect union. yesterday, we got a little closer. hal: absolutely. thank you, david bender,

political director or progressivevoices.com also the progressivevoices channel. tune in. i have no doubt this is going to be a continually unfolding story as the next lawsuit that opens up the possibility of federal rights will be right around the corner. it's scalia's fear is right. >> it will be in utah. hal: you can call in in the next segment, 1-800-steph-1-2. >> what in the name of holy hell is going on here? >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show." ♪ >> i can count on one hand the number of native american women i know that have not

been raped and battered. >> are indian cultural traditions standing in the way of justice? >> violence, rape. natural hunting ground, i guess. >> men do it because they can. >> only 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... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. 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.

♪ >> i am quite sure they will fix it. hal: welcome back to the show. i'm hall sparks. we are going to take your calls. 1-800-steph-1-2. i want to play the rand paul clip. we have that. tony? tony was napping. i can't say i blame him. he and i start prattling and the whole room goes to bed. craw, let's see if we can get that, rand paul talking to glenn beck because one of them alone is not enough. tony, are you all right? >> i made a mistake recording

it, give me a minute. jacki: dude, party down! hal: fix it and we'll -- yeah. let's go to james in florida. hey, james. caller: hey, how are you doing? hal: good. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to qualify first, i don't agree with either one of them. my issue is why is the government involved at all in marriage? you know marriage is a religious sacrament just like baptism or sunday morning. i'm glad doma is struck down, because compassion is a completely different thing. we should have compassion for everyone and they should ever all the rights anybody does. hal: right.

caller: what i look back is where did the problem start? it started back when we were a colony and when it said if you marry your slave, to do so, you were casted out which meant death. the first marriage license was given out in kansas in 1858 to allow a white man to marry a black woman. that's where the problem started. hal: the licensing of relationships by the government. caller: period. hal: yeah. there's certainly a big argument in that direction that the government has no stake in your relationship. obviously, doug stanow has a bit about talking to your girlfriend about how in love your, i'm so in love with you we need to get the government in on this. it's an element where it's absurd. i would go so far as to say that

churches in their essence were the original forms of governing and a lot of times just the social structure and environmental control structure of the tribe. they acted like churches. obviously most churches that have a history like the vatican or mormon church or, you know, that are actually structured on that hirearial level operate like governments and did for a long time. it's the verbal equivalent of a written marriage license. now the whole town knows you two of a couple and the church is cool with it and everybody knows

the church is cool with it, that's what a religious sacrament is in that reward. i would say it's been governmental all along. the argument has been in the court case that there's a societal benefit from the codifying of the structure of a relationship, that we all have a stake, and that marriages and the having of children in marriages solidifies the entire community, and we all have a stake in that, and that's why it does it. it's why the church did it, it's why the government does it. caller: i still have issue with that. you know i mean that's great we should be able to gain all the benefits from it, but the only reason why the government should be involved is in case of misconduct or divorce. hal: it's a legal contract at this point. i totally agree. i think at this point it's

almost like it exist to say deny rights to people who couldn't. jacki: what if you want to be married and you aren't religious. hal: that's what i mean, that's what marriage license, this is the secularizization, the reason they would hand a license to a black man who wanted to marry a white woman no church would do it. it is a value that we establish. you captain go to the church and get the communal protections of that, so the government will give you a license to do it. it is the secular arguably the atheist version of marriage. as a good morning body, and that's what tripes are transcribes created churches, and the religious hierarchy to agree that we all have a purpose, a raise on detra.

in the united states, you can serve a religious system and or not, but also be an american. so, i don't mind so much that if the church is going to do it as a codification, that the government can do it as a codification, because it is arguably a tribal act regardless. i appreciate the call. i think it's important that we have that discussion. we're going to have that rand paul clip when we come back on the other side. we had calls about it, too. i want to play what he said before we talk about it. more on the "stephanie miller show." next our john armoth from my original home state of kentucky to talk about this and the immigration bill, but we'll be back right after this. 1-800-steph-1-2 is the number. (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.

>> did anyone tell the pilgrims they should self-deport? >> no, they said "make us a turkey and make it fast". >> (laughter). >> she gets the comedians laughing. >> that's the best! >> that's hilarious. thinking. >> okay, so there is wiggle room

in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> she's joy behar. >> ya, i consider you jew-talian. >> okay, whatever you want. >> who plays kafka? >> who saw kafka? >> who ever saw kafka? >> (laughter). >> asking the tough questions. >> chris brown, i mean you wouldn't let one of your daughters go out with him. >> absolutely not. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me? >> absolutely! >> (singing) >> i take lipitor, thats it. >> are you improving your lips? >> (laughter). >> when she's talking, you never know where the conversation is going to go. >> it looks like anthony wiener is throwing his hat in the ring. >> his what in the ring? >> his hat. >> always outspoken, joy behar. >> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> only on current tv.

♪ hal: welcome back to the "stephanie miller show." i'm hall sparks with jacki sheckner filling in for mama in the booth while she's on vacation. we are having a great conversation on doma. this is rand paul talking to glenn beck. this is amazing. i think. i am very concerned. i really don't care, you get married, you don't get married. you have momentum mow school marriage or whatever. first problem with this is if you change one variable, man and a woman to man and man and woman and woman you cannot then tell me that you can't logically change the other variable, one man, three women. one woman, four men. you can't do that.

who are you to say that if i'm a desouth muslim and i come over here and i have three wives who are you to say if you are an american citizen that i can't have multiple marriages. >> i think this is a con none drum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening whether or not churches should decide this, but it is difficult. if we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further, does it have to be humans, you know so i mean, there really are -- the question is what social mores can some be part of legislation. we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. some were said to be for health reasons and otherwise but i'm kind of with you. i see the thousand year -- hal: yeah, so and. jacki: here's the best part. his office said that he was making a joke and that sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate. did you catch sarcasm in that? hal: no. that is a complete lie. if he's being sarcastic he

means the people who take this to meaning you're going to -- like the conservatives like santorum, that this is going to lead to man on dog relationships. the only way that works on sarcasm is if you're making fun of the people who bring that up, because if you're making the point that people are going to sleep with or try to marry their pets or livestock then that's not actually constructed point of sarcasm at all. jacki: i'm ok saying text message has no tone, radio all tone. hal: let's go to like, we have some people holding. let's go to myron in selma. hi. caller: hi. i supported it. i thank the supreme court for ruling in favor and for me, living in the south with very

religious and race. >> still goes on and everything, but just under the rug. but to me, why do the federal -- i mean why do the government and other religious to have rights in every day people's lives. why do you care about their everyday lives and who they sleep with. hal: you want to legislate their lives. it's interesting to me. i appreciate the call myron. it's interesting to me that you want to dictate another person's rights based on your feelings about their rights. let's go to rick in illinois. hi, rick. caller: good morning. hal: good morning. caller: when i moved to los angeles to be a rock musician. hal: yes. caller: i didn't know anything about, you know, anything, really and the two gentlemen that i worked for because you have to have a job to be a rock

musician were two guys i assumed were married. they were my bosses. they were two guys that were in a relationship. i never thought anything of it. at all. i didn't think that there was any law against it at that time. you know, it was the beginning of the 1990's, and i just didn't -- i didn't realize. i am an evangelical christian who also wonders why we're involved in this, why the church has even mid up. it never bothered me in the slightest and i've never been changed by the gays in my life that understand my perspective my choices and what i want and how i want to live my life. hal: right i think that's -- caller: i don't understand why it needed to be -- i spoked to jerry falwell face-to-face and

bible answer man too. i wonder why are we involved with this? let people do what they want to do and we do what we want to do. let the chips fall where they may in the hereafter. hal: excellent point. once you start legislating moral choices, you eliminate the choice itself, structure ally speaking. there are laws you have to have, murder and theft and those kind of things. they act on another person and deny them their physical rights in the terms of, you know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's the way we structure our legal thing. even so much as the difference between we allow drinking, but we don't allow you to operate a vehicle while you're drunk because in the process of that, you can eliminate the rights of someone else by either running them over, crashing into their property, running over their relatives, ruining their lives that kind of thing, but what you do to yourself and for yourself is your own business.

i don't have to like that you drink, but i also don't have the right to legislate mylike if i have a problem with you drinking. most people don't have a problem with that logic when it comes to alcohol consumption, for example. talking about gay marriage on a religious level, if you don't like it, that's fine. you're welcome to tell your congregation and friends that you don't believe it's right but you don't get to legally limit the rights of other people because you feel that way. we don't live in that kind of a country. it's odd to me that the people who most associate with that feeling are the most, you know, kind of libertarianesque or highly conservative people, the people who yell freedom like their with my wallace in brave heart over everything unless. jacki: it's icky to them.

hal: unless a woman wants equal pay and cannot get it without a remedy from the government, because corporations would never willingly do it, and, or the structure of marriage and such that a woman can't get out. jacki: it's selective autonomy. hal: absolutely. you screen freedom for yourself but no one else. it's very, it's that dichotomy that is very strange to me. let's go to cindy in michigan. caller: hi, hall and jacki. jacki: hi. caller: i think, i'm hoping that all the people who smoke pot you know, disaffected young voters can you now see that republican rand paul is not a libertarian? this when he equates gay marriage to bestiality, he said not human, he could be preparing for the alien invasion in that comment, as well. hal: i warrant if he considers a corpse a human, as well, throw

necrofill i can't, as well. caller: i never understood why divorce and cheating is involved in the defense of marriage act. divorce and cheating hurt marriage in this country. the people who wrote it, newt gingrich henry hyde, those guys serial divorcees serial cheaters that's not a problem. the only problem we have is homosexuality. if you're going to do you that, why don't you do that. they picked and choose a ching that doesn't pertain to them. this was a way to get voters out, make their republication safe in different elections look we did something and now

it's crumbling. i'm enjoying this. hal: lets go to juanita in california. hi. caller: hello. i'm calling about the supreme court decision about marriage. marriage is ordained from the bible. when god cast adam and eve out of the garden of eden, his charge to them was go forth mary, be truthful and multiply. hal: mary is not in there, marry wasn't part of that. caller: the king james version. hal: no, the king james version doesn't have the word marry in it. the new international version might, because they're pretty loosey-goosey with how they interpreted such. the king james version doesn't include marry. caller: the purpose was to pro create, two men and two women cannot pro create. hal: in using your argument, anyone who's sterile or past the

age where they can't have children, can't get married? caller: no, i'm not saying that. hal: you're implying it. legally that would be the standard. caller: well i know that god granted women the right to have children or ability to have children in their older age when they petition to got for it. >> juanita can anyone but christians get married. if you don't believe the bible if you're not christian or part of the abrahamic traditions. caller: can anyone other than christians get married? sure, i don't see why they couldn't. they have god in other languages, but it all means the same. i don't understand why missionaries can go to africa and say to people when they already had a god something to

hit them know there was a higher power. my point is, i don't care what they do, but i am saying people have taken this to extreme. the supreme court cannot grant the right to marry. it is ordained from the bible. hal: we are not a religious country, though, the government actually provides the right to marry in this country. every preacher are in every state in this country says by the power vested in me by the state of california, i now pronounce you man and wife. without doing that, wait, without doing that, those people are not married. caller: ok but you know what, that's mans law. it is not ordained by the bible. hal: in this country, we operate under the rule of law under man's law. caller: but does that make it right? hal: well, i mean, you live here, you're an american citizen. have you renounced your citizenship. jacki: are you married? caller: i'm divorced. jacki: at some point you were

married. caller: divorced. we have beautiful children. jacki: and you were legally married. caller: yes, i was. jacki: do you somehow have to be married under the state in which you live. caller: right. hal: also, you violated by being divorced. you violated the teachings of jesus, making an adulterer out of the man she is with next. caller: there's a way to do that. the bible gives us directions on that. on how we can be divorced. you can be divorced in the bible. it gives you direction on how you do it. hal: sure. ok. caller: that's the whole purpose. a lot of times people have not read their scriptures, the bible tells us rightly divide the truth and not be ashamed. if you know your bible if you know what god asks you to do, then you don't have all these

problems. the bible says god will do the separating. i'm just trying to tell people what man has done has nothing to do with what god has ordained from the bible. hal: that's true. there's nothing about this that has anything to do with your particular religious beliefs and the legislation of your religious beliefs is at issue. because you believe and fully which you have the salute right to do what you believe you can't dictate the rights of other people by your belief. >> you know what, and i agree with that, but i'm saying, all i'm saying is no one has a right to tell somebody you condition or can't get married. that is ordained from god. the institution of two people being together pro creating is ordained from god. the supreme court cannot change that. >> well, all they did was affirm that gay people can get married. caller: you know what, i guess i'm talking to people -- you have to be able to read your bible to understand that.

hal: i've read the bible twice. we have to take a break juanita, but explain to me if i want to sell my daughter, how i go about doing that. caller: sell your daughter. hal: yes, in the old testament it gives a description of how to tell your children and you have a right to do it. how do i do it? caller: i haven't gotten involved in all that. hal: then you need to read your scriptures. it dictates the exact instructions on how to sell your children. in this country guess what? you can't sell your children. the bible says you can but the united states government and supreme court says you can't. you can decide which one you think is right. we'll be back right after this. more of "stephanie miller show." i'm hall sparks, taking your calls. 1-800-steph-1-2 is our number. no kids for sale here. jacki: you can make money on them going on m.t.v. hal: that's the modern way. that's the american way. jacki: bravo. [ laughter ]

>> to be honest, i have never seen such dysfunction. >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show."

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. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> with a distinctly satirical point of view. if you believe in state's rights but still believe in the drug war you must be high. >> only on current tv.

♪ >> within what those things can do? as you can the painted off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro. jacki: what was that? hal: from spies like us. the president was recently talking about how he needed to

curtail nuclear weapons. the republicans like we need more, because i'm pro life. jacki: one in every neighborhood. hal: you realize doing that could destroy the entire world. hal: to preserve the american life, that's something i'm willing to do. after we talk to john mar yarmuth i want to talk about snowden. we're going to bring something up that's shocking. hi, gerald. caller: how are you today? jacki: good morning. caller: i'd like to say jesus save me from your followers. hal: it's interesting. she's like, she comes from the y'all need jesus crowd as opposed to, she's not the hateful hand wagger. she's like y'all need jesus. she's not a hostile member of the community.

she's narrow focused in her belief system and i would blame her pastor for limiting the verses that she reads in church. caller: the reason that i called is my husband and i have been together 35 years got married in 2006 in canada. we live in florida and i don't understand how what the part of doma that's left, if you have a contract in one state it's by the full faith clause of our constitution goes to all states. that would be the same thing as me buying a car in nebraska, moving to iowa and saying my contract isn't valid anymore because i'm in iowa, not member. he, i'm not paying for it and they couldn't do anything about it. i am actually becoming afraid, because if my husband were to die, all our funds are tied up in his name and because i live in florida, i would have to wind up paying inheritance tax on everything and i'll be did he

destitute. hal: the situation you would find yourself in would be almost the identical situation as the plaintiffs in the prop eight case. caller: right. hal: who, you know be ultimately won on those very grounds. i will say that the answer to moving across state lines in this country if you drive a car across state lines and live there, you have to reregister your car in that state and that's the state's ability not so much the ownership of that vehicle, but the license which the state grants, they would make you change to that other state. caller: right. hal: if the state decided we believe your -- we don't believe you're a good driver in our state based on our arbitrary standards, you would have suit to file against that. that's arguably how this is going to shift you're

absolutely right. caller: i think that -- i do hope it gets sorted out. we're from iowa, which has gay marriage and we, you know, actually have talked about moving back for our own protection if things don't change here. we have a constitutional amendment against it here in florida. hal: and those will not stand up to federal scrutiny once they come up. that's the argument from scalia, the big fear on the right and it's founded because they don't hold water most of them are poorly legally constructed to start with, written filled with hate and written in crayons and hammers where they don't actually amount to any kind of genuine legalese that makes a legal case and the people who will defend them ultimately have no stake in it other than you not having rights, which is not volleyed in front of the supreme court and they've stated as

much. jacki: just stay in florida long enough to vote against governor rick scott. caller: i know. one of the things that the president can do is we've got one part of the government saying well, it's from the place of celebration meaning if you are legal to get married we'll honor it, other parts of the government saying no it's the state you live in. the president needs to do an executive order and say it's the place of celebration. hal: here's the problem the next president can undo it. caller: that's true. hal: that's a really watery place to put your rights. caller: i'm saying that its a stop gap measure until we get it sorted out. hal: the problem is that gap can be wide open. thanks for your call, gerald, we'll be back.

♪ theme ♪ hal: in the next hour, we'll be talking to john yarmuth from the state of kentucky about a state that is just bizarre in it's ideological conservatism and most people are a lot more open minded and open hearted than their representatives especially now. i think john is a good example of that, how people are like, you know, eelecting him to office and he's great. he's a great champion for a lot of great causes. we're going to be talking about him. we're going to talk about some

snowden stuff u i get excited. hal: here's the news. jacki: governor rick perry calling the texas legislature back into session starting monday july 1 and the session's going to be about the three issues the legislature didn't finish tuesday. one of those three is the comprehensive abortion bill that democratic state senator wendy davis successfully filibustered. davis appreciates that the gop controlled legislature may win in the end because they do have the votes but she has no intention of backing down. following up on our conversation last hour, dozens of democraties in both the house and senate introduced legislation. gerald nadler is sponsoring the house bill and dianne feinstein in the senate called the respect for marriage act and the proposed legislation repeals doma completely. yesterday's ruling dealt with one section of doma, that

section three denying federal benefits to same sex calls. section two says states can block same-sex marriages and that part, unfortunately is still intact. the house bill already has 160 co sponsors, the senate bill has 40. republicans talking of ways to make doma permanent via constitutional amendment in spite of the supreme court's decision. >> the new acting head of the i.r.s. is testifying in congress today, answering questions about the agencies scrutiny of group seeking tax felt status. he put out a report saying there was evidence of mismanagement but not intentional wrongdoing and changes made and officials replaced. progressive groups faced the same examination as conservative groups and that the term progressive itself was on that same list. we're back after the break. minutes we're going to do the

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 we have to fight hard to make 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!

(vo) next, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (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. 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 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?

hal: no my plan in the next segment, we have joining us john yarmuth. caller: good to be part of the kentucky hour. hal: absolutely. especially, by the way, you know after yesterday, and then the day before, it's been a real yoyo of emotion dealing with the supreme court. i'd love to get your take on our remedies as far as the voting rights act and our -- and the

future and progress of doma, from your perspective. caller: well, first of all, as to the voting rights act the only thing i can think of when i kind of read both of those decisions in tandem was it's fascinating that the conservative wing of the court in the marriage rights cases talked about the states' rights aspect of it, and then when they went back to voting rights, they didn't want -- they basically said the federal government, congress needs to do this. it was very, very strange orientation there, one might say a dichotomy. with the voting rights act it's well and good to say that the congress should pass basically a new formula for triggering preclearance by the justice department, but congress can't pass anything, and realistically

that's not going to happen. what the supreme court basically said was as i read, one of the opinions, it was basically congress made a mistake in judgment. well, where is when they voted overwhelmingly to renew the voting rights act just a few years ago. certainly with everything we saw in the south in many of those states in terms of voter suppression techniques over the last few years i think congress's judgment was absolutely right and. hal: yeah. caller: and there is a contemporary compelling reason for holding those states particularly accountable for fair elections. but for the supreme court and all these people who are supposedly supposed to be strict constructionists to say that congress made a mistake in its assessment, that's not the supreme court's role. hal: right.

insofar as section four, i would argue that if you were going to concern yourself with the modernization of it, you wouldn't strike down that part of it. you would say there are additional modernized measures that need to be added to this. this will stay in place until you add them, but if you don't add them by the next election cycle, we can revisit this. arguably i think literacy tests and those things aren't the problem today the way they were back then, but the amount of voting booths and machines that you get. jacki: early voting dates. hal: all these limitations are a new modern version of it. i agree in the abstract from the court's point of view that there are no problems that are used, but that the problem itself still exists and this core tunish idea that they have that it's not that big a deal anymore, because a lot of black people voted the reason they did was two fold, one was they had the protection of the v.r.a. it was there already.

i have an umbrella, therefore i'm not going to get wet put it down and i'll get soaked. the other was they were very angry that the states were trying to limit their ability to vote, even in some states that aren't covered under the preclearance rule. caller: exactly. hal: it's one of these things where do we go from here. is there anybody that's going to put something on the floor or try to get the committee an update of section four? caller: i'm sure there will be efforts to step in where the supreme court has left a void but the realistic chance of those things passing is virtually nil. hal: right. caller: most of the action i think is going to have to be on the state level. people are going to have to get mobilized and the people whose votes are threatened are going to have to rise up and make a concerted effort and say we are going to resist these things and

if their videoer i.d. requirements, we're going to make sure that we have the voter i.d. and we're going to be prepared to stand in line for four hours, and we're going to swamp them and then vote the fools out. jacki: how frustrating is it for you at this point when we try to get a change of the section four parameters done and it's just constant obstruction? caller: it's frustrating just in a broad sense that we can't get anything did you and i'm one of the group of now seven was eight that's been doing immigration reform in the house and we made a great deal of progress in our bipartisan group, but still looking at how daunting the path is from here to an actual change in the law. this is in a situation which is almost ideal because we have mutual consideration republicans and democrats are both motivated to do immigration reform, wide array of political

groups across the spectrum for immigration reform. we have the labor unions and the u.s. chamber of commerce coming to an agreement, and still going to be difficult. so on something like this where you have both geographic differences and certainly the political motivation is totally different on voting rights. clearly democrats have more interest in more people voting, republicans don't. hal: we played the clip yesterday, the guy who started the heritage foundation, that clip from 1980 where he's saying we don't want people to vote. their leverage is eelections goes up as the voting populace goes down and that's been a structural plan on their side for decades now. caller: yes absolutely? hal: this is it playing out loading the court. roberts was against the v.r.a. when he was in the reagan administration. he was not a fan of this. they looked at it as aiding

their ability to get into elected office going forward fewer people, you know, my concern is the remedy going into 2014, is that this is really where we're going to see the obstruction on steroids. caller: i agree totally. we've seen just in the last two days all the renewed initiatives in many of these states, texas being one, alabama i mean they're just chomping at the bit to get these things through now. jacki: sip states, something like that. caller: that's evidence enough that the supreme court was wrong. hal: exactly and that there's got to be in 2014, there's going to be a stampede of voters. i think they're going to be surprised on the level that the texas legislature has been surprised that their special session was interrupted by people who just didn't want the law maneuvered without their consent. caller: that's right. there's also going to be an enormous number of lawsuits. hal: we've only got a couple

minutes left, but your take on doma going forward. do you think there's a future in kentucky for marriage equality. caller: left to its own devices i don't think it will change its position. 65% didn't want gay marriage. kentucky is changing like every else in the country. in my district, i would say that probably 65% would now support gay marriage, and -- but i don't think the legislature is going to be willing to change that anytime soon or try, because they'd have to amend the constitution. this is going to be -- it's ultimately some decision is going to strike down all of these laws. it may be two years from now it may be five years from now. i don't think it will take much longer than that. hal: right i agree.

thank you so much for joining us today, representative john yarmuth from the great state of kentucky where i spent the first nine years of my life. caller: and live what it's done. hal: he's amazing. always such a good time talking to him and such a genuine caring public servant a guy actually trying to help his constituency. jacki: that's where the frustration has to come in. you get into office because you general wili want to do some good and guys standing around saying no, uh-uh, sorry. hal: we're just going to clasp hands and stop anything from getting through like a giant game of red rover. we'll be back right after this with some really interesting

snowdenning. jacki: oh, good! hal: so bizarre. it just gets weirder and weirder. we'll be back right after this on the "stephanie miller show." i'm hall sparks with jacki sheckner and tony. be nice to him. he's on the phones. >> holy cow you just blew my mind. >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show." to the fire. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal, or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i'm given to doing anyway, by staying in touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. i've worn lots of hats, but i've always kept this going. i've been doing politics now for a dozen years. (vo) he's been called the epic politics man. he's michael shure and his arena is the war room.

>> these republicans in congress that think the world ends at the atlantic ocean border and pacific ocean border. the bloggers and the people that are sort of compiling the best of the day. i do a lot of looking at those people as well. not only does senator rubio just care about rich people, but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them right?

current tv is the place for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries... on current tv. ♪ hal: sounds good. it's just something warm about a

well distorted guitar. that's black label society. jacki: will there be a quiz at the end of the week. hal: yes. all you need to know is black label society danko jones. jacki: danko jones i already know. hal: the people in general. jacki: oh. hal: the snowden story just continues to be the gift that keeps on giving as far as intrigue curious curiosity contribution and it's fascinating, just fascinating. apparently knowden obviously has very strong feelings about letting the public know what it's government is doing. jacki: yes, we should be focused on that and not him on his next interview. hal: apparently in an i.r.c.

chat from 2009, he had very different feelings about people who leak information. jacki: how different hall? hal: well, he suggested that they should be shot in the testicles, specifically, he said they should be shot in the [bleep] jacki: you can't say that word? hal: i don't know, but not in that context maybe. i think you can say have some, but can't say them when they're specific. i don't know the rule, but i'm avoiding it. you've certainly looked at this. jacki: yeah, this is fabulous. yeah apparently he gets very angry over the idea of somebody -- this is according to the washington post. he was angry at the new york times describing secret negotiations with u.s. and israel about iran's nuclear program, the quote is are they trying to start a war? jesus christ, you're like wick

key leaks. you don't put that [bleep] in the newspaper. they have a history of this. [ blank ] we could listen in on stamina cell phone thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over again. apparently edward snowden of three years ago, four years ago thought that there was some real value to wiretapping. hal: and keeping stuff secret. jacki: keeping national secrets secret. hal: he really seemed to have a problem with it under the obama administration, that there was an element of he was very upset because the obama administration had, let's see the obama administration has appointed an -- hold on [bleep] politician to the c.i.a. and that maybe we should outsource our defense needs to india. later, he would take an out source defense job and leak that

information directly out. jacki: this is great though. he says violating national security in big letters no, that stuff is classified for a reason. it's not because oh, we hope our citizens don't find out it's because this stuff won't work with iran knows what we're doing. same guy. hal: yeah, and he's talking to a user user 19, who he goes, he talked about the story. he goes holy [bleep]. he puts a link to "the new york times," saying w.t.f. new york times, are they trying to start a war? jesus christ, they're like wikileaks. the other user says they're reporting, dude. then he shrussian which is the public reaction to the snowden story, which is why everyone is caught up in where he is, not the story.

hal: it is about our interactions with said country regarding sovereignty violations of another country. you don't put that in the newspaper. >> the other user goes meh. he goes moreover, who are the anonymous sources telling them this? those people should be shot in the [bleep]. the white house that stepped up american efforts to sabotage iran's infrastructure, a major covert operation. how covert is it now? thank you. the other user goes meh. if we find out the other user is greenwold, i'm going to pee. the other user is haahaw. jacki: is that a reference to -- hal: don't say that.

jacki: is it a marine thing? hal: whoo-ah. that would be very presumptive this he called himself the real marine. jacki: also a euphemism for lady parts. why would you call yourself that? hal: i warned how many millions of dollars they just completely blew. user 19 says you're overeight-day forecasting, it's fine. he goes it's not an overreaction, they have a history of this [bleep] with -- he goes with flowers and cake. mushrooms or somedays jumping in to mess with him. >> we could listen to stamina cell phone thing the same people who screwed us on wiretapping over and over again. thank god they're going out of business. >> "the new york times"? >> hopefully they'll finally go

bankrupt this year, yeah. this is 2009, by the way. remember when he said that the reason he went to greenwold instead of 2009 is because they didn't disclose stuff about the bush administration. he said the reason they didn't go to the new york tiles he didn't trust them. jacki: because they kept stuff secret. hal: they kept a story about n.s.a. wiretap secret for a year. in 2009, he was mad at the new york times for leaking this stuff. the other user is saying i enjoy the news, it's nice they report on stuff. >> he goes i enjoy it when it's ethical reporting. violating national security? no. >> meh. national security.

then edward snowden goes yes! big capital letters yes. he says this is classified because this won't work if iran knows what we're doing. this is the very argument that they're saying has no reason at all for existing. this is, you know, this -- it's amazing. jacki: i have to clarify something so i don't get in trouble. snowden did enlist for special forces not marines and it's whoo-ah. haaha is the lady bits. hal: he calls and powell dreamy. jacki: ron paul. hal: that's fascinating.

we'll read more when we come back. i want to take your calls on this because this is really curious. he took this job after he spoke to greenwold. jacki: then took the job at booz-allen. hal: we're going to read you more of what the true whoo-ha says. you don't know the aqua buddha? jacki: i don't think so. hal: i think they're related. we'll be back right after this had [bleep] break. ♪ >> ... with a unique >> teddy rosevelt was a weak asmatic kid who never played sports until he was a grown up. >> (laughter) >> ... and lots of fancy buzz words. >> family values, speding, liberty, economic freedom, hard-working moms, crushing debt, cute little puppies.

up stuff that sounds logical while making no sense... hey, so can i. once again friends, this is live tv and sometimes these things happen. >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

cenk off air alright in 15 minutes we're going to do the 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 we have to fight hard to make 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!

♪ hal: i have to go see jeff tate version. you know, they've split now there's two versions rolling around the country tony. >> what? hal: i'm nearly as upset as snow depp is upset with himself. this is amazing because the chat is hysterical. >> it makes me so happy. hal: he is screaming about how they are not covert anymore. he goes oh, you've got to be [bleep] kidding me. "the new york times" is going to determine our foreign policy and obama? obama just appointed a [bleep]

politician to run the c.i.a. user 11 goes yes unlike every other director of the c.i.a. ever. snowden goes i'm so angry right now, this is completely unbelievable. user 21 pipes in and says i am appointing your mom to run my [bleep] plus she can be secretary of my [bleep]. it's the separation of the. jacki: male organ. hal: which is why you can't be too serious in any chat ever. jacki: it's an old school chat room. hal: user 11 is my favorite, because he follows that up with after snowden says i'm so angry right now this is completely unbelievable. user 11 goes i get the feeling that you're angry because you don't actually understand what's going on. snowden says actually the whole politician runs the c.i.a. thing

is a new development. user 11 goes normally they are military or lawyers. user 11 says have you ever heart of a man named george herbert walker bush? he ran the c.i.a. snowden says oh, you mean only 25 years ago? did you mean [bleep]. now granted it, everybody's welcome to a change of heart and he could have certainly turned around. jacki: maybe he is rethinking the name true hooha too. hal: the restrictions were made to apiece the conservatives to get another bill passed [bleep]. snowden replies, see that's why i'm [bleep] glad for the second amendment, me and all my lunatic gun toting n.r.a. compatriots would be on the step of the congress before the c span feed

finished. edward snowden, talking about the threat. i remember that guy said the user are andy fat [bleep]. clearly that guys british. jacki: yeah. hal: they go people are talking about the vitriol he used. he was a total [bleep] monger, also using a term for the male member in the description of that. another artificial citizen who had sparred with none quickly typed seeing the true hooha last seen on that four years 117 days and one minute ago. this is kind of a stunning

revelation that, you know, this is his turn. you know it's one thing you can come to your senses, i'm not going to rule that out. here's my problem. the story that he told about why he didn't go to "the new york times" is a complete lie. jacki: there's the glitch. hal: you can have a change of heart, that's fine, but he is lying when he said he didn't go to "the new york times" because he had a problem that they didn't give out information about an n.s.a. leak, and went to greenwald instead. in 2009, he was actually complains about "the new york times" for giving out the very information that he said they wouldn't give out that they were giving out this kind of stuff. jacki: every actually says they're like wikileaks. hal: [bleep] wikileaks. jacki: they're trying start a war, jesus christ, they're just like wikileaks. hal: let's go to our caller,

john. caller: this guy would you go to the fox news and say i listen to build a stronger fence? why would you go to the government and say listen, you guys are doing something wrong you guys are spying on the people. who in government can you possibly trust? hal: you are saying there was no legitimate way up the chain for him to address. caller: why would you go to anyone? do you trust anyone in government? hal: sure. caller: 99.99% you don't trust in government. hal: i would be the say 99% that i think that's part of the problem is that. i think there's a lot of decent people working government. a lot of people when they find things out actually try to do something about it. there is a section of people who get into government specifically to spoken wall or specifically security freaks. i trust john yarmuth.

i don't trust john mccain. i think there is a difference. i think there are soldiers who have clearly dub things no the in the interest of the united states and contractors who have. you sell yourself short moving into the government is the problem. the government is us. if you have ultimately a problem with 99% of the government, you have a problem with 99% of the public. caller: well technically i got a problem with us being complacent and letting what's happening in this country happen. i agree with you there. jacki: but you to have vote. you to have participate in the process, vote. hal: you to have actively seek out people who are against things like the patriot act and the reuping of it automatically. caller: i do vote. no one has said ok, snowden goes to china. hal: right. caller: supposing they take him in and give him shelter. what are we going to do about it? what are we going to do about

it? jacki: right now he's in the moscow airport in no man's land. that's where he is right now. caller: maybe we should look at the flip side of the coin and say this guy was smart. he went to china first. what are we going to do about it, and supposedly, he's in between russia and wherever the heck he is, cyberspace, what are we going to do about it. he goes to russia and they shelter him, what are we going to do? we aren't going to do anything, we're not going to start a war. hal: the president came out and said as much today, they are going to treat it like a national security and legal matter and seek to extradite him through wherever he ends up. they'll wait for that process. they're not going to mobilize jet fighters to do it. they're not going to screw with our relationship apparatus with either of these countries. in many ways, this is something he, if he was as aware as he presumes he is should have known before he went to those

countries. there's word that china let him leave, hong kong, but only after they were able to copy the contents of his hard drive. jacki: if you're so concerned about what the u.s. is doing and u.s. national security and frankly, if he's even a third of the guy in these chat rooms so concerned, what you are doing running to china and russia. you're so self protective that you're going to countries where you think you can't be extradited. at the same time, if you're trying to protect the united states and the people, you're taking those laptops and hard drives full of national security secrets to countries that could really take advantage of them. >> doing denial of service attacks on american, you know, energy systems on factories and the like, things that will actually harm -- jacki: where's the patriotism in that. hal: it becomes he's a world citizen and doesn't think of

himself as a member of any country. caller: i come to you and i say oh listen, i've been spying on you, and the government gave me authority to spy on you, and you look at me and you say they are they're spying on me? why didn't you tell me? what's wrong with you? you're a traitor. hal: that's not what i'm saying at all. here's the thing. i think the legitimate arm of dealing with this is in dealing with the patriot act itself, i'm for the redressing. none of us are surprised it's just the apathy of the average voter that has affected this more than anything, the rather i'd have security than freedom part that everybody jumped on that seems to be this mass hallucination that we're all currently in. this doesn't seem to be shocking us out of that, as a matter of fact. the fact if you talk about him being smart, the fact that he went to china then russia, is

going to ecuador via cuba, he's got 1/4 laptops with not just information, but access to government computers on them, and he's going to what would arguably be either financially or security wise hostile governments, to the country especially when we're dealing with syria and iran right now and russian's support for them, that's where he went. there's a question of i understand that you want to get this out into the light but he says he didn't go to the new york tiles because they in 2004 knew about n.s.a. spying by the bush administration and did not report on it during an election year. this is what he told glenn greenwald. in 2009, he's complains that "the new york times" is letting out information like this, and never mentions any of this stuff. he's talking about how it's classified information things are classified for a reason. that change of heart that he said changed the past as well, it's revisionist history. caller: if you were snowden in

the bush administration, would you go to anyone in the bush administration and report it? i mean, they -- hal: no, but i still would have had a problem with it in 29. that's my issue. you know what i'm saying? caller: i understand, but you know what? i think too many people are following to the chant of protection protection, protection. it's better that we're protected and lose our rights. we're dealing with countries that we could squash with our thumbs. as long as our leaders keep our people scared -- jacki: we're not fighting against countries what we're fighting against are ideological extremists who are using tactics that we've never had to fight against in the past. we're not taking giant conventional armies and fighting against other conventional armies. hal: the idea that we're going to fight a conventional war with china is an absurdity. jacki: or russia. it's not going to happen. hal: china woke up that the

better way to get rid of us as a threat is by conventional means wreck our stock market, lower our ability to fight off things like hurricanes and those kind of stuff, because we don't have the money to do it. set us up in a situation where our electrical grid is going out. those kind of things are way easier to do. they have plausible deniability with them and they're all done in cyberspace. caller: what if. hal: it's an actual thing. the attacks by china have been being dealt with. snowden knows that. caller: that's what you're being told. you're being told we're being attacked, we're being attacked. listen, if i were the government and now i have to come up with a credible reason why we're spying on the people of this country i'm going to come up with. hal: this is not why they are coming up with the reason for

the n.s.a. program. i'm talking the actual attacks on this country from china that are actually pretty obvious. they've literally tracked them to beijing. this has ban consistent problem and it's the -- it's actually the attack of choice by the chinese government. this is actually their way of curtailing u.s. power is not through overt means but by computerized means. this doesn't deal with the legality or inlegalty of prism at all. snowden went to china. we're way over break. i get where you're coming from. i don't have a problem being aware of these things, but i think there's more, there's a difference between a leaker and whistle blower. a whistle blower reports a crime, a leaker commits one. snowden had that problem in 2009 and he is lying about his

motivation for not going to "the new york times" first. why he went to glenn greenwald roy portra. jacki: and went to them before he took the job at booz allen. hal: exactly. i do think we have a fourth estate in this country limping along and control by too few corporations is a problem but it does exist. "the new york times" has never been shy in the past. he had a reason he wanted to go this why. i think it's just because he's not a fan of the country in general. i don't think he's a fan of countries in general. jacki: it's interesting that wikileaks in helping him now and in 2009, he slammed them. hal: people can have a change of heart. he apparently had two and is not being genuine about why he didn't go to a source of upper chain on his own. we're near the end of the show. we've got calls. i want to get to them.

1-800-steph-1-2 is our number. hal: i'm going to be at the ontario improv this weekend. it will be a good time, i promise. sunday night and of course my band is playing in fresno tomorrow night. we've got a few more minutes to take your calls about this, about doma, about whatever you want to talk about. 1-800-steph-1-2. >> ladies and gentlemen prepare yourselves for a shock. >> announcer: it's the "stephanie miller show." (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.

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?

this show is about being up to date, staying in touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. (vo) next, current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine.

>> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (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. ♪

hal: oh, yeah. welcome back to the "stephanie miller show." taking more of your calls and having a great discussion about conspiracy theories and concept of them. jacki: can i make something really clear. having a conversation about snow depp and his choice of action and his personal beliefs and how we i you feel about him is a separate conversation from the patriot act what the government does or doesn't do, what it should be doing. those are two separate conversations we should and can be having. so to talk about who snowden is doesn't discount the need for the second conversation. i don't think the two of

intrinsicically combined. hal: the argument that snowden shouldn't be charged under the espionage act at all, part of what he said was i think on level of showing the american people a program that they would believe is unconstitutional or against their -- that's not the only thing he talked about. that's not the annual information he took. that's not the annual information he disseminated. those espionage charges may not apply to letting the american people know about prism. jacki: it's about what he continues to give. hal: exactly. comparing him to bradley manning, who gave a bunch of stuff, which i think was manning's mistake, as well, is not being specific and sticking to it, saying this is a crime. i'm pointing out a crime that may have led to other information that may have come out over time through the process, it waters the area that they're issue and undermines

their credibility and their ability to actually have an impact. right now that's exactly what happened. when you put the prism program up next to him giving information about our discussions about how to deal with north korea which i think most people believe including the snowden of 2009 should be secret let someone in the north korean government know that we actually have ears around them. jacki: and goes to china and hands over stuff to china. hal: exactly. it undermines the ability of -- it basically waters down the entire concept. jacki: yeah. there is no purity left to what he's done. hal: exactly. let's go to laura in florida. hi. caller: hi, how are you? hal: i'm good. caller: good. i was on the internet, looking up why it took florida four days to get the votes counted. [ laughter ] jacki: welcome to my home state. caller: that's where i'm from, too, so... but anyway, i was on

there and i saw snowden's picture and he said it was a close race. i said oh, god this guy really is clueless. hal: you mean the gore election? caller: the past election. i went on there and looked why it took four days for florida to count all the votes. in there everyone was giving their opinion and he comes up and says it was a close race, and there's his picture on there and it says edward snowden. i said god this guy must have a lot of time on his hands. hal: my issue with a lot of the -- both sides do it kind of conversation is i find that's actually a manipulative point to keep people from voting. if you don't believe there is a remedy in either party 99% have people in government are corrupt, then you're not going to vote, be involved. i appreciate the call. we've got only a minute left in the show. i think it's actually a tactic to keep people from voting or getting involved.

if you believe it's not going to help you're not going to do everything. that's why we have such a huge low voter turnout. the only people who get in there are people who have ideological psycho paths behind them. in that situation you get something where greenwald was saying obama and bush are exactly the same, which they are clearly not. by all empirical measures. jacki: he comes to the table with that idea. hal: as did snowden. he didn't have that problem with george bush, until he does now under obama to protect his views about obama by saying i felt this way about bush. well, he didn't and we know that from these chats. we'll be back tomorrow. jacki: thank godness we have another day. hal: thanks, we'll see you tomorrow.

>>(vo) the practice of forced marriage is not condoned by the majority of the communities in

which it occurs. >>i was given away at birth. >>(vo) but, when it does happen lives can be ruined, and at times it can prove fatal. >>that face that i keep in my head of my father will always be the father figure that he was, not the man who hunts me now to kill me. >>i know certain people who can find people. >>(vo) over the past 12 months we were granted privileged access to the uk government's forced marriage unit... >>they've set a wedding date haven't they? >>yeah. >>(vo)and their offices in london, islamabad and dakar. >>that would mean me showing up at his house with an armed escort. >>(vo) shadowing the unit's busy staff, in this film we meet the young british women suspected of being forced into marriage, and follow their dramatic rescues.